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.
