Читать книгу The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders - Roberto a. Martinez - Страница 7

Introduction

Luke 7:18–35 (// Matt 11:2–19) contains one of the longest fragments of traditional material dealing with John the Baptist in the NT. Many contemporary scholars attribute this material to a source no longer extant, commonly referred to as Q. Since the patristic era the Lukan passage has attracted the attention of interpreters who have sought to respond to the problem echoed by the question of Algasia to Jerome: “Why does John send his disciples to the Lord to ask: ‘Are you the one who is to come or should we wait for another?’ since he himself had previously said: ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world?’” (Hieronymus, Epist. 121.1).1 In other words, how are we to make sense of the fact that in the Gospel of Luke the Baptist seems to question the identity of Jesus, while in the Gospel of John he had already identified Jesus as the “the lamb of God” (John 1:29–34)?

Although this apparent contradiction has been one of the major concerns of the passage for commentators, other important issues are addressed in the pericope. For instance, what is the relationship of the Baptist to the kingdom of God in light of Jesus’ praise that “among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (7:28)? Of no less significance for understanding the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus, and the relationship of both “to the people of this generation” (7:31), is the comparison that Jesus makes between the Baptist and himself in the parable of the children in the marketplace (7:31–35). The interpretation of these and other issues have influenced the way in which commentators understand the role of John the Baptist, the identity of Jesus, and the relationship between them.

Objective and Method of the Present Work

Historical-critical methods have dominated the study of this pericope in recent times. The purpose of the present work is to investigate the function and meaning of this passage from a narrative-critical perspective. I analyze how literary aspects of the passage such as setting, character, and plot function within the whole of Luke-Acts. Although narrative criticism is the main approach of this investigation, the exegesis also takes into account historical-critical and redaction-critical observations to gain a fuller understanding of the passage. The study begins with a Forschungsbericht in which I present a historical overview of some notable interpretations of the passage, beginning with Origen and concluding with contemporary scholars. In the second chapter, I study the origin and redaction of the passage in comparison to the parallel material in the Gospel of Matthew 11:2–19. In the third and fourth chapters, I make a narrative-critical exegesis of the pericope, paying particular attention to the function of this passage within the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. In the fifth and final chapter, I summarize my findings and discuss their implications for the interpretation of the passage as well as for other issues related to John the Baptist within Luke-Acts and the other Gospels.

Luke 7:18–35: A Forschungsbericht

From the Patristic Period to the Reformation

One of the first authors to address the pericope in his homilies on the Gospel of Luke was Origen (185–255). While commenting on the birth of John, Origen states: “‘Greatest among the sons of women’ [7:28] he was evidently worthy of a greater upbringing.”2 Origen emphasizes the greatness of John and compares him to Moses, who lived in the desert and “spoke to God.”3 Yet, he considers the Baptist greater than Moses, because he associated himself with angels in preparation for his role as precursor of Jesus. In the eyes of Origen, the Baptist received an upbringing that made him worthy to be the forerunner of the Lord. Origen does not dwell on the meaning of the Baptist’s question to Jesus (7:19–20), but he limits his remarks to note that “a question about Jesus arose.”4 Rather he points out that the Baptist taught even while in prison and that with the response he received from Jesus he was “armed for battle.” Origen is convinced that, strengthened by these words, the Baptist believed in Jesus and affirmed his faith in him as the Son of God.

Ambrose of Milan (339–97) is another early Christian author that addresses the passage in his commentary on Luke.5 For him it is im-possible that the Baptist would have not recognized the identity of the person whom he had already identified, according to John 1:34, as the chosen one of God: Non cadit igitur in talem prophetam tanti erroris suspicio (“therefore, suspicion of so great an error does not fall on such a prophet”).6 Since Ambrose views the Baptist as a representative of the Law, he interprets John’s question as a way of allowing his disciples to obtain the fullness of the Law, which is Christ.7 For Ambrose, the question of the Baptist had to do with John’s difficulty to accept that the “one who is to come” had to face death.8 The greatness of the Baptist is directly related to his relationship with Christ, whom John saw, befriended, and baptized, but who is subordinated to Christ for two reasons: (1) John was born of a woman whereas Jesus was born of a Virgin; and (2) the Baptist is human and Christ is divine.9 Jesus’ remark about the Baptist’s subordination to the least in the kingdom of God is related to his subordination to the heavenly angels. God is wisdom (7:35), and the forgiveness of sins through the baptism of John is the reason for which the people and the publicans, the children of wisdom, justified God (7:29, 35).10 In commenting on 7:31–34, Ambrose identifies the children of the parable with the Jews who frustrated the plan of God through their unbelief.

Cyril of Alexandria (378–444) deals in three separate homilies with each of the three main units of the passage (7:18–23, 24–28, 31–35).11 In a hortative style, Cyril interprets the episode in light of other OT and NT references, repeatedly acknowledging the stature of the Baptist. Alluding to the Baptist’s remarks in John 3:28–31, Cyril is convinced that the Baptist knew who Jesus was but asked the question about the identity of Jesus to lead his disciples into a deeper understanding of him.

[B]ut to produce a firm and steadfast faith in Him, in those, who as yet were halting, nor thus far convinced that He is the Christ, he puts on the appearance of ignorance, and so sends to Him certain [sic] to ask Him, saying ‘Art Thou He That cometh, or do we wait for another’? . . . I said then, that he puts on the appearance of ignorance purposely, not so much that he might himself learn—for as being the forerunner he knew the mystery—but that his disciples might be convinced, how great is the Savior’s superiority, and that, as the word of the inspired Scripture had announced before, He is God, and the Lord That was to come.12

Jesus’ characterization of the Baptist as the “greatest among those born of women” means for Cyril that John represents a type of Jewish righteousness, which Jesus uses to exemplify the superiority of the kingdom of God over the Law.13 Jesus praises the Baptist not only to illustrate how faith surpasses the righteousness of the Law but to show that those who have received the faith are greater than those who have been born of women.14 The qualification of Jesus regarding the “least in the kingdom of God” is not made to diminish the status of the Baptist but to underscore the superiority of the gospel way of life.15 Regarding the episode of the children in the marketplace (7:31–35), Cyril points out that the Jews failed to discern properly between good and evil and regarded the actions of the Baptist and Jesus as wicked, whereas in reality they were holy.16

Another early commentator on the passage is Bede the Venerable (672–735).17 For Bede it is out of envy that the disciples of John bring him the report about the power of Jesus.18 Along the lines of other previous authors, he interprets the question about the “one who is to come” as a pedagogical device of the Baptist to help his disciples appreciate the glory of Jesus. Bede paraphrases many verses of the passage and explains a number of its elements (e.g., the reed shaken by the wind) in the form of petty moral exhortations.19 Thus when he comments on the eating and drinking habits of the Baptist and Jesus, Bede says:

Et iustificata est sapientia ab ominibus filiis suis, ostendit filios sapientiae intellegere nec in abstinendo nec in manducando esse iustitiam sed in aequanimitate tolerandi inopiam et temperantiam per abundantiam non se corrumpendi atque oportune sumendi uel non sumendi ea quorum non usus sed concupiscentia reprehendenda est (“and wisdom is justified by all her children; she reveals to the sons of wisdom the understanding that there is no justice neither in abstaining nor in eating, but in bearing need with patience, in not letting temperance be corrupted by abundance, as well as in taking or not taking things of which only the carnal desire, not the use, is to be rejected”).20

For Bede, the Baptist’s greatness lies in his moral compass, and John’s subordination with respect to the kingdom can be interpreted as referring either to the eschatological kingdom of God or to the Church.

Bonaventure (1221–1274), one of the most renowned writers of the Middle Ages, interprets this passage in his commentary on Luke. Although Bonaventure follows the interpretations of some of his predecessors, he approaches the passage more thoroughly and with a more organized methodology.21 Following Bede, Bonaventure remarks that it is out of envy that the disciples of the Baptist report to him the works of Jesus.22 He regards the question about the identity of Jesus not as a doubt but as a way by which the Baptist helped his disciples to understand the “truth” about Jesus more fully.23 Bonaventure interprets Jesus’ remarks about those who might be scandalized as a warning against those who have not acknowledged his divine status.24 Jesus’ praise of the Baptist allows Bonaventure to emphasize the virtues and austerity of the life of John. He contrasts the Baptist’s spiritual life, his constancy, and his abstinence with the inconsistency and preference for worldly pleasures of sinners.25 For Bonaventure, the humility of Jesus makes him “the least in the kingdom of heaven” and therefore greater than John.26 He attributes 7:29–30 to Jesus, underlines the soteriological significance of these verses, and regards them as a commendation of John for having proclaimed Jesus.27 For Bonaventure the last verses (7:31–35) are an injunction against the Pharisees for their “infidelity, hardness, detraction, and blasphemy.”28 They contradicted the wisdom of God, who is Jesus, and the behavior of his children, who are the apostles.

John Calvin (1509–1564) is one of the most important Reformation authors to comment on the passage. He dismisses as “foolish” the suggestion that the Baptist doubted the identity of Jesus and regards as speculation the proposal that, sensing the proximity of his death, the Baptist’s question was really an inquiry about what message he should carry to the deceased fathers.29 Calvin proposes that the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Christ, and he sent his disciple to him so that they might be “aroused from their sloth.”30

Calvin also uses the passage to address his preferred moral issues.31 According to him, Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah “to teach all his followers the first lesson of humility, and partly to remove the offense which the flesh and senses might be apt to raise against his despicable flock.”32 Calvin interprets Isaiah’s quote (7:22) ecclesiologically and soteriologically, as a reminder that the poor are those who are “qualified to appreciate the grace of salvation.”33 He interprets the statement about scandal as an exhortation to remain firmly rooted in the faith of the gospel in the midst of offenses.

