Robert Brawley provides an invaluable contribution to Lukan scholarship by offering a reading of Luke's text through the lens of social identity theory; such a lens not only illuminates Luke's Gospel, but offers a methodological framework for illuminating other New Testament texts as well. I heartily recommend this commentary to the specialist and non-specialist alike.

Brittany E. Wilson, Duke University Divinity School, USA

A fresh, stimulating construal of Luke's Gospel; drawing on social identity theory but firmly anchored in a nuanced understanding of narrative analysis as practiced by those who see texts as social constructions of reality, rather than mimetic representations of some presumed 'ontic reality'. This commentary's interpretations focus on the interplay between the language of the text and the complex social dynamics reflected in the text, and how this interpretive calculus functions in forming the identity of those who produced these texts and heard them read or performed.

Carl R. Holladay, Emory University, USA

Identity and collective memory help to illumine, but do not overwhelm, this reading of Luke's Gospel. Instead, we are treated to an interpretation of Luke that foregrounds Luke's narrative even while it attends to the ancient cultural encyclopedia and is shaped by contemporary interests. Robert Brawley's important contributions to Lukan scholarship span some three decades. What a gift, then, that he has written this full commentary on the Third Gospel.

Joel B. Green, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Robert Brawley has written a book that practices exactly what historical-critical exegesis should be for. His 'Social Identity Commentary' on the Gospel of Luke does not confine itself to a mere reconstruction of the past, but it unlocks the text in a way that makes it speak to today's readers. It enables them to become aware of their own social identity, and by this they are drawn into Luke's story of Jesus. Due to its richness of exegetical suggestions and hermeneutical insights, this commentary represents a very promising beginning of a highly interesting series. It is to be hoped for that it will find many readers.

Michael Wolter, The University of Bonn, Germany