Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/462

 LUSK

421

LUSK

Annas from Ananus, ApoUos from ApoUoniuSi Arte- mas from Artemidorns, Demas from Demetriuisi etc. (Schans, "Evang. des heiligen Lucas", 1, 2; Light- foot on "Col.", iv, 14; Plummer, " St. Luke", introd.) The word Lucas seems to have been unknown before the Christian Era; but Lucanus is common in inscrip- tions, and is found at the beginning and end of the Qospel in some Old Latin MSS. (ibid.). It is gener- ally held that St. Luke was a native of Antioch. Eusebius (Hist.^ Eccl., Ill, iv, 6) has: AovkSls 9i t6 fdw yivot &p tQp dv 'Arrcoxc^f, t^ip iwtaTi^/ifiP larpbtf rd irXcMrra avYyeyopClts rtp HaCXtp, Kal rots \oivois 8i oi TopdpyvtrQif dwoarhXup &fu\pK(&t — ''Lucas vero domo Antiochenus, arte medicus, oui et cum Paulo diu con- junctissime vixit, et cum reliquis Apostolis studiose versatus est." Eusebius has a clearer statement in his "Qusestiones Evangelic®", IV, i, 270: 6 di Aovirat t6 iikp y4pos d,w6 rijf Potifidpiis 'Ayrcox<^f 4" — "Luke was by birth a native of the renowned Antioch" (Schmiedel, " Encore. Bib."). Spitta, Schmiedel, and Hamack think tms is a quotation from Julius Afri- can us (first half of the third century). In Codex Bexce (D) Luke is introduced by a "we" as early as Acts, xi, 28; and, though this is not a correct reading, it represents a very ancient tradition. The writer of Acts took a speciiu interest in Antioch and was well acquainted with it (Acts, xi, 19-27; xiii, 1; xiv, 18-21, 25; XV, 22, 23, 30, 36; xviii, 22). We are told the locality of only one deacon, "Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch", vi, 5; and it has been pointed out by Plum- mer that, out of eight writers who describe the Kussian campaign of 1812, only two, who were Scotchmen, mention that 'the Russian general, Barclay de Tolly, was of Scotch extraction. These considerations seem to exclude the conjecture of Renan and Ramsay that St. Luke was a native of Philippi.

St. Luke was not a Jew. He is separated by St. Paul from those of the circumcision (Col., iv, 14), and his style proves that he was a Greek. Hence he can- not be identified with Lucius the prophet of Acts, xiii, 1, nor with Lucius of Rom., xvi, 21. who was coanatus of St. Paul. From this and the prologue of the Gospel it follows that Epiphanius errs when ne calls him one of the Seventy Disciples ; nor was he the companion of Cleophas in the journey to Emm^us after the Resur- rection (as stated bv Theophyla^t ancL^^e Greek Menol.). St. Luke had a great kno^C ^^ ^^ f j^he Septuagint and of things Jewish, whPP!Pim^a9ii¥Hi either as a Jewish proselyte (St. JenOTie) or after he became a Christian, through his close intercourse with the Apostles and disciples. BflMes Greek, he had many opportunities of acquiring Aramaic in his native Antioch, the capital of S^^ia. He was a physician by profession, and St. Paul calls him ''the most dear physician" (Col., iv, 14). This avocation implied a liberal education, and his medical training is evidenced by his choice of medical language. Plummer suggests that he may have studied medicine at the famous school of Tarsus, the rival of Alexandria and Athens, and possibly met St. Paul there. From his intimate knowledge of the eastern Mediterranean, it has been conjectured that he had lengthened experience as a doctor on board ship. He travelled a good deal, and sends greetings to the Colossians, which seems to indi- cate that he had visited them.

St. Luke first appears in the Acts at Troas (xvi, 8 sqq.), where he meets St. Paul, and, after the vision, crossed over with him to Europe as an Evanselist, landine at Neapolis and going on to Philippi, ** being assured that God had called us to preach the Gospel to them" (note especially the transition into first person plural at verse 10). He was, therefore, already an Evangelist. He was present at the conversion of Lydia and her companions, and lodged in her house, m, together with St. Paul and his companions^ was recognized by the pythonical spirit: ''This same fol- lowing Paul and us, cried out, saying: These men are

the servants of the most high God, who preach unto ybu the way of salvation" (verse 17). He beheld Paul and Silas arrested, dragged before the Roman magistrates, char^^ed with disturbing the city, " being Jews", beaten with rods, and thrown into prison. Luke and Timothy escapea . probably because they did not look like Jews (Timotny's father was a gentile). When Paul departed from Pnilippi, Luke was left be- hind, in all probability to canv on the work of Evan- gelist. At Thessalomca the Apostle received highly appreciated pecuniary aid from Philippi (Phil., iv, 15, 16), doubtless through the good offices of St. Luke. It is not imlikely that the latter remained at Philippi all the time that St. Paul was preaching at Athens and Corinth, and while he was travelling to Jerusalem and back to Ephesus, and during the three years that the Apostle was engaged at Ephesus. When St. Paul re- visited Macedonia, he agam met St. Luke at Philippi, and there wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

St. Jerome thinks it is most likely that St. Luke is " the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through aJl the churches" (II Cor., viii, 18), and that he was one of the bearers of the letter to Corinth. Shortly after- wards, when St. Paul returned from Greece, St. Luke accompanied him from Philippi to Troas, and with him made the long coastine voyage described in Acts, XX. He went up to JerussJem, was present at the up- roar, saw the attack on the Apostle, and heard him speaking " in the Hebrew tongue" from the steps out- side the fortress Antonia to the silenced crowd. Then he witnessed the infuriated Jews, in their impotent rage, rending their garments, yelling, and flinging dust into the air. We mav be sure that he was a con- stant visitor to St. Paul during the two years of the latter's imprisonment at Csesarea. In that period he might well become acquainted with the circumstances of the death of Herod Agrippa I, who had died there "eaten up by worms" (<r#cwXi;jr6/9p<iin-of ), and he was likely to be better uiformea on the subject than Josephus. Ample oppK)rtunities were given him, "havins dili- gently attained to all things from the banning", oon- ceming the Gospel and early Acts, to write in order what had been delivered by those "who from the be- ginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke, i, 2, 3). It is held bv many writers that the Gospel was written during tnis time; Ramsay is of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was then composed, and that St. Luke had a considerable share in it. When Paul appealed to Csesar, Luke and Aris- tarchus accompanied him from Csesarea, and were wiUi him during the stormy voyage from Crete to Malta. Thence they went on to Rome, where, durins the two years that St. Paul was kept in prison, St. Xuke was frequently at his side, though not continuously, as he is not mentioned in the greetings of the Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, "Phil", 35). He was present when the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon were written, and is mentioned in the salutations given in two of them: "Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you" (Col., iv, 14); "There salute thee . . . Mark, Aristarchus, Demas^ and Luke my fellow labourers" (Philem., 24). St. Jerome holds that it was during these two years Acts was written.

We have no information about St. Luke during the interval between St. Paul's two Roman imprison- ments, but he must have met several of the AposUee and disciples during his various journeys. He stood beside St. Paul in his last imprisonment; for the Apostle, writing for the last time to Timothy, says: "1 have fought a good fight, I have finished my course. . . . Make naste to come to me ouickly. For Demas hath left me, loving this world. . . . Only Luke is with me" (II Tim., iv, 7-1 1). It is worthy of note that, in the three places where he is mentionea in the Epistles (Col., iv, 14; Philem., 24; IITim.,ivAt\ he is named with St, MwVl(s.1X^.;v^ A^>*^^^i5^«»