Kraeling also questions the historicity of the reported encounter between the emissaries of John and Jesus, dismissing it as an “anti-Baptist polemic.”50
Again, therefore, the historicity of the reported encounters is questionable, the importance of the stories for us being rather to highlight an ancient conviction that the meeting of the two men was not fortuitous but continuous, having a profound significance for them both, and that had John lived to witness the later events in the life of Jesus and of the early Church he would have given his personal allegiance to the new Christian faith.51
Thus, for Kraeling the story of the delegation sent by the imprisoned John to Jesus has no historical value to assess the relationship between John and Jesus. It is only a foil for the Christians’ own conviction in an effort to reconcile the tension between the Baptist’s conception of a fiery-like Messiah with the appearance of a wonder-working preacher of the kingdom.52
With regards to the rest of the pericope, Kraeling partially accepts the authenticity of the encomia of Jesus on John (7:24–30) because the historical circumstances would have scarcely allowed the early Church to have created such words.53 He considers the phrase about “the least in the kingdom of God” (7:28b) an emendation made by a later generation which did not understand the meaning of the original statement and saw it as a threat to the primacy of Jesus. The authenticity of the remaining phrase confirms Jesus’ affirmation of the true prophetic character of John, who fulfilled the eschatological role of Elijah.
Jacques Dupont is one of the first authors to isolate and comment on the first part of the pericope (7:18–23).54 Glossing over many of the contemporary critical issues, Dupont deals with the sense of the passage, which, for him, is based on an ancient and excellent tradition.55 Dupont reviews some of the most common interpretations that have been given historically to the question of John the Baptist: fictitious doubt; real ignorance (both of which he considers extreme interpretations); and—a third one with many nuances—hesitation, astonishment, and impatience.56
After examining the meaning of the phrase “the one who is to come” within the context of the Baptist’s preaching, Dupont concludes that the Baptist understood his mission as the precursor of the eschatological agent. The only possible meaning of the question is: “Es-tu celui dont j’annonce la venue, le Juge redoubtable qui condamne les impies aux supplices éternels?”57 Regarding the answer of Jesus, Dupont focuses on the mighty deeds. The wonders performed by Jesus are characteristics of a typical messianic activity and thus manifest his messianism.58 Rather than responding with a simple “yes,” which would have identified him with the “stronger one” that John awaited, Jesus makes the messengers relate the story about his benevolent activity. Jesus sends the messengers with precise terms, purposely chosen to evoke the prophetic descriptions of the messianic time in the book of Isaiah, to inform John that he was fulfilling the messianic promises.59 According to Dupont, this was an aspect to which the precursor had not probably paid enough attention. The first part of the response affirms that the messianic age has begun and the final beatitude places the person of Jesus in the center of the eschatological age. Salvation is tied to the person of Jesus.60 The potential scandal against which Jesus warns the Baptist may come not from the messianic claim of Jesus, but rather from the way in which he manifests that role.61 The challenge for John is to recognize the Messiah not as a fiery judge but as a compassionate and merciful envoy of God.
Charles H. H. Scobie’s quest for the historical John provides another example of how the pericope has been interpreted. Scobie recognizes that the traditions on the Baptist may have been preserved and adapted according to the life and activity of early Christian communities.62 However, he attempts to restore the factual reliability of the passage by arguing that the material belongs to the Q source and enjoys historical credibility.63 After acknowledging the apparent dilemma posed by the question of the Baptist in 7:19 and his previous recognition of Jesus as the “coming one” during his baptism, Scobie rejects previous attempts to solve the problem that denied the historicity of the passage.64 What caused some authors to doubt the authenticity of the account (i.e., the lack of reaction from John) becomes for Scobie its most important sign of legitimacy: “Jesus’ refusal to give a direct answer and the way he leaves John to make the leap of faith bears all the marks of authenticity.”65 The passage provides reliable information about the lifestyle of John, his habitation in the wilderness (7:24, 33), and his ascetic eating habits.66 Jesus regarded John as the greatest of the prophets, the eschatological prophet.67 But, although John is the greatest of the prophets, he belongs to the old dispensation and therefore the members of the kingdom of God are superior by their privileges.68
Another study that deals with the history of John the Baptist is the work of Walter Wink. This author sets out to “examine the manner in which each evangelist has used the traditions about John in proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.”69 According to Wink, 7:18–23 is a passage that places limitations on the esteem that should be accorded to John.70 He discusses the challenges that have been leveled against the historical plausibility of the passage. Wink views the origin of the question not in the historical Baptist but rather in the early disciples of John who, now as Christians, sought to justify their faith in Jesus as Messiah.
Without completely rejecting the possibility of a historical origin of the Baptist’s delegation, Wink contends that the report would still have been modified for apologetic purposes in dealing with the followers of the Baptist.71 For Wink, Luke seeks to clarify the relationship of John to the kingdom. In qualifying the high esteem that Jesus expresses for the Baptist, the church engages in “evangelistic maneuvering”: “Unwilling to suppress Jesus’ high regard for John, a regard which Jesus had already in his ministry defined eschatologically, the church simply hedged Jesus’ enthusiasm with qualifications which made clear their perception of the fundamental distinction between still awaiting a Coming One and accepting Jesus as the Messiah.”72 John occupies for Luke a soteriological place of honor, which can neither be compared to that of the previous prophets nor to the apostles of his time. He is the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah.73 According to Wink, the passage does not suggest that there is an ongoing polemic with the disciples of John but rather an effort to limit the role of the Baptist in order to guarantee the uniqueness of Jesus.74
One of most thorough inquiries about a portion (7:18–23) of this passage dealing with John the Baptist has been undertaken
