The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal An important question in studying Matthew is how the book is structured. The results of studies of this issue vary considerably. The differences are so great that it is sometimes seriously doubted whether the first gospel in fact has a clear basic structure (1). The diversity of solutions can partly be explained by the complexity of the subject, and partly also by lack of agreement on the methods to be used. Such a study can be undertaken from a diachronic perspective but it is better to do so from a literary-synchronic perspective (2). The task with which the exegete is faced in the latter case is described by D.R. Bauer as follows: “a) to determine the major units and sub-units within the Gospel, and b) to identify the structural relationships within and between these units” (3). Through the differences in the chosen research perspective, the existing proposals for the structure of Matthew vary widely. I will not (1) Cf. R.H. GUNDRY, Matthew. A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids 1982) 11: “the Gospel of Matthew is structurally mixed”. (2) In the case of a diachronical approach, the attention is focused on the Kompositionsgeschichte: the question is then whether and to what extent Matthew, in writing his gospel, was influenced by compositional characteristics of his sources. See e.g. B. STANDAERT, “L’Évangile selon Matthieu: Composition et genre littéraire”, The Four Gospels (ed. F. VAN SEGBROECK – C.M. TUCKETT – G. VAN BELLE – J. VERHEYDEN) (BETL, 100-B; Leuven 1992) II, 1223-1250; M.E. BORING, “The Convergence of Source Analysis, Social History and Literary Structure in the Gospel of Matthew”, Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers 33 (1994) 598: “Reflections on the way Matthew put his narrative together might be expanded to include the composition history of the document, and not only the compositional features”. According to U. LUZ, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK I/1; Zürich 1985) I, 16-17, Matthew was so strongly bound to his sources “daß man nicht bei der Strukturanalyse diachrone Fragen ausklammern kann” and therefore he formulates as a first methodical thesis: “Methodisch kontrollierbar fragen kann man allein nach der vom Evangelisten bewußt beabsichtigten Gliederung, nicht nach einer unabhängig davon auf der Textebene allein existierenden Struktur”. (3) D.R. BAUER, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel. A Study in Literary Design (JSNTSS 31; Sheffield 1988) 13. What literary and rhetorical techniques must be taken into account in a structural analysis is formulated by H.J.B. COMBRINK, “The Macrostructure of the Gospel of Matthew”, Neotestamentica 16 (1982) 6-10.