¹ For a helpful survey (with, however, very little analysis), see Judge, P. J., ‘Luke 7.1–10: Sources and Redaction’, L'Évangile de Luc – The Gospel of Luke (BETL 32; rev.; ed. Neirynck, F.; Leuven: University, 1989) 473–90Google Scholar. Most recently, Ulrich Luz, though noting that in 7.2–6a ‘der Lukastext sehr stark red. gefärbt ist’, is content to leave open the question of ‘ob die Ik Einleitung 7,2–6a auf eine Rezension von Q (Q^Lk) oder auf Ik Red. zurückgeht’ (Das Evangelium nach Matthäus: Mt 8–17, [EKKNT 1/2; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990] 13).Google Scholar

² Dauer, A., Johannes und Lukas: Untersuchungen zu den johanneisch-lukanischen Parallelperikopen Joh 4,46–54/Lk 7,1–10 – Joh 12,1–8/Lk 7,36–50; 10,38–42 – Joh 20,19–29/Lk 24,36–49 (FB 50; Würzburg: Echter, 1984) 39–125Google Scholar. Cf. Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968) 249Google Scholar; Schür-mann, H., Das Lukasevangelium I-IX (Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 395–7Google Scholar; Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke (NCB; London: Marshall, 1974) 117Google Scholar; France, R. T., ‘Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples’, New Testament Interpretation (ed. I. H. Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 254Google Scholar; Gundry, R. H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 141Google Scholar; Danker, F. W., Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St Luke's Gospel (rev.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 157Google Scholar; and Kloppenborg, J. S., Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance (FFNT; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988) 208Google Scholar (among the ‘Sondergut passages which are deemed likely to have derived from Q’ he lists 7.3–5 [6a?]). This, along with the alternative of a different Q version, is also one of the options favoured by Marshall, I. H. (Commentary on Luke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 278).Google Scholar

³ Cf. Theissen, G., The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 182–3Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., Matthäusevangelium 1,1–16,20 (Würzburg: Echter, 1985) 79Google Scholar; Nolland, J., Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989) 314–17Google Scholar; and W. D. Davies and Allison, D. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; vol. 2; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 20, 22Google Scholar. Bovon, F. (Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Lk 1,1–9,50 [EKKNT 3/1; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989] 346–7)Google Scholar considers it ‘probable’ that the first delegation derived from tradition and leans toward the view that Matthew deliberately omitted this delegation. However, he ultimately pronounces this view to be ‘uncertain’ and mentions the possibility that ‘Luke knows two variants: one from Q and another one’ (p. 347). Schweizer, E. stands alone in attributing the first delegation to Luke but the second delegation to the original tradition (The Good News According to Luke [Atlanta: John Knox, 1984] 131)Google Scholar.

⁴ Recent proponents of this view include: Sato, M., Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungsund Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2/29; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988) 55Google Scholar; and Wiefel, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische, 1988) 141–2.Google Scholar

⁵ Wegner, U., Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum (Mt 7,28a; 8,5–10.13 par Lk 7,1–10): Ein Beitrag zur Q-Forschung (WUNT 2/14; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985) 102–236, esp. pp. 238–55.Google Scholar

⁶ On the question of language, see my ‘Statistical Analysis and the Case of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:3–7a’, CBQ (forthcoming). Despite the attempt by Wegner to show that the vocabulary and syntax of Luke 7.3–6 largely derive from Luke's special source, the language of these verses bears strong enough ties to that of Lukan redaction to warrant regarding them as a product thereof. Moreover, the themes of 7.3–6 correspond to key aims of Luke–Acts (undercutting Jewish complaints to civil authorities that Christians are hostile to Jews; exhorting high-status members of Luke's community to maintain concern for the needy even in the context of patronage; emphasizing ties to Roman administration). See my ‘Luke's Motives for Redaction in the Account of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:1–10’, NovT (forthcoming).

⁷ With the exception of redactional insertions in John 4.47b (or 49), 48, 50b, the account in John seems to represent an earlier attestation of the story in Q. Greater likelihood attaches to the scenario of the post-Easter church concocting a full-fledged Jew-Gentile dialogue out of a distance healing about a mysterious ‘official’ than the reverse.

⁸ ‘And when Jesus finished these words, he entered Capernaum. Now upon hearing about him, a centurion, whose boy was sick and about to die, came to him imploring him and saying, “Lord, I am not fit…” [there follows here the dialogue in Matt 8.8–10]. And when he went back to his house he found the boy healed.’

