III. Tradiiionary Notices. — The above sums up all we really know about Luke ; but, as is often the case, in pro- portion to the scantiness of authentic information is the copiousness of tradition, increasing in definiteness, be it remarked, as it advances. His Gentile descent being taken for granted, his birthplace was appropriately enough fixed at Antioch, " the centre of the Gentile Church, and the birthplace of the Christian name" (Eu- sebius, //. E. iii, 4 ; comp. Jerome, De Vir. Illust. 7 ; In Mutt. Praif.), though it is to be observed that Chrysos- tom, when dwelling on the historical associations of the city, appears to know nothing of such a tradition. He was believed to have been a Jewish proselyte, ignorant of Hebrew (.Jerome, Qucest. in Gen. c. xlvi), and probabh' — because he alone mentions their mission, but in con- tradiction to his own words (Luke i, 23) — one of the sev- enty disciples who, having left our Lord in offence (John vi, 60-66), was brought back to the faith by the ministry of Paul (Epiphan. Jf(e?: li, 11) ; one of the Greeks who desired to "see Jesus" (John xii, 20, 21), and the com- panion of Cleopas on the journey to Emmaus (Theophyl. Proem in Luc). An idle legend of Greek origin, which first appears in the late and credulous historian Niceph- orus CaUisus (died libO), I/isf. EccL ii, 43, and was uni- versally accepted in the Middle Ages, represents Luke as well acquainted with the art of painting (uKpwg ti)v 401- ypcKpov rkxt't]v t^nriaTdiiivoc), and assigns to his hand the first portraits of our Lord, his mother, and his chief apostles (see the monographs of Jlanni [Florent. 1764] and Schlichter [Hal. 1734]).
Nothing is known of the place or manner of his death, and the traditions are inconsistent with one another. Gregory Naz. reckons him among the martyrs, and the untrustworthy Nicephorus gives us fidl details of the time, place, and mode of his martyrdom, viz., that he was crucified to a live olive-tree in Greece, in his eighti- eth j'car. According to others, he died a natural death after preaching (according to Epiphanius, Contra Bar. li, 11) in Dalmatia. Gallia, Italy, and ISIacedonia; was buried in Bith3-nia, whence his bones were translated by Constantius to Constantinople (Isid. Hispal. c. 82 ; Phi- lostorgius, vol. iii, chap. xxix). See generally Kohler,
Dissert, de Luca Ev. (Lipsioe, 1695) ; Credner, Einleit. ins N. T. i, 124.
LUKE, Gospel according to, the third in order of the canonical books of the New Testament.
I. Author — Genuineness. — The miiversal tradition of Christendom, reaching up at least to the latter part of the 2d century, has assigned the third member of our Gospel collection to Luke, Paul's trusted companion and fellow-laborer, avvtpyvc, who alone contmued in attend- ance on his beloved master in his last imprisonment (Col. iv, 14 ; Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11). Its authorship has never been questioned until comparatively recent times, when the unsparing criticism of Germany — the main object of which appears to be the demolishing of every ancient belief to set up some new hypothesis in its stead — has been brought to bear upon it, without, however, effectually disturbing the old traditionary statement. The investigations of Semler, Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, Baur, Schleiermacher, Ewald, and others, have failed to overthrow the harmonious assertion of the early Church that the third Gospel, as we have it, is the genuine work of Luke. It is well known that, though the "Gospels" are referred to by Justin INIartyr as a collection already used and accepted by the Church {Apol. i, 66 ; iJial. c. Tryph. c. 10), and his works supply a very considerable number of quotations, enabling us to identify', beyond all reasonable doubt, these ivayytXta with the first three Gospels, we do not find them men- tioned by the names of their authors till the end of the 2d century. In the Muratorian fragment, which can hardly be placed later than A.D. 170, we read. "Tertium Evangelii librum secmidum Lucam Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eum Paidus quasi ut juris (rov SiKaiov) studiosum [' itineris socium,' Bunsen^ se- cum adsumsisset nomine suo ex ordine [' opinione,' Cred- we?-] conscripsit (Dominum tamen nee ipse vidit in car- ne), et idem prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Jo- hannis incepit dicere" (Westcott, Hist. 0/ Can. p. 559). The testimony of Irenjeus, A.D. cir. 180, is equaLy defi- nite, AovKcig ce o c'ikoXovOoq IJavXov to in' tKiivov k?;- pvaaoptvov tiiayyeXtov iv iSijSXitf) KartBtTO (Contra Har. iii, 1,1), while from his enumeration of the many particulars, 7)fo?-zmo tvanf/elii (ib. iii, 14, 3), recorded by Luke alone, it is evident that the Gospel he had was the same we now possess. Tatian's Diatessaron is an im- impeachable evidence of the existence of four Gospels, and therefore of that by Luke, at a somewhat earlier period in the same century. The writings of TertuUian against Marcion, cir. 207, abound with references to our Gospel, which, with Irenseus, he asserts to have been written under the immediate guidance of Paul (Adv. Marc, iv, 2 ; iv, 5). In Eusebius we find both the Gos- pel and the Acts specified as GtoTn'tvara /3i/iAia, while Luke's knowledge of the sacred narrative is ascribed to information received from Paul, aided by his intercourse with the other apostles (r»)c twv dXXwv anoaruXeov 6jt(iX(rtc w<piX7]f^tivoc, If. E. iii, 4 and 24). Eusebius, in- deed, tells us that in his day the erroneous view which interpreted ivayyfXwi' (Pom. ii, 16; comp. 2 Cor. viii, 18) of a written document was generally received, and that, in the words "according to my Gospel," Paul was supposed to refer to the work of the evangelist. This is also mentioned by Jerome (Be Vi?: Illust. 7), and ac- cepted by Origen (Eusebius, //. E. vi, 25) — one among many proofs of the want of the critical faculty among the fathers of that age.