A comparison of two medieval commentaries on Luke: Peter of John Olivi and Nicholas of Lyra.

What is it about?

This essay compares the commentaries on the Gospel of Luke by two major Franciscan theologians and biblical commentators, Peter of John Olivi, OFM who wrote his commentary on Luke between 1280-1295 and Nicholas of Lyra OFM c.1308 around three themes: biblical exegesis, eschatology, and poverty. Both are famous for their very different commentaries on the book of Revelation (Olivi ,1297 and Nicholas, 1329). The essay argues that Lyra’s commentary on Luke in his Literal Postill on the Whole Bible is written in part in response to Olivi’s commentary even as his Revelation Commentary of 1329 rejects the methodology and theology of Olivi’s Revelation Commentary of 1297. Olivi’s commentary on Luke already anticipates his interpretation of Revelation and similarly Lyra’s commentary on Luke anticipates his interpretation of the Apocalypse and does not indicate a change of mind given the controversies before his revision of the Apocalypse Commentary in 1329. Both Olivi and Nicholas saw themselves as reformers, but their social locations were different. Olivi taught Franciscan friars in a school in southern France and Lyra in classrooms at the University of Paris. Olivi was preparing Franciscan brothers to live the evangelical life spiritually in the way of Jesus in the final age; Lyra was preparing both secular and religious students in a university setting for a broad range of vocations. His goal was to reform Franciscan exegesis and to defend Franciscan values in a university setting. It is their biblical hermeneutic, their theology of history, and their social locations that make these two Franciscan heavyweights so different.

Featured Image