4. THE FAMILY OF LUKE. We have made it an object to collect the scanty traces of Luke's personality that remain in Acts ; and we may therefore conclude our task by referring to the tradition about his birthplace. The later tradition, as it appears in Jerome, Euthalius, etc, declares that Luke was an Antiochian,1 but it is practically certain that the authority for all the later statements is Eusebius. Eusebius, however, does not say that Luke was an Antiochian ; he merely speaks of him as " being according to birth of those from Antioch M.2 This curious and awkward expression is obviously chosen in order to avoid the statement that Luke was an Antiochian ; and it amounts to an assertion that Luke was not an Antiochian, but belonged to a family that had a connection with Antioch. Eusebius therefore had access to a more detailed and distinct tradition, which he reproduces in this brief form. The older tradition must have told that Luke had a family connection with Antioch ; and Eusebius care- fully restricts himself to that statement ; but the tradition probably set forth the exact connection, and it is perhaps allowable to conclude our study with a conjecture.
Antioch, as a Seleucid foundation, had almost certainly a Macedonian element in its population. It is now well- established that the military strength of the Seleucid
1 'Ai/no^ayr yap ovros Indpxvv t6 yevos, Euthalius in Migne, Pair Gr. vol. 85, p. 633. Lucas tnedicus Antiochensis, Jerome, Vir. III. * AovKay 8e to ptv yevos Ztv ratv att 'Ai/rto^ei'ar, Hist. Ecclcs. Ill 4
390 Composition and Date of Acts. Chap. XV11.
colonies lay usually in a contingent of Macedonians ; and a considerable number of Seleucid cities style them- selves Macedones on coins or inscriptions. It is quite probable that intercourse and connection may have been maintained between the Macedonian element in Antioch and their original home ; and migrations to and fro are likely to have occurred between Macedonia and Antioch in the constant and easy intercourse of the centuries following the foundation. Thus it may very well have happened that Luke was a relative of one of the early Antiochian Christians ; and this relationship was per- haps the authority for Eusebius's carefully guarded statement. Further, it is possible that this relationship gives the explanation of the omission of Titus from Acts, an omission which every one finds it so difficult 1 to under- stand. Perhaps Titus was the relative of Luke; and Eusebius found this statement in an old tradition, attached to II Cor. VIII 18, XII 18, where Titus and Luke (the latter not named by Paul, but identified by an early tradition) are associated as envoys to Corinth. Luke, as we may suppose, thought it right to omit his relative's name, as he did his own name, from his nistory. There is not sufficient evidence to justify an opinion ; but this conjecture brings together an enigmatic expression in Eusebius and a serious difficulty in Acts, and finds in each a satisfactory solution of the other
1 We cannot agree with Lightfoot, who solves the difficulty by denying that Titus was important enough to deserve mention in Acte (Biblical Essays, p. 281).