* Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii.2 vol. ii., London, 1889, p. 313. t Com. on Epp. of Peter and Jude'' {ICC, Edinburgh, 1902). I Com. on 2 Peter and Jude (Cambridge Greek Testament, Cambridge, 1912), p. xxxviii. 6 HDIi, art. 'Jude, Epi.stle of.' (1 Loc. cit. 1 Cf. Josephus, Ant. xiv. x. 8; Jer. 16'.
** Cnpyrighf, 1910, by Cliirlcs Srrihnrr's Sons.
charity-supper, though the evidence of the Corinth- ians shows us that it was intended that this char- acteristic should not be whoUy absent. It seems to have been primarily an expression of the sense of brotherhood which Chi-istians felt. The fact that the Eucharist was associated with it gave it a specially sacred character, and makes it certain that it must have been connected in the minds of those who took part in it with the Last Supper. But abuses arose in connexion with it both in Cormth and — apparently — among those to whom the Epistle of Jude was wi-itten. The e\adence which we have suggests plenty of reasons for the separation of the Eucharist from the Agape, which seems to have taken place at an early date.
LiTERATTTRE. — Besidcsbooks and articles already mentioned, see J. F. Keating, The Agape and t)te EuchariH, London, 1901 ; A. J. Maclean, art. 'Agape' in ERE ; J. B. Mayor, Appendix C in Hort and Mayor's Clement of Alexandria, Seventh Book of the Stromateis, London, 1902; also books and articles men- tioned in art. Euchabist. Q^ JJ^ ClayTON.
LUCAS.— See Luke.
LUCIUS. — Lucius of Cyrene was one of the
prophets and teachers who presided in the Church at Antioch (Ac 13^). He seems to have belonged pretty certainly to the band of Cypriotes and Cyrenians by whom the Gentile Church at Antioch was founded (11-"). Some commentators have rather absurdly identified him with St. Luke. The names are not identical or even very near one another, and there is no reason to think that St. Luke would have introduced himself in this hap- hazard way. He may be identified with the Lucius of Ko 16-1. W. A. Spooler.
**LUKE.— I. Information as to his history. — 1. In the Pauline Epistles.— The Pauline Epistles contain various references to a certain Luke, who is in tradition always identified with the author of the Acts and Third Gospel. These references are :
(1) dcnrd^eTai iifxas AovKas 6 iarpos 6 dyaTnjrds (Col 4''*) ;
(2) da-Trdj'erai ae . . . AovKas (Philem'"'); (3) AovKois iuTLv fiopos fi€T ifiov (2 Ti 4^'). Fi'om these scanty
allusions we can gather that Luke was a companion of St. Paul at the time that Colossians (with its appendix Philemon) and 2 Timothy were written, and also that he was a physician. The trust- worthiness of these statements may reasonably be regarded as falUng short of the highest gi'ade. The authenticity of Colossians (q.v.) is probable, but cannot be regarded as quite so certain as that of the earlier Epistles ; there is a difference between the group Colossians-Ephesians and the group Corinthians-Galatians-Romans which extends to thought as well as to language, and raises the sug- gestion that the former group is either un-Pauline or has been much edited. It is on the whole perhaps probable that this doubt ought to be put aside on the ground that the theories of interpolation or pseudepigraphy cause more difficulties than they solve, but the point has not yet been sufficiently discussed by critics. In the same way and in somewhat greater measure the reference in 2 Timothy must be discounted, on the ground of doubts as to the authenticity of the Epistle. So long as these doubts exist, the possibility cannot be entirely excluded that the refei'ences to Luke ought to be regarded as the result of the tradition, rather than as the proof of its accuracy.
A similar element of doubt attaches to the question of the place in which Luke and St. Paul were working together {crvvepyoi fiov in Philem^* covers Luke). There is no critical agreement as to whether the so-called Epistles of the Imprison- ment were written from Ca^saroa, from Rome, or (according to a more recent hypothesis) from Ephcsus. It is, however, noticeable that, as
LUKE
LUKE
719
Hamack points out (Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig, 1906, p. 2), Luke is not referred to as a 'fellow-prisoner,' and there is consequenth^ a presumption that he had accompanied St. Paul in freedom and as a friend.
2. In tradition. — Very little is added by tradition to the information in the Pauline Epistles except (a) the constant attribution to Luke of the Third (Jospel and Acts ; {b) the statement that he was an Antiochene Greek ; (c) somewhat less frequently, statements that he died in Boeotia, Bithynia, or Ejihesus ; {d) the statement, found only in late AISS, that the Gospel was wTitten in Alexandria. The most important expressions of tradition are those of (1) Eusebius; (2) Jerome; (3) the Mon- archian Prologues, found in Vulgate MSS, and possibly of Priscillianist origin ; (4) notes appended to NT MSS.
(1) Eusebius. —
AovKa? Se TO fjiiv y4vo<; uiu roiv arr' 'AvrioxeCai, ttji' Se iiritrrniJLriv tarpon, Tct TrAetora crvyyeyoi'tu? Toi IlavAaj, icat rot? Aotirot? 6e o J 7rape'p-yw5 tuju aTTOffTokitiV (u/xtATjKuj?, 175 airb tov'tuji' TrpotjCK-rqaaTO ^v\uiv 6€pa7T€vTLKrj<; €v Sv(t'lv 7]fj.LV vTToSGLyiJLara OeoTTV^varoL^ KaToAeAotTT-e /3t/3Atot9 to> re evayyeAt'uj. o Kai xapd^ai /xaprvpetrat, Ka9a nap^SovTO avTi^ ot air' apx-i]^ avTOTrrai Kai VTrrjpeTat yevofjiffoi ToO \6yov ot? Kai ^-qa'tv GndvioOev ajracrt iraprjKoXovOrjKei'aL., Kai Tais Tuit' aTTOcTToAtui' TTpa^etrcx' as oi'Ke'rt Sl' aKOi)^ ot^0a\iJ.OiS &e auTOts irapaXa^ujv trvveTa^aTO. ^afri Se oj? dpa toO Kar' a^rbi' cvayy^Xiov fxfrjfjLOvevecv ciuiOev 6 UauAos orrrji'tKO. (09 Trept tSt'ov Tii'os evayye\iov yp<i<j>iov «Acy«" ' (card to evayydKiov fiov ' (HK iii. 4,6).