| Return to Gospels | |||||||
|
Survey of Approaches to the Structure of Matthew Gary E. Schnittjer Copyright © 2012 All seem to think Matthew’s Gospel is structured.[1] Yet, there is no consensus concerning the nature of the structure. Here is a brief survey major approaches, interacting with representative interpreters.[2] The Five Discourses [3] Matthew contains five major discourses: Sermon on the Mount (5-7); Missionary Discourse (10); Parables of the Kingdom (13); Community Discourse (18); Mount of Olives Discourse (24-25). Each discourse ends with an identical phrase: 5:1-7:27 ( The first to propose this schema was B. W. Bacon, who argued that the five-fold format was arranged as the Pentateuch. That is, each of the five discourses and their sections corresponded with one of the books of the Pentateuch.[6] Although the connections to the specific pentateuchal books are too broad to be useful, the five-fold pattern need not be discarded altogether. Another way of looking at the five-fold structure is C. H. Lohr’s chiastic arrangement which specifically plays off the alternation between narrative and discourse.[7]
D. C. Allison, Jr. proposes an outline that features alteration between narrative and discourse without trying to suggest any symmetrical (i.e., chiastic) arrangement.[8] Again, these comparisons are quite broad and may not reflect a conscious set of comparisons by Matthew. However, the five-fold format is still a viable way to consider the structure of Matthew. The five-fold pattern may have been used merely as a broad arrangement of the material. Further, the macro-pattern need not be pressed to the point of doing damage to the literary patterns which can be detected in the constituent parts. Perhaps the five-fold structure is merely reflective of a popular way of grouping in Hebrew literature. For instance, note the five books in the arrangement of Psalms or the five books of the scrolls in the canonical order of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Ruth, Song, Eccles., Lam., Esther). Turner offer a recent treatment of Matthew’s structure focused on the alternation between narrative and discourse, without thinking of chiastic structure or correlation to the Five Books of Moses.[9] The Headings in Jack Dean Kingsbury and others have advanced that Matthew is divided into three sections by two headings––(4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand and 16:21 From that time Jesus Christ began showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day). Hence, 1:1-4:16 the person of Jesus; The Plot of Matthew Many have begun to approach the biblical literature as literature and employ the techniques of literary studies to the biblical texts. Here are two recent examples of literary approaches to Matthew. Carter suggests that the structure of Matthew can be ascertained by a plot analysis. He believes that six kernels or scenes (major branching points) identify six narrative blocks which are expanded by other satellites or scenes––1) God initiates the story of Jesus in the conception and commissioning of Jesus to manifest God’s saving presence 1:18-25 (1:1-4:16); 2) Jesus manifests God’s saving presence in his public ministry of preaching and healing 4:17-25 (4:17-11:1); 3) Jesus’ actions and preaching reveal his identity as God’s commissioned agent, necessitating a response of acceptance or rejection from human beings 11:2-6 (11:2-16:20); 4) Jesus teaches his disciples that God’s purposes for him involve his death and resurrection 16:21-28 (16:21-20:34); 5) In Jerusalem Jesus conflicts with and is rejected by the religious leaders 21:1-27 (21:1-27:66); 6) God overcomes opposition, sin, and death by raising Jesus. Jesus commissions his disciples to world wide mission promising to be with them 28:1-10 (28:1-20).[12] This approach is important because it is relating itself to the nature of Matthew’s genre. It allows for the kind of dynamic development that is basic to a gospel story. It is similar to my own proposal (below), yet it lacks the formal structural criteria (e.g., discourse formulae, headings, etc.) for selecting particular scenes as kernels. Playing off the plot of Matthew, Senior suggested: 1) The Origins of Jesus and His Mission (1:1-4:11); 2) Jesus: Messiah in Word and Deed (4:12-10:42); 3) Responding to Jesus: Rejection and Understanding; 4) The Journey to Jerusalem (16:13-20:34); 5) In the Holy City: Conflict, Death, Resurrection (21:1-28:15); 6) Finale (28:16-20).[13] Again, this suggestion has many strengths and merits. The dynamic nature of narrative is taken seriously. However, this proposal lacks the controls of those analyses that play off particular verbal formulae within the text. There seem to be other literary matters around which the text could be arranged. The story-oriented approaches are among the most promising, but need to be wed with the formula-oriented observations. Is there a way to benefit from both the dynamics of the story approaches yet gain the controls of the verbal formula approaches? Other Suggested Structures Davies and Allison argue for the use of triads (groups of threes) in each of the five discourses, and also in the narrative sections especially from chapters 1-13.[14] Beginning with chapter 14, however, they follow Gundry’s suggestion that editorial fatigue set in and that Matthew basically follows Mark.[15] In addition, Matthew makes use of twos: demoniacs ( If the groupings are examined––especially the groupings of threes––some interesting patterns and correlations emerge relative to the above discussed structural hypotheses. This is attractive since the evangelist is seemingly self-conscious about the threes in several places (cf.
