rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_1803c2a8-af95-529f-abf7-e8207a65bc8f">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.
