In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the
preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after
his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this
apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in
regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own,
which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.
In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a
serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from
the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different
parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no
other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances
of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to
those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person
thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other
apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke
record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of
names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning
Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with
the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former
name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary,
were detailing the call of some other disciple,――perhaps Jude, who also
is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the
son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported
by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the
whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities
arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as
related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given
in the other gospels.
On the question of Matthew’s identity with Levi, Michaelis is
full. (Introduction, III. iv. 1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca,
IV. vii. 2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his
annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail,
in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.