⁹ ‘And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were amazed at his teaching…. Now upon his entering Capernaum, a centurion approached him, imploring him and saying, “Lord, my boy lies at home paralyzed, terribly tormented.” And he says to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” And in response the centurion said, …” [there then follows Matt 8.8–12]. And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go, as you believed, let it be done for you.” And his boy was healed in that hour.’

¹⁰ Cf. the reconstructions of Q by Wegner (Hauptmann, 270–1). Polag, A. (Fragmenta Q [2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982] 38)Google Scholar, and Schenk, W. (Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien [Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981] 37)Google Scholar which in general differ from my reconstruction in consistently retaining features from Matthew's account which I regard as products of Matthean redaction: Matthew's description of the illness, direct discourse, overall structure for the introduction, description of Jesus' initial rebuttal in 8.7–8α, and (except Polag) some sort of word of dismissal and assurance.

¹¹ For a good defense of Matt 7.28a as the original Q transition clause from the Sermon to the pericope of the centurion, see Wegner, Hauptmann, 103–26.

¹² See Wegner, Hauptmann, 126–9; Held, H. J., ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 226–8.Google Scholar

¹³ Note the presence of corresponding remarks in Luke and John, as well as Matthew's omission of the similar participial clause from Mark's account of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7.25!) and other accounts in Mark (5.27!; 6.2, 29; 12.28; 14.11 par.; though Matthew also adds it on seven occasions).

¹⁴ Note the narrative description in Luke 7.2 and John 4.47 and the similar Matthean transformation of Mark's account of the Syrophoenician woman in Matt 15.22 par. Mark 7.25. Cf. Held, ‘Matthew as Interpreter of Miracle Stories’, 234–5.

¹⁵ It is astounding that the NRSV continues to read Matt 8.7 as an affirmative response on the part of Jesus (‘I will come and cure him’), without so much as a footnote indicating that it could be read as a question. Reading it as a disbelieving question has always received strong support in scholarship (e.g., Zahn, Wellhausen, Bousset, Bultmann, Klostermann, Lohmeyer, Jeremias, McNeile, Held, Trilling, Schulz, France; but as an affirmative response by Schlatter, B. Weiss, Allen, Lagrange, Haenchen, Bonnard, Hill, Derrett, Schweizer, Polag, Schenk, Gundry, Beare, and Schnackenburg). Since 1985 this has become the dominant position (Levine, Wegner and the significant recent commentaries by Gnilka, Luz, and Davies/Allison). The decisive consideration is that for Jesus to acquiesce so willingly to the centurion's request renders incomprehensible Matthew's version of the Syrophoenician woman, where Matthew lays great stress on the reluctance of the disciples and Jesus to assist this ‘Canaanite’ woman (15.23–4; cf. 10.5–6). Moreover, the radical response of Jesus in Matt 8.11–12, which sets in almost dualistic opposition the ‘sons of the kingdom’ and the ‘many’, is the perfect complement to the reverse exclusivism of 8.7.

¹⁶ It is possible that the Q account may have read something like ‘and he said to the centurion, “Go in peace”’ (cf. Wegner's reconstruction: ‘Go, [your boy has been saved]’; note John 4.50 and compare Mark 7.29 with Matt 15.28). However, such a reconstruction appears unlikely in view of the fact that Luke nowhere omits from his Markan healing stories both a word of dismissal and a message of assurance (see esp. Luke 5.14, 24; 8.39, 48; 18.42); and Luke's version of the centurion says nothing of either. Note too that Matthew adds the imperatival form of ύπάγω to the story of the Gadarene demoniac (Matt 8.32), but three times omits it from Markan miracle stories.

¹⁷ See Wegner, Hauptmann, 227–36; Held, ‘Matthew as Interpreter of Miracle Stories’, 230. That the conclusion of the Q source probably resembled the conclusion of Mark's episode of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7.30) is suggested by the structure of Luke 7.10 (minus minor Lukan redaction).

¹⁸ Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 38.

¹⁹ Matthew inserts the word five times into Markan material (9.21; 10.42; 14.36; 21.19, 21) and apparently once more into Q material (5.47). By adding the word in 8.8, Matthew sharpens the picture of the centurion's faith as well as the reader's estimate of Jesus' authority (cf. the Matthean summary in 8.16: ‘and he cast out the spirits with a word’).

