175. Wellhausen, Einleitung, 83.
176. Ibid., 84.
177. Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 232.
178. Ibid., 231–33.
179. Ibid., 187–88.
180. After considering the textual data and its difficulties, Percy (ibid., 188–90) suggests that the mighty works mentioned were meant as metaphorical expressions. Moreover, he points out that the reference to the message of salvation being preached to the poor (7:22) may have been an addition by an author that shows particular interest in the poor.
181. Schnackenburg, God’s Rule, 87–89.
182. Ibid., 119–21.
183. Bultmann, History, 23.
184. Ibid.
185. Ibid., 24.
186. Ibid., 336.
187. Jeremias, Parables, 115–16; 160–62. Jeremias uses the term “parable” in the broad sense of the Hebrew mašal or the Aramaic mathla, which include parables, similitudes, allegories, fables, fictitious persons, examples, themes, arguments, apologies, refutation, and/or jests; see ibid., 20.
188. Jeremias (ibid., 23–114) explains the ten principles of transformation of the parables in the second chapter of his book.
189. “The question whether the Baptist’s Messianic enquiry could have taken place before Peter’s confession, is of no importance in our context, since we are only concerned with Jesus’ logion” (ibid., 116 n. 6; 160 n. 37).
190. Kümmel, Jesu Antwort, 5–6.
191. The phrase, quoted by Kümmel, was formulated by Adolf von Harnack half a century earlier.
192. Some of these are: (1) the assumption that early Christianity had a fundamental interest in preserving the memory of the earthly Jesus; (2) the claim that the burden of proof for the historical value of a particular text lies with the researcher has to be rejected; (3) a “critical sympathy” toward the text that is not a priori and without compelling reasons overly skeptic; (4) paying greater attention to the underlying Hebrew and/or Aramaic language in the Greek text; and (5) whether the report about the behavior of Jesus is in line with his words and vice versa (Kümmel, Jesu Antwort, 18–24).
193. Vögtle, “Wunder und Wort,” 219–42.
194. Kümmel, Johannes den Täufer, 25–28.
195. Kümmel (ibid., 31–32) accepts the quotation of Isaiah as authentic words of Jesus.
196. Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 1–9.
197. Ibid., 23–24.
198. Tannehill (ibid., 79) also pays attention to the order in which the list of destitute people is cast: “Furthermore, the poor and blind the two groups that relate to Isa 61:1, have positions of emphasis at the beginning and the end of the rhythmic series.”
199. Ibid., 80.
200. Ibid., 80.
201. Ibid., 105–6.
202. Ibid., 108–10. This is also true for the role that 7:24–35 plays in the theme of the religious authorities’ rejection of Jesus (176–77).
203. Darr, Character Building, 16–36.
204. Ibid., 75–78; 99–101.
205. Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 2.
206. Ibid., 59.
207. Ibid., 143–59. For instance, in reference to the motif of the “greater,” after citing as examples 7:28, 9:48, and 22:26, Böhlemann concludes: “Die gennanten Stellen machen deutlich, daß Lukas sich sehr subtil mit dem Motiv der Größe des Täufers auseinanderstetzt” (145).
208. Roth, Character Types, 25–26.
209. Roth (ibid., 173–77) highlights several rhetorical devices used in the passage: the repetition of the “word-for-word” question of John, the use of the phrase su\ ei] (3:22, 4:41; 7:19), and the “freezing up” of the scene by the summary report introduced by the narrator in 7:21.
210. Ibid., 175.
211. Müller, Charakterzeichnung, 59–64.
212. Ibid., 217. Müller undertakes a brief tradition and redaction analysis and attributes essential elements of Luke 7:18–35 to Q (217–21). He also pays attention to how references within the text recall or highlight previous portions of the Gospel. For instance, Müller notes how the use of a0gge/lwn 0Iwa/nnou (7:24) forms an inclusio with a0ph/ggeilan (7:18) and how through this inclusio Luke is adjoining sections 7:18–23 and 7:24–35 (222–26).