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