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.
188 Wim J.C. Weren
11,2-6 3. 11,2–16,20 Jesus’ actions reveal his identity as God’s
commissioned agent, necessitating a response
to the question of whether Israel will recognise
him as God’s Messiah
16,21-28 4. 16,21–20,34 Jesus speaks to his disciples about his death
and resurrection, an event that also shapes
discipleship
21,1-27 5. 21,1–27,66 In Jerusalem, Jesus is rejected by the Jewish
leaders
28,1-10 6. 28,1-20 The resurrected Jesus commissions his
disciples to a worldwide mission
Both authors come to a total of six narrative blocks. All sorts of
differences become apparent in their demarcation. Carter agrees with
the caesuras recommended by Kingsbury between 4,16 and 4,17 and
between 16,20 and 16,21. He also places a caesura between 27,66 and
28,1, which is hard to defend. With the exception of 11,2-6, the
“kernels†suggested by Matera are also revised. Major modifications
include the replacement of 2,1a (merely a subordinate clause) by 1,18-
25 and 28,16-20 is no longer considered as a(n isolated) turning point
in itself, but is given the status of a satellite of 28,1-10. The minor
differences are that Matera’s “kernels†are demarcated differently in
three cases (4,17-25 instead of 4,12-17; 16,21-28 instead of 16,13-28;
21,1-27 instead of 21,1-17).
Both studies make it clear that certain passages have a macro
syntactical function: they bring about a turning point in the plot, a
turning point that is fleshed out in a large number of the subsequent
pericopes. I agree with this principle, but also expand on it with the
suggestion that such cardinal passages at the same time refer to the
preceding block. With this double function in mind, I refer to them as
hinge texts. In the following subsections, I will indicate which
passages fulfil this double function and examine the scope of the
narrative blocks that precede and follow these hinge texts.
d) Matt 4,12-17 and 26,1-16 as hinge texts within the book as a
whole
Partly on the basis of the above, I will gradually develop a new
outlook on the macrostructure of Matthew. My first step is that the
book consists of a corpus (4,18–25,46), in which a continuous story is
presented of Jesus’ ministry, and that this corpus is contained in an
overture (1,1–4,11) and a finale (26,17–28,20). The overture is
connected to the corpus by means of a hinge text (4,12-17), whilst
there is also a hinge text to be found in the transition from corpus to
finale (26,1-16). In a schematic overview: