74 oLeGS ANdreJeVS ment for viewing 6,22-23 as secondary on the grounds that it breaks the pattern of the preceding beatitudes has been convincingly refuted by dale C. Allison, Jr. In his detailed analysis Allison listed a number of comparable phenomena in ancient Jewish literature where the last member in a sequence employs a different, usually longer and more elaborate format 34. pertinent evidence cited by Allison includes the following lists of beatitudes: 4Q525; Acts of Paul and Thecla 5–6; 2 Enoch 42,6-14. While this evidence strongly suggests that the literary technique employed in those beatitude collections and in Q 6,20b-23 forms a rhetorical structure, it has been refuted by those scholars who, primarily on thematic grounds, continue to see 6,22-23 as secondary and not as an intrinsic part of the Q sermon 35. IQp’s reluctance to translate ku,rioj in 6,46 as “Lord” stems from the same academic Ten- denz, no doubt reflecting James M. robinson’s view that “in the oldest layer of Q Jesus claimed no title, and seemed not to have been in- volved in our Christological reflections at all” 36. It is apparent that IQp’s consistent rendering of ku,rioj as “master” in Christological con- texts seeks to distinguish it from the title’s use when applied to yHWH (4,1-13; 10,2-22; 13,34-35; 16,13). But this interpretive approach be- trays the following assumptions: (a) that in 6,46; 7,6; 9,59 Q’s author chose to designate Jesus as ku,rioj, the title elsewhere reserved for yHWH, when only a respectful form of address was implied 37; (b) that although in 12,42-46; 13,25-27; 14,21; 19,12-26 ku,rioj is clearly syn- onymous with the coming Son of Man 38, Q’s author did not intend to identify the latter as “Lord” in a similar sense to yHWH, and the use of the title ku,rioj was once again entirely coincidental 39; (c) that Q’s readers were expected to discern whether ku,rioj meant “Lord” or 34 d.C. ALLISoN, Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, pA 1997) 96-103 35 Allison’s arguments have been endorsed very recently in S.J. JoSepH, Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Judaic Approach to Q (WUNT II/333; Tübingen 2012) 161-162 (with a footnote to Allison). 36 J.M. roBINSoN, “Theological Autobiography”, The Sayings Gospel Q, 30. 37 roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 94-95, 108- 111, 154-155. one wonders, of course, why Q’s author did not choose the term “teacher” if the respectful address was all that was implied. 38 pertinent evidence includes: the placement of Q 12,42-46 immediately adjacent to a Son of Man judgment warning (12,39-40) and followed by further judgment sayings spoken in the first person (12,49-59); Q 13,27-35 containing judgment sayings and an association of Jesus with o` evrco,menoj (13,35), a title which in Q is used synonymously with o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou. 39 roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 366-375, 408-411, 432-447, 532-533.