of the Matthean and Lukan versions, Sabugal analyzes the redactional work of both authors. In his opinion Luke has faithfully transmitted—although not without modifying his source through his characteristic vocabulary and style—the traditional material received from Q. Sabugal, like other authors, suggests that the historical circumstances that lie behind this source are the controversies between the sectarian disciples of John, who regarded him as the Messiah, and the early Christian community which had similar claims for Jesus.75 Sabugal reviews many of the arguments that have been leveled for and against the veracity of the account and decides in favor of its historic reliability.76
After examining the different layers of tradition (Q and the Matthean/Lukan redactions), Sabugal concludes that at the core of the story lies a specific historical event, which has been fashioned by the particular theological interest of each evangelist, and not a fiction of the primitive Christian community.77 The text records Jesus’ attempt to reaffirm the faith of the Baptist, who harbored a different expectation about the “one who is to come,” and John’s sectarian disciples regarding Jesus’ messianic dignity. Through the manifestation of eschatological signs that evoked the arrival of the kingdom of God, Jesus “halfway answers” the inquiry of the Baptist in a passage in Q that preludes the subordination of John to Jesus.
Josef Ernst is another author who begins his analysis of the traditional material about John the Baptist with a study of the pericope.78 This author underscores the secondary setting of the passage and its historical growth, which, in his opinion, is difficult to trace beyond some obvious editorial changes.79 Ernst wonders what would have guided the early community in their use of the traditions found in the sayings source and suggests that a question about the meaning of Jesus’ mighty works could have been exacerbated by the tensions between the young Christian community and those who were still following the Baptist.80 He sees the controversy (but not a strong rivalry) in the alleged “Son of Man” Christology reflected in the phrase “the one who is to come.” Ernst finds in the passage a “literary reflection” of the Q-community’s christological consolidation of Jesus, the “Son of Man,” and the Baptist’s eschatological judge.81 Ernst thinks that this happened in the early Palestinian mission when people who had adopted the call to conversion had not yet taken the last step of faith in Christ.82 The early captivity and beheading of the Baptist would have prevented a greater confrontation with Jesus but also resulted in a certain ambiguity regarding the historical relationship between Jesus and the Baptist.83
For Ernst, the meaning of 7:24–28 is that the Baptist cannot be classified in any traditional category.84 The passage portrays John as the Zeitenwende man who initiated the coming of the reign of God, which had not yet been officially proclaimed by Jesus. Ernst also highlights the ecclesiological orientation of the passage that reflects the role of the community of Jesus in the process of the proclamation of the kingdom in Israel.85
After discussing the redactional difficulties of the parable of the children in the marketplace, Ernst interprets it as referring to the increasing opposition that the community behind Q experienced in its missionary efforts.86 In his view, the competition between the disciples of the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus is transferred to the present controversy with the Judaic contemporaries: “Der Gegensatz zwischen Johannes und Jesus einerseits und ‘diesem Geschlecht’ andererseits ist also der Gegensatz zwischen ihnen und dem Volk Israel, zugleich auch der Gegensatz zwischen der Kindern, die der Weisheit Recht geben, und den launischen Kindern, also zwischen den Gemeinde und Israel.”87
Among the works that apply a social-scientific approach to the investigation of John the Baptist, Robert L. Webb’s analysis of John within the context of Second Temple Judaism occupies a prominent place. Webb accepts for the most part the historicity of passage.88 Although his research is focused on the ministry of the Baptist prior to the baptism of Jesus, Webb examines the implication of the Lukan episode for his social analysis. For Webb the question of the Baptist (7:19), which besides its explanatory notes and minor variations differs little from Q, helps to identify Jesus as the expected figured previously announced by John and the one who resolves the eschatological tension set forth by the Baptist’s proclamation.89 In the pericope, Jesus legitimizes the prophetic role of John as the greatest among all human beings and implicitly identifies him as Elijah redivivus.90 Jesus also condemns the people for rejecting his message and that of John, and forecasts the vindication of their ministries by the acknowledgment of their wisdom.91
In a short but scholarly presentation of the Baptist, Carl R. Kazmierski deals with the question of John and the testimony of Jesus. Recognizing that the tradition received from Q has been shaped by the theological interest of the evangelists and the underlying situation of their communities, Kazmierski nonetheless defends the overall historicity of the account.92 Applying a social-scientific approach that focuses on stereotyped role-playing or labeling theory, Kazmierski explains that the text reflects the historical concerns of the people to identify the Baptist and Jesus within the context of their prophetic messianic expectations.93 The passage also depicts the struggle of the early church to understand the Baptist’s role in the plan of God and his relationship with Jesus.94
Another author who examines the passage in a historical reconstruction of John the Baptist is Joan Taylor. Following the lead of many other investigations, Taylor accepts that the traditions about the Baptist in the NT are overlaid with an ongoing Christian polemic regarding Jesus’ superiority, but at the same time, she argues that the NT material is historically valuable.95 Taylor discusses the possible links of the Baptist to the Essenes, and his role as teacher and prophet as well as his relationship with the Pharisees and Jesus. Taylor appeals to 7:18–35 as a witness to John’s ascetic lifestyle and highlights his role as teacher with a group of disciples.96
Taylor cites 7:29–30 in her discussion about the relationship between John and the Pharisees to support her claim that they were not necessarily at odds despite the harsh assessment of the Pharisees in some passages.97 For Taylor, in the delegation of his disciples to Jesus, John was trying to find out whether Jesus was the expected prophet, that is, Elijah. Moreover the question indicates that John was still alive at the time Jesus began his public ministry.98 In dealing with the relationship between Jesus and the Baptist, Taylor concludes that Jesus seems to be saying that John, as the greatest man that ever lived, enables people to enter the kingdom of God but, by virtue of a new order, the members of this kingdom become greater than he.
The point does not really
