The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel 175 Second Part 9,35–12,50: The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel 1. Introduction and Discourse (9,35–10,42) 2. Narrative section (11,1–12,50) Third Part 13,1–17,27: I will build my Church 1. Discourse (13,1-58) 2. Narrative section (14,1–17,27) Fourth Part 18,1–23,39: The True Israel 1. Discourse (18,1-35) 2. Narrative section (19,1–23,39) Fifth Part 24,1–28,20: The Final Victory 1. Discourse (24,1–25,46) 2. Narrative section (26,1–28,20) The division into five parts is retained, but the five sections are different from Bacon’s. They do not consist of N + D, but of D + N. The concluding chapters (26–28) are no longer in an isolated position. Furthermore, it is remarkable that Rolland detaches Matt 23 from the Eschatological Discourse, but his classifying this chapter as a narrative section testifies to an urge for regularisation. After this reversion of the ordering (D + N instead of N + D), a compromise between the two views was bound to be emerge. This compromise was suggested by D.L. Barr (10). He argues that the discourses are not only connected to the narrative material that precedes them, but also to the narrative material by which they are followed (pattern: N → D → N). Schematically, his proposal is as follows: Matt 1–4 (N) → 5–7 (D) → 8–9 (N) → 10 (D) → 11–12 (N) → 13,1-52 (D) → 13,53–17,27 (N) → 18 (D) → 19–22 (N) → 23–25 (D) → 26–28 (N). These examples will suffice to illustrate the discussion on the structure of Matthew on the basis of the two phenomena signalled by Bacon: the stereotypical formula and the alternation of N and D. I will conclude this overview with a critical appraisal. (1) The formula itself always concludes a discourse, but the complete sentence of which it forms a part also links up with what follows. It is not possible to gather from the formula where the discourse begins, nor does it show where the narrative that follows the discourse exactly ends. For the precise determination of these boundaries, other criteria must be applied. (2) The subdivisions mentioned are based on “une distinction (10) D.L. BARR, “The Drama of Matthew’s Gospel: A Reconsideration of Its Structure and Purpose”, Theology Digest 24 (1976) 352: “The discourses are not dividers, but connectors, linking two sections of narrative together”.