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
