Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T21:50:21.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Double Tradition in Luke (Q) 3–7 as a Macro-Chiasm and its Significance for the Synoptic Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2021

Olegs Andrejevs Open the ORCID record for Olegs Andrejevs [Opens in a new window]
Olegs Andrejevs*
Affiliation:
Loyola University, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL60660, USA. Email: oandrej@luc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The level of scepticism met by the concept of macro-chiasm in ancient literature is noticeably lower today than two decades ago, with sizable agreement coalescing around certain examples. One such example is found in the synoptic double-tradition material as it is preserved in Luke's Gospel, which provides the methodological foundation for the reconstruction of the hypothetical synoptic source document Q. This article explores the study of the macro-chiasm identified in Luke (Q) 3.7–7.35 and its implications for the synoptic problem. It also addresses the methodological considerations advanced by S. E. Porter and J. T. Reed in their NTS article two decades ago, meeting a certain stipulation placed by them upon subsequent scholarship.

Keywords

Synoptic problemQMatthewLukechiasmIliadMark 2.1–3.6
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 388 - 406
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

The 1998 NTS article by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed contains a response to an earlier study whose authors proposed a macro-chiastic structure of Philippians.Footnote 1 Before discussing that particular document, Porter and Reed assess previous methodological proposals for evaluating chiasm and highlight a number of problems.Footnote 2 Their analysis leads them to a pessimistic conclusion concerning ‘chiasmus as a category of thought and/or writing explicitly known to the ancients and consciously used by them’.Footnote 3 Porter and Reed note that ‘it is difficult to substantiate this for the ancient Greeks and Romans’ and add that, ‘[a]t the most, the ancients’ – one presumes, the Greeks and Romans – ‘would have had a vague idea of inverted parallelism’.Footnote 4 According to Porter and Reed, ‘if chiasm is identified in ancient documents, apart possibly from instances of reverse parallelism in four-clause sentences, a modern category is being utilized’.Footnote 5

It should be noted that Porter and Reed direct their critique at the most arduous application of chiasm, one that attempts to account for an entire work of literature, in this case, Philippians. They furthermore have the advantage of challenging a hypothesis that already at its inception found itself in conflict with other compositional analyses of Philippians.Footnote 6 Whatever the merits of their campaign against that particular hypothesis may be, one cannot fail to detect the shadow that it casts (perhaps unintentionally) on all future attempts to establish and analyse macro-chiastic structures. If the above-reproduced statements by Porter and Reed are to be taken seriously, they problematise the compositional study of large chiastic structures of any length, as long as the structures in question exceed the limits of minor clausal alternation. This would include structures that are not as ambitious or controversial as the one critiqued by Porter and Reed in the latter half of their study.

An attentive reader will notice, however, that Porter and Reed stop short of dismissing the existence of the phenomenon described as (macro-)chiasm. While they rightly call attention to the absence of the term ‘chiasm’ and of instruction on how to produce one in rhetorical handbooks,Footnote 7 the use of anachronistic nomenclature does not by itself invalidate a phenomenon observed in the text. The concession by Porter and Reed in acknowledging the evidence in antiquity of ‘a vague idea of inverted parallelism’ therefore potentially hints at a rapprochement.Footnote 8 More recently, Erwin Cook has noted that ‘[w]hereas ring-composition is over-diagnosed it is also undertheorized in terms of the large-scale structures’.Footnote 9 Porter and Reed are therefore correct to look for a constructive way out of what they see as a methodological impasse. The solution they settle on is stated as follows: ‘one must demonstrate that a chiastic breakdown’ of an ancient composition or of a sufficiently large linguistic structureFootnote 10 ‘is clearly recognizable and evident to modern interpreters’.Footnote 11 Although one hopes that a more refined set of criteria to identify macro-chiasm can in time be obtained, this criterion does not seem to be unreasonable. In fact, it may even pave the way for a more refined approach, as the number of agreed-upon examples increases and scholars build a consensus-grounded database. In the meantime, provided that one does not stipulate universal consensus as the bar to be met, recognition of a particular chiastic macro-structure by a reasonably convincing number of scholars should speak to its theoretical validity, until serious flaws in the structure are demonstrated.

2. Some Ancient Examples of Inverted Macro-Parallelism and Macro-Chiasm

This article will discuss three well-established instances of inverted macro-parallelism, two of which can be properly termed ‘macro-chiasm’. While the primary interest of this study lies with the third and final example, it will be necessary to begin by grounding the phenomenon in additional examples that have generated sizable recognition (in the space available, only two such examples can be properly analysed). The reader will benefit from this extended discussion in at least two respects. First of all, the potential objection that ‘a modern category is being utilized’Footnote 12 will be countered with multiple ancient examples rather than just one. Secondly, the choice of the Iliad (books 1 and 24) and Mark 2.1–3.6 as additional examples will be shown to not have been arbitrary. Rather, in these two examples, similar to the synoptic double tradition in Luke 3–7, the reader will encounter the presence of meaningful linear elaborations in the inversely coordinated layers. The presence and arrangement of such elaborations can scarcely be accidental and will be argued to indicate that the macro-structures analysed here represent deliberate compositional creations of the respective authors.

2.1 Inverted Coordination of the Framing Books of the Iliad (Books 1 and 24)

Among the Homeric ring structures, the most widely agreed upon is the inverted coordination of books 1 and 24 of the Iliad. It was first presented in detail by J. L. Myres in 1932,Footnote 13 even though the parallel verses were observed much earlier (see Table 1).Footnote 14 Scholars generally agree that the parallels include, minimally, the motif of burial (nine days of the Achaeans’ plague1/ nine days of mourning for Hector upon the return of his body to Troy24); the motif of restitution (Chryseis, to Chrysa1 / Hector's body, to Priam24); interaction between Thetis and Zeus concerning Achilles (adoption of Achilles’ cause1 / modification of Achilles’ cause24); dispute among the gods (Hera–Zeus–Hephaestus1 / Apollo–Hera–Zeus24); and the double inversion of the significant day spans (9–121 / 12–924).Footnote 15 In 2014, Cook refers to a ‘broad consensus that Books 1 and 24 complement and balance each other’.Footnote 16 The scholarly recognition of the inverted parallels can be tabulated as presented in Table 2.Footnote 17