For Calvin, Jesus’ question about “what they had gone out to see” is an exhortation to remember and apply what they had learned from the Baptist.34 Calvin does not understand Jesus’ words about the “fine garments” as a condemnation of extravagance but rather as an affirmation of the austerity of the Baptist. He is aware of the tension between Jesus’ prophetic identification of the Baptist in 7:26 and the Baptist’s denial of that category in John 1:21 and finds the preeminence of the Baptist in being the “herald and forerunner of Christ.”35 Calvin takes Jesus’ words regarding the “least in the kingdom of God” as referring to the ministers of the gospel. “Again, the teachers who were afterwards to follow are placed above him, to show the surpassing majesty of the Gospel above the Law, and above that preaching which came between them.”36 In Calvin’s opinion the remark is not a personal comparison between John and the “least in the kingdom of God” but a comparison of “offices.” He interprets 7:29 as a denunciation of men’s tendency to judge the gospel by human standards and as an invitation to acknowledge that everything that comes from God is just and holy.37

The parable of the children in the marketplace is for Calvin a reproach of those who have rejected the Lord despite the diversity of ways by which he has tried to draw the Jews to himself.38 He understands the last clause about “wisdom” as implying a contrast between the true children of wisdom and the “bastards.” Those who act with obstinacy are illegitimate children but those who remain steadfast in the faith of the gospel are her true children, who render appropriate praise and support to wisdom.39

In sum, the commentators surveyed above are aware of the apparent contradictions between portions of Luke 7:18–35 and other accounts in the Gospels and show an effort to harmonize these various reports. These commentators tend to exculpate the Baptist from any real doubt and explain his subordination to Jesus in a way that is benevolent to John. They also interpret the rest of the passage along moral lines for the benefit of their ethical exhortations.

From the Modern Period to the Present

The development of new critical methods of biblical exegesis during the modern period allowed scholars to implement a number of different approaches in the interpretation of Luke 7:18–35. These hermeneutical developments have resulted in the publication of a vast literature, in which many have taken to task the interpretation of the passage. In what follows I will examine the interpretation of Luke 7:18–35 in some of the most important historical studies on John the Baptist, commentaries, and specialized studies.

Historical Studies on John the Baptist

When the interest of scholars in the search for the historical Jesus turned to John the Baptist, Luke 7:18–35 began to be examined in search for reliable data that would help to recreate an accurate portrayal of the Baptist’s life and ministry. One of the first studies on John the Baptist was the work of Martin Dibelius. For Dibelius the pericope has essential elements of an old tradition, but one which the early Christian community has edited in order to preserve the sayings of Jesus about the Baptist in a single collection: “[M]an wollte die Herrenworte über den Täufer zusammenstellen, um durch solche Komposition das christliche Urteil über Johannes zu fixieren—das legt die Annahme nahe, daß in diese Weise die ganze »Rede« aus Sprüche zusammengestellt ist, um jenem Bedürfnis zu genügen.”40

In the question put to Jesus by the disciples of John, the final warning forms the conclusion and point of the story, which is that the old hope of the people finds its fulfillment in Jesus. The meaning of the answer is that the kingdom is near and the Messiah has no need for a speech. Only his final word in the form of an indirect warning is necessary: Blessed are they who recognize in the signs of the times, the fulfillment of the above promises (the coming of the kingdom of God).41 Jesus gives the Baptist an answer that is both personal and prophetic. The experience of a new time has begun, and Jesus is in the middle of that messianic era. According to Dibelius, the question of the Baptist is ambiguous, and this suggests that he had not yet developed a definite relationship with Jesus.42

For Dibelius the Baptist’s praise of Jesus indicates that Jesus had witnessed the rise and fall of the people’s enthusiasm for John and was now trying to assess the meaning of the Baptist’s ministry for those who did not have vain or unreal expectations about him. For Jesus, John was more than a Prophet. What is certain is that Jesus was impressed by the greatness of the Baptist.43 Finally, in the parable of the children in the marketplace what is important is not the type of game that is envisioned but the argument of the children who do not want to play.44 The parable reflects the misjudgment of the people regarding the ministries of Jesus and the Baptist.45

Maurice Goguel’s reconstruction of the life and ministry of the Baptist focuses on the historical reliability of the passage.46 Goguel highlights that nothing in the pericope indicates the reaction of the Baptist to the reply of Jesus. Moreover, the presentation of an apocalyptic Messiah rather than a historical one contradicts the messianic idea that Jesus would have had of himself. For Goguel, elements like these argue against the historicity of the episode. Consequently, the narrative attributes to the Baptist an attitude of reluctance, which must have been the same defiance or hostility that the group of the disciples of John would have shown against Jesus and the Gospel. The passage must have been used in the polemic against the followers of the Baptist in an effort to show that their master had refused to accept the messianism of Jesus as manifested by his mighty deeds.

The tribute paid by Jesus to the Baptist can have only one possible explanation for Goguel: “[E]lle consiste à admettre que la tradition a voulu concilier le témoignage éclatant qu’elle prétendait avoir été rendu à la messianité de Jésus par Jean-Baptiste avec le fait connu aussi bien des chrétiens que de leurs adversaires que ni Jean ni ses disciples ne s’étaient rallies à Jésus.”47 For Goguel one thing is clear despite the editorial activity that makes it almost impossible to determine the exact sense of the passage: an abyss has been created between the Baptist as the representative of the old economy and Jesus, who heralds the beginning of the messianic era.48

In his biography of John the Baptist, Carl H. Kraeling examines the text to see what can be extracted about the relationship between John and Jesus.49 Kraeling also questions the historicity of the reported encounter between the emissaries of John and Jesus, dismissing it as an “anti-Baptist polemic.”50

Again, therefore, the historicity of the reported encounters is questionable, the importance of the stories for us being rather to highlight an ancient conviction that the meeting of the two men was not fortuitous but continuous, having a profound significance for them both, and that had John lived to witness the later events in the life of Jesus and of the early Church he would have given his personal allegiance to the new Christian faith.51

Thus, for Kraeling the story of the delegation sent by the imprisoned John to Jesus has no historical value to assess the relationship between John and Jesus. It is only a foil for the Christians’ own conviction in an effort to reconcile the tension between the Baptist’s conception of a fiery-like Messiah with the appearance of a wonder-working preacher of the kingdom.52

With regards to the rest of the pericope, Kraeling partially accepts the authenticity of the encomia of Jesus on John (7:24–30) because the historical circumstances would have scarcely allowed the early Church to have created such words.53 He considers the phrase about “the least in the kingdom of God” (7:28b) an emendation made by a later generation which did not understand the meaning of the original statement and saw it as a threat to the primacy of Jesus. The authenticity of the remaining phrase confirms Jesus’ affirmation of the true prophetic character of John, who fulfilled the eschatological role of Elijah.

Jacques Dupont is one of the first authors to isolate and comment on the first part of the pericope (7:18–23).54 Glossing over many of the contemporary critical issues, Dupont deals with the sense of the passage, which, for him, is based on an ancient and excellent tradition.55 Dupont reviews some of the most common interpretations that have been given historically to the question of John the Baptist: fictitious doubt; real ignorance (both of which he considers extreme interpretations); and—a third one with many nuances—hesitation, astonishment, and impatience.56

After examining the meaning of the phrase “the one who is to come” within the context of the Baptist’s preaching, Dupont concludes that the Baptist understood his mission as the precursor of the eschatological agent. The only possible meaning of the question is: “Es-tu celui dont j’annonce la venue, le Juge redoubtable qui condamne les impies aux supplices éternels?”57 Regarding the answer of Jesus, Dupont focuses on the mighty deeds. The wonders performed by Jesus are characteristics of a typical messianic activity and thus manifest his messianism.58 Rather than responding with a simple “yes,” which would have identified him with the “stronger one” that John awaited, Jesus makes the messengers relate the story about his benevolent activity. Jesus sends the messengers with precise terms, purposely chosen to evoke the prophetic descriptions of the messianic time in the book of Isaiah, to inform John that he was fulfilling the messianic promises.59 According to Dupont, this was an aspect to which the precursor had not probably paid enough attention. The first part of the response affirms that the messianic age has begun and the final beatitude places the person of Jesus in the center of the eschatological age. Salvation is tied to the person of Jesus.60 The potential scandal against which Jesus warns the Baptist may come not from the messianic claim of Jesus, but rather from the way in which he manifests that role.61 The challenge for John is to recognize the Messiah not as a fiery judge but as a compassionate and merciful envoy of God.

Charles H. H. Scobie’s quest for the historical John provides another example of how the pericope has been interpreted. Scobie recognizes that the traditions on the Baptist may have been preserved and adapted according to the life and activity of early Christian communities.62 However, he attempts to restore the factual reliability of the passage by arguing that the material belongs to the Q source and enjoys historical credibility.63 After acknowledging the apparent dilemma posed by the question of the Baptist in 7:19 and his previous recognition of Jesus as the “coming one” during his baptism, Scobie rejects previous attempts to solve the problem that denied the historicity of the passage.64 What caused some authors to doubt the authenticity of the account (i.e., the lack of reaction from John) becomes for Scobie its most important sign of legitimacy: “Jesus’ refusal to give a direct answer and the way he leaves John to make the leap of faith bears all the marks of authenticity.”65 The passage provides reliable information about the lifestyle of John, his habitation in the wilderness (7:24, 33), and his ascetic eating habits.66 Jesus regarded John as the greatest of the prophets, the eschatological prophet.67 But, although John is the greatest of the prophets, he belongs to the old dispensation and therefore the members of the kingdom of God are superior by their privileges.68

Another study that deals with the history of John the Baptist is the work of Walter Wink. This author sets out to “examine the manner in which each evangelist has used the traditions about John in proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.”69 According to Wink, 7:18–23 is a passage that places limitations on the esteem that should be accorded to John.70 He discusses the challenges that have been leveled against the historical plausibility of the passage. Wink views the origin of the question not in the historical Baptist but rather in the early disciples of John who, now as Christians, sought to justify their faith in Jesus as Messiah.

Without completely rejecting the possibility of a historical origin of the Baptist’s delegation, Wink contends that the report would still have been modified for apologetic purposes in dealing with the followers of the Baptist.71 For Wink, Luke seeks to clarify the relationship of John to the kingdom. In qualifying the high esteem that Jesus expresses for the Baptist, the church engages in “evangelistic maneuvering”: “Unwilling to suppress Jesus’ high regard for John, a regard which Jesus had already in his ministry defined eschatologically, the church simply hedged Jesus’ enthusiasm with qualifications which made clear their perception of the fundamental distinction between still awaiting a Coming One and accepting Jesus as the Messiah.”72 John occupies for Luke a soteriological place of honor, which can neither be compared to that of the previous prophets nor to the apostles of his time. He is the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah.73 According to Wink, the passage does not suggest that there is an ongoing polemic with the disciples of John but rather an effort to limit the role of the Baptist in order to guarantee the uniqueness of Jesus.74

One of most thorough inquiries about a portion (7:18–23) of this passage dealing with John the Baptist has been undertaken by Santos Sabugal. After reviewing the history of the interpretation of the Matthean and Lukan versions, Sabugal analyzes the redactional work of both authors. In his opinion Luke has faithfully transmitted—although not without modifying his source through his characteristic vocabulary and style—the traditional material received from Q. Sabugal, like other authors, suggests that the historical circumstances that lie behind this source are the controversies between the sectarian disciples of John, who regarded him as the Messiah, and the early Christian community which had similar claims for Jesus.75 Sabugal reviews many of the arguments that have been leveled for and against the veracity of the account and decides in favor of its historic reliability.76

After examining the different layers of tradition (Q and the Matthean/Lukan redactions), Sabugal concludes that at the core of the story lies a specific historical event, which has been fashioned by the particular theological interest of each evangelist, and not a fiction of the primitive Christian community.77 The text records Jesus’ attempt to reaffirm the faith of the Baptist, who harbored a different expectation about the “one who is to come,” and John’s sectarian disciples regarding Jesus’ messianic dignity. Through the manifestation of eschatological signs that evoked the arrival of the kingdom of God, Jesus “halfway answers” the inquiry of the Baptist in a passage in Q that preludes the subordination of John to Jesus.

