Book review: François Bovon. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. (Originally published as Evangelium nach Lukas: 1. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar, 1989.) Pp. xxxvi + 441. ISBN 0-8006-6044-7. US $59.00.

Abstract

"According to the Preface, Bovon published the German original of this commentary in 1989. The translation into English in 2001 was not used to update the discussion with scholarship published since 1989, but from a text-critical perspective this is not a great loss. 2. The general layout of the commentary is pleasant to both eye and mind. I love the design of the Hermeneia volumes with the broad square pages, the two columns, the different fonts, and lucid section demarcations (though the wrong running titles on the uneven pages of the Introduction are a minor slip). And who can object to the inclusion of two plates of 75 on the front and end papers? Each section of the Gospel is first translated and printed in bold typeface, after which the analysis of the section is followed by a verse-by-verse commentary. 3. With only twelve pages of text (a quarter of which is bibliography), the Introduction to the Gospel is relatively short. Surprisingly, one will not find any discussion on the date of the composition of the Gospel, but perhaps we will have to wait for this until Bovon has finished the complete commentary (the third volume up to Luke 19:27 was published in German in 2001). The Introduction opens with a statement on the text of Luke, "Luke's two volumes are both a concrete and an abstract entity." The text of these volumes was affected by copyists in the second century, who, despite their good intentions, managed to conceal the original shape of the text. Also the work of theologians who tried to purify the work by abridgement (Marcion) or harmonisation (Tatian) was not particularly helpful. The reception of Luke's work into the canon did not prevent the two volumes of the single work from being separated, and thus no single manuscript presents Luke's work according to its original form and intention."(pg 1)