Table 1. Inverted Coordination of Books i and xxiv of the Iliad

Table 2. Scholarly Recognition of the Inverted Coordination of Books i and xxiv of the Iliad

The parallels do not serve an exclusively aesthetic purpose: the linear development is rich, advancing the poem's plot within a ‘frame of anger and reconciliation’,Footnote 18 from the catalyst of the war's climactic conflict to the contemplative aftermath of that conflict,Footnote 19 and from the gods’ exchanges as ‘an almost comic equivalent to the grim quarrel on earth’ to ‘a fresh decision by Zeus which brings a measure of reconciliation among men’.Footnote 20 The inverted parallelism of the above elements is empirically verifiable and calls for a thorough analysis if one wishes to dispute it. The fact that the inversely coordinated books are separated by the main body of the poem (books 2–23) indicates that one is probably not looking at a macro-chiasm (unless one identifies the interim books as the chiasm's central section). Nevertheless, the structure of books 1 and 24 of the Iliad exhibits a clear instance of inverted macro-parallelism. To characterise it as ‘vague’ scarcely seems accurate (indeed, it arguably does an injustice to the complexity of the poet's creation), and its careful assessment leads one to question the potential presupposition that these parallels would be completely lost on ancient readers and were only discovered by modern scholars. In conclusion, it may be noted that, with four layers of inverted parallels, this is a more complex example than the two true macro-chiasms discussed below, both of which contain only two inverted layers.

2.2 Literary Structure of Mark 2.1–3.6

Our next example is found in the first-century ce Jewish-Christian corpus of literature. When, in 1973, Joanna Dewey proposed a chiastic structure for Mark 2.1–3.6, the concatenation of the five pronouncement stories enclosed therein, by then long considered a compositional unity,Footnote 21 acquired a sharper profile.Footnote 22 It can be depicted as follows:

  1. (A)2.1–12

  2. (B) 2.13–17

  3. (C) 2.18–22

  4. (Bˈ) 2.23–8

  5. (Aˈ) 3.1–6

Since its discovery, this macro-chiasm has generated considerable assent. Porter and Reed already mention it in their essay, although not for the sake of the chiasm itself. Rather, their interest lies with David J. Clark's attempt to establish criteria for identifying chiasm, in a 1975 essay that makes prominent use of Dewey's, at the time recent, proposal.Footnote 23 In 1998, Porter and Reed could not yet have known the full extent of the recognition that Dewey's macro-chiasm would generate, especially over the ensuing two decades. To the best of my knowledge, today sixteen authors can be listed in support of this hypothesis (notice that twelve of them endorsed Dewey's chiasm after Porter and Reed had published their NTS article).Footnote 24 The agreement extends to all three layers of the chiasm.

The critique of Dewey's macro-structure has been largely centred on its intermediate layer (B–Bˈ).Footnote 25 Most recent commentators, however, have had no difficulty with that coordination.Footnote 26 With regard to other minor imbalances (such as, for example, the appearance of the Son of Man title in pericopae A and Bˈ, rather than A and Aˈ), M. Eugene Boring's observation is significant: ‘Mark was not composing freely; his arranging and adapting traditional elements leave some rough edges in the basic chiastic arrangement he has created.’Footnote 27 Similar to the framing books of the Iliad, there is linear development. In Mark 2.1–3.6, it can best be described as a heightening of intensity: from the opposition's apprehension towards Jesus (A) to an assassination plan (Aˈ), and from a violation of ritual purity (B) to that of the Sabbath (Bˈ). The latter sets the stage for Jesus’ condemnation by his opponents in the structure's closing pericope (Aˈ). The chiasm's central unit (C) relates the newness represented by Jesus to the old order which, from the evangelist's retrospective vantage point, Jesus disturbs and rearranges.

2.3 Macro-Chiasm: Impossible to Notice, Difficult to Convey?

At this point, it is possible to anticipate the following concern. Given that ancient documents were written in scripta continua, one might argue that it would be almost impossible for any reader, let alone hearer, to notice the structures that modern scholars think are there, much less to convey those structures to anyone else. One could use this logic in combination with the treatment of (macro-)chiasm by Porter and Reed, who view it as a modern category and challenge the reader to provide instances of scholarly agreement in what is implied to be a largely subjective exercise. Yet, the last two decades have shown that some inverted macro-parallels in antiquity can be both recognisable and evident to groups of scholars. Two examples of such structures have been discussed above. With the rendezvous point thus reached, scholars studying the phenomenon of inverted macro-parallelism (which includes macro-chiasm) are now in a stronger position than they were when Porter and Reed wrote their article.

Only a few brief comments can be made here on the possible purpose of such structures, a question that requires separate treatment. Scholars such as Cedric H. Whitman may be right in some instances, suggesting that aesthetic considerations could be at work.Footnote 28 One can, however, also offer an alternative scenario for the Jewish-Christian texts discussed here. Recent studies have increasingly stressed the interplay between orality and the written text in antiquity, drawing attention to the role played by scribal memory.Footnote 29 Scribes were bearers and living embodiments of their tradition. Jocelyn Penny Small observes that ‘[t]he layout of the ancient text virtually forces the reader to rely on memory for cues to content’.Footnote 30 In Quintilian one finds instructions for breaking up the contents of oratio into partes which non sint perexiguae, as a mnemonic aid, along with a suggestion to assign to them notas – all in one's mind.Footnote 31 Inverted coordination of pericopae in an isolated block of text can therefore be seen as potentially facilitating memorisation, allowing one to ‘fold’ a text's outline in half. Given that Mark's Gospel almost certainly was both a beneficiary of and an active agent in the ambient performative environment of the early Jewish-Christian tradition, the chiastic organisation of Mark 2.1–3.6 may offer evidence of isolated performances of the five controversy storiesFootnote 32 in the pre-Markan tradition or the Markan community, if the latter existed.Footnote 33 A similar background appears plausible for another Jewish-Christian macro-chiasm, detected by a number of scholars in the synoptic double tradition.