Josef Ernst is another author who begins his analysis of the traditional material about John the Baptist with a study of the pericope.78 This author underscores the secondary setting of the passage and its historical growth, which, in his opinion, is difficult to trace beyond some obvious editorial changes.79 Ernst wonders what would have guided the early community in their use of the traditions found in the sayings source and suggests that a question about the meaning of Jesus’ mighty works could have been exacerbated by the tensions between the young Christian community and those who were still following the Baptist.80 He sees the controversy (but not a strong rivalry) in the alleged “Son of Man” Christology reflected in the phrase “the one who is to come.” Ernst finds in the passage a “literary reflection” of the Q-community’s christological consolidation of Jesus, the “Son of Man,” and the Baptist’s eschatological judge.81 Ernst thinks that this happened in the early Palestinian mission when people who had adopted the call to conversion had not yet taken the last step of faith in Christ.82 The early captivity and beheading of the Baptist would have prevented a greater confrontation with Jesus but also resulted in a certain ambiguity regarding the historical relationship between Jesus and the Baptist.83

For Ernst, the meaning of 7:24–28 is that the Baptist cannot be classified in any traditional category.84 The passage portrays John as the Zeitenwende man who initiated the coming of the reign of God, which had not yet been officially proclaimed by Jesus. Ernst also highlights the ecclesiological orientation of the passage that reflects the role of the community of Jesus in the process of the proclamation of the kingdom in Israel.85

After discussing the redactional difficulties of the parable of the children in the marketplace, Ernst interprets it as referring to the increasing opposition that the community behind Q experienced in its missionary efforts.86 In his view, the competition between the disciples of the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus is transferred to the present controversy with the Judaic contemporaries: “Der Gegensatz zwischen Johannes und Jesus einerseits und ‘diesem Geschlecht’ andererseits ist also der Gegensatz zwischen ihnen und dem Volk Israel, zugleich auch der Gegensatz zwischen der Kindern, die der Weisheit Recht geben, und den launischen Kindern, also zwischen den Gemeinde und Israel.”87

Among the works that apply a social-scientific approach to the investigation of John the Baptist, Robert L. Webb’s analysis of John within the context of Second Temple Judaism occupies a prominent place. Webb accepts for the most part the historicity of passage.88 Although his research is focused on the ministry of the Baptist prior to the baptism of Jesus, Webb examines the implication of the Lukan episode for his social analysis. For Webb the question of the Baptist (7:19), which besides its explanatory notes and minor variations differs little from Q, helps to identify Jesus as the expected figured previously announced by John and the one who resolves the eschatological tension set forth by the Baptist’s proclamation.89 In the pericope, Jesus legitimizes the prophetic role of John as the greatest among all human beings and implicitly identifies him as Elijah redivivus.90 Jesus also condemns the people for rejecting his message and that of John, and forecasts the vindication of their ministries by the acknowledgment of their wisdom.91

In a short but scholarly presentation of the Baptist, Carl R. Kazmierski deals with the question of John and the testimony of Jesus. Recognizing that the tradition received from Q has been shaped by the theological interest of the evangelists and the underlying situation of their communities, Kazmierski nonetheless defends the overall historicity of the account.92 Applying a social-scientific approach that focuses on stereotyped role-playing or labeling theory, Kazmierski explains that the text reflects the historical concerns of the people to identify the Baptist and Jesus within the context of their prophetic messianic expectations.93 The passage also depicts the struggle of the early church to understand the Baptist’s role in the plan of God and his relationship with Jesus.94

Another author who examines the passage in a historical reconstruction of John the Baptist is Joan Taylor. Following the lead of many other investigations, Taylor accepts that the traditions about the Baptist in the NT are overlaid with an ongoing Christian polemic regarding Jesus’ superiority, but at the same time, she argues that the NT material is historically valuable.95 Taylor discusses the possible links of the Baptist to the Essenes, and his role as teacher and prophet as well as his relationship with the Pharisees and Jesus. Taylor appeals to 7:18–35 as a witness to John’s ascetic lifestyle and highlights his role as teacher with a group of disciples.96

Taylor cites 7:29–30 in her discussion about the relationship between John and the Pharisees to support her claim that they were not necessarily at odds despite the harsh assessment of the Pharisees in some passages.97 For Taylor, in the delegation of his disciples to Jesus, John was trying to find out whether Jesus was the expected prophet, that is, Elijah. Moreover the question indicates that John was still alive at the time Jesus began his public ministry.98 In dealing with the relationship between Jesus and the Baptist, Taylor concludes that Jesus seems to be saying that John, as the greatest man that ever lived, enables people to enter the kingdom of God but, by virtue of a new order, the members of this kingdom become greater than he.

The point does not really concern John at all, who remains ‘more than a prophet’: there is still no one greater than him. The point is about the radical inversions of the kingdom of heaven, in which someone as insignificant as an innocent little baby may be considered ‘greater’ than John (who is still part of the kingdom, and no doubt the greatest one in it); the innocent little baby is the paradigm of excellence.”99

In Taylor’s assessment, 7:31–35 is a protest of Jesus against the people who rejected his and John’s prophetic call.100

John P. Meier’s critical analysis of the historical Jesus examines the pericope in discussing the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus.101 In outlining the secondary nature of the exact narrative setting, Meier discusses the complex tradition history that would have influenced the placement of a similar saying of Jesus in different contexts (Matt 11:12–13 // Luke 16:16).102 He presumes “certain points” generally accepted by most scholars regarding the authenticity of the Baptist tradition and repeatedly argues in favor of the historicity of the account.103 Meier downplays the often heard claim that most of the pericope has been developed by the early church in its polemic against the Baptist sectarians. According to Meier, the Baptist seems to be revising his previous view about the “coming one” given the shift of emphasis in the message of Jesus. “John’s question is therefore a genuine, tentative probe, allowing that he might have to revise his hopes in order to avoid giving them up entirely.”104

In Meier’s opinion, the indirect answer of Jesus and the concluding beatitude is a tacit exhortation to John to recognize in him the realization of the plan of God.105 Jesus balances his appeal to John with a high praise that extols the Baptist as more than a prophet and the greatest of those born of women with a statement that may hold a veiled contrast to Herod Antipas, who executed John.106 For Meier the main focus of the entire unit is the relationship of John to the eschatological message of Jesus.107 The thrust of the pericope shows respect for John, emphasizes a new eschatological situation, and draws a parallel between John and Jesus.

Ulrich B. Müller also addresses portions of the passage in his presentation of John the Baptist. For him, the words of Jesus about the Baptist belong to an old tradition.108 In his praise of the Baptist, Jesus shows his solidarity with him, who as an eschatological messenger breaks with the scheme of OT prophecy, but remains subordinated in regard to the new order.109 Müller grants considerable historical credibility to the words of Jesus: “Das ganze Wort ist so sehr von Jesu Verständnis von der mit der Gottesherrschaft anbrechenden eschatologischen Heilswende geprägt, dass hier keine nachösterliche Gemeindebildung vorliegt, sondern der historische Jesus selbst zu Worte kommt.”110 The words are missionary in character, but not of a later date.

According to Müller, during the life of the Baptist, or probably shortly after his death, Jesus was trying to persuade the people to accept the message of the kingdom of God.111 In the proclamation of Jesus, the admiration for the Baptist is relativized by the broaching of the kingdom of God. For Müller the introductory parable of the children originally belonged together and formed a unit with the words of Jesus about the Baptist. In this parable the similarities and differences between Jesus and the Baptist are underscored. Both are rejected by their contemporaries, but both messengers of God stand in contrast with each other: the Baptist is the ascetical preacher of conversion and Jesus the proclaimer of the message of jubilation.112 Luke portrays the Baptist as a significant prophet, but without saving efficacy.113 John is for Luke the precursor and forerunner of Jesus.114

Recently, Catherine M. Murphy has also undertaken an analysis of the passage in her investigation of the life and ministry of John the Baptist. Murphy seeks to decipher the role of John by taking into consideration the purification movements in first-century Judea and their notions of “purity and pollution.” She studies the redaction of fifteen different vignettes, four of which are part of Luke 7:18–35.115 Although in her analysis Murphy weighs the possibility that Jesus’ affirmation of John may be a process of reflection in the early church rather than Jesus’ own words, she ultimately accepts the historical reliability of the account.116 For Murphy, the episode recounts the concern of the Baptist, who has not seen the fulfillment of his messianic prophecy of judgment, regarding the healing and preaching ministry of Jesus.117 The testimony of Jesus about John means that the Baptist stands between the Law and the Prophets on the one hand, and the kingdom of God on the other. Based on the awkwardness of the statements from the point of view of the early Christian community and on the attribution of the tradition to Q, Murphy also accepts the authenticity of the parable of the children in the marketplace, which she uses to establish the ascetic lifestyle or lack thereof in the lives of the Baptist and Jesus.118

To summarize, the historical studies of John the Baptist raised new questions regarding the reliability of Luke 7:18–35. Greater awareness about the origin and diversity of the Synoptic accounts regarding the role of the Baptist results in a protracted debate about the authenticity of the story. Consequently, fewer commentators resort to harmonization in order to explain the apparent contradictions between the passage and other testimonies in the Gospels. They are also less constrained at attributing real ignorance or doubt to the Baptist, and eager to find in the prehistory of the text echoes of the controversies between John’s followers and the early Christian community. Many of these authors emphasize the difficulties that Jesus’ contemporaries faced in understanding the role of the Baptist in light of the messianic expectations of Second Temple Judaism.

