ome about A.D. 59, in during the period which elapsed between St. Paul’s departure from Philippi on the Second Missionary Journey (173), and his arrival again there on the Third (Ac 20°). If we may anticipate here the proofs (given in next art.) that St. Luke was the writer of the third Gospel, then, from the preface to that book, we may add that he did not belong to those who could claim to be of dx’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. The refer- ences to St. Luke in nt may be completed by a mention of the tradition, first found in Orig. (Hem. i. in Luc.), that he is the ‘brother whose
raise is in the Churches’ (2 Co 818), sent by St.
aul with Titus to carry the letter. He is also mentioned in the subscription to that Epistle as
one of the bearers.+
When we pass outside the NT we find a number of assertions made about him, some of which are contradicted by the statements already noticed in the NT. ‘Thus the late tradition that he was one of the Seventy (Epiphanius), or the unnamed com- panion of Cleophas, mentioned in Lk 24% (The- ophyl. ; Gr. Menol. etc.), are both untenable in face of Lk 13. The tradition that he was a painter is also late, though not so late as it used to be thought.t What iis origin was we cannot say. It is first mentioned by Theodore the Reader, whose date may be assigned to the 6th century. Zahn suggests (Hinl. ii. 337) that the tradition may be due to a misinterpretation placed on the word καθιστορεῖν in Theodore’s statement as to
| τὴν εἰκόνα τῆς θεοτόκου, ἣν ὁ ἀπόστολος Λουκᾶς καθι-
στόρησεν. A much earlier authority—the Prafatio Luce, given in Wordsworth’s Vulgate, p. 269, and etic by Harnack acter bei 653) to the 3rd cent. at latest—gives us many additional facts about St. Luke: ‘Luke, by nation a Syrian of Antioch, a disciple of the apostles, and afterwards a follower of St. Paul, served his Master blame- lessly till his confession. For having neither wife nor children he died in Bithynia at the age of seventy-four, filled with the Holy Ghost.’ To Eusebius (HE iii. 4) we are indebted for some facts, and he has been followed by Jerome (de Vir. Illustr.7). Probably, though not certainly, Euse- bius’ words—rd μὲν yévos ὧν τῶν ἀπ᾽ 'Avrioxelas— imply that St. Luke came himself from Antioch,§ though some scholars regard this belief as resting on nothing more substantial than the identification of St. Luke with Λούκιος of Ac 13! mentioned above. His special sphere of work is said to have been
* Not Antioch in Pisidia, as Rendall argues on the ground of the ἡμᾶς in Ac 143. ; ;
+ For the various forms of the tradition connecting him with the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Hxnrews in vol. il. Ὁ. 888»,
t Plummer, ere yh τας St. Luke, pp. xxi, xxii. ὃ
§ Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. 2001f., 85 f.) regards St. Luke
as a Macedonian, who ‘belonged to a family that had a con- nexion with Antioch,’ and thinks Eusebius’ phrase was intended to preclude the belief that St. Luke himself belonged to Antioch
162 LUKE, GOSPEL OF
Achaia, but (Const. Apost. vii. 46) another tradi- tion connects him with Alexandria, where he is said to have consecrated the second bishop. In Achaia or in Bithynia (Rom. Martyr., etc.) he died. As to the mode of his death there are two traditions, one of which (Menol. Basil.) says that he died a peaceful death, the other (Greg. Naz., ap. Migne, Pat. Gr. χχχν. 589) that he was mar- tyred under Domitian. His bones are, said to have been carried from Achaia to Constantinople, and buried there in the twentieth year of Constantius.
Literature.—In addition to the patristic references given above, see Zahn, Hinleitung in das NT, ii, 333 ff.; Plummer, Commentary on St. Luke; Nilles, Calend, Utr. Eccles, ; Baring Gould, Lives of the Saints; Acta Sanctorum.
Lu. J. M. BEBB. ** LUKE, GOSPEL OF.—
Authorship and Canonicity.
Date and Place of Writing. Transmission of the Text.
Sources used.
St. Luke and St. Paul.
St. Luke and Josephus,
St. Luke and Marcion.
St. Luke's Style.
St. Luke’s Preface.
. Purpose and Arrangement of the Gospel. . General Characteristics of the Gospel.
DARN
“μὰ
1. AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY.—(@) Author- ship.—The proof that St. Luke was the writer of the Third Gospel depends partly on internal, partly on external, evidence.
The internal evidence consists in the connexion between the Gospel and the Acts which is seen in the style, and also in the common dedication of the two books to Theophilus, and the reference in Ac 11 to a ‘former treatise,’ which was no doubt che Gospel. It is here assumed (see Acts for the arguments to support this view) that St. Luke was the writer of the Acts, and on this assumption it is impossible not to accept the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel. The argument from style (see below) is quite conclusive. Again, there are many points of connexion between the Gospel and Acts other than those of style, as, for instance, the reference to the Holy Spirit as ‘the promise of the Father’ (Ac 14; ef. Lk 2449), the idea of apostolic ‘witness’ (Lk 244°, Ac passim), the common expla- nation of Simon as ὁ ζηλωτήσ in Lk 61 and Ac 138, but not in the other lists.