Why is Matthew called a tax collector in Luke 6:15? Text Of Luke 6:15 “Matthew, Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus; Simon who was called the Zealot.” Observation The Berean Standard Bible, in agreement with all primary Greek witnesses (𝔓⁷⁵, 𝔓⁴, 𝔓², Codex Vaticanus B, Codex Sinaiticus א, Codex Alexandrinus A, Codex Bezae D, et al.), reads simply “Matthew.” No extant first-rank manuscript of Luke inserts the phrase “the tax collector” here. Why The Question Arises 1. Matthew 10:3 deliberately writes “Matthew the tax collector,” a self-designation unique to that Gospel. 2. Luke 5:27–32 already introduced the same man under his alternate name “Levi,” specifying his occupation: “He saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth” (v 27). Readers then meet the name “Matthew” in 6:15 and naturally connect the two references. 3. Later church tradition (e.g., Origen, Eusebius) harmonized the lists and sometimes supplied “the tax collector” in marginal comments; a few late medieval minuscules (e.g., minuscule 1241, 13th c.) reflect that assimilation, producing the mistaken impression that Luke 6:15 once contained the phrase. Matthew/Levi—One Man, Two Names Jewish males commonly bore a Hebrew/Aramaic name and a Greco-Latin name (cf. John/Mark, Saul/Paul). “Levi” is Hebraic, stressing priestly ancestry; “Matthew” (Mattathias, “gift of Yahweh”) is the name he favored after his call, perhaps marking conversion. Early patristic writers—Papias (fragment in Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 3.39), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1)—equated Levi and Matthew, echoing Luke’s placement. The Occupation: Tax Collector (Publican) Rome farmed taxes in Judea through local contractors (publicani). Archaeological finds such as the “Capernaum fish hook tax receipt” (1st-c. CE ostracon) and the “Caesarea Maritima tariff inscription” (Pontius Pilate era) illustrate the system. Tax collectors were despised (m. Nedarim 3:4; Josephus, Ant. 18.90-94) yet essential. Matthew worked on the Via Maris at Capernaum’s customs post (Luke 5:27; Mark 2:1, 14), a lucrative station documented by papyri from Nessana and Wadi Murabbaʿat. Luke’S Literary Strategy Luke typically supplies initial occupation details, then omits the label in subsequent mentions (cf. Luke 8:2 “Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,” later simply “Mary”). Having identified Levi/Matthew’s background in 5:27–32, Luke need not repeat “tax collector” in 6:15. This moves the spotlight from past sin to present apostleship, underscoring transformative grace while maintaining narrative economy. Theological Emphasis Across The Gospels • Matthew—writing his own Gospel—retains the humiliating epithet “the tax collector” (10:3) as an act of self-effacing testimony to Christ’s mercy (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15). • Mark and Luke, penning biographical accounts, acknowledge the occupation once, then emphasize discipleship. The combined witness models both confession of past sin and celebration of new identity in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Historical Corroboration Of Luke’S Accuracy Luke’s precision in titles (“tetrarch,” “proconsul,” “first man of Malta”) is verified by inscriptions such as the Lysanias Abila inscription (14-13 BC) and the Delphi Gallio inscription (AD 51–52). His correct depiction of tax franchises in Galilee (Herodian domain) squares with Josephus (Ant. 18.107) and the Magdala boat tax record (mid-1st c. CE), lending further confidence that his identification of Levi as a tax collector is historically rooted. Practical And Pastoral Takeaways • God calls people from every station—even the ostracized—to apostleship. • Past vocations or sins need not define future usefulness; grace rewrites biographies. • Honest transparency (Matthew 10:3) coupled with gracious reticence (Luke 6:15) gives a balanced model for Christian testimony. Summary Answer Luke 6:15 does not, in the original text, call Matthew “the tax collector.” That description appears earlier in Luke 5:27–32 and in Matthew 10:3. The single identification suffices for Luke’s narrative; repetition is unnecessary. Subsequent manuscript glosses and reader conflation created the modern question. Textual evidence, historical context, and theological purpose collectively show that the omission is deliberate, harmonious, and instructive, highlighting both Matthew’s transformed identity and the coherence of the Gospel record. |
    |