Commentaries

The new perspective brought about by modern methods of exegesis in commentaries is exemplified by Paul Schanz’s interpretation of 7:18–35 in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Schanz, whose commentary represents a greater scholarly awareness of the Synoptic problem, believes that Luke has taken the language of this passage from Matthew.119 For him the episode deals with the relationship of Jesus with different classes of people, particularly the Pharisees, and serves to characterize the unresponsiveness and the opposition of the Jews.120 Neither the delegation of the Baptist nor the testimony of Jesus about John can be described as favorable recommendations, because the answer of Jesus is not clear and his speech about the Baptist is in response to Jews’ rejection. John, along with the rest of the Jews, expected another movement and other messianic signs, because they anticipated a different manifestation of the kingdom.

According to Schanz, John is the forerunner and stands as such over all the prophets. However, as a forerunner the Baptist also stands behind the members of the kingdom. Schanz regards 7:29–30 either as a Lukan addition or an insertion based on Matthew 21:31–32, because the speech overrides the preceding address of Jesus that resumes in v. 31.121 The people and toll collectors who recognized their sins and obtain the mercy of God gave honor to the justice of God by recognizing the baptismal requirement as a condition for entry into the messianic kingdom.122 Despite the opposition, John and Jesus are justified by all the children of wisdom, i.e., those who have recognized and acknowledged the wisdom of God.123 Schanz proposes that by substituting Matthew’s phrase “the works” (11:19) by “all her children” (7:35) Luke has gone beyond the earlier evangelist to stress the inclusion of all the faithful disciples in the kingdom of God in opposition to the Pharisees whose admittance is not contemplated.

With an acknowledgement of the notorious difficulty that the passage has posed since antiquity, Marie Joseph Lagrange argues against what he considers the most radical opinion of his time, i.e., that John is questioning here for the first time whether Jesus might be the Messiah.124 According to Lagrange, such a claim would be contrary to the thought of the evangelist, who had previously professed the greatness of Jesus. Even the dialogue between the disciples of John and Jesus suggests that the Baptist must have had previously some sort of messianic expectation of Jesus. For Lagrange, the doubt of John dealt rather with what type of Messiah he had hoped for.125 The question of John denotes that he was impatient with Jesus’ messianism, and the episode reflects the historical difficulty that was entailed for the Baptist to understand the mission of Jesus: “Nous avons ici une leçon sur la difficulté—toujours actuelle—de comprendre l’œuvre de Jésus.”126

Although for Lagrange it is possible that Jesus’ praise of John could have been delivered in different historical circumstances, he accepts the integrity of the discourse because nothing here indicates a change of situation. The point of the speech is not so much to praise John as to correct the errors concerning his role. Despite his greatness, the role of the Baptist is subordinated to the role of Jesus. The ancient order is inferior to the new, and John is less than the members of the kingdom. His exclusion from the kingdom is not a matter of sanctity but of historical circumstance, and Jesus does not reproach him for this.127 In commenting on the parable of the children in the marketplace, Langrange discusses the possibility of interpreting it either as an allegory or a simple comparison. In either case the parable results in an indictment against the Pharisees and the scholars of the Law. They have refused the baptism of John and have followed their own ideas. But the wisdom of God disposed that his baptism would prepare for the kingdom inaugurated by Jesus and that those who have been docile to the plan would be the true children of wisdom.128

In his commentary on Luke, Alfred Plummer regards the question posed by John’s delegation as a sign of impatience.129 For Plummer the Baptist was probably disappointed by the lack of progress shown by Jesus or by his failure to act more decisively against Herod and Herodias. Jesus’ ministry had become for the Baptist a cause of stumbling. Through his mighty works and reply, Jesus rebukes as well as encourages the Baptist to overcome this temptation.130 Plummer considers Jesus’ comments about the Baptist as a “panegyric” similar to a “funeral oration.” But despite the high praise, Jesus subordinates the Baptist to the members of the kingdom of God. Plummer regards 7:29–30 not as a parenthetical remark of the evangelist but as a statement of Jesus that contrasts the different ways in which the people and the hierarchy received the preaching of the Baptist.131 He attributes the complaints of the children in the marketplace at the end of the pericope to the Jews, who on the one hand wish the Baptist to ease his severity and on the other want Jesus to be more sober.132 Despite the rejection of the Jews, a faithful minority has welcomed the wisdom of God in the message of the Baptist and Jesus.

Although for Alfred Loisy the Baptist’s question in Luke 7:19 could reflect John’s original preaching, the designation “the one who is to come” is almost a sacramental formula that denotes the secondary character of the report.133 The response to the delegation of the Baptist is a redactional fiction: “Mais la notice n’en est pas moins, au point de vue rédactionnel, une interpolation, au point de vue historique une pure fiction.”134 The text reflects the struggle among the factions of the Baptist and Jesus. Each verse represents what each sectarian group claimed to have heard from its hero.135 Thus, Jesus’ speech about the Baptist is completely neutralized by an apologetic interest. In it one can find the Christian thesis regarding the inauguration of the kingdom of God by Jesus opposing the thesis of the Johannine circle concerning the eminent role of the Baptist.136 Likewise, the verses that deal with the way in which the preaching of John was received by Pharisees and publicans (7:29–30) reflect the Christian community’s apologetic concern for justifying the role of John.137 The parable of the children in the marketplace is a retrospective apologetic look at the role of John and Jesus made by the Christian tradition against the Jews.

Heinz Schürmann’s commentary on Luke represents another example of the passage’s interpretation. Schürmann examines a diversity of proposals regarding the integrity and the composition of the pericope and makes a host of redaction-critical observations. He notes that in the acts of compassion of Jesus as well as in the proclamation of his message, the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled and the eschatological visitation of God comes to pass.138 The answer of Jesus, in which the narrator and the community become one, accomplishes a missionary task by affirming all those who recognized the Baptist as a messenger of God.139 In connection with Luke 3:16, the question serves to clarify whether the Baptist’s eager expectation is now fulfilled. For Schürmann the passage witnesses to a conflict that originates from the supernatural-eschatological picture of a savior and judge vis-à-vis the historic appearance of Jesus.140 The redaction of Luke clarifies the messianic and eschatological character of the wonders of Jesus. The paradox of the historical/eschatological Messiah, created by the proclamation/expectation of the Baptist, is highlighted by the possibility of the “scandal” in the final warning. This warning manifests the difficulty of the question.141

According to Schürmann the narrative is missionary: it tries to promote the significance of the ministry and preaching of Jesus as well as his eschatological message of jubilation.142 The answer is a kind of “propaganda” evidently directed at the circle of the Baptist’s followers, who had not yet accepted the message of Jesus. Schürmann speculates about the historical circumstances that underlay the pericope.143 He views the second part of Jesus’ testimony about the Baptist (7:28) as a later addition, formulated by the post-Easter community, aimed at discouraging the misinterpretation that believers should remain simply as disciples of John—salvation is only available through Jesus.144 Schürmann regards 7:29–30 as a Lagebericht about the success and failure of God over Israel. The verses support the following parable by suggesting that the official representatives of the Jews, i.e., the Pharisees and scholars of the Law, are the ones whom Jesus reprimands. Meanwhile, the people of Israel, including toll collectors and sinners, are given the good judgment to recognize in the works of the Baptist and Jesus the wisdom of God.145 In the parable of the children in the marketplace, the “people of this generation” are indicted for not heeding the call to conversion of the Baptist nor the message of jubilation of Jesus.146 They are the unhappy children of the parable. Schürmann proposes for this parable a post-Easter scenario in which Israel has collapsed and its recovery is hopeless; there is only hope for the “children of wisdom.”147

I. Howard Marshall dedicates a substantial portion of his remarks on the passage in his commentary on Luke to questioning whether particular verses of the passage should be regarded as interpolations or authentic.148 Marshall acknowledges that Luke, like Matthew, relied on a common source (Q), which Luke has expanded. He finds no serious reasons to question the historicity of the account. For Marshall, John has doubts about whether Jesus is the expected “coming one” because the final judgment is absent from Jesus’ ministry. In response, Jesus replies with a combination of OT allusions that depict him as the eschatological prophet who ushers in a new era of salvation. “The saying is thus an invitation to John to consider the scriptural significance of Jesus’ ministry, and hence to attain to a deeper, and lasting, faith in him.”149 Correspondingly, Jesus praises John as the “greatest among those born of women” only to restrict his importance in relation to the kingdom and in doing so subordinate the Baptist to him.150 The parable of the children in the marketplace is a verdict upon those who have not responded to the ministries of both John and Jesus, who nonetheless are vindicated by those who are wise, i.e., the children of wisdom.151

In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that the pericope delineates the relationship between John and Jesus in relation to God’s plan of salvation as well as the reaction of the disciples of John and their contemporaries to Jesus.152 Fitzmyer discusses the modifications, omissions, and transpositions of the Lukan redaction that at times makes him more faithful than Matthew and at other times less so to the Q source. For Fitzmyer the question of the Baptist and the answer of Jesus reflect a historical statement recalled within the context of a later controversy between the disciples of John and Jesus.153 According to Fitzmyer, the Baptist’s view of Jesus as Elijah redivivus is reversed by Jesus, who casts John in that role as someone greater than a prophet.154 For him, the testimony of Jesus about the Baptist serves to support the Lukan portrayal of John as the precursor of the Lord.

The parable of the children in the marketplace, which Fitzmyer derives from Jesus’ own ministry, represents the Baptist, Jesus, and their followers, who have called their Palestinian contemporaries to join them only to be rejected.155 Wisdom is personified, and John and Jesus are the children of that wisdom whose divine message is vindicated by all the people and toll collectors.

For John Nolland the historicity of the account is beyond doubt, even though he is aware of the redactional work of Luke, the diversity of its elements, and the secondary setting of some of its parts.156 According to Nolland, Jesus’ answer has an eschatological orientation but is not as cataclysmic as John may have had expected. He notes that Jesus responds to the question of the Baptist affirmatively, but with an emphasis on the graciousness of God rather than on his vengeance.157 The final beatitude in Jesus’ reply is a challenge that presumes a positive answer from the Baptist even when there is a potential for stumbling.

