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.
The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel 177
death, and resurrection. These two sections are preceded by a long text
(1,1–4,16) that functions as a prologue that informs the reader on
Jesus’ identity. This introductive part also has a caption that relates to
the content of the entire part (bivblo" genevsew" jIhsou' Cristou' uiJou'
Daui;d uiJou' jAbraavm). In this perspective, the Gospel according to
Matthew consists of three parts:
I. 1,1–4,16 Jesus as a Person
II. 4,17–16,20 His Proclamation
III. 16,21–28,20 His Passion, Death, and Resurrection
In his book Matthew as Story, Kingsbury has elaborated this basic
pattern further (13):
I. 1,1–4,16 The Presentation of Jesus
II. 4,17–16,20 The Ministry of Jesus to Israel and Israel’s Repudiation of Jesus
1. 4,17–11,1 The Ministry of Jesus to Israel
2. 11,2–16,20 Israel’s Repudiation of Jesus
III. 16,21–28,20 The Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and His Suffering, Death, and
Resurrection
1.16,21–25,46 The Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and His
Activity in the Temple
2. 26,1–28,20 The Betrayal, Condemnation, Crucifixion,
and Resurrection of Jesus
Within this proposal, that does justice to the narrative character of
the gospel, the stereotypical formula following Jesus’ five discourses
has a linking rather than a dividing function. However, there are deep
caesuras between 4,16 and 4,17 and between 16,20 and 16,21.
That part I (1,1–4,16) is a textual unit is clear, according to the
authors of this option, by two phenomena: a) this long text fragment
shows explicit interest in Jesus’ identity; b) his vicissitudes are
regularly presented as the fulfilment of statements from Scripture. We
do not only encounter these two phenomena in 1,1–2,23 but also in
3,1–4,16. It is true that the christological interest emerges strongest in
Matt 1–2, where Jesus is referred to in various ways (1,1.16.23;
2,2.6.15.23), but this line culminates in 3,17 where God himself calls
him his beloved Son. The four formula quotations in Matt 1–2 (1,22-
23; 2,15.17-18.23) are also followed up in 4,14-16.
(13) J.D. KINGSBURY, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia 21988) 40-93. We
encounter the same refinements in BAUER, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel,
73-108.
FOLLOW US