The Commentary on Luke Attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by A. Whealey in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The authenticity of a catena on the gospel of Luke (PG 24,529-605), which was attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea by Nicetas of Heraclea, is dubious. One short fragment appears to derive from Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on the Octateuch, raising a question about the catena’s overall integrity as well as its authenticity. Some of the vocabulary and themes in the longer fragments are more characteristic of Eusebius of Emesa than of Eusebius of Caesarea. Thus the bulk of these fragments were probably written by Eusebius of Emesa, but wrongly attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea because of name confusion in the catenae lemmata.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
3)
D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, “Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Luke, its Origin and Early History,” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974) 57.
-
18)
Schwartz, Griechische Geschichtsschreiber, 522. The Latin translator of this passage has assumed that it is Christ (ille rex) who will rule forever over the “old people” (PG 24,531C) but this translation is unwarranted by the Greek text (PG 24,532C).
-
43)
Robert E. Winn, “The Church of Virgins and Martyrs: Ecclesiastical Identity in the Sermons of Eusebius of Emesa,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11,3 (2003) 316.
-
49)
Buytaert, L’héritage, 15; 38-41. Judging from Syriac sources, this commentary may have taken the form of a series of questions and answers. For the partial Armenian translation see R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress, 25-26.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 312 | 54 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 201 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 65 | 15 | 0 |
The Commentary on Luke Attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by A. Whealey in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The authenticity of a catena on the gospel of Luke (PG 24,529-605), which was attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea by Nicetas of Heraclea, is dubious. One short fragment appears to derive from Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on the Octateuch, raising a question about the catena’s overall integrity as well as its authenticity. Some of the vocabulary and themes in the longer fragments are more characteristic of Eusebius of Emesa than of Eusebius of Caesarea. Thus the bulk of these fragments were probably written by Eusebius of Emesa, but wrongly attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea because of name confusion in the catenae lemmata.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 312 | 54 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 201 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 65 | 15 | 0 |
