François Bovon’s commentary on the Gospel of Luke is justly renowned for its combination of judicious historical and literary treatment of the Evangelist’s context and for its theological sensitivity, informed by the wealth of the Christian interpretative tradition. Luke is clearly writing history in the manner of his Hellenistic and Jewish contemporaries, but Bovon insists he remains as well “a theologian of the Word of God.” This volume is the third of a three-volume work (based upon Bovon’s four volumes in the German EKK series) and represents the author’s careful revision and updating of the German original.
In the Logos edition, this volume is enhanced by amazing functionality. Important terms link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. Perform powerful searches to find exactly what you’re looking for. Take the discussion with you using tablet and mobile apps. With Logos Bible Software, the most efficient and comprehensive research tools are in one place, so you get the most out of your study.
Interested in more Hermeneia commentaries? Explore the series and watch the video here.
“Contrary to the opinion of Hans Conzelmann,48 Luke does not think that Jesus is free of temptations between these two moments. The expression ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς μου proves it. It is simply that the temptations at the beginning and end were the most intensive and the most dramatic.” (Page 175)
“The tradition Luke is following corresponds to a trend that gains momentum late in the first century and, in the second and third centuries, asserts itself against those who reject the resurrection as well as against the supporters of a spiritual resurrection.” (Page 391)
“winegrowers with bare feet.71 But he does not forget the abused servants—the prophets and Israel’s” (Page 45)
“sions, and patristic witnesses who add a honeycomb to the portion of fish.” (Page 392)
“Added to the factual objectivity is the subjectivity of the disappointed and confused companions. With great skill the evangelist recounts the devastating effect of a story deprived of its kerygmatic dimension. The hope is expressed in the imperfect (ἠλπίζομεν, ‘we were hoping’). It was legitimate, even if it was ambiguous. What kind of Israel’s deliverance is meant? Deliverance from the Romans and political oppression or from sin and the inevitable death? Whatever it was, the hope was in the dim past: It is the third day already. The reader notes the irony this chronology evokes: Was not the third day the duration predicted by the Lukan Jesus in some of the announcements of his passion (9:22; 18:33)?” (Page 373)