In Jesus’ testimony about John, the Baptist is presented with unprecedented importance and unsurpassed greatness. Yet, the arrival of the kingdom, which he has heralded, has overshadowed his status.158 Nolland finds that Jesus both exalts the Baptist as the supreme figure of human history and sets limits on his greatness with respect to the little ones of the kingdom, a view that agrees with Jesus’ preference for the lowly and the poor members of society.159 In the parable of the children in the marketplace, Jesus presents John and himself as signs of the coming kingdom of God and criticizes the lack of comprehension of their contemporaries. He also proclaims the final vindication of God in those who are open to his wisdom.160

Another author who in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke looks at the passage is François Bovon. He notes that Luke has arranged his sources (Mark, Q, and his special material) to alternate between words (6:20–49; 7:18–35; 8:4–18) and deeds (7:1–17; 36–50).161 Regarding the history of transmission of the pericope, Bovon highlights the secondary character of many of its parts: 7:23, an early Christian prophetic saying; 7:27, a later effort to clarify the cryptic answer of Jesus; 7:28, evidence of a cultic activity of an early Christian prophet; 7:29–30, an editorial introduction; 7:33–34, an early interpretation of a parable (7:31–32); and 7:35, an independently circulating saying. He mentions that the passage has an interest in clarifying the role of the Baptist but not necessarily a polemical intent. Historically, John searched for a precise knowledge of the eschatological salvation (cf. 1 Pet 1:10–11) and Jesus answers with an implicit “yes” that actualizes the prophecy-fulfillment scheme of Isaiah.162 But the question of the Baptist also reflects the uncertainty of the followers of John toward the emerging Christian movement. The absence of the Baptist’s reaction, which has generated so much discussion, means for Bovon that the disciples of John remained distant from the emerging movement and were not able to rise above their reservations.

For Bovon, Jesus’ testimony about John emphasizes the relationship of the crowd to him.163 The status of John as the forerunner is restricted by being at the threshold of the reign of God. With a redactional summary (7:29–30), Luke prepares a final prophetic accusation against the “people of this generation” for having missed a historical moment.164 They have rejected the benevolence of God, which, however, has been recognized by a contrite remnant of Israel among whom the Baptist and Jesus are included as children of wisdom.

Joel B. Green’s commentary on Luke is one of the commentaries that look at the entire Gospel from a narrative-critical perspective.165 For Green the pericope revolves around the ministry of Jesus, his identity, and the reaction he generates. It also recapitulates and interprets how Jesus is God’s agent of salvation.166 Green indicates that John, whose character had been cultivated in previous parts of Gospel, is brought to the fore once again to emphasize his role in the salvific plan of God. Green underscores the importance of John’s question, which deals with the “fault line between his eschatological expectation and the realities of Jesus’ performance,” in relation to the host of negative reactions that Jesus has received up to this point in the narrative.167 Jesus’ response is a redefinition and confirmation of his messianic role.168 Green points out that the concluding beatitude in which Jesus warns about the possibility of scandal echoes other reactions to his ministry.169

In Green’s evaluation the testimony of Jesus about the Baptist is consonant with Luke’s previous presentation of John in 3:1–9.170 Never-theless, Jesus’ remarks go beyond that passage to underscore how John is the agent of God who prepares his way not only by proclaiming his message but also by showing a positive response to the good news. Jesus’ homage of John along with the language of the kingdom is an exhortation to the people to put away conventional expectations regarding the plan of God and adopt the perspective advanced by Jesus. With the positive assessment of John in 7:29–30, Luke provides “firm canons” to guide the reader in determining the profile of those who reject and accept the plan of God.171 The response of the people to this plan of God is further illustrated by the parable of the children in the marketplace, in which those who are aligned with the world fail to recognize this plan while the children of wisdom recognize in John and Jesus the manifestation of God’s divine purpose.172

Hans Klein’s commentary on the Gospel of Luke provides a more recent example of the passage’s interpretation. For Klein the Sitz im Leben of the entire pericope is the defense of Christianity against the disciples of the Baptist.173 Within Jewish Christian circles, this results in the handing down of a tradition that places the words of Jesus within a new framework.174 Klein assumes that the section has been taken from Q and highlights the Lukan redactional tendencies as well as the possible layers of Luke’s editorial work. For Klein the passage deals with the relationship between Jesus and the Baptist and the relationship of both with Israel.

To recapitulate, commentaries address many of the issues that studies about John the Baptist discuss but within the broader interpretative context of the Lukan work. Claims that the episode reflects missionary and/or apologetic concerns amid the struggles between the factions of the Baptist and Jesus vie with affirmations about the reliability of passage’s historical reminiscences. Some of these authors emphasize how Luke’s editorial work seeks to clarify the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus as well as John’s soteriological role to the kingdom of God. While some underscore the modification of the sources and the secondary setting of the passage that sought to restrict the Baptist’s role to that of the precursor of Jesus, others highlight the Baptist’s historical struggle to reconcile his messianic expectations with the manifestation of Jesus’ messianic signs.

Specialized Studies

Since the beginning of modern biblical exegesis a number of studies dealing with a variety of NT topics have presented their own interpretations of Luke 7:18–35. One example of such interpretations is the pericope’s assessment by Julius Wellhausen in his introduction to the Synoptic Gospels.175 To support his claim that Mark was the primary source for the teachings of Jesus and that Q represented a secondary version, Wellhausen turns to the passage that deals with John the Baptist. For Wellhausen the pericope suggests that the Baptist was not a disciple of Jesus. The Baptist remains a hybrid between the old and the new era, while Jesus holds a superior religious view. Jesus is the present Messiah, who already establishes the reign of God on earth, and the future belongs to him.

According to Wellhausen, Matthew and Luke are in substantial agreement regarding the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus. In their final analysis Matthew and Luke have transformed into a close relationship what in Mark was only a weak analogy that occurred at the conclusion of the eschatological speech (Mark 1:7–8). Jesus identifies himself as the “Son of Man” in a messianic sense and becomes the “Lord.” For Wellhausen, these changes evidence Luke’s Christianization of the original sources. In comparison to Mark, this speech represents a more coherent composition of Jesus addressed to his disciples and aimed at the church for which Jesus was already the present Messiah.176

Ernst Percy is another author who focuses on the passage in his study about the mission and message of Jesus. For him, Jesus’ reply to the delegates from John seems far better understood from Jesus’ own historical situation than from that of the early community.177 Percy discusses whether the reports about the mighty deeds of Jesus could have been historically based on the evidence of Mark 6:14–16.178 He also ponders how John could have come to the conclusion that Jesus was the “expected fiery-judge-Messiah.” However, the tone of the final beatitude as well as the oblique manner in which Jesus’ answer is delivered convinces Percy that this answer is original. The question of the Baptist itself may have originated not with John but with his disciples. Percy interprets Jesus’ response to John as proof that the prophesied time of fulfillment has arrived.179 The mighty deeds to which Jesus alludes announce the kingdom of God, because although they do not speak explicitly about the kingdom, the mighty deeds cannot be differentiated from it.180

Rudolph Schnackenburg examines the passage in his investigation of the meaning of the kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus.181 Schnackenburg cites the passage to support his claim that Jesus’ message of salvation centered on the divine mercy of God and that this message, even to the amazement of his contemporaries, included the outcast members of society (7:34). For Schnackenburg the wonders of Jesus (7:21–22) also show that a new era of salvation—the fulfillment of the Deutero-Isaian prophecies—is already present and operative, although not fully realized. The passage plays a fundamental role in Jesus’ messianic claim because in the close relationship of his preaching and wonders the coming of the reign of God was manifested.182

In his “History of the Synoptic Tradition,” Rudolph Bultmann refers to Luke 7:18–35 as an apothegm (7:18–23) to which sayings about the Baptist have been added.183 He considers the question of the Baptist as a “community product” that “belongs to those passages in which the Baptist is called as a witness to the Messiahship of Jesus.”184 The composition of the passage took place amid the arguments between the disciples of Jesus and those of John, who denied the messianic character of the mighty works.185 The difference between the Lukan and Matthean forms of this apothegm must be attributed to Luke’s habit of expanding traditional material that does not appropriately fits in his redactional context.186

The episode about the delegation of the Baptist to Jesus is the first “parable” that Joachim Jeremias deals with in his work on the parables of Jesus, which also treats the parable of the children in the marketplace.187 Jeremias places the former into the category of parables that proclaim “now is the day of salvation,” while the latter is treated as a parable that announces “the imminence of catastrophe.” He does not discuss the historical circumstances surrounding either of them, because in outlining his ten “principles of transformation” he presumes that many of the parables have been modified from their original form and setting by the experience of the primitive church.188 Jeremias seems, however, to admit the authenticity of both accounts, although he avoids discussing its editorial trajectories.189 The parable of the delegation of the Baptist is for Jeremias a reply of Jesus in the form of a free quotation from Isaiah in which he announces the salvation of God with the proclamation of the arrival of a new age. Meanwhile, the parable of the children in the marketplace is an announcement of judgment, a warning against those who failed to heed the call to repentance and rejected the proclamation of the gospel.

Werner Georg Kümmel discusses part of the pericope to illustrate the contemporary difficulties affecting the methodology of research for the historical Jesus.190 Kümmel surveys the contemporary development of critical biblical scholarship and the growing skepticism that led to the assertion that nothing can be known about the personality and life of Jesus. This is formulated in the expression “vita Christi scribi nequit.”191 Kümmel discusses the outcome of the research that led to a wider awareness of the relative historical value of the Gospel and a greater realization of the influence that the post-resurrection confessional statements of the primitive community had on the traditions. He points out the methodological flaws and erred assumptions upon which many historical-critical investigations formulated their conclusions. Kümmel advocates the possibility of extracting certain facts from the kerygma and faith reflected in the Gospels, and outlines a series of methodological criteria that should guide the use of the sources in the search for the historical Jesus.192

Kümmel rehearses the arguments advocated by many researchers, especially those of Dibelius and Anton Vögtle,193 concerning the secondary character of Luke 7:18–23, summarized in the following objections: (1) given his eschatological messianic expectation, the Baptist could not have formulated the question to Jesus; (2) the involvement of the Baptist’s disciples shows that this is not a conversation between Jesus and John; (3) the lack of response from the Baptist shows that the entire report has been formulated for the sake of the final warning.194 Following his own principles and criteria, Kümmel evaluates whether the redaction of the report in Luke 7:18–23 can be consulted for the historical reconstruction of the earthly Jesus. He concludes that the second and third objections can be dismissed if one approaches the passage with “critical sympathy,” because in light of other NT texts what is reported in the passage is entirely possible and natural. Regarding the first objection, Kümmel notes that it would not have been unusual or impossible for the Baptist to have used the expression about the “coming one,” since it was common among the Jews and similar to other modes of expression of the Baptist himself (cf. Matt 3:11).

