To which I reply:
There are three matters at issue, at the point which this discussion has
now reached:
1. Who are the POLLOI of Luke 1:1, and could they include Matthew (i.e.,
the author of the Gospel bearing that name)?
2. Was the Matthew who was named in the Synoptics as one of the Twelve a
tax collector?
3. Was this Matthew also the author of our canonical Gospel According to
Matthew?
In commenting on these three issues:
1. There are some areas of Luke's Gospel which are so close to Matthew's
Gospel in content and wording that either Luke used Matthew (or Matthew
used Luke) or they had a common source. On the other hand, there other
sections of Luke's Gospel which it seems to me it would have been
impossible for Luke to write if he had the Gospel of Matthew in front of
him. The most usual explanation: Matthew and Luke had two common sources,
Mark and Q. In an earlier post, I put forward an alternative explanation:
the POLLOI of Luke 1:1 does not include the Gospel of Matthew as we know
it, but rather refers to numerous assemblages of Gospel material made (as
Luke tells us) by various people who had taken it in hand to do so; and
this Gospel material includes some writings by the apostle Matthew of
various lengths ranging from a couple of lines to a couple of pages.
2. The text of the Gospel of Matthew tells us how a man named Matthew was a
tax collector and was called by Jesus to follow him (Matthew 9:9). This
Matthew subsequently is referred to again as a tax collector and is listed
as one of the Twelve (Matthew 10:3). A virtually identical passage in Mark
(2:14) and Luke (5:27-28) refers to a tax collector called Levi leaving his
tax collecting post and following Jesus. These two Gospels also
subsequently refer to Matthew (not Levi) as one of the Twelve. Accepting
the Gospel texts as they stand, I take it (as has historically been held)
that Matthew and Levi are one and the same person, that that person was a
tax collector who left this role to follow Jesus, and that Jesus chose him
to be one of the Twelve. I am not aware of any evidence that he was a
Galilean, except the indirect testimony of Acts 1:11 and 2:7.
3. To examine whether this Matthew the Apostle was the author of the Gospel
of Matthew exceeds the limits of legitimate discussion on b-greek, and
therefore I will simply say that the best treatment of this that I know is
that by Albright and Mann in the Introduction to their Commentary on
Matthew (Doubleday's Anchor Bible series), pages CLXff. Their conclusion
(p.CLXXXIV) is, "The Levite Matthew fulfils the conditions for an author
which we have outlined above far better than any other candidate known to
us from the New Testament."
So I reckon the POLLOI of Luke 1:1 refers to a multitude which no man can
number (because we have no other information), ordinary people who were
intensely interested in the message of the ministry and teaching of Jesus
and who collected the PARADOSIS about these things, in oral and written
form, Aramaic and Greek, and who were making individual and separate
efforts to assemble all of this into some kind of order for themselves when
Luke decided, as he tells us, to take a hand himself.
Regards,
Ward
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA.