THE SOCIAL LOCATION OF MATTHEW’S COMMUNITY

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

The nature of Matthew’s community has been investigated by a number of scholars in the past and present. Currently, the debate centers on whether the Matthean community was a society with egalitarian structure consisting of equals. This study has also focused on the social structure of the Matthean community. The basic question is whether (or not) the Matthean community was an egalitarian group in an ancient advanced agrarian society in the first century Mediterranean world. If so (or if not so) does the Matthean community lack a hierarchical structure? This study suggests that the Matthean community was not an egalitarian structured society.
The term “egalitarian” would not be applicable to the Matthean community, because the term “egalitarian” is a modern Western political and philosophical concept, which has its origin in the French revolutionary movement. The Matthean community was rather a socially stratified group in an ancient advanced agrarian society in the first century in the Mediterranean world. Consequently, the Matthean community was not a society with an egalitarian structure; rather, it was an inclusively structured society. This study has utilized two methodologies. Firstly, the investigation uses narrative criticism to analyse Matthew’s intention of his inclusive structured community depicted through Jesus’ inclusive ministry.
This methodology considers the narrator’s point of view concerning Jesus’ ministry as he journeyed from Galilee to Jerusalem. Secondly, this research uses social scientific criticism to explore the Matthean text in order to consider Jesus’ ministry. This approach on Jesus ministry was reflected in the context of Matthew’s inclusive structure community. The Matthean community was socially mixed, consisting of Israelites and Gentiles. It was written in the years between 80 to 90 CE. The city of Antioch was the most likely setting for Matthew’s inclusive community, however hierarchically structured. A narrative point of view reading of Matthew’s story shows that Jesus was the protagonist involved in an inclusive ministry in accordance to God’s plan for the salvation of all people.
The Israelite leaders are antagonistic to Jesus’ ministry, and they exclude social and religious outcasts. The disciples of Jesus help Jesus with his inclusive ministry, while the crowds help the Israelite leaders. However, there are times when the disciples do not understand Jesus’ inclusive ministry. The audience of Jesus’ inclusive ministry was the crowd. This inclusive ministry shifts from Galilee to Jerusalem and his ministry comes into conflict with the ideology of the Israelite leaders. Jesus’ focus was inclusive but the Israelite leaders were exclusive. Matthew’s depiction of Jesus’ inclusive mission completed with his death on the cross. A social scientific approach reveals that Matthew’s interpretation of Jesus’ inclusive ministry is directed to social and religious outcasts. His ministry includes sick people, sinners and tax collectors who are from the lower classes within a hierarchically structured society.
Jesus’ ministry was reflected in the context of Matthew’s inclusive community. This study shows that the Matthean community was not a society with an egalitarian structure; rather, it was an inclusively structured society within a hierarchical context. Die aard en samestelling van Matteus se gemeenskap is in die verlede en word steeds in die hede deur ‘n aantal navorsers ondersoek. Tans wentel die debat rondom die vraag of Matteus se gemeenskap ‘n gemeenskap van gelykes was. Hierdie studie fokus ook op die sosiale struktuur van Matteus se gemeenskap. Die basiese vraag is of dit moontlik is om Matteus se gemeenskap voor te stel as ‘n groep van gelykes terwyl dit deel gevorm het van die gevorderde agrariese samelewing in die eerste-eeuse Mediterreense wêreld. Het Matteus se gemeenskap dan geen hiërargiese struktuur gehad nie? Navorsing dui sterk daarop dat Matteus se gemeenskap nie ‘n samelewing met ‘n gelyke struktuur was nie.
Die begrip “gelykheid” sou nie op Matteus se gemeenskap van toepassing kon wees nie, omdat die begrip “gelykheid” ‘n moderne Westerse politieke en filosofiese begrip is wat teruggevoer kan word na die Franse Revolusie. Dit blyk dat Matteus se gemeenskap ‘n sosiaal gestratifiseerde groep in ‘n gevorderde agrariese samelewing in die eerste eeuse Mediterreense wêreld was. Hoewel ’n mens nie kan sê dat Matteus se gemeenskap ‘n gemeenskap met ‘n gelyke struktuur was nie, was dit wel ‘n gemeenskap met ‘n inklusiewe struktuur.

