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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.