3. The Reconstruction of Q

Because the following macro-chiasm exists in a hypothetical document, it will now be necessary to briefly address that document's reconstruction. Today, Q remains mostly limited to the synoptic double tradition, with occasional modest Sondergut expansions.Footnote 34 While some scholars have attempted to demonstrate Q's oral character, this theory has been refuted in multiple recent publications.Footnote 35 Consequently, the designation ‘Two-Document Hypothesis’ (hereafter, 2DH) may be adopted,Footnote 36 with the understanding that the Critical Edition of Q (hereafter, CEQ) represents Q's approximate sequence.Footnote 37

The reconstructed Q can be divided into pericopae, most of which represent groups of sayings.Footnote 38 The section of Q stretching from Luke's third to his seventh chapter is the least controversial one in terms of reconstructing its pericope sequence. Even before the most recent studies, Martin Ebner observed in 2008 that this section ‘ist am klarsten strukturiert und inzwischen am besten erforscht’.Footnote 39 While the structure of Q is largely based on the forward sequence of the double tradition in Luke's Gospel,Footnote 40 from approximately Luke/Q 3.7 (Matt 3.7) to Luke/Q 7.10 (Matt 8.13)Footnote 41 Matthew shares that sequence on the level of pericopae. The Matthew–Luke agreement (emboldened below) accounts for all but the last one of Q's opening five pericopae.

The fifth double-tradition pericope (Q 7.18–35) follows almost immediately in Luke (after the Sondergut story in Luke 7.11–17) but is deferred by Matthew until after his Mission Discourse, which contains a large amount of Q material.Footnote 42 To my knowledge, no Q scholar reconstructs the location of Q 7.18–35 following the Matthean sequence (Matt 11.2–11, 16–19; after the Q Mission Discourse). The principal reason for this is Matthew's apparent decision to support each of the miracles listed in Matt 11.5 (Q 7.22), all of which come from Mark, with an antecedent illustration (Matt 8.1–4; 9.2–8, 18–26, 27–31).Footnote 43 Matthew therefore defers John's question (Q 7.18–19) and Jesus’ reply (Q 7.22–3) until after those miracles have been narrated. If Matthew had incorporated Q 7.18–35 immediately after the healing of the two blind men (Matt 9.27–31), before the Mission Discourse, the second of Matthew's five great speeches would have been pushed back, upsetting the carefully balanced structure of the First Gospel. Q 7.18–35 therefore presents a more natural fit immediately following the second speech of Jesus in Matthew. The significance of these observations for our purposes is that the two evangelists agree on the sequence of the double-tradition pericopae through Q 7.10 and the Matthean placement of Q 7.18–35 appears to be redactional. Because the macro-chiasm discussed below terminates in Q 7.35, it will not be necessary to discuss here the reconstruction of Q's macro-sequence after Q 7.35.

Significantly, from Q 3.7 to 7.35 the document's reconstruction features no Sondergut and only one triple-tradition text whose status as a possible Mark-Q overlap has received serious support (Q 3.21–2). Its Q origin is not assured: the opposite opinion represents a long-standing view that remains viable in recent research.Footnote 44 Even so, we shall see that if Luke 3.21–2 were included in Q the macro-chiasm analysed here would not be affected. The reconstruction of Q 3.7–7.35 (hereafter, Q 3–7) at the pericope level therefore appears to be secure.Footnote 45 In what follows I examine the chiastic organisation of this double-tradition material to see if the Q hypothesis offers the optimal background for it or if the alternative synoptic theories explain the data better.Footnote 46

4. The Chiastic Structure of the Double Tradition in Luke 3–7

The macro-structural study of Q began with the division of the reconstructed document into large sections. Following T. W. Manson's influential analysis,Footnote 47 the boundaries (and overall number) of these sections would be occasionally adjusted, but the assessment of the compositional unity of Q 3–7 has remained unchanged and today forms a point of consensus in Q studies, with or without a macro-chiastic arrangement.Footnote 48 In more recent research, the chiastic organisation of this section has become increasingly recognised. Beginning with the 1993 monograph by Elisabeth Sevenich-Bax, today it is possible to list eight scholars in addition to the present author who find the double-tradition macro-chiasm reproduced below recognisable and evident.Footnote 49 It can be depicted as follows:

  1. (A)3.7–9, 16b–17

  2. (B) 4.2b–13 (+ Ναζαρά)

  3. (C) 6.20–49

  4. (Bˈ) 7.1–10

  5. (Aˈ) Q 7.18–19, 22–8, 31–5

A few comments should be made regarding the text's reconstruction. (1) None of the decisions made in outlining the text boundaries improves the macro-chiasm (most notably, the omission of Q 3.21–2 does not affect anything, as demonstrated by Kirk, who retains it). The purpose of these decisions, rather, is to reflect the caution exercised by Q specialists in attempting to reconstruct the document. (2) As noted earlier, the existence of Q's possible narrative openingFootnote 50 can neither be conclusively demonstrated nor is necessary in what appears to be a sayings collection.Footnote 51 (3) The baptism story (which would be located in Q 3.21–2) is omitted, following a strong scholarly opinion and against the CEQ's weak rating and split vote.Footnote 52 (4) The reconstruction of Q 4.1–2a results in a text that is too close to Mark 1.12–13. It seems more secure to concede that Q's Temptation Story cannot be reconstructed before Q 4.2b (ἐπείνασεν and possibly νηστεύσας).Footnote 53 5. The reconstruction of Ναζαρά in Q 4.16 is based on a stark minor agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Matt 4.13; Luke 4.16), but there are good arguments both for and against its inclusion. Because of the unusual spelling of the name, I retain Ναζαρά in brackets.Footnote 54 The B–Bˈ layer of the chiasm, however, functions well with or without it (see my discussion of M. Goodacre's comments on this very matter below). (6) As noted above, Q 7.1–10 may have concluded with v. 9. It is quite possible that Matt 8.13 and Luke 7.10 are independent conclusions based on Mark 7.29–30 and were designed for a story that presupposed a miracle but whose focus rested with Jesus’ pronouncement in Q 7.9.Footnote 55 I retain 7.10 because it is difficult to be certain one way or another, as well as for consistency with those scholars who have similarly retained it. Once again, this decision does not affect the chiasm.

With the reconstructed text thus outlined, it is now possible to survey the history of research of the macro-structure in Q 3–7 and examine the few objections that have so far been raised against it.

