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; to defuse the tension in the situation Jesus decides to act” (281).
163. Ibid., 283–84.
164. Ibid., 284–88.
165. Green, Luke, 11–20. In explaining the particular focus of his approach Green states: “After all, this commentary is not focused on the identification of Luke’s sources, nor on how Luke might have transformed the traditions available to him in the process of generating his Gospel, nor on whether each episode he records approximates what actually happened. . . . Our reading of the Third Gospel is concerned above all with the ‘narrative’ side of this equation—that is, with the sequencing of events and the interpretive aim that weaves its way forward through the narrative, surfacing here and there while lurking beneath the story elsewhere” (14–15).
166. Ibid., 294.
167. Ibid., 295.
168. Ibid., 296.
169. As examples, Green (ibid., 297) cites 4:48–49; 20:18; 22–23.
170. Ibid., 298–99.
171. Ibid., 300.
172. Ibid., 303–4.
173. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 44, 282.
174. Klein considers 7:24–26.28a, which deals with the evaluation of the Baptist by Jesus, the oldest and more historical part of the section. For Klein (ibid., 280–89) some of the redactional tendencies are the repetition of the Baptist’s question in 7:20 and the comparison of the Baptist with Jesus.