olitical purposes in Egypt. The prophets mey nave had better knowledge of the racial affinities of these Egyptian mercenaries, and kept the term Phut for one, Ludim for another.
The versions, whether influenced by Josephus and Herodotus or independently preserving a historical tradition, frequently render Ludim by Lydians. The various commentators on the books of the OF resort to all kinds of devices to bring the text into accord with the facts known to them.
* For instance, by Stade (Javan, 5f.), who proposes to read in Gn 1013 and Jer 469 π᾿ ΞὉ (Libyans) for 0°37.
| LUHITH LUKE, THE EVANGELIST 16] nn ῤ ΦὋΦὋΦὋῬὋῬ᾽Ῥ᾽ρολᾺλΘΌἭΡἠηὐὴἠ᾿ῤ ΔΑἌἌΑΔἌἊ[ἘἔἜ͵ΏἘὋὁὃ
Many of these difficulties will doubtless disappear with greater knowledge of the ancient inhabitants of Egypt and Syria. They cannot be discussed here. See also art. ΠΎΡΙΑ.
LirgRaTURE.—Dillmann and Holzinger on Genesis; Cheyne on Isaiah; Kretschmer, Hinleitung in die Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache, p. 284f. (for Lydian race, Buresch, Aus Lydien, must also be taken into account); Winckler, Altoriental- ische Forschungen, series i, p. 618; Frd. Delitzsch, Paradies, 257, 810; Schrader, ΚΑΤ 114 [COT ii. 98ff.); Movers, Phinizier, ii. 1, 877 ff.; Ebers, 4igypten u. die Biicher Mose’s, 1, 96 ff. C. H. W. Jouns.
LUHITH (mmbn abyo Is 15°, rinbp πῦρ Jer 48° [Kethibh]; LXX in Is Λουείθ, in Jer B ᾿Αλώθ, A Adadé).—A place which practically is only once mentioned in OT. It occurs, as ‘the ascent of’ or ‘to Luhith,’ in Is 15° and in the corre- sponding section of Jer (48 [LXX 31]5). The refugees from ruined Moab are there represented as fleeing to Zoar, by the ascent of L. and in the way of Horonaim, names which may be selected as local asylum sanctuaries where fugitives would be secure, or as merely different roads for escape out of the wasted country. The ‘ascent’ may then mean either the hill on which the sanctuary stood (ef. oz nbyp=mount of olives, 2S 15”), or the pass which led to safety (cf. oz1pY n2yD=the scorpion ascent, Nu 344).
The derivation of the name must at present remain uncertain. Gesenius (7hes.) translates it ‘made of boards, i.e. probably having houses made of boards’; but this derivation ignores the fact that Luhith must be a more or less exact trans- literation into Heb. of an originally Moabite word. In that connexion the variation between Is and Jer (Kethibh) is noteworthy.
Eusebius still knew a village which bore the name. The Onomasticon (s.v. Luith, Aovi@) states ‘there is to-day a village between Areopolis (i.e. Rabbath-moab) and Zoar which is named Luitha.’ See, further, RABBAH and ZoAR.
A. C. WELCH.
LUKE, THE EYANGELIST.—The name Λουκᾶς does not seem to occur before the time of the NT (Zahn, Zinl. ii. 336). As a Greek name, it is found without any variation in spelling, unless Aovxovds (Eus. HE iv. 2) is to be regarded as such. It is, no doubt, a contracted form of Lucanus, a
Latin name which occurs frequently in inscriptions |
(Lightfoot on Col 41%), and is found in one Vulgate MS at the head of St. Luke’s Gospel (as well as in δ g° i), the other MSS quoted by Wordsworth and
hite giving only a Latinized torm of the Greek
name, ‘ secundwm Lucan or Lucam.’ The identifi- cation of the name with Λούκιος or Λούκειος (Ac 13}, Ro 16”) is not philologically impossible, but is un- likely. As to the person, see Luctus and below. A person of this name is mentioned three times |
in the NT, viz. Col 4, 2 Ti 411, Philem*™. From these passages we infer that he was with St. Paul at Rome when these Epistles were written, and was alone with him at the date of the latest. In the first passage he is spoken of as ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός," and as he sends a greeting to the Colossians, he must have been known to that Church. He is, in this passage, distinguished from ol ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς (Col 4"), and so was a Gentile by birth. This makes the identification with Λούκιος of Ro 105} (see Orig. ad. loc.) impos- sible,—for the latter was a kinsman of St. Paul,— and disproves the view of Tiele and others that St. Luke was a Jew. Jerome (Quest. in Gen.) refers to a tradition that he was a proselyte (and as such ignorant of Hebrew), but it is more probable that he became a Christian without becoming a Jew, and the Western reading of Ac 11% (D) would require that his conversion to Christianity took * See next art. under ‘Style.’ VOL. Il. —II
place before St. Paul met him (but οἵ, Tert. c. Mare. | iv. 2). In the other passage, Philem™, St. Luke sends greeting to Philemon, and is spoken of as one of St. Paul’s συνεργοί. We know then that he was with St. Paul in doth his imprisonments at Rome, but, from our finding no mention of him in Ph, Lightfoot (Phil. p. 35) argues that he was not there continuously. If we may assume (see ACTS for the arguments to justify this assumption) that St. Luke was the writer of the Acts, and refers to himself in the ‘ we-sections,’ then we may note the connexion with Antioch in Syria,* implied by the Western reading of Ac 11%, mentioned by Eus. (HE iii. 4) and others, but perhaps based on a papeeeee identification with Lucius of Ac 13! (Wetstein, Bengel). More certain is the inference that he joined St. Paul at Troas (Ac 16°) about the year 50 A.D. (see CHRONOLOGY OF NT, vol. i. P 422), and was with him until his arrival at