4.1 Analysis of the Macro-Chiasm in Q 3–7 from 1993 to 2019

In her 1993 analysis, Sevenich-Bax concluded that in Q 3–7 ‘[d]as Gebilde stellt vielmehr eine bis in die Einzelheiten theologische durchdachte, bewußte komponierte und reflektierte Einheit dar’.Footnote 56 Within a few years of her monograph's publication, two North American scholars referenced and endorsed Sevenich-Bax's analysis: Dale C. Allison in 1997 and Alan Kirk a year later. Allison further refined the edges of the ring structure's central unit, separating Q 6.20–3 and 6.46–9 into a C–Cˈ layer framing the ‘[m]ain body of the sermon’ (Q 6.27–44).Footnote 57 Whether or not one agrees with this decision, it merely nuances the more conventional three-tiered structure of the chiasm. Kirk's (1998) and Harry T. Fleddermann's (2005) virtually identical treatments of Q 3–7 provided further confirmation of Sievenich-Bax's thesis. Their agreement is all the more striking considering that these scholars structure the remainder of Q's reconstructed text (on whose extent they mostly agree) very differently. In other words, Kirk and Fleddermann do not agree about much when it comes to Q's macro-structure, but in Q 3–7 their analyses are aligned.Footnote 58 The exception is the aforementioned baptism story (Q 3.21–2), retained only by Kirk.

After 2005, one could refer to one or more of the aforementioned four scholars, all of whom were in agreement on the same macro-chiastic structure. In 2007, Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre noted that ‘Q 3:7–9, 16–17 and 7:18–35 form an inclusio of John material around Q 4:1–7:10’, with references to Sevenich-Bax, Allison and Kirk.Footnote 59 The same year, C. Michael Robbins observed that Sievenich-Bax had ‘demonstrated’ the chiastic structure of Q 3–7, and that it had been ‘further refined’ by Kirk.Footnote 60 In 2013, Simon J. Joseph referenced Allison's study, describing Q 3–7 ‘as an integrated unit’ and ‘a complex composition’ within which ‘the Inaugural Sermon (Q 6:20–49) is a central component’.Footnote 61 In 2016, Hildegard Scherer noted that ‘[d]ie konzentrische Struktur’ of Q 3–7 ‘ist häufig beobachtet worden’.Footnote 62 Finally, in 2019 Markus Tiwald reproduced the same macro-chiasm, referencing multiple previous scholars.Footnote 63 Two and a half decades after the publication of Sevenich-Bax's monograph, Tiwald is now able to state the matter as follows: ‘[t]he concentric structure of the “Programmatic Address” has been pointed out repeatedly’.Footnote 64

The parallels between the chiasm's constituent units are fairly evident. In the outer compositional ring (A–Aˈ), Q scholars notice the reappearance of John in Q 7.18–35, along with the developing christological reflection on Jesus as the ‘Coming One’.Footnote 65 The pericopae comprising the inner compositional ring (B–Bˈ) bear just as striking a resemblance. Allison observes that Q 4.2b–13 and 7.1–10 ‘offer the only two extended narratives in Q and its only real dialogues’.Footnote 66 Similar to the framing books of the Iliad and Mark 2.1–3.6, the macro-chiasm in Q 3–7 exhibits linear development across its inverted members, indicating a deliberate attempt to stimulate reflection. Commenting on the chiasm's A–Aˈ layer, Kirk notes that Q 3.7–9 and 7.18–23 ‘contrast the messages of John and Jesus respectively’.Footnote 67 John S. Kloppenborg adds that John's reappearance in 7.18–35 sets up clear logical and qualitative progressions from 3.7–9, 16b–17, exhibited in the fulfilment of John's prediction and the characterisation of John and Jesus as colleagues rather than rivals.Footnote 68 With regard to the B–Bˈ layer, I have suggested elsewhere that the two stories ‘form a trajectory that opens with a refusal to perform a miracle and culminates in one being granted’.Footnote 69 The significance of this potential trajectory is explicated by Kirk, who notes that ‘in 4:5–8 Jesus rejects the devil's offer of worldly kingdoms in exchange for worshipping him, while in 7:1–10 a centurion, the ubiquitous representative of the major imperial power, acknowledges Jesus’ authority and addresses him as κύριε’.Footnote 70 One may infer from these observations that the refusal of a miracle in a wrong scenario appears to be reversed in an appropriate setting, leading the narratee to reflect on the circumstances specific to each story and miracle request. Situated in the macro-chiasm's centre, Q 6.20–49 ‘functions as the narratological pinnacle’ of Q 3–7.Footnote 71

Similar to our previous two examples of inverted macro-parallelism, Q 3–7 also exhibits linear development across adjacent units. Fleddermann highlights the recurring theme of sonship in the first three pericopae (3.7–8; 4.3, 9; 6.35), culminating in an instruction that ‘states the basic ethical demands of the kingdom’.Footnote 72 On the other side of the chiasm, various responses to Jesus provide a recurring motif (6.46; 7.6; 7.18–19; 7.31–5). Here, a special catchword connection links only the chiasm's central pericope and Q 7.1–10, similar to the Sabbath backdrop in Mark 2.23–8 and 3.1–6. In Q 7.1–10, a gentile officer addresses Jesus as κύριε (see 6.46).Footnote 73 Jesus’ affirmation of the officer's faith over anyone ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ in Q 7.9Footnote 74 then leads in the Lukan double-tradition material directly to ‘second-guessing on the part of John, who questions his own earlier prophecy (Q 7:18–19), setting the stage for a hierarchizing analysis of John's and Jesus’ identities’.Footnote 75 The linear progression of Q 6.20–7.35 survives in the text of Luke's Gospel mostly undisturbed, apart from the intervening Sondergut pericope in Luke 7.11–17. This interruption serves no apparent purpose other than to prepare for the otherwise unsubstantiated reference to νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται in Luke 7.22. It also disrupts the otherwise logical transition from Jesus’ pronouncement in Luke 7.9 to the Baptist's reaction in 7.18–19.Footnote 76 Perhaps most importantly, Matthew turns to Mark 5.21–3, 35–43 to prepare for and illustrate νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται in Q 7.22 (Matt 11.5). All of this suggests that Matthew had no access to the story preserved in Luke 7.11–17 (and, consequently, that it was not in Q).

