target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_174e7d97-6c87-55b5-a115-9d55eacf9017">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
