RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Luedemaun Luke
I. The Man.
Early References to Him (§1). Traditions of His Authorship (§ 2). Characteristics as a Historian (§3).
LUKE.
II. His Writings.
Types of Modern Criticism (§ 1). The Preface to the Gospel (§ 2). The Character of the Gospel (§ 3). Bearing upon Authorship (§ 4).
Character of the Acts of the Apostles
(§5). Historical Difficulties of Acts xv (§ 6). The Author's Methods (§ 7). Remaining Problems (§ 8).
1. The Man: The name appears three times in the New Testament as that of a man who belongs to the Pauline circle (Col. iv. 14; II Tim. iv. 11; Philemon 24), in the first case as that of " the beloved physician," in the last as a " fellow worker."
Col. iv. 11 characterizes certain fellow i. Early workers as " of the circumcision " but References does not include Luke among them, to Him. hence it may be concluded that Luke was not of Jewish blood and also not a Jewish proselyte. But it does not follow that he was personally known in Colosse, although known by reputation. It appears also that he was with Paul during the first imprisonment, helped him in his labors and perhaps as a physician was especially valuable in Paul's activity. So it appears from II Tim. that Luke was with the apostle in his second imprisonment as his only companion, and conjecture sees in this a reference to Luke's medical services, especially in view of the absence of Crescens, Tychicus, and Titus (II Tim. iv. 10). This exhausts all that the New Testament expressly says of Luke. The Lucius of Rom. xvi. 21 (a Jew) and of Acts xiii. 1 have nothing to do with the subject of this article. Formerly the " brother " of II Cor. viii. 18, or of 22, was identified with Luke, but this has not the foundation of tradition in its favor, only of traditional exegesis from before the time of Origen, and the identification is insecure. Testimony external to the New Testament derives Luke from Antioch (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., iv. 7; A. Mai, Patrum nova bibliotheca, Rome, 1844-71, iv. 270; F. A. W. Spitta, Brief des Julius Africanus, Halle, 1877, pp. 69, 111). For this the singular reading of codex D in Acts xi. 28 (which describes the prophecy of Agabus as being delivered " while we were gathered together") can not be the basis, though the tradition may embody the facts. But many other traditions regarding the region of Luke's labors and the place of his literary activity have not in their favor the same degree of probability as inheres in that relating to the place of his nativity. Indeed, some of them palpably arise from misunderstanding of the New Testament, and others are purely conjectural and without solid foundation — e.g., that which connects Luke with the disciples at Emmaus, and that which makes of him an artist with the pencil as well as with the pen.
With the name of Luke three writings of the
New Testament have been connected, the third
Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to
the Hebrews, though Luke's connection
2. Tradi- with the last is put forth as a mere tions of His hypothesis and requires no considera- Authorship. tion. The tradition of his relation to
the third Gospel goes back to a time earlier than Origen, and Paul's expression " my gospel " has been construed as a reference to that book. Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian express what was evidently the opinion of their day, that Luke was the author of the third Gospel. And practically the same testimony assigns a Lucan origin to the Acts of the Apostles, while earlier hints to the same purport are discovered in the works of Marcion and Justin Martyr. It is now generally held that essentially the present Gospel of Luke lay before Marcion when the latter compiled his Gospel, while the reverse proposition, that Marcion's composition underlay Luke's, is universally given up. Until recent times there was no trace of a tradition adverse to Lucan authorship, while the title to the Gospel as given in the manuscripts testifies to the antiquity of the belief that Luke wrote this Gospel. Of course, modern criticism as well as Marcionitic rejected Lucan authorship, as did the encratitic Severians, the Ebionites, and the Manicheans, not on literary but on doctrinal grounds.
Acceptance of this tradition immediately results in a large increase of knowledge concerning the person and the fortunes of Luke. It must be recognized that he had more to do with the work of Paul than appears from the latter's 3. Charac- epistles. Part of the narrative of the
teristics Acts of the Apostles is in the first peras a son. If Luke is the author of the nar- Historian. rative of Paul's journeys in that book, the " we " passages testify that he was an eye-witness of the events, and this fits in well with the references in the epistles. And the occurrence of "we" in codex D of the clause noted above (§ 1) in a passage earlier than is found in the common text (Acts xi. 28) has caused Blass to suspect a double recension of the Acts by Luke's own hand. Neither Weiss' explanation (TU, xvii. Ill, 1899) nor that of Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, New York, 1896, pp. 27, 210), which assume a correction of the original text arising in different ways, seems to have much probability in its favor. If Blass' supposition of a double text, both from the hand of Luke, be not accepted, the "we" must be original to the text. In that case the tradition of the Antiochian origin of Luke receives confirmation, and Luke must have been an associate of Paul in his early activities before either Timothy or Titus were connected with him. Moreover, Luke appears not only as a friend and close companion of Paul, as his personal medical attendant, but as a man well and broadly educated and with wide interests, possessing powers of keen observation and the ability to describe simply but vividly what he saw. If in spite of the modern adverse criticism tradition be accepted, Luke becomes a source of the first importance for the origins of Christianity and of the Christian Church.
II. His Writings: Doubts of Lucan authorship have been raised rather with regard to the Acts than the Gospel. In any case, the facts reported
Luke