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.