To conclude, the theme of legitimation permeates Q 3–7 and informs its compositional dynamics. Kirk grounds this in an ancient literary convention: ‘[e]nclosing an instruction (Q 6:20b–49) with legitimating frame narratives (4:1–13; 7:1–10), one identifying and legitimating the sage, the other praising the sage as well as occasionally showing the benefits of following the seer's teaching, is attested in instructional literature’.Footnote 77 Fleddermann characterises the forward progression of the entire macro-chiasm as follows: Q 3–7 ‘has a linear, narrative flow from the first pericope that raises the question “Who is Jesus” to the climactic fifth pericope in which John poses the question explicitly’.Footnote 78 These dynamics can be schematised as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. The macro-chiasm in Q 3–7

4.2 Critique of the Macro-Chiasm in Q 3–7

The only attempt at a substantive critique so far has appeared in Goodacre's review of Kirk's first monograph.Footnote 79 The chiasm in Q 3–7 requires no assistance from Sondergut materials or the synoptic triple tradition, which eliminates its most obvious potential weakness (special pleading). As noted above, in 1998 Kirk was working with a structure that by then had already been recognised by Sevenich-Bax and Allison. In his review, Goodacre focuses on Kirk's analysis, which differs from Allison's in reconstructing Q with 3.21–2.Footnote 80 Goodacre rightly notes that Q 3.21–2 is not assuredly a Q text.Footnote 81 As we have seen, however, the inverted coordination of Q 3.7–9, 16b–17 with 7.18–35 functions first and foremost on the level of logical and qualitative progressions. Whether present or absent, Q 3.21–2 does not disrupt those progressions.Footnote 82 Goodacre's second objection concerns the contested word Ναζαρά in Q 4.16: he appears to suggest that this word, if it is accepted in the reconstructed text, has no inverted counterpart.Footnote 83 This can be countered with the observation that the journey to Ναζαρά leading into the central pericope Q 6.20–49 is matched by the move to Καφαρναούμ following that pericope's conclusion.Footnote 84 Goodacre's remaining objection points to a hypothetical extended Q, parts of which may ‘have survived in neither Matthew nor Luke’.Footnote 85 This suggestion foreshadows the ‘reconstructed Mark’ argument, which Paul Foster and I have now addressed in separate publications.Footnote 86 Pending further discussion, it is possible to conclude that the chiastic structure of Q 3–7 has so far not been demonstrated to be flawed.

5. Conclusion: Implications for the Synoptic Problem

This article opened by revisiting the scepticism expressed by Porter and Reed in 1998 with regard to (macro-)chiasm as a literary device in ancient (for our purposes, specifically Greek and New Testament) literature. To address this scepticism, two examples of inverted macro-parallelism were then discussed that today are clearly recognisable to groups of scholars: the framing books of the Iliad and the macro-chiasm in Mark 2.1–3.6. The principal focus of this article was the macro-chiasm located in Q 3–7, which by 2021 has similarly generated substantial scholarly support. The above discussion has shown that this structure merits special consideration that does not depend on other portions of the reconstructed Q document, on the basis of: (a) the absence of Sondergut and triple-tradition texts required for it to function; (b) Matthew's and Luke's agreement on the double-tradition pericope sequence through Q 7.10; and (c) the secondary placement of Q 7.18–35 in Matthew.

An examination of the double tradition in Luke 3–7 shows that the macro-chiasm identified in this material by Q scholars is unlikely to be the result of Lukan compositional design. This is indicated by the following considerations: (a) only a portion of the chiasm is found in Luke's so-called ‘Lesser Interpolation’ (Luke 6.20–8.3); (b) the chiasm's two opening pericopae (A and B) are separated from the rest by a large block of thematically and formally unrelated Sondergut and Markan material (Luke 4.14–6.19); and (c) minor Sondergut and/or Markan interpolations further separate individual pericopae from one another (with the exception of Luke 6.20–49 and 7.1–10, which are the chiasm's only adjacent pericopae in Luke's Gospel). The picture that emerges is illustrated in Fig. 2.

Figure 2. The double-tradition macro-chiasm in Luke 3–7

The implications of these data for the synoptic problem should be apparent. The chiastic structure of the double-tradition material in Luke 3–7 is either coincidental or testifies to the structure of the underlying source document. While the 2DH follows the latter line of reasoning, its current main alternatives (Farrer hypothesis and Matthean Posteriority hypothesis) must adopt the former. Because this double-tradition material does not form an uninterrupted chiastic structure in Luke's Gospel, one's ability to establish the inverted parallels is exclusively a product of isolating the Luke–Matthew overlap.Footnote 87 What the 2DH recognises as a deliberate literary formation (Q) therefore becomes for the alternative hypotheses an optical illusion, albeit one curiously embedded in the synoptic double tradition without any assistance from the Sondergut and triple-tradition materials. Future study of the double-tradition material in Luke 3–7 will do well to recognise and integrate these data.

References

1 Porter, S. E. and Reed, J. T., ‘Philippians as a Macro-Chiasm and its Exegetical Significance’, NTS 44 (1998) 213–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, responding to Luter, A. B. and Lee, M., ‘Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity and Theme Questions’, NTS 41 (1995) 89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 213–21.

3 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 216.

4 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 216–17.

5 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 217.

6 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 223.

7 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 217, quoting Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 28–9Google Scholar.

8 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 217. One could note that it is an intrinsic characteristic of a chiasm to exhibit inverted parallelism. See e.g. Thomas, E., ‘Chiasmus in Art and Text’, Greece & Rome 60 (2013) 50–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 57.

9 Cook, E., ‘Structure as Interpretation in the Homeric Odyssey’, Defining Greek Narrative (ed. Cairns, D. and Scodel, R.; ELS 7; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014) 75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 76.

10 Porter and Reed: Pseudo-Hermogenes uses the term ‘not of entire books or even of large linguistic structures, but of the reversing of clauses’. ‘Philippians’, 217 (emphasis added).