Table of Contents :

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Summary
• Opsomming
• CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1 Problem statement
  • 1.2 Research gaps
  • 1.3 Methodology
  • 1.3.1 Narrative criticism
  • 1.3.1.1 Narrative point of view analysis
  • 1.3.2 Social scientific criticism
  • 1.3.2.1 Social scientific models
  • 1.3.3 A combination of narrative criticism and social scientific criticism
  • 1.4 Outline of research
  • Endnotes
• CHAPTER PRESENT SCHOLARSHIP WITH REGARD TO MATTHEW’S COMMUNITY
  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 The salvation-historical approach
  • 2.2.1 G Bornkamm
  • 2.2.2 S Brown
  • 2.2.3 U Luz
  • 2.2.4 D A Hagner
  • 2.2.5 Summary
  • 2.3 The transparency approach
  • 2.3.1 A G Van Aarde
  • 2.3.2 J Riches
  • 2.3.3 D Sim
  • 2.3.4 Summary
  • 2.4 A Structuralist approach
  • 2.4.1 J D Kingsbury
  • 2.4.2 M A Powell
  • 2.4.3 Summary
  • 2.5 Conclusion
  • Endnotes
• CHAPTER THE SOCIAL LOCATION OF MATTHEW’S COMMUNITY
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Date and location
  • 3.2.1 Date of writing
  • 3.2.1.1 Before CE 70?
  • 3.2.1.2 After CE 70?
  • 3.2.2 Location of Matthew’s community
  • 3.2.2.1 Palestine?
  • 3.2.2.2 Alexandria?
  • 3.2.2.3 Caesarea Maritima?
  • 3.2.2.4 Trans-Jordan?
  • 3.2.2.5 Phoenicia?
  • 3.2.2.6 Syria?
  • 3.2.2.7 Antioch in Syria?
  • 3.2.2.8 Summary
  • 3.3 The social stratification of Matthew’s community
  • 3.3.1 The urban elite
  • 3.3.2 Retainers
  • 3.3.3 The urban non-elite
  • 3.3.4 The unclean, degraded and expendable classes
  • 3.3.5 The rural peasants
  • 3.3.6 Summary
  • 3.4 The constitution of Matthew’s community
  • 3.4.1 Israelite leaders
  • 3.4.2 Other members from the upper stratification
  • 3.4.3 The non-urban elite members of Matthew’s community
  • 3.4.3.1 The crowds
  • 3.4.3.2 Gentiles (pa,nta ta. e;qnh)
  • 3.4.3.3 Women
  • 3.4.3.4 Religious and social outcasts
  • 3.5 Social situation of the Matthew’s community
  • 3.5.1 The state of inclusivity
  • 3.5.2 The social structure of the Matthean community at Antioch
  • .6 Summary and Conclusion
  • Endnotes
• CHAPTER NARRATED SPACE
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 Space in Matthew
  • 4.2.1 Introduction
  • 4.2.2 The notion of space
  • 4.2.3 The spatial designations of Jesus’ inclusive ministry
  • 4.2.4 Narrative point of view on the topographical level
  • 4.2.4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2.4.2 Settings in which Jesus’ activities took place
  • 4.2.4.2.1 The large settings/areas in which Jesus’ activities took place
  • 4.2.4.2.1.1 Jesus prepares for his inclusive ministry: Matthew 2:23-4:
  • 4.2.4.2.1.2 Jesus’ inclusive ministry in Galilee: Matthew 4:12-18:
  • 4.2.4.2.1.3 From Galilee to Jerusalem: Matthew 19:1-20:
  • 4.2.4.2.1.4 Jesus in Jerusalem: Matthew 21:1-28:
  • 4.2.4.2.2 Specific settings in which Jesus’ activities took place
  • 4.2.4.2.3 Referential spatial designations
  • 4.3 Conclusion
  • Endnotes
• CHAPTER SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Jesus’ baptism as ritual of transformation
  • 5.2.1 Jesus as minister of inclusivity
  • 5.3 Jesus’ inclusive ministry
  • 5.3.1 Introduction
  • 5.3.2 Purity and pollution
  • 5.3.3 Sickness and healing
  • 5.3.3.1 Jesus’ inclusive ministry of healing illness: Matthew 8:
  • 5.3.4 Honour and shame
  • 5.3.4.1 Challenge and riposte theory and Jesus’ inclusive ministry: Matthew 12:
  • 5.3.4.2 Labeling and deviance: Matthew 15:
  • 5.3.4.3 Patronage and clientism: Matthew 9:
  • 5.3.5 Kinship
  • 5.3.5.1 Matthew 12:
  • 5.3.6 Summary
  • 5.4 The second ritual of status transformation
  • 5.5 Conclusion
  • Endnotes
• CHAPTER CONCLUSION
  • 6.1 Introduction
  • 6.2 Mapping the road traveled
  • 6. 3 Concluding remarks
  • WORKS CONSULTED

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
MATTHEW’S INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY: A NARRATOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC READING