In Kümmel’s opinion, it is difficult to affirm with certainty that the Baptist did not waver in his end-of-time expectation given the limited information that we have about the relationship between John and Jesus. Kümmel underscores that the question of the Baptist (7:19) bears Semitic (Aramaic) characteristics. The origin of the answer in the primitive community cannot rely on the claim that it is based on an Isaian text and therefore not authentic because the passage bears the characteristics of a freely redacted Semitic statement.195 On the other hand, Jesus’ answer agrees with a similar tradition in Luke 10:23–24 and makes the challenge of its authenticity problematic. Moreover, the proclamation of the good news to the poor fits with Jesus’ announcements to the poor elsewhere (Luke 6:20; 10:21). Therefore, the final warning of the pericope is completely appropriate because the friendly attitude of Jesus toward groups despised by the Jewish people (e.g., toll collectors and sinners) would have ignited opposition against him.

Another author who approaches the passage in his study of the narrative unity of Luke-Acts is Robert C. Tannehill. He focuses on specific roles in the story and, by detecting many of the complex internal connections, seeks to highlight their function within the broader context of the narrative.196 Tannehill notes that the statements of Jesus about the Baptist in 7:26–27 depict him as a prophet who prepares the way of the Lord.197 This portrayal has been foreshadowed in the words of Zechariah (1:76–77), which are a forecast of John’s role in Luke. Tannehill points out the rhythmic form of Jesus’ response to the question of the Baptist and discusses the purpose of its Isaian allusion, which signals that the salvation promised in those texts has arrived.198 He notes the connection of the passage to previous parts of the narrative related to the Baptist (e.g., 3:16) and points out that the response of Jesus helps to integrate his healing ministry with his messianic role.199 Tannehill emphasizes that a shift in the passage from joyous announcement to a potential rejection fits a pattern that can also be observed in the scene in Nazareth. “Jesus offended the people of Nazareth, and it remains true that he can only be accepted as the coming one by those who can face and accept his offensiveness.”200 The parable of the children in the marketplace is a commentary of Jesus on the accusations leveled against him for eating with toll collectors and sinners (5:29–32).201 Tannehill notes that some of the marginal groups to whom Jesus ministers (7:22) also appear as fictional characters in some other parables (e.g., 14:21), a feature that helps to create thematic unity among separate scenes.202

John A. Darr is another commentator who examines the passage in his study of characterizations in Luke. Darr deals with character and characterization as they unfold in the author’s rhetorical presentation as well as in the audience’s interpretation of the narrative.203 Through the characterization lens, Darr considers John’s inquiry in 7:19 as the “correct question,” since his ignorance is in accord with what thus far has happened in the narrative. The gaps that the audience experiences regarding the reaction of John to Jesus’ statement are answered by the narrator, who portrays John as the paradigm of the “right” kind of Jew, open-minded and prepared to embrace the plan of God. The Baptist and his disciples and the toll collectors and sinners are characterized as those who have responded appropriately to that plan, while the Pharisees and scholars of the Law have not.204

In his investigation of the role of the Baptist in the theology and ethic of Luke, Peter Böhlemann also comments on the passage. Focusing on the Luke-Acts texts that allude to the relationship of the Baptist and Jesus as well as their respective followers, Böhlemann seeks to prove that the whole of the Lukan work is influenced by his dispute with groups sympathetic to the Baptist. According to Böhlemann, this argument shapes the theology and ethic of Luke.205 Hence, he argues that the placement of 7:18–35 after the resuscitation of the son of the widow from Naim shows that Luke uses the mighty works of Jesus as proof of his power and superiority over the Baptist.206 Emphasizing a more theological perspective than a historical one, Böhlemann highlights the motifs found in the passage. For instance, he notes that the references to the “greater” and “smaller” in 7:28 as well as to the children of wisdom in 7:35 are part of larger theological theme that Luke develops in his polemic with the followers of the Baptist.207

Another study that deals with the passage in its analysis of characterizations of people and/or groups of people in Luke-Acts is the work of S. John Roth. For Roth the point of departure is that there are in Luke 4:18 and 7:22 two programmatic statements that allow the readers to evaluate other texts related to the characters mentioned in these passages.208 According to Roth, the people mentioned therein function as types that have to be interpreted within the context of the Lukan narrative and the LXX. Analyzing the passage under that perspective, Roth highlights the rhetorical features of the passage and points out how it makes an issue of the downtrodden and outcasts in their relationship to Jesus and John.209 Roth argues that the passage clarifies the narrative logic of the Gospel. “The scene with John’s disciples (7:18–23) recaps Jesus’ ministry to this point and connects it to Jesus’ reading in the synagogue.”210 The characterization of Jesus, John, the Pharisees, the scholars of the Law, the toll collectors, and the people occur around two subplots: (1) the doubt of John about Jesus; and (2) the antagonism by members of “this generation” against John and Jesus. Luke tries to reshape the audience’s understanding of the relationship of the Messiah to sinners using a response to the inquiry of the Baptist that has great persuasive value to convince the audience that Jesus is God’s unique eschatological agent of salvation.

Christoph Gregor Müller also analyzes the text in his work about the characterization of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Luke. Taking his cue from the stylistic features of Greek literature, Müller argues that Luke constructs an extended implicit comparison (synkrisis) between Jesus and the Baptist.211 He notes that the embassy of the Baptist renews the narrative about John and Jesus (see Luke 1:39–56).212 For Müller the passage that portrays John “as more than a prophet” connects the forerunner motif with the speech about his paramount importance.213 Müller uses the passage to corroborate what has been said earlier in the narrative about the ascetic dressing and eating habits of the Baptist.214 Based on these characteristics of the Baptist, Müller draws a parallel between John and Jesus, which he extends to their prophetic role.215 In 7:29–30, Müller highlights the theme of the rejection of the Baptist’s message by which he becomes a prototype of Jesus.216 The parable of the playing children introduces into the narrative the wisdom theology and heightens the parallel between the Baptist and Jesus by suggesting that they are both “the children of wisdom” and the messengers of that wisdom for those who accept and reject it.217 According to Müller, this passage plays an important role in the clarification of the identity of Jesus and the Baptist and their characterization as prophets in comparison with other prophetic figures such as Solomon and Jonah.218

A final author who examines the passage in his literary study of Luke is Patrick E. Spencer. He analyzes the four Galilean ministry speeches of Jesus in Luke (4:14–30; 6:17–49; 7:24–35; 8:4–18) and argues that within the context of Jesus’ initial ministry these four speeches establish the foundation upon which readers will understand the meaning of the ensuing narrative.219 As part of his study, Spencer analyzes the message in light of rhetorical categories.220 He posits that the argument aims at persuading the implied and narrative audiences to evaluate the ethos of the Baptist and Jesus in a positive light.221 The rhetoric places Jesus and his disciples above the Baptist and his followers. Spencer points out that through intertextual allusions the implied author compares Jesus and John with Elisha and Elijah to show how they embody the divine will in contradistinction to the “members of this generation.”222 For Spencer, this speech focuses on the characterization of the Baptist and Jesus and, by extension, on those groups of people who interact with them, namely, Pharisees, scholars of the Law, “all the people,” and toll collectors. In explaining the role of these characters Spencer states: “As the narrative progresses, characters and character groups whose actions embrace those of Jesus and John the Baptist are viewed in a positive light by the implied reader, while those whose thoughts and actions coincide with those of the Pharisees and scholars of the Law are associated in a negative light.”223

In sum, the historical reliability of the pericope remains a matter of discussion among specialized studies. Some of these authors presumed the early Christian community’s modification of the Baptist’s traditional material in order to present him as witness to the messiaship of Jesus. Other authors uphold the fundamental historicity of the account and interpret it as testifying to Jesus’ messianic manifestation. Some of these studies also highlight the literary connection and function of the passage in other parts of the narrative related to the Baptist and Jesus. They note the character role of the Baptist, the thematic unity that such characterizations create among scenes, and the literary parallel drawn between John and Jesus.

Conclusion

The preceding analysis provides a summary of some of the most influential interpretations of Luke 7:18–35 over the centuries. To conclude my overview, a number of summary observations are pertinent. First, the Forschungsbericht shows that from a very early period the first part of the passage, i.e., 7:18–23, has attracted the greatest attention. The reason for this persistent interest may be attributed to the fact that since the beginning Christian readers have been puzzled by the apparent contradiction between this passage and other texts in the Gospels (e.g., John 1:36). This attention has often resulted in the interpretative fragmentation of a block of material that appears to have been conceived as a cohesive unit by the tradition. Consequently, important parts of the text are routinely left out by interpreters who pick and choose for their respective studies the parts of the passage that most fittingly support their particular argument. Such interpretations tend to obscure the role that the entire unit may have been designed to play within the wider literary context of the Gospel.

Second, this overview also shows that while writers in early Chris-tian and medieval periods favored the interpretation of the passage along paraenetic lines, historical considerations have overwhelmingly dominated contemporary analyses. Recent interpretations have focused on the plausibility of the account, its underlying Sitz im Leben, the redactional development of the pericope, and its social background. Many of these studies discuss the use of sources that may have been available to the author, the integrity of the unit, and whether the passage contains historically reliable information. Because the unit is one of the longest references to the Baptist in the Gospels, it has been a favorite for many contemporary historical reconstructions of the life and ministry of John. These historical considerations have generated the widespread opinion (with many nuances) that the text is influenced by a polemic between the Baptist and Christian factions. Such a proposal has directly influenced the question about the authenticity of the passage. However, the discussions about whether the pericope and/or some of its parts should be traced back to the historical Jesus or to early sectarian communities have not yielded a scholarly consensus.

Third, given the preponderance of historical studies in the analysis of the pericope, the passage has only recently been subjected to serious literary interpretation. The few studies that have undertaken such interpretations have done so with an emphasis on the characterization of John the Baptist and other personages in the passage.

Fourth, it is evident that the conclusions often drawn from the analysis of the pericope have not sufficiently taken into consideration the distinctions between the Matthean and the Lukan versions. Many remarks on the pericope show that commentators have frequently conflated both passages without paying adequate attention to the differences between the two. Consequently, the way in which each evangelist has used the traditional material has not always been properly accounted for. This has prevented some interpreters from acknowledging the distinctive nuances of each Gospel passage.