²⁰ Contra Wegner (Hauptmann, 207–8), note that Matthew elsewhere employs the future indicative as a replacement for another Markan form (Matt 20.26; 21.3); and that in the closest parallel to our passage (Luke 8.50, the story of Jairus) Luke adds the future passive καìσωθήσεται (not the third-person imperative) to Mark's imperative μόνονπίστευσον. Matthew's alteration puts stress on the centurion's firm conviction/faith in Jesus' power to heal.

²¹ Matthew clearly adds the phrase άμὴνλέγωύμîν; to his Markan source in 19.23; 24.2 (probably also in 10.23; 18.3).

²² Cf. M. E. Boring (‘A Proposed Reconstruction of Q 13.28–29’, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, 1–22). As Boring puts it, the decisive factor is that ‘it is relatively easy to account for Matthew's insertion of this saying into his context, but difficult to explain Luke's removal of it’ (p. 9). As I see it, Matthew's motive for inserting this material was to establish another link between the Gentile centurion's confession of faith in the unlimited authority of Jesus (Matt 8.9) and the claim to such authority by the risen Christ in Matt 28.18. It is this early confession of the Great Commission by a Gentile which justifies the community's decision to ‘make disciples of all nations’ (cf. Matt 8.11); conversely, it is the contrast between this embrace by a Gentile and the rejection of Matthew's community by most Jews that leads to the polemically-charged condemnation of the Jews in 27.25 (cf. 8.12; 28.15). The commendation of the centurion by Jesus thus acquires an explicit etiological and paradigmatic quality; the centurion becomes in Matthew the basis for Jesus' proclamation that the kingdom will be opened to Gentiles and closed to ‘sons of the kingdom’.

²³ Wegner, Hauptmann, 220; and Meyer, ‘Gentile Mission’, 410.

²⁴ Kloppenborg, J. S., The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 117–20Google Scholar; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 34–5.

²⁵ Cf. Held who speaks of a ‘law of scenic twofoldness’ (‘Miracle Stories’, 233, 168–92).

²⁶ For example, Matthew omits from his Markan source the following characters: Andrew, Jacob and John (implicitly Peter) during the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Matt 8.14 diff. Mark 1.29); the crowd that was following Jesus when he called Levi/ Matthew (cf. Mark 2.13); the ‘great crowd’ which began following Jesus to the synagogue-ruler's house (Matt 9.19–21 diff. Mark 5.24–31; cf. Matt 9.27 diff. Mark 10.46–9) and the child's mother who accompanied Jesus into the room where the child lay (Matt 9.25 diff. Mark 5.40); the Herodians at the conclusion of the story of the man with the withered hand (Matt 12.14 diff. Mark 3.6); and the scribes who argued with Jesus' disciples when the latter were trying unsuccessfully to exorcise an epileptic boy (Matt 17.14 diff. Mark 9.14).

²⁷ So Held (‘Miracle Stories’, 179–80) and Gundry (Matthew, 172–4).

²⁸ Cadbury, H. J., ‘Four Features of Lucan Style’, Studies in Luke–Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 92.Google Scholar

²⁹ Wegner (Hauptmann, 245–7) notes that words not found elsewhere in Q include not only those words restricted by subject matter (e.g., ‘elders of the Jews’) but also more generic terms (ἐρωτν,παραγίνομαι, and pleonastic λέγων/λέγοντες).

³⁰ Cf. in Matt 9.18 where Mark's synagogue ruler becomes ‘a certain ruler’; also Matthew's allusions in 4.23; 9.35; 10.17; 12.9; 13.54 to ‘their’ synagogues.

³¹ If we presume that while Jesus was walking to the centurion's house (as 7.6 claims) he was met en route by the centurion himself (cf. Siegman, E., ‘St John's Use of the Synoptic Material’, CBQ 30 [1968] 189,197Google Scholar; Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 347), then it is only a matter of Luke changing two words in v. 6 (ἔπεμψενφίλους; and two words in v. 10: οί πεμφθέντες). This raises the question of whether the ‘single delegation theory’ has really resolved most of the problems associated with the assumption of Matthean abbreviation. And one is still faced with the contradictory statement of the centurion in the core dialogue (namely, that Jesus shouldn't come).