LUCAS, Philem * (AV only) for LUKE (wh. see).
LUGCIFER (S$2 ‘shining one,’ i.e. the morning star, as explained by the following words ππῦ 3 ‘son of dawn,’ Is 14*).—The word is applied by the writer of the prophecy to the king of Babylon, Ἐπ in reference to the astrology for which
haldawa was famous in ancient times, partly to the prevailing belief in the deification of heroes. The king of Babylon had complacently looked forward to the time when he would ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the stars of xod. But in reality his dead body would be treated with the utmost contempt, ‘a carcase trodden under foot’; while his soul would descend into Sheol, and there receive but an empty honour from the shades, astounded that the great and mighty king could become like one of themselves.
From a supposed reference to this passage in our Lord’s words, ‘I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven’ (Lk 10"), in connexion with Rev 9}-}} (the language of 9' being in part probably derived from this passage), Lucifer came in the Middle Ages to be a common appellation of Satan. The star of Rev 915} is a fallen angel who has given to
him the key of the abyss, from which he sets loose upon the earth horribly formed locusts with scorpions’ tails, who have, however, power to hurt only such men as have not the seal of God on their foreheads. But this angel is not actually identi- fied with Satan by the writer of the Apocalypse. The imagery in Is was no doubt suggested by a meteor, and possibly it was so in Rev also. F. H. Woops.
LUCIUS (Λεύκιος) is described in 1 Mac 1515. as the ‘consul of the Romans’ (ὕπατος ‘Pwyalwy), who, in consequence of the embassy sent to Rone by the high-priest Simon, wrote to Ptolemy vu. Euergetes, feng of Egypt, to inform him that the Jews were under the protection of Rome. He sent copies of the same decree to other Eastern sovereigns, and to several small independent states. The title of this decree of the Senate is clearly imperfect, and it is not certain who is intended by this consul, whose preenomen is alone given. His date is approximately determined by the fact that Numenius and his fellow-ambassadors returned to Palestine in B.c. 139-138 (1 Mac 15'-15), Three possible identifications may be mentioned.
1. Lucius Cecilius Metellus Calvus was consul in B.c. 142. This, however, seems too early, though the historian places the despatch of the embassy to Rome before the decree of the Jews in favour of Simon, made on the 18th Elul, B.c. 141 (1 Mace 14-8),
2. Josephus mentions a decree of the Senate,
assed under similar circumstances, and couched in similar terms, which he assigns to the 9th year of Hyrcanus II. (Ant. XIV. viii. 5). Most moderns, however, except Mommsen, consider that Josephus is in error with regard to the date, and identify this senatus-consultum with that passed in the time of Simon. In Josephus the praetor Lucius Valerius is named as presiding in the Senate ; it is possible that he is the ‘consul Lucius’ of 1 Mac 15'° (ef. Schiirer, HJP I. i. 266 ff.).
3. Most probably the reference is to L. Cal-
purnius Piso, who was consul B.C. 139. His renomen is often given as Cneius, but Lucius is the best authenticated reading in Valerius Maximus i. 3. 2 (see Westcott in Smith's DB ‘Lucius’; Schiirer, /.c.). H. A. WHITE.
LUCIUS (Aov«cos).—1. Of Cyrene (ὁ Κυρηναῖος). In Ac 13' we are told that certain prophets and teachers were at Antioch, and amongst them is mentioned Lucius of Cyrene. He comes third in the list, and is supposed to have been one of the
rophets. Nothing further is known about him.
he suggestion that he was the same as St. Luke (Λουκᾶς) has nothing in its favour. Such evidence as there is points the other way. For the difference between the descriptions of scenes at Antioch and those at places which the author of Acts must have visited is striking, and makes it clear that the writer had no intimate knowledge of the place, and doubtful if he had ever been there. It is probable, however, that it was this mistaken identification which first caused the tradition that St. Luke was an Antiochene by birth, which appears in Eus. ΜΕ iii. 4, and in many subsequent writers, and which is also without foundation.
2. In Ro 16” a certain Lucius is introduced as sending greetings with Timothy and others. Whether he was the same person as Lucius of Cyrene we have no means of judging.
A. Ο. HEADLAM.
LUCRE (from Lat. /ucrum through Fr. /ucre, gain) had not always the bad sense which belongs to it in AV and in modern use. Erasmus, On (he Crede (1533), fol. 70, says ‘God is very greatlye to be thanked, whose goodness hath tourned the malyce and wickednes of other men unto his
160 LUD, LUDIM
LUD, LUDIM
servauntes, into the lucre and encreace of godly- nesse.’ In 158 85 ys3, which means gain obtained by violent or dishonest means, is rendered ‘lucre,’ ‘ And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted ἡπάραιθηνι (LXX ἐξέκλιναν ὀπίσω τῆς συντελείας, Tulg. declinaverunt post avariciam, Wye. ‘boweden aside after averyce,’ Cov. ‘enclyned unto covetousnes,’ Gen. ‘ turned aside after lucre’). The word is not again used in OT, but occurs five times in NT, always qualified by the adj. ‘ filthy.’ In 1 Ti 33:8, Tit 17 the adj. αἰσχροκερδής is tr® ‘areedy of filthy lucre’ (RV after edd. omits from 1 Ti 3°); in] P 5? the adv. αἰσχροκερδῶς is translated ‘for filthy lucre’; and in Tit 1" the phrase αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν is rendered ‘for filthy ares sake.’ All these expressions we owe to Tindale. Except in language coloured by biblical recollection the word is no longer used. Bacon (Lssays, ‘ Of Superstition,’ Gold. Treas. ed. p. 69) shows the ordinary use in his day: ‘The Strategems of Prelates for their owne Ambition and Lucre.’ Shaks. uses the word twice (J Henry VI. V. iv. 141, Cymb. Iv. ii. 324), both in the same sense. J. HASTINGS.