id="ulink_7c214f33-f38d-527b-889d-d5412f5de5e2">115. In Murphy’s book (John the Baptist, 65–69), vignettes 7, 8, 9, and 15 deal with Luke 7:18–35.
116. Ibid., 65–69.
117. Ibid., 66.
118. Ibid., 130, 142.
119 According to Schanz (Lucas, 13 n. 3), who subscribes to the Griesbach hypothesis, Matthew shows more antagonism against the Jews in general than against specific sectors of the Jewish community (e.g., scribes and Pharisees). Regarding the style of the passage, Schanz indicates that Jesus’ speech is already an example of his easy and compelling eloquence. Moreover, questions, images, and parables interact with one another to captivate the audience.
120. Ibid., 240–45.
121. Ibid., 243.
122. Ibid., 244.
123. Ibid., 244–45.
124. Lagrange (Saint Luc, 213) mentions Harnack, Dibelius, and Loisy.
125. Ibid., 214.
126. Ibid.
127. Ibid., 221.
128. Ibid., 223–26.
129. Plummer, Luke, 202.
130. Ibid., 203.
131. Ibid., 205–6.
132. Ibid., 207.
133. Loisy, Luc, 222–28.
134. Ibid., 223. Loisy questions the claims that this text has been influenced by the Mandean literature (224).
135. Ibid., 224.
136. Ibid., 225–26.
137. Ibid., 227.
138. Schürmann, Lukas, 406.
139. Ibid., 407–8.
140. Ibid., 409.
141. Ibid., 411–12.
142. Ibid., 412–13.
143. Ibid., 414.
144. Ibid., 415.
145. Ibid., 420.
146. Ibid., 424.
147. Ibid., 428.
148. Marshall, Luke, 287–304.
149. Ibid., 292.
150. Ibid., 293.
151. Ibid., 297–304.
152. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:662, 671.
153. Ibid., 663. Besides his commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer also deals with the passage in his presentation of the Lukan portrayal of the Baptist as the precursor of Jesus; see Fitzmyer, Theologian, 86–116. Jesus’ answer to John’s question highlights the difficulties that the Baptist encountered in molding his preconceived ideas to the message of Jesus (ibid., 97–99).
154. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:664–65; 1:671–73; see also Fitzmyer, Theologian, 97–99; 109. Fitzmyer stresses that John’s portrayal as the precursor does not imply a presentation of Jesus as the Messiah.
155. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:677–79.
156. Nolland (Luke, 327) argues: “But whatever explanation is to be given for those texts, they can certainly cast no doubt upon the historicity of the present episode.” Among the literary elements that Nolland finds in the pericope are a pronouncement story (7:18–23), a summarizing editorial comment (7:29–30), a parable (7:31–32), and a wisdom saying (7:35).
157. Ibid., 331–33.
158. Ibid., 334–35.
159. Ibid., 339.
160. Ibid., 341–48.
161. Bovon, Luke, 277–81.
162. Ibid., 281–83. Bovon also notices the similarity between the present pericope and John 20:24–29: “What is true there of the resurrected Jesus is here true of the ‘messianic’ Jesus. Someone doubts;
