20 Jody A. Barnard Jesus answers John (7,18-23) This pericope is a fairly typical pronouncement story which culmi- nates with Jesus’ climactic reply to John’s question (v. 22-23)63. Interes- tingly, Craghan considered Luke’s addition of v. 21 (cf. Mt 11,1-6) to be the most prominent point of the Lukan redaction64, but it is probably better to view it as a summary of Jesus’ ministry which prepares for Jesus’ climactic pronouncement65. Assuming Matthew and Luke have a common source for this story, the only noteworthy difference to the pronouncement concerns εἴδετε καὶ ἠκούσατε which are present tenses in Matthew 11,4. It is highly unlikely, however, that these two verbs are any less prominent in Luke than they are in Matthew. Indeed, in view of v. 21, it could be argued that they are more important for Luke, yet they are aorists. But it is probably the words that follow εἴδετε καὶ ἠκούσατε that are to be considered central. In view of v. 21, and the importance of Isaianic soteriological texts for Luke, it would seem that he is drawing particular attention to the fact that τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν, χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται, πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται (cf. Is 32,3; 35,5-6; 61,1). Significantly, all these verbs are present tense, which coheres nicely with Porter’s hypothesis. It must be asked, however, if any other tense would be plausible. Im- mediately prior to this pronouncement Luke documents an instance of healing (7,1-10) and raising the dead (7,11-17), and he will proceed to give an example of good news announced to the poor (7,36-50). Thus, the present tense would have been the most obvious tense to use in such a general statement about activities that were unfolding at the time of speaking. It is also possible that one of the Greek translations of Isaiah or one of Luke’s sources (cf. Mt 11,5) has influenced the use of the present tense. This may be indicated by the fact that ἀναβλέπω occurs in the present tense only twice in the New Testament (here and the Matthean parallel), all the other occurrences are aorist. A sinful woman forgiven (7,36-50) The form critical issues presented by this pericope are described by Bultmann as “both difficult and uncertain” but he nevertheless identifies the statement in v. 47 as the main point66. The fact that Luke’s account Bock, Luke, 1:661; Marshall, Luke, 287; Bultmann, History, 23. 63 J.F. Craghan, “A Redactional Study of Lk 7, 21 in the light of Deut 19, 5”, Catholic 64 Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967) 357-58. So Nolland, Luke, 1:329-30. 65 Bultmann, History, 21; for a discussion of the form critical issues see Marshall, Luke, 66 304-7.