Finding the Sectarian Self

Strategies of Communal Legitimation in the Matthean Mission Discourse

in Religion and Theology
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


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.

Finding the Sectarian Self

Strategies of Communal Legitimation in the Matthean Mission Discourse

in Religion and Theology




Mary Douglas and Aaron WildavskyRisk and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press1982) 124.


NewsomSelf92–95. Cf. Dorothy Holland et al. Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1998) 60.


NewsomSelf10 195. Cf. Mikhail M. Bakhtin The Dialogic Imagination (Austin TX: University of Texas Press 1981) 290.


NewsomSelf196–198 209 277. Cf. Eileen M. Schuller “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot” CBR 10 (2011): 119–162.


NewsomSelf198 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.


NewsomSelf287–290 299 327–328. 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.


NewsomSelf206 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).


NewsomSelf214–215. Cf. Holm-Nielsen Hodayot 274–290.


NewsomSelf232–235 274–275 306–307.


NewsomSelf236–237 306.


NewsomSelf304–306 310 320–322.


Ulrich LuzMatthew (Hermeneia; 3 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, 20052007) 2:59; cf. Luz Studies 146–147.


Béda RigauxTémoignage de l’ évangile de Matthieu (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer1967) 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.


LuzMatthew2:63. Cf. Luz Studies 119 138 144–149.


Davies and AllisonMatthew2:180.


Davies and AllisonMatthew2:165.


NollandMatthew415. Cf. Uro Sheep 44–47.


Davies and AllisonMatthew2:151. 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.


For the correlation motif see UroSheep45; 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.




Davies and AllisonMatthew2:221 223. Cf. Meier Jew 3:64–67: compliance entails metaphorically participating in the shameful public execution of one’s whole former life.


Jean RadermakersAu fil de l’ évangile selon saint Matthieu (2 vols.; Bruxelles: Institut d’ Etudes Théologiques, 19721974) 2:135–138.


LuzMatthew2:111. 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.


Davies and AllisonMatthew2:186. 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).


LuzMatthew2:120; 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.


HarePersecution98. As Luz (Matthew 2:122) points out the reward is disproportionate to the act that prompts it.


HarePersecution98. 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.


JacobsonGospel68 137.


For what follows see HoffmannStudien164–180; 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.


Cf. KnowlesJeremiah121–124.




NewsomSelf232 241 292–294 307–309.


NewsomSelf285 308–309 350.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 9 9 2
Full Text Views 77 77 56
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0