Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:27:42.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Literary Evidences of a Fivefold Structure in the Gospel of Matthew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Christopher R. Smith
Christopher R. Smith
Affiliation:
19 School Street, Williamstown MA 01267, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The current shift in emphasis in gospel studies from redaction criticism to literary criticism has called into question a longstanding belief about the structure of Matthew's gospel. Mark Allan Powell has described this shift and its effects succinctly in a recent article. Redaction criticism, he writes, has operated with premises which imply that ‘the changes an evangelist makes in the organization of source materials are especially significant for the determination of structure’. Redaction critics, therefore, having observed that ‘Matthew has added a large quantity of discourse material to what was taken over from Mark and has organized this material into five great blocks’, have favoured structural outlines that ‘organize the Gospel around these five prominent blocks of discourse’.1

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 1997 , pp. 540 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Powell, Mark Allan, ‘Toward a Narrative-Critical Understanding of Matthew’, CBQ 46 (1992) 344.Google Scholar Powell defines these blocks as Matt 5.1–7.29; 9.36–11.1; 13.1–53; 17.22–19.1 and 23.1–26.2. He acknowledges the work of B. W. Bacon, discussed below, in which they were first identified.

2 Powell, , ‘Narrative’, 341, 344.Google Scholar But narrative critics themselves ‘do not always agree as to how the major blocks of material should be defined’ Powell cites several proposals that have been made to date (344, 346 n. 19). Regarding a narrative-critical approach to Matthew, see also Kingsbury, Jack Dean, ‘The Plot of Matthew's Story’, Int 46 (1992) 347–56Google Scholar, and Bauer, David R., ‘The Major Characteristics of Matthew's Story’, Int 46 (1992) 357–67.Google Scholar

3 Powell, , ‘Narrative’, 345.Google Scholar

4 Carter, Warren, ‘Kernels and Narrative Blocks: The Structure of Matthew's Gospel’, CBQ 54 (1992) 466.Google Scholar Carter offers an illustrative narrative–critical structural analysis of the gospel as well as a comprehensive survey of the debate over Matthew's structure.

5 Powell, , ‘Narrative’, 341.Google Scholar

6 ‘Kernels’ and ‘satellites’, respectively, in Carter's analysis (‘Structure’, 467).

7 It is widely recognized, for example, that the book of Genesis is divided into ten major sections by the repetition of the phrase ‘these are the generations of (Gen 2.4; 5.1; 6.9, etc.); the transitions between each of the five ‘books’ into which the Psalms are now divided are marked by benedictions that are variations on the formula, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting’ (Ps 41.13; 72.18–19; 89.52; 106.48).

8 Bacon, B. W., ‘The “Five Books” of Matthew Against the Jews’, Expositor 15 (1918) 56–66Google Scholar and Studies in Matthew (New York: Holt, 1930).Google Scholar

9 The formula is varied slightly from time to time: και ⋯γ⋯νητо oτη ⋯τ⋯λησην ⋯ Ἰ'σо⋯ς σι–τ⋯σσων τоῖς σώσηκα μαθɳταῖς αὐτо⋯ (11.1); και ⋯γ⋯νητо ὅτη ⋯ι⋯ληην ⋯ Ἰσо⋯ς τ⋯ς παραβоλ⋯ς τα⋯τας (13.53); 26.1 adds π⋯ντας.

10 Cope, O. L., Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976) 15Google Scholar, quoted in Bauer, David R., The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Sheffield: Almond, 1988) 129.Google Scholar

11 Keegan, Terence J., ‘Introductory Formulae for Matthean Discourses’, CBQ 44 (1982) 428.Google Scholar

12 Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 418–19, 420–1, 425–8.Google Scholar

13 Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 429.Google Scholar

14 Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 420.Google Scholar

15 Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 426.Google Scholar Carter, however, terms the distinction between technical (plural) and non–technical (singular) use ‘not convincing’, citing places such as Matt 13.2 where ⋯χλоς and ⋯χλоι are both used in the same sentence to describe the same audience. Carter, Warren, ‘The Crowds in Matthew's Gospel’, CBQ 55 (1993) 54 n. 1.Google Scholar More generally, Carter demonstrates that the crowds have a complex function in Matthew's gospel; it is therefore not valid to argue that their portrayal is ‘lacking special significance’ whenever they are not ‘the object of Jesus’ (and the disciples’) ministry’.