11 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 222, apply this statement specifically to Philippians, but earlier on the same page they state that ‘[t]he burden of proof … rests on those who claim that Philippians (or any other Hellenistic letter, and even any other ancient writing) is structured as a “grand” or macro-chiasm’ (parentheses theirs, emphasis added). In this context, the quote reproduced in n. 10 above acquires significance, because it gives the sense that Porter and Reed include ‘large linguistic structures’ (macro-chiastic ones) in the same category as macro-chiastic organisations of entire documents. This seems to suggest that if one can find no discussion of large chiastic structures in ancient sources, the hypothesis of their intentional literary design in ancient writings requires special proof.

12 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 217.

13 Myres, J. L., ‘The Last Book of the Iliad’, JHS 52 (1932) 264–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 286. Myres attempts to structure all of the Iliad chiastically (see p. 280). Cook, ‘Structure’, 78 summarises the opinion of most scholars, noting that this theory has been for the most part received sceptically. However, Myres’ coordination of books 2–23 does not affect the inverted parallelism in books 1 and 24. Indeed, the reception of the latter hypothesis has seen a different result.

14 See N. J. Richardson, The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. iv:. Vol. VI: Books 21–24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 4 n. 4.

15 See e.g. Myres, ‘Last Book’, 286; Whitman, C. H., Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958) 257–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Willcock, M. M., A Companion to the Iliad: Based on the Translation by Richmond Lattimore (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976) 266–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macleod, C. W., Homer: Iliad Book xxiv (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 32–5Google Scholar; Owen, E. T., The Story of the Iliad (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1989) 242–3Google Scholar; Richardson, Iliad, 4–7, 13; Beye, C. R., Ancient Epic Poetry: Homer, Apollonius, Virgil. With a Chapter on the Gilgamesh Poems (Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci, 2006) 111–12Google Scholar; Douglas, M., Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition (Yale: Yale University Press, 2007) 104–8Google Scholar; Mueller, M., The Iliad (London: Bloomsbury, 2009 2) 71–5Google Scholar.

16 Cook, ‘Structure’, 79. As befits such a consensus, today this is sometimes simply mentioned in passing, without much elaboration. See e.g. A. Bierl, ‘Orality, Fluid Textualization and Interweaving Schemes: Some Remarks on the Doloneia. Magical Horses from Night to Light and Death to Life’, Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry (ed. F. Montanari, A. Rengakos and C. C. Tsagalis; TCSV 12; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012) 133–74, at 173.

17 The list of scholars is not intended to be exhaustive. My objective simply is to show that a sufficient number of authorities agree on various layers of inverted parallelism in books 1 and 24. The slightly uneven distribution of scholarly discussion probably does not indicate disagreement with Myres’ analysis. Rather, some scholars focus their attention on particular inverted parallels at the expense of others.

18 Mueller, Iliad, 65.

19 Mueller, Iliad, 73–4.

20 Macleod, Homer, 33. See the scholars listed in n. 15 above. See also e.g. Bowra, C. M., Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930) 14–17Google Scholar.

21 See e.g. M. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche: Ein Beitrag zur Formengeschichte des Urchristentums (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1921) 5–16; R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19312) 374; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (KEK i/2; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 193710) 49; V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952) 91–2; H.-W. Kuhn, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 18–24, 53–98.

22 J. Dewey, ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2:1–3:6’, JBL 92 (1973) 394–401; idem, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6 (SBLDS 48; Chico: Scholars, 1980), esp. 109–30.

23 Porter and Reed, ‘Philippians’, 218. Cf. D. J. Clark, ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm’, LingBib 35 (1975) 63–72.

24 Clark, ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm’, 64, 67; P. J. Maartens, ‘Mark 2:18–22: An Exercise in Theoretically-Founded Exegesis’, Scriptura 2 (1980) 1–54, esp. 23–5; E. S. Malbon, review of J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6, JBL 101 (1982) 608–9; S. H. Smith, ‘The Literary Structure of Mark 11:1–12:40’, NovT 31 (1989) 104–21, esp. 105 and 117; B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 117–18; S. Dowd, Reading Mark: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Second Gospel (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000) 22–3; B. Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 109–10; J. R. Donahue and D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SPS 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002) 92–118; M. E. Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 73–96, esp. 73–4; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 182; M. Tait, Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18–22 (AnBib 185; Rome: Gregorian Biblical Press, 2010) 63–74; M. A. Beavis, Mark (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011) 57–65, esp. 57; C. C. Black, Mark (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2011) 84–102, esp. 85; D. S. Jacobsen, Mark (FBPC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014) 44; M. Strickland and D. M. Young, The Rhetoric of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017) 20; G. Guttenberger, ‘Markus als Schriftgelehrter’, Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-First Century: Method and Meaning (ed. G. V. Oyen; BETL 301; Leuven: Peeters, 2019) 171–216, esp. 183.

25 See e.g. J. Marcus: Mark 2.13–17 and 2.23–8 ‘do not correspond to each other either structurally or thematically, as such an arrangement would require’ (Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 214). However, both units in their present form are pronouncement stories, an assessment scarcely affected by the likely composite character of these pericopae. Marcus’ (Mark 1–8, 228) limiting of the controversy form to Mark 2.15–17 also minimises the narrative function of 2.13–14 (e.g. 2.15: ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ). Thematically, both pericopae centre on eating practices – with ritually unclean individuals and through unlawful means (Dewey, Debate, 114) – that come under fire from Jesus’ opponents. By contrast, the chiasm's central unit (2.18–22) is concerned with the practice of fasting. Furthermore, both B and Bˈ pericopae feature the verb ἐστίω in the context of a need (χρείαν ἔχουσιν in 2.17 and χρείαν ἔσχεν in 2.25), establishing an inverted catchword connection.

26 Ten authors in n. 24 above, beginning in 2001 (after Marcus’ objections were published).

27 Boring, Mark, 73 n. 23.

28 Whitman, Homer, 255–7.

29 See e.g. J. P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1997); A. Kirk, Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition (LNTS 564; London: T&T Clark, 2016) 93–150.

30 J. P. Small, ‘Artificial Memory and the Writing Habits of the Literate’, Helios 22 (1995) 159–66, at 161. See also e.g. J. S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000) 60.

