Finding the Sectarian Self
Strategies of Communal Legitimation in the Matthean Mission Discourse
In: Religion and TheologySearch for other papers by Walter T. Wilson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Elements of the Matthean mission discourse (Matt 10:5b–42) contributing to the evangelist’s sectarian agenda are identified and analyzed through comparison with the Hodayot, drawing on the work of Carol Newsom (The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran, 2004). Each composition is shown to address basic challenges of sectarian legitimation and differentiation by constructing a “figured” world in which subjectivities resistant to those promulgated by the dominant cultural script are articulated through the reaccentuation of normative idioms, situating these subjectivities in relation to mythoi of both the group’s leader and the group’s members. The two compositions are also shown to demonstrate significant differences, especially in terms of the types of normative idioms to which they appeal, the forms of experience and agency assigned the respective mythoi, and the manner in which the ideal sectarian subject negotiates the dynamics of self-alienation, non-acceptance, and conflict engendered by its interaction with the non-sectarian world.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
2
Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 124.
-
8
Newsom, Self, 92–95. Cf. Dorothy Holland, et al., Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 60.
-
10
Newsom, Self, 10, 195. Cf. Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981), 290.
-
15
Newsom, Self, 196–198, 209, 277. Cf. Eileen M. Schuller, “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot,” CBR 10 (2011): 119–162.
-
16
Newsom, Self, 198, 202–204. She specifically discusses 1QHa 4:17–25; 5:1–6:7; 6:8–22; 7:15–24; 9:1–39; 10:20–30; 11:1–18, 19–36; 17:38–18:12.
-
17
Newsom, Self, 287–290, 299, 327–328. She takes these to include 1QHa 10:3–19; 12:5–13:4; 13:5–19; 13:20–15:5; 15:6–25; 16:4–17:36.
-
20
Newsom, Self, 206, 220, 235–236, 238, 267, 294–295, 306, 318, 326, 342. Cf. Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (STDJ 59; Leiden: Brill, 2006).
-
54
Ulrich Luz, Matthew (Hermeneia; 3 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, 2005, 2007), 2:59; cf. Luz, Studies, 146–147.
-
55
Béda Rigaux, Témoignage de l’ évangile de Matthieu (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967), 205–206; Hubert Frankemölle, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974), 127; Risto Uro, Sheep Among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 42.
-
70
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:151. The symbolism of the twelve accords with the idea that their mission pertains to Israel exclusively (10:5b–6) and in its entirety (cf. 10:22–23). Cf. Meier, Jew, 3:148–163.
-
74
For the correlation motif, see Uro, Sheep, 45; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:197; Luz, Matthew, 2:59–60; Schuyler Brown, “The Mission to Israel in Matthew’s Central Section,” ZNW 69 (1978): 73–90.
-
77
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:221, 223. Cf. Meier, Jew, 3:64–67: compliance entails metaphorically participating in the shameful, public execution of one’s whole former life.
-
80
Jean Radermakers, Au fil de l’ évangile selon saint Matthieu (2 vols.; Bruxelles: Institut d’ Etudes Théologiques, 1972, 1974), 2:135–138.
-
83
Luz, Matthew, 2:111. Matthean redaction has the result of creating a conceptual link between 10:24–25 (cf. Luke 6:40) and 10:35–37 (cf. Luke 12:53). Yet, in recognizing such links, the reader encounters an ambiguity regarding the role of households themselves: while the envoys rely on them to support their ministry (10:11–13), this ministry has the effect of disrupting both individual households within Israel (10:21, 35–36) as well as the “house” of Israel itself (10:6). Cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 182.
-
84
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:186. Note the redactional emphasis on God as Father in 10:20 (cf. Mark 13:11), 10:29 (cf. Luke 12:6), and 10:32–33 (cf. Luke 12:8–9).
-
89
Luz, Matthew, 2:120; Nolland, Matthew, 432; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (WBC 33; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995), 1:295. For the theme of “concealed revelation” in Matthew, see Dan O. Via, Self-Deception and Wholeness in Paul and Matthew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 102–104.
-
97
Hare, Persecution, 98. As Luz (Matthew, 2:122) points out, the reward is disproportionate to the act that prompts it.
-
98
Hare, Persecution, 98. Note that the scenario depicted in Luke 10:8 (where the people of a city welcome the envoy) has no counterpart in Matthew. Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 276–283.
-
103
For what follows, see Hoffmann, Studien, 164–180; Sato, Prophetie, 149–160; Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction (JSNTSup 68; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 133–140; Matthias Konradt, Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 215; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 243–257.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 344 | 60 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 176 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 27 | 5 | 0 |
Finding the Sectarian Self
Strategies of Communal Legitimation in the Matthean Mission Discourse
In: Religion and TheologySearch for other papers by Walter T. Wilson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Elements of the Matthean mission discourse (Matt 10:5b–42) contributing to the evangelist’s sectarian agenda are identified and analyzed through comparison with the Hodayot, drawing on the work of Carol Newsom (The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran, 2004). Each composition is shown to address basic challenges of sectarian legitimation and differentiation by constructing a “figured” world in which subjectivities resistant to those promulgated by the dominant cultural script are articulated through the reaccentuation of normative idioms, situating these subjectivities in relation to mythoi of both the group’s leader and the group’s members. The two compositions are also shown to demonstrate significant differences, especially in terms of the types of normative idioms to which they appeal, the forms of experience and agency assigned the respective mythoi, and the manner in which the ideal sectarian subject negotiates the dynamics of self-alienation, non-acceptance, and conflict engendered by its interaction with the non-sectarian world.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 344 | 60 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 176 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 27 | 5 | 0 |
