Wim J.C. Weren, «The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal», Vol. 87 (2006) 171-200
The weakness of the proposals concerning the macrostructure of Matthew’s
Gospel made by Bacon and Kingsbury is that they depart from rigid caesuras,
whilst a typical characteristic of the composition of this Gospel is the relatively
smooth flow of the story. On the basis of the discovery that the various
topographical data are clustered together by means of three refrains we can
distinguish three patterns in the travels undertaken by Jesus. This rather coarse
structure is further refined with the use of Matera’s and Carter’s distinction
between kernels and satellites. Kernels are better labelled as “hinge texts”. The
following pericopes belong to this category: 4,12-17; 11,2-30; 16,13-28; 21,1-17;
26,1-16. Each of them marks a turning point in the plot and has a double function:
a hinge text is not only fleshed out in the subsequent pericopes but also refers to
the preceding block. It is especially these “hinge texts” that underline the
continuity of Matthew’s narrative and should prevent us from focussing too much
on alleged caesuras.
174 Wim J.C. Weren
A 1–4 Narrative 1: Birth and beginnings
B 5–7 Sermon I: Blessings, entering kingdom
C 8–9 Narrative 2: Authority and invitation
D 10 Sermon II: Mission Discourse
E 11–12 Narrative 3: Rejection by this generation
F 13 Sermon III: Parables of the kingdom
E’ 14–17 Narrative 4: Acknowledgment by disciples
D’ 18 Sermon IV: Community Discourse
C’ 19–22 Narrative 5: Authority and invitation
B’ 23–25 Sermon V: Woes, Coming of the kingdom
A’ 26–28 Narrative 6: Death and rebirth
According to Bacon, each discourse is linked up with the narrative
bloc that precedes it. This view is based on the fact that he attributes a
concluding function to the stereotypical formula. This has been
disputed by a number of authors. They point out that this formula does
not so much have a concluding function but rather a linking one (8).
After all, it is important that this formula is always found in a
subordinate clause introduced by o{te that is combined with a main
clause relating to the continuation of the story. The consequences of
this view for the segmentation of Matthew have been elaborated as
follows by P. Rolland (9):
Prologue 1,1–4,16: From the Old to the New Testament
1. Infancy Narratives (1,1–2,23)
2. John the Baptist and Jesus (3,1–4,16)
First Part 4,17–9,34: The Kingdom of God is at Hand
1. Introduction and Discourse (4,17–7,29)
2. Narrative section (8,1–9,34)
427. A concentric ordering has also been presented by COMBRINK, “Macro-
structureâ€, 16: A: 1,1–4,17; B: 4,18–7,29; C: 8,1–9,35; D: 9,36–11,1; E:
11,2–12,50; F: 13,1-53; E’: 13,54–16,20; D’: 16,21–20,34; C’: 21,1–22,46; B’:
23,1–25,46; A’: 26,1–28,20 (similarly in H.J.B. COMBRINK, “The Structure of
Matthew’s Gospel as Narrativeâ€, TynBul 34 (1983) 61-90 (here 71). This
segmentation of the text differs considerably from Lohr’s mainly in segments E’,
D’ and C’.
(8) This is formulated — slightly too strongly — as follows by U. LUZ, Das
Evangelium nach Matthäus, I, 19: “... kai; ejgevneto o[te ejtevlesen etc. in 7,28; 11,1;
13,53; 19,1; 26,1 schließt syntaktisch nicht eine Rede ab, sondern leitet eine neue
Etappe der Erzählung ein!â€.
(9) Ph. ROLLAND, “From the Genesis to the End of the World. The Plan of
Matthew’s Gospelâ€, BTB 2 (1972) 156: “We deem it preferable to consider the
transition formula five times repeated [...] as a connecting link, and to join to each
discourse the narratives that follow instead of those that precedeâ€. See also W.
SCHMAUCH, “Die Komposition des Matthäus-Evangeliums in ihrer Bedeutung für
seine Interpretationâ€, ID., ... zu achten aufs Wort. Ausgewählte Arbeiten
(Göttingen 1967) 64-87.
FOLLOW US