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
Inverted Coordination of Books i and xxiv of the Iliad
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:
-
(A)2.1–12
-
(B) 2.13–17
-
(C) 2.18–22
-
(Bˈ) 2.23–8
-
(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:
-
(A)3.7–9, 16b–17
-
(B) 4.2b–13 (+ Ναζαρά)
-
(C) 6.20–49
-
(Bˈ) 7.1–10
-
(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.
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.
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.
