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.