Although many commentators have interpreted Luke 7:18–35, none has yet undertaken a thorough analysis from a narrative-critical perspective within the larger literary context of Luke-Acts. While the similarities between the Matthean and Lukan versions are more or less clear, some peculiarities within the Lukan Gospel suggest that a narrative-critical analysis will shed new light into some of the disputed issues of the pericope. Three unique elements encourage the study of literary aspects such as setting, character, and plot in the Lukan version: (1) the purpose statement of the author expressed in the prologue; (2) the inclusion of the infancy narratives with its emphasis on the Baptist; and (3) the unity of Luke-Acts as a two-volume work. In what follows I will first examine the origin of the pericope and the differences between the Matthean and Lukan versions before undertaking a thorough narrative-critical analysis of the passage within the context of Luke-Acts.

1. Translation mine.

2. Origen, Luke, 43.

3. Ibid., 43, 46.

4. Ibid., 113.

5. Like other patristic writers, Ambrose presumes the historicity and integrity of the passage. He occasionally interprets the pericope along allegoric lines. For instance, Ambrose (Lucam, 166, 168) views the two disciples of the Baptist as representatives of the Jews and the Gentiles who came to understand the OT through Christ and are witnesses to his contemporaries of the power of Christ. He also interprets in allegorical terms the reference to the fine clothing in 7:25 as representing the human body by which the soul is clothed (171). Ambrose also uses particular elements of the passage as a springboard for his moral exhortation. Hence, he uses Jesus’ question about what the crowd had “come out to see” (7:24–26) to hail the Baptist’s moral stature and contrast him to the fickle morality and worldly pleasures of those represented by the reed and those dressed in fine clothes (169–71).

6. Ibid., 165. Henceforth, when no English version is available, all Latin translations are mine.

7. Ibid., 166.

8. Ambrose (ibid., 167) considers the incredulity of the Baptist as Non igitur fide, sed pietate dubitavit, (“therefore, not the faith but his loyalty hesitated”) and Pietatis adfectus, non indevotionis est lapsus (“the loyalty of his affection, not lack of religiosity is sliding”).

9. Ibid., 172.

10. Ibid., 175–76.

11. Cyril, Luke, 156–69. Cyril glosses over 7:29–30.

12. Ibid., 158.

13. Cyril (ibid., 162) says: “. . . [T]he blessed Baptist is brought forward as one who had attained the foremost place in legal righteousness and to a praise so far incomparable. And yet even thus he is ranked as less than one who is least [in the kingdom of God].”

14. Ibid., 163.

15. Ibid., 164.

16. Ibid., 165–69.

17. Bede (Lucae, 163–64) also presumes the historicity and integrity of the passage. He refers constantly to NT and OT texts, including psalms and prophets, to support his interpretation. For instance, in his comment about the wisdom of the playing children’s metaphor, Bede recalls the book of Psalms (Ex ore infantium et lactantium perfecisti laudem [“out of the mouths of babes and infants you have perfected praise”], Ps 8:3) and the prophet Joel (. . . convertimini ad me in toto corde vestro in ieiunio et in fletu et in planctu et scindite corda vestra et non vestimenta vestra [“return to me with your whole heart, with fasting, and weeping, and mourning and rend your hearts, not your garments”], Joel 2:12–13).

18. Here, Bede (ibid., 159–60) recalls the Gospel of John 3:26: Rabbi qui erat tecum trans Iordanen cui tu testimonium perhibuisti ecce hic baptizat, et omnes veniunt ad eum (“Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing and everyone is coming to him”).

19. Bede (ibid., 161) interprets the reed shaken by the wind symbolically as the weak carnalis animus (“carnal intellect”), which he contrasts to the moral uprightness of the Baptist.

20. Ibid., 164.

21. Bonaventure makes a systematic theological exegesis of the passage, dividing and subdividing the different sections of the pericope and explaining the meaning of each particular statement. He makes frequent use of Scripture to support his interpretations, quotes previous authors, and allegorizes certain elements of the passage. Bonaventure also presumes the historicity and integrity of the passage and occasionally harmonizes some of its statements with other passages of Scripture. For instance, when commenting on 7:26, where Jesus identifies the Baptist as a prophet, Bonaventure recalls John 1:21, in which the Baptist rejects such characterization. But Bonaventure solves the apparent contradiction by stating, “Neither is there some contradiction here, but rather harmony. For a prophet foretells what is future and not present, but a voice openly declares what is present” (Bonaventure, Luke, 613).

22. Ibid., 596.

23. Ibid., 596–99. In a sense, Bonaventure implies that the disciples of the Baptist have taken as a question what was really a statement about the identity of Jesus. “Or shall we wait for another? As if to say: If you are the one, there is no need for us to wait for another, lest perhaps in expecting another, we receive not Christ but the anti-Christ” (598).

24. Ibid., 606.

25. Ibid., 609–12.

26. Bonaventure also suggests another possible interpretation for the “least in the kingdom of heaven”: the blessed (= angels) (ibid., 617).

27. Ibid., 617–20.

28. Ibid., 620–25.

29. Calvin, Commentaries, 4.

30. Ibid., 4.

31. For instance, when commenting on the Baptist’s delegation of his disciples to be instructed by Jesus, Calvin (ibid., 4) says: “Besides, the pastors of the Church are here reminded of their duty. They ought not to endeavor to bind and attach disciples to themselves, but to direct them to Christ, who is the only Teacher.”

32. Ibid., 5.

33. Ibid., 6.

34. Ibid., 8.

35. Ibid., 8–9.

36. Ibid., 9.

37. Ibid., 13.

38. Ibid., 14–15.

39. Ibid., 16.

40. Dibelius, Johannes dem Täufer, 7. However, because the words of Jesus seem to lack uniformity, Dibelius wonders whether they are based on a historical memory rather than the result of editorial composition. The proof of this redactional work is that both in Matthew (11:7–19) and Luke (7:24–35) these sayings, which in the original form belong to another place and form, have been framed in a different context (ibid., 6–7). Dibelius expresses doubts about the use of the title o9 ui9o\j tou= a0nqrw/pou (7:34) because it is used to depict Jesus in his daily life rather than in its original apocalyptic meaning. Similarly the use of the phrase th=| basilei/a| tou= qeou= (7:28) brings the authenticity of the verse into question because it appears as an end or a gift rather than as a fully realized state. For Dibelius, a saying in which the citizenship of the kingdom is presupposed reads not as coming from Jesus but as coming from the church. Therefore, only 7:28a can be considered an original saying. Dibelius doubts that the followers of the Baptist would have used the statement to assert the primacy of the Baptist over Jesus if the actual restriction would have been present in the current form (13–19).

41. Ibid., 36–37.

42. Ibid., 38.

43. Ibid., 15.

44. Ibid., 17.

45. Ibid., 19–20.

46. Goguel, Jean-Baptiste, 63.

47. Ibid., 64.

48. Ibid., 68–69.

49. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 11–13.

50. Ibid., 127–28; 178–79.

51. Ibid., 128; Besides Luke 7:18–23 (// Matt 11:2–6), Kraeling includes in his assessment here the reported contacts between the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1:9–11 and John 1:29, 36.

52. Ibid., 129–30.

53. Ibid., 137–40.

54. Dupont, “Jean-Baptiste,” 805–21; 943–59.

55. For Dupont (ibid., 805), the differences between Matthew and Luke are insignificant and they exist more on a literary level than in substance. Dupont is not very concerned with historical or literary remarks, some of which he considers hypercritical: “Toute notre attention peut se porter sur le sens de la question posée par Jean et celui de la réponse que Jésus lui donne” (805, see also n. 3)

56. Ibid., 806–13.

57. Ibid., 821.

58. Ibid., 945.

59. Dupont (ibid., 951) points out that the book of Isaiah has no shortage of oracles that insist on the arrival of the threatening end of time, where the wicked would suffer punishment for their sins, but Jesus only keeps the oracles of consolation, those that preach that God will take pity on his people and will send a merciful Savior.

60. Ibid., 955.

61. Ibid., 958.

62. Scobie, John the Baptist, 13–17.

63. Scobie (ibid., 17) concludes his discussion of the sources stating: “From all these considerations, it would appear that the Q source is the most reliable: it is the earliest, it contains the greatest proportion of material concerning John, it has the highest estimate of John, and it contains the clearest evidence of Semitisms.”

64. Ibid., 143–44.

65. Ibid., 144.

66. Ibid., 41, 47, 134–35, 160.

67. Ibid., 126.

68. Ibid., 157–58.

69. Wink, John the Baptist, xii.

70. Ibid., 23.

71. Ibid., 23–24.

72. Ibid., 25.

73. Ibid., 54.

74. Ibid., 82–86.

75. Sabugal, Juan el Bautista, 114, 193–94.

76. Ibid., 9–27; 141–46.

77. Ibid., 141–202, esp. 159, 191, 194. “Resumiendo los precedentes análisis, podemos decir: El relato de Q sobre la embajada mesiánica del Bautista no es composición cristiana. Ningún indicio literario objetivo favorece la interpretación contraria. Sí refleja, por el contrario, varios semitismos, algunos de ellos característicos del lenguaje de Jesús” (159).

78. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 55–80.

79. Ibid., 55. Ernst underscores the difficulty of the analysis, saying: “Letzte Sicherheit ist wegen der nicht eindeutig erkennbaren Redaktionstendenzen kaum zu erreichen” (56). His analysis is heavily indebted to Paul Hoffmann’s Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle.

80. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 58.

81. For Ernst, Luke has exonerated the Baptist from his insecurity through the artistic construction of the pericope (ibid., 317).

82. Ibid., 59.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid., 62.

85. Ibid., 63.

86. Ibid., 73. Ernst discusses some of the distinctions that have been made since Dibelius and Bultmann between the original parable and the attached meaning including: (1) the allegorical and artificial interpretation of the children’s cries; (2) the inversion of dance and grief; (3) the lack of correlation of images and facts; (4) the final remark on the sophia; and (5) the fact that an explanation had to be attached to the parable (ibid., 73–74 nn. 153, 154). Ernst observes that other scholars warn about a rigid interpretation and distinction between parable and meaning, given the metaphorical character of the passage (74 n. 156).

87. Ibid., 79.

88. After discussing the adaptation process that the traditions about the Baptist experienced, Webb (John the Baptizer, 88) points out: “These general observations substantiate as a working premise that the synoptic accounts are generally reliable sources for information concerning John the Baptist. They should therefore be taken seriously, though at the same time they need to be taken critically, in recognition of their limitations mentioned above.” See also ibid., 278–82.