Evaluation of Proposals Neither the proposed five-fold structure nor the one playing off the two headings (i.e., None of the above-mentioned structures, however, are quite adequate. First, Matthew should not be understood as basically a numerically patterned narrative. Certainly he used various groupings, especially threes, but this is not the mainframe of his narrative (contra Allison and Davies). It seems to me that the narrator was not simply obsessed by a numerical strategy, but articulated the story through the characters and plot. Second, although Matthew may perhaps be seen as some type of inspired hybrid midrashic-narrative, it seems strange to think that half way through the narrative Matthew became fatigued and just copied Mark and Q with little editing (contra Gundry). A rhetorical reading as suggested above (Micro-view) seems to reveal Matthew as structured, creative, and distinctive (from Mark and Luke) throughout his gospel. Hence, I would argue that the failure to grasp the creative and dynamic plot-structure of Matthew by Gundry, Allison and Davies, and others may reflect the fatigue of the commentator rather than the gospel-writer. Third, neither the five-discourses nor the two-headings are overly useful in recognizing a structure which illuminates the narrative (contra A clue can be gained from examining the plot of Matthew’s gospel.[17] If there is a formal structural marker, however, these should be noted in relation to the plot-development (contra Carter). Many interpreters focus on the coming of Jesus (often as the new Moses or the King) and develop an outline around the opposition and rejection of Jesus. This type of interpretation is valuable, but usually suffers from one or two shortcomings. First, limiting Matthew’s presentation of Jesus to either Moses or David or the Son of God does not adequately cover the variety of Matthew’s imaging techniques. Rather, Matthew seems to be suggesting that Jesus is in various ways each of those, plus uses some other more subtle pictures. Better, it seems to use the Anointed One (Messiah, Christ) as Matthew’s broader category (cf. 1:1, etc.). The Anointed One ideal can serve several sub-categories, like prophet-like-Moses, Son of David, mediator of
[1] In
relation to the many interpreters who put significant weight on their
structural proposal Donald A. Hagner is an anomaly. After a discussion of
various interpretive schemas, Hagner
offered that in his commentary no overall structural outline is offered (Word Biblical Commentary, liii).
[2] For a
detailed survey of approaches to the structure of Matthew see Bauer, Structure, 21-55.
[3] For
examples of this pattern used in interpretation of Matthew see Toussaint, Behold, 24-25.
[4] Some
view the fifth discourse as beginning at 23:1 and view woes and Olivet
discourse as arranged together.
[5] See note
on 5:1-2 in Micro-view above.
[6] See
Bacon, Studies.
[7] Cited in
Davies/Allison, ICC, 1: 60; see also Hagner, lii.
[8] See D.
C. Allison, Jr. The End of the Ages has
Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 1208 cited in Hagner, liii.
[9] See
Turner, 2008.
[10] See
Kingsbury, Matthew, 33; Bauer, Structure.
[11] For
other critique of this understanding of the structure of Matthew see
[12] See
Carter, Matthew, 159-75, esp. 159.
[13] See
Senior, Gospel of Matthew, 31-32.
[14] See Davies and
Allison, 1: 61-72.
[15] See
Gundry, Matthew, 10; also see Davies
and Allison, ICC, 1: 61, 71.
[16] Adapted
from Davies and Allison, ICC, 1: 86-87.
[17] For a helpful discussion of
a literary reading of Matt. see
For further reading, and full details of sources cited in notes see New Testament bibliography. Also see bibliography on the use of scripture in scripture. Copyright © 2012 ScriptureWorkshop.com |
| ||||||
| Return to Gospels |