31 Quintilian, 11.2.27–8.

32 D. A. Smith has recently analysed a possible scenario in which a textual fragment could be used as a script for oral performance: ‘From Parable to Logion: Oral and Scribal Factors in the Composition of Q’, Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (ed. C. Heil, G. Harb and D. A. Smith; BiTS 34; Leuven: Peeters, 2018) 73–97.

33 It is beyond the scope of this study to adjudicate between these two possibilities.

34 This presupposition has been questioned but the alternative remains not demonstrated. See the detailed discussion in Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 60–72, 91–101. For recent objections, see e.g. D. T. Roth, Parables in Q (LNTS 582; London: T&T Clark, 2018) 36–9, and the previous studies referenced there. For responses, see P. Foster, ‘In Defense of the Study of Q’, ExpT 113/9 (2002) 295–300; O. Andrejevs, ‘The “Reconstructed Mark” and the Reconstruction of Q: A Valid Analogy?’, BTB 50 (2020) 35–43.

35 See especially A. Kirk, ‘Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources: Appeals to Ancient Media in Some Recent Challenges to the Two Document Hypothesis’, NTS 58 (2012) 1–22; J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Oral and Literal Contexts for the Sayings Gospel Q’, Built on Rock or Sand?, 49–72.

36 For details, see Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 12–38.

37 J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann and J. S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas, with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis; Fortress, 2000).

38 See e.g. J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987) 90–2; H. T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (BiTS 1; Leuven: Peeters, 2005) 110–19.

39 M. Ebner, ‘Die Spruchquelle Q’, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (ed. M. Ebner and S. Schreiber; KStTh 6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008) 85–111, at 88.

40 Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 2–561.

41 The question of Q's opening remains a subject of lively discussion. The CEQ reconstructs it as Q 3.2b–3a: Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 4–7. I follow the arguments of F. Neirynck to identify 3.7–9 as the first Q segment that can be recovered: ‘The First Synoptic Pericope: The Appearance of John the Baptist in Q?’, ETL 72 (1996) 41–74. Of course, it remains possible that some narrative introduction of John was present. With regard to Q 7.10, I refer to this verse with the awareness that the centurion story may have terminated in Q 7.9 and the concluding statements are redactional at the Matthean and Lukan level.

42 Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 150–89.

43 See e.g. U. Luz, Matthew 8–20 (ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 98.

44 Against the inclusion of Luke 3.21–2 in Q, see e.g.: J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909) 108–9; Bultmann, Geschichte, 268 and n. 4; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 16; S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972); D. Zeller, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979) 21; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28–28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–5) 479–80; W. Schenk, Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981); Kloppenborg, Formation, 84–5; R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 51–3; L. E. Vaage, Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers according to Q (Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1994) 8–9; F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (ed. R. A. Piper; NovTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 49–72, at 65–7; D. C. Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1997) 8 n. 40; W. E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 7; F. Bovon, Luke (3 vols.; ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002–13) i.118 (‘uncertain’); Fleddermann, Q, 233–5; P. Foster, ‘Q, Jewish Christianity, and Matthew's Gospel’, Built on Rock or Sand?, 367–408, at 396.

45 A few scholars have attempted to assign parts of Luke 4.16–30 other than the well-known minor agreement Ναζαρά (Luke 4.16) to Q. See especially C. M. Tuckett, ‘Luke 4,16–30: Isaiah and Q’, Logia: les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus. Mémorial Joseph Coppens (ed. J. Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982) 343–54 and the literature referenced there. Cf. Bovon, Luke, i.118 n. 4. This view has generated little support. For a detailed analysis and response, see e.g. Fleddermann, Q, 268–75.

46 The hypothesis of Markan priority currently occupies a near-consensus position in synoptic studies and is presupposed here. The main alternatives to the 2DH today are the Farrer hypothesis and the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis. See e.g. F. Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013) 117–216; R. K. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew's Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (LNTS 501; London: T&T Clark, 2015); J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson, eds., Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (LNTS 455; London: T&T Clark, 2015); M. Müller and J. T. Nielsen, eds., Luke's Literary Creativity (LNTS 550; London: T&T Clark, 2016); M. Müller and H. Omerzu, eds., Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis (LNTS 573; London: T&T Clark, 2018).

47 Manson, Sayings, 39–148. His (non-chiastic) macro-sections are: Q 3.7–7.35; 9.57–11.13; 11.14–12.34; 12.35–17.37.

48 E.g. M. Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT ii/29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) 18–19, 33–6; A. D. Jacobson, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1992) 77–129; E. Sevenich-Bax, Israels Konfrontation mit dem letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle (MThA 21; Altenberge: Oros, 1993) 258–67; Allison, Tradition, 8–11; A. Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, & Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 364–97; Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 122–3; M. Johnson-DeBaufre, Jesus among her Children: Q, Eschatology, and the Construction of Christian Origins (HTS 55; Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2005) 43–5; P. Hoffmann and C. Heil, eds., Die Spruchquelle Q: Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch (Leuven: Peeters, 2002) 14; Fleddermann, Q, 112–14, 209–387; C. M. Robbins, The Testing of Jesus in Q (StBL 108; New York: Peter Lang, 2007) 136–8, 151; Ebner, ‘Die Spruchquelle Q’, 88–9, 103–4; S. J. Joseph, ‘“Blessed is Whoever Is Not Offended by Me”: The Subversive Appropriation of (Royal) Messianic Ideology in Q 3–7’, NTS 57 (2011) 307–24; idem, ‘“Love your Enemies”: The Adamic Wisdom of Q 6:27–28, 35c–d’, BTB 43 (2013) 29–41, at 30; H. Scherer, Königsvolk und Gotteskinder: Der Entwurf der sozialen Welt im Material der Traditio duplex (BBB 180; Göttingen: V&R, 2016) 76–7; M. Labahn, ‘Sinn im Sinnlosen: Hermeneutische und Narratologische Überlegungen zu Q’, Built on Rock or Sand?, 131–73, at 151; M. Tiwald, The Sayings Source: A Commentary on Q (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2020) 40–1, 46, 48.

49 In n. 48 above: Sevenich-Bax, Allison, Kirk, Fleddermann, Robbins, Joseph (BTB), Scherer, Tiwald.

50 Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 4–7. See n. 41 above.

51 E.g. Fitzmyer, Luke, 451–2; Neirynck, ‘The First Synoptic Pericope’, 41–74; Allison, Tradition, 8; Fleddermann, Q, 210–13.