89. Ibid., 49, 65–66.

90. The term “Elijah redivivus” characterizes the Jewish expectation that a reincarnated Elijah would return to assume an eschatological role (ibid., 50 n. 11; 70 n. 66).

91. Ibid., 50, 65–66.

92. Kazmierski, John the Baptist, 42–66.

93. Ibid., 51–52, 58, 88.

94. Ibid., 49.

95. Taylor, Immerser, 5–8.

96. Ibid., 32–43; 102.

97. Ibid., 201–3; 211.

98. Ibid., 288–94.

99. Ibid., 303.

100. Ibid., 304–5.

101. Meier, Marginal Jew, 130–81.

102. Ibid., 130–31.

103. Ibid., 131, 135, 139, 143–44. “While recognizing secondary and tertiary additions on the levels of both Q and the evangelists, we have seen that the substance of these three pieces of traditions fulfills various criteria of authenticity, and so the substance has a good claim to come from the historical Jesus” (154).

104. Ibid., 133.

105. Ibid., 135.

106. Ibid., 154–55; 205 n. 116.

107. Ibid., 154.

108. Müller, Johannes der Täufer, 67.

109. Ibid., 68–69.

110. Ibid., 68. He recognizes, however, the last verse in the parable of the children in the marketplace (v. 35) as an addition to a source saying that exceeds the defined framework (70).

111. Ibid., 67–69.

112. Ibid., 71.

113. Ibid., 136.

114. Ibid., 156.

115. In Murphy’s book (John the Baptist, 65–69), vignettes 7, 8, 9, and 15 deal with Luke 7:18–35.

116. Ibid., 65–69.

117. Ibid., 66.

118. Ibid., 130, 142.

119 According to Schanz (Lucas, 13 n. 3), who subscribes to the Griesbach hypothesis, Matthew shows more antagonism against the Jews in general than against specific sectors of the Jewish community (e.g., scribes and Pharisees). Regarding the style of the passage, Schanz indicates that Jesus’ speech is already an example of his easy and compelling eloquence. Moreover, questions, images, and parables interact with one another to captivate the audience.

120. Ibid., 240–45.

121. Ibid., 243.

122. Ibid., 244.

123. Ibid., 244–45.

124. Lagrange (Saint Luc, 213) mentions Harnack, Dibelius, and Loisy.

125. Ibid., 214.

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid., 221.

128. Ibid., 223–26.

129. Plummer, Luke, 202.

130. Ibid., 203.

131. Ibid., 205–6.

132. Ibid., 207.

133. Loisy, Luc, 222–28.

134. Ibid., 223. Loisy questions the claims that this text has been influenced by the Mandean literature (224).

135. Ibid., 224.

136. Ibid., 225–26.

137. Ibid., 227.

138. Schürmann, Lukas, 406.

139. Ibid., 407–8.

140. Ibid., 409.

141. Ibid., 411–12.

142. Ibid., 412–13.

143. Ibid., 414.

144. Ibid., 415.

145. Ibid., 420.

146. Ibid., 424.

147. Ibid., 428.

148. Marshall, Luke, 287–304.

149. Ibid., 292.

150. Ibid., 293.

151. Ibid., 297–304.

152. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:662, 671.

153. Ibid., 663. Besides his commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer also deals with the passage in his presentation of the Lukan portrayal of the Baptist as the precursor of Jesus; see Fitzmyer, Theologian, 86–116. Jesus’ answer to John’s question highlights the difficulties that the Baptist encountered in molding his preconceived ideas to the message of Jesus (ibid., 97–99).

154. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:664–65; 1:671–73; see also Fitzmyer, Theologian, 97–99; 109. Fitzmyer stresses that John’s portrayal as the precursor does not imply a presentation of Jesus as the Messiah.

155. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:677–79.

156. Nolland (Luke, 327) argues: “But whatever explanation is to be given for those texts, they can certainly cast no doubt upon the historicity of the present episode.” Among the literary elements that Nolland finds in the pericope are a pronouncement story (7:18–23), a summarizing editorial comment (7:29–30), a parable (7:31–32), and a wisdom saying (7:35).

157. Ibid., 331–33.

158. Ibid., 334–35.

159. Ibid., 339.

160. Ibid., 341–48.

161. Bovon, Luke, 277–81.

162. Ibid., 281–83. Bovon also notices the similarity between the present pericope and John 20:24–29: “What is true there of the resurrected Jesus is here true of the ‘messianic’ Jesus. Someone doubts; to defuse the tension in the situation Jesus decides to act” (281).

163. Ibid., 283–84.

164. Ibid., 284–88.

165. Green, Luke, 11–20. In explaining the particular focus of his approach Green states: “After all, this commentary is not focused on the identification of Luke’s sources, nor on how Luke might have transformed the traditions available to him in the process of generating his Gospel, nor on whether each episode he records approximates what actually happened. . . . Our reading of the Third Gospel is concerned above all with the ‘narrative’ side of this equation—that is, with the sequencing of events and the interpretive aim that weaves its way forward through the narrative, surfacing here and there while lurking beneath the story elsewhere” (14–15).

166. Ibid., 294.

167. Ibid., 295.

168. Ibid., 296.

169. As examples, Green (ibid., 297) cites 4:48–49; 20:18; 22–23.

170. Ibid., 298–99.

171. Ibid., 300.

172. Ibid., 303–4.

173. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 44, 282.

174. Klein considers 7:24–26.28a, which deals with the evaluation of the Baptist by Jesus, the oldest and more historical part of the section. For Klein (ibid., 280–89) some of the redactional tendencies are the repetition of the Baptist’s question in 7:20 and the comparison of the Baptist with Jesus. He considers the answer of Jesus in 7:22 and the Scripture reference in 7:27 nonhistorical. The parable in 7:32 may also be attributed to Jesus, but neither its introductory verse (7:31) nor its following interpretation (7:33–35).

175. Wellhausen, Einleitung, 83.

176. Ibid., 84.

177. Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 232.

178. Ibid., 231–33.

179. Ibid., 187–88.

180. After considering the textual data and its difficulties, Percy (ibid., 188–90) suggests that the mighty works mentioned were meant as metaphorical expressions. Moreover, he points out that the reference to the message of salvation being preached to the poor (7:22) may have been an addition by an author that shows particular interest in the poor.

181. Schnackenburg, God’s Rule, 87–89.

182. Ibid., 119–21.

183. Bultmann, History, 23.

184. Ibid.

185. Ibid., 24.

186. Ibid., 336.

187. Jeremias, Parables, 115–16; 160–62. Jeremias uses the term “parable” in the broad sense of the Hebrew mašal or the Aramaic mathla, which include parables, similitudes, allegories, fables, fictitious persons, examples, themes, arguments, apologies, refutation, and/or jests; see ibid., 20.

188. Jeremias (ibid., 23–114) explains the ten principles of transformation of the parables in the second chapter of his book.

189. “The question whether the Baptist’s Messianic enquiry could have taken place before Peter’s confession, is of no importance in our context, since we are only concerned with Jesus’ logion” (ibid., 116 n. 6; 160 n. 37).

190. Kümmel, Jesu Antwort, 5–6.

191. The phrase, quoted by Kümmel, was formulated by Adolf von Harnack half a century earlier.

192. Some of these are: (1) the assumption that early Christianity had a fundamental interest in preserving the memory of the earthly Jesus; (2) the claim that the burden of proof for the historical value of a particular text lies with the researcher has to be rejected; (3) a “critical sympathy” toward the text that is not a priori and without compelling reasons overly skeptic; (4) paying greater attention to the underlying Hebrew and/or Aramaic language in the Greek text; and (5) whether the report about the behavior of Jesus is in line with his words and vice versa (Kümmel, Jesu Antwort, 18–24).

193. Vögtle, “Wunder und Wort,” 219–42.

194. Kümmel, Johannes den Täufer, 25–28.

195. Kümmel (ibid., 31–32) accepts the quotation of Isaiah as authentic words of Jesus.

196. Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 1–9.

197. Ibid., 23–24.

198. Tannehill (ibid., 79) also pays attention to the order in which the list of destitute people is cast: “Furthermore, the poor and blind the two groups that relate to Isa 61:1, have positions of emphasis at the beginning and the end of the rhythmic series.”

199. Ibid., 80.

200. Ibid., 80.

201. Ibid., 105–6.

202. Ibid., 108–10. This is also true for the role that 7:24–35 plays in the theme of the religious authorities’ rejection of Jesus (176–77).

203. Darr, Character Building, 16–36.

204. Ibid., 75–78; 99–101.

205. Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 2.

206. Ibid., 59.

207. Ibid., 143–59. For instance, in reference to the motif of the “greater,” after citing as examples 7:28, 9:48, and 22:26, Böhlemann concludes: “Die gennanten Stellen machen deutlich, daß Lukas sich sehr subtil mit dem Motiv der Größe des Täufers auseinanderstetzt” (145).

208. Roth, Character Types, 25–26.

209. Roth (ibid., 173–77) highlights several rhetorical devices used in the passage: the repetition of the “word-for-word” question of John, the use of the phrase su\ ei] (3:22, 4:41; 7:19), and the “freezing up” of the scene by the summary report introduced by the narrator in 7:21.

210. Ibid., 175.

211. Müller, Charakterzeichnung, 59–64.

212. Ibid., 217. Müller undertakes a brief tradition and redaction analysis and attributes essential elements of Luke 7:18–35 to Q (217–21). He also pays attention to how references within the text recall or highlight previous portions of the Gospel. For instance, Müller notes how the use of a0gge/lwn 0Iwa/nnou (7:24) forms an inclusio with a0ph/ggeilan (7:18) and how through this inclusio Luke is adjoining sections 7:18–23 and 7:24–35 (222–26).

213. Ibid., 231–43.

214. Ibid., 232–33.

215. Ibid., 238–40.

216. Ibid., 242.

217. Ibid., 243–45.

218. Ibid., 246–48.

219. Spencer, Rhetorical Texture, 4–5.

220. To explain the rhetorical arrangement of the passage, Spencer (ibid., 101–13) divides its structure into an amplified chreia (7:17–23), quaestio (7:24–26), chreia (7:27), rationale (7:28), digression (7:29–30), statement by analogy (7:31–32), statement by example (7:33–34), and conclusion (7:35). He also highlights the use of irony, ecphrasis, synkrisis, and enthymemes throughout the rhetorical argumentation.

221. Ibid., 103.

222. Ibid., 146–53.

223. Ibid., 149.