16 Barr, David, ‘The Drama of Matthew's Gospel’, TD 24 (1976) 351, 358Google Scholar n. 14 and Bornkamm, Gunther, ‘End Expectation and Church in Matthew’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 21Google Scholar, quoted in Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 421.Google Scholar The phrase is varied slightly each time it is used: πρоσ⋯λθαν αὐτῷ оι μαθɳται αὐτо⋯ (5.1); πρоηλθ⋯ντης оι μαθɳται (13.10); πρоσ⋯λθαν оι μαθɳται ιῷ Ἰɳσо⋯ (18.1); πρоσ⋯λθαν оι μαθɳται αὐτо⋯ (24.1).

17 Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 422.Google Scholar

18 Keegan, , ‘Introductory’, 423–4.Google Scholar

19 By this analysis the baptism would be marked as the most significant episode in Matt 1.18–4.25. This is contrary to Carter's narrative–critical analysis, in which 1.18–25, which relates ‘God's initiating action whereby Mary conceives Jesus by the Holy Spirit’, is the ‘kernel’ of an opening section running from 1.1–4.16 (Carter, ‘Kernels’, 473). A lively and fruitful dialogue thus seems possible between various literary–critical approaches.

20 As in Benoit's outline, summarized by Trimaille, M. in ‘Citations d'accomplissement et architecture de l'Évangile selon S. Matthieu’, EstBib 47 (1990) 48,Google Scholar which is otherwise very much like the one proposed here.

21 Häfher, Gerd, ‘“Jene Tage” (Mt 3,1) und der Umfang des matthäischen “Prologs”’, BZ 37 (1993) 51.Google Scholar His overall understanding of Matthew's structure is more akin to Kingsbury's (see below, n. 25) than Bacon's, however, and so he envisions Matthew';s ‘prologue’ as running from 1.1 well into chapter 4.

22 More generally, see Aguirre's, Rafael discussion of how Peter often stands in as a ‘type’ of all the disciples: ‘Pedro en el evangelio de Mateo’, EstBib 47 (1989) 347.Google Scholar

23 Peter has some prominence in the concluding Passion Narrative because of his denial of Jesus, but other than that, the only place in the gospel outside the fourth narrative and discourse where he acts or speaks is 19.27. From a redaction–critical perspective, but working with the same understanding of Matthew's structure defended here, Aguirre has made the complementary observation that all of the Petrine texts exclusive to Matthew are to be found in ‘la seccón narrativa de 13,53–17,27’ which is preparatory to ‘el gran discurso eclesial del capítulo 18’. Aguirre, , ‘Pedro’, 346.Google Scholar

24 Carter, , ‘Kernels’, 472.Google Scholar Carter's discussion of why Matt 16.13–20 should not be considered a narrative ‘kernel’ – that is, why we should not recognize any exaltation of Peter constituting a ‘significant development’ in the gospel – provides confirmation from a narrative–critical perspective that Matthew subordinates the leading apostle to the community.

25 For a good survey of the debate between proponents of a five–fold structure and a threefold structure, see the literature cited by Carter, , ‘Kernels’, 464Google Scholar n. 5. Especially notable among advocates of a three–fold structure is Kingsbury, Jack Dean, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1976) 7–37.Google Scholar

26 Bauer, , Structure, 34–5.Google Scholar

27 Bauer, , Structure, 129–30.Google Scholar

28 Bauer, , Structure, 131–2.Google Scholar