52 See n. 44 above. One of the CEQ's three editors (Kloppenborg) voted against the inclusion (Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 18 – notice the ‘zero variant’ on the same page and see Kloppenborg, ‘Oral and Literal Contexts’, 56 n. 26).

53 E.g. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 108; F. Neirynck, Q-Parallels: Q-Synopsis and IQP/CritEd Parallels (SNTA 20; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001) 8–9; idem, ‘Note on Q 4,1–2’, ETL 73 (1997) 94–102, at 95; Fleddermann, Q, 235–41; Foster, ‘Q, Jewish Christianity, and Matthew's Gospel’, 396. Notice also the ‘zero variant’ in Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 22. In adopting this position, I have adjusted my more optimistic reconstruction of Q in Apocalypticism in the Synoptic Sayings Source: A Reassessment of Q's Stratigraphy (WUNT ii/499; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019) 91.

54 For the opinion before 1996, see S. Carruth, J. M. Robinson and (volume editor) C. Heil, Q 4:1–13, 16: The Temptation of Jesus – Nazara (Documenta Q; Leuven: Peeters, 1996). Since then: pro, e.g.: Robinson et al., Critical Edition, 42–3 (but notice the ‘zero variant’); J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005) 171; U. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 156; S. J. Joseph, Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Judaic Approach to Q (WUNT ii/333; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 21 n. 120; Tiwald, Commentary, 40, 59. Contra, e.g.: F. Neirynck, ‘ΝΑΖΑΡΑ in Q: Pro and Con’, From Quest to Q: Festschrift J. M. Robinson (ed. J. A. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer and M. W. Meyer; BETL 146; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 159–69; Fleddermann, Q, 267–8.

55 See the analysis in Fleddermann, Q, 344–6. See also Tiwald, Commentary, 70–1.

56 Sevenich-Bax, Konfrontation, 462.

57 Allison, Tradition, 10.

58 Compare Kirk, Composition, 289–397; Fleddermann, Q, 112–19.

59 Johnson-DeBaufre, Jesus among her Children, 44.

60 Robbins, Testing, 151 n. 127.

61 Joseph, ‘Love your Enemies’, 30.

62 Scherer, Königsvolk und Gotteskinder, 77.

63 See Tiwald, Commentary. Tiwald's commentary was originally released in 2019 in German. In this article I use the 2020 English translation. In Apocalypticism, 155–73, I added Q 9.57–60 to the chiasm's closing pericope (7.18–35).

64 Tiwald, Commentary, 41 n. 81 (citing Fleddermann and Scherer as examples; emphasis added). With ‘Programmatic Address’ Tiwald refers to all of Q 3–7.

65 E.g. Fleddermann, Q, 371–87; Scherer, Königsvolk und Gotteskinder, 77.

66 Allison, Tradition, 9. See also Fleddermann, Q, 254 (‘triple dialogue’, for Q 4.2b–13) and 348 (‘double dialogue’, for Q 7.1–10).

67 Kirk, Composition, 377.

68 Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 122. See also Tiwald, Commentary, 72–5.

69 Andrejevs, Apocalypticism, 104–5. Even if the pericope conventionally identified as Q 7.1–10 originally concluded with Q 7.9, it is difficult to envision the miracle being withheld following the centurion's praise by Jesus. E.g. Fleddermann, Q, 347 (‘an example of a healing miracle’).

70 Kirk, Composition, 388. See also Sevenich-Bax, Konfrontation, 266, 459; Fleddermann, Q, 264, 353.

71 Tiwald, Commentary, 40.

72 Fledermann, Q, 225, 314, 330, 371–2 (quote at 314).

73 While some scholars see κύριε κύριε in Q 6.46 as just a respectful form of address, the duplication indicates other possibilities. See J. A. Staples, ‘“Lord, Lord”: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke’, NTS 64 (2018) 1–19.

74 While the statement is abrasive, Ἰσραήλ almost certainly designates the opposition to the Jesus movement in Israel. It would be quite improbable for Q's author (or Matthew/Luke) to suggest that no ethnic Israelite correctly believed in Jesus. The Jerusalem church could not have consisted entirely of gentiles.

75 Andrejevs, Apocalypticism, 104. See also Kirk, Composition, 378–83; Fleddermann, Q, 378–9; Scherer, Königsvolk und Gotteskinder, 218–27; Tiwald, Commentary, 75–81.

76 As far as I know, no scholar supporting the conventional 2DH (I exclude here radical expansions of Q) allows for the Q origin of Luke 7.11–17. If it were included in Q, this story would render John's question curiously anticlimactic. By contrast, the question seems timely arriving immediately after Q 7.9–10 (that is, following Jesus’ abrasive statement in 7.9).

77 Kirk, Composition, 389 and n. 441.

78 Fleddermann, Q, 209.

79 M. Goodacre, review of Kirk, A., ‘The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, & Wisdom Redaction in Q’, NovT 42 (2000) 185–7Google Scholar.

80 That Goodacre was aware of Allison's similar hypothesis (without Q 3.21–2) is apparent from his reference to Allison's book in the same review (Goodacre, review of A. Kirk, 187).

81 Goodacre, review of A. Kirk, 186. See n. 44 above.

82 Notice that Goodacre does not address the coordination of Q 3.7–9, 16b–17 with, respectively, Q 7.18–23, 24–8 (contrast Kirk, Composition, 365–6). Hence, Goodacre's critique does not engage the most important parallels between the two pericopae.

83 Goodacre, review of A. Kirk, 187.

84 Καφαρναούμ as the setting of the centurion incident is attested in Matt 8.5 and Luke 7.1.

85 Goodacre, review of A. Kirk, 187.

86 See n. 34 above.

87 Andrejevs, ‘The “Reconstructed Mark” and the Reconstruction of Q’, 41.

Figure 0

Table 1. Inverted Coordination of Books i and xxiv of the Iliad

Figure 1

Table 2. Scholarly Recognition of the Inverted Coordination of Books i and xxiv of the Iliad

Figure 2

Figure 1. The macro-chiasm in Q 3–7

Figure 3

Figure 2. The double-tradition macro-chiasm in Luke 3–7