LIIHITH Offhith),(Heb.:"1.?, loo-khoth'; rri7*, loo-kheeth', floored).
A town in the land of Moab, between Ar and Zoar,and ravaged by the Assyrians and Chaldeans (Is. xv :5 ; Jer. xlviii :5). It is evident that it was an elevated station, but whether a town on a hill, or a place for prospect, does not appear. It seems to be associated with other places which we know to be towns.
LUKE (lake). /. Cho Evangelist. The name AOVIC83, loo-kas', Lat. Lucanus, indicates that Luke was descended from heathen ancestors, and that he was either a slave or a freedman, libertus.
(1) A Physician. According to ecclesiastical tradition, the author of the gospel is the same Luke who is mentioned in Paul's Epistles ,(Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv:11; Col. iv:14), and who is called, in the last-mentioned passage, 'the physician.' This tradition is confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles, according to which the au thor of that work accompanied the Apostle Paul in his journeys (Acts xvi :to, sq.; xx :5-13). Luke accompanied Paul also in his last journeys to Je rusalem and Rome (Acts xxi :1-17; xxvii:28).
The profession of a physician harmonizes also with the condition of a freedman, indicated by the form of the name. It harmonizes with this that Paul (Col. iv:i4) distinguishes Luke from the Christians of Jewish descent, whom, in verses 11 and 12, he styles 'being of the Circumcision.' Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii:4) states that An tioch in Syria was z.he native city of Luke. In this city there was at an early period a congre gation of Christians converted from heathenism. Since Luke was a physician, we must suppose that he was a man of education.
(2) A Scholar. To those skeptics who excuse their disbelief of the miracles recorded in the gospels, by the assertion that their authors were ill-informed Jews, greedy of the marvelous, it must appear of some importance to meet in Luke a well-informed Greek skilled even in the med ical sciences. The higher degree of his education is further proved by the classical style in which the prologue to his gospel, and the latter portion of the Acts, are written; and also by the explicit and learned details which he gives in the Acts on various antiquarian, historical, and geograph ical subjects. Tradition, since the time of Greg ory of Nazianzus, makes Luke a martyr; yet not unanimously, since accounts of a natural death slip in. Where he died remains a question ; cer
tainly not in Rome with Paul, for his writings are far later.
2. The Gospel According to Lu'ke.
(1) Written Documents Used. The classical, connected, periodic, and sustained style of the in troduction to the gospel of St. Luke differs so strikingly from the Hellenistic Greek of the his tory itself, that we clearly perceive that he made use of written documents. The same difference exists, although in a less striking degree, between the portions of the Acts relating to transactions of which Luke himself was not an eye-witness and in which he bore no part, and those where he speaks as a companion of Paul. He did not, however, transcribe verbatim from the documents before him nor did he merely write down verbal traditions; for we find the same characteristic phraseology which belongs to St. Luke's indi vidual style, both in the gospel and in the Acts. Compare, for instance, the peculiar use of the words Kat abr6s, Luke i:17, 22; :28, 50; iii:23; iV:I5, 51:, Acts ii:27; v:t, 9, 51, etc.; licav6s, Luke vii:12; viti.27, 32; xx:9; Acts v:37;.tx:23, 43; xi:24, etc.; rais Bea), Lllke 1:54, 69; Acts tii:t3, 16; iv:25, 27, 3o, etc.
(2) Other Writers. It is important to notice what he himself says, in his introduction, of the relation borne by his writings to those of others. It is evident that even then 'many,' had at tempted to compose a history of our Lord from the statements of eye-witnesses and of the first ministers of the word of God. Luke follows the example of these authors with this difference, that he writes, starting from earlier facts in the his tory of the Baptist and of the infancy of our Lord, and continuing the narration in uninter rupted succession. Origen, Credner, and Ols hausen suppose that the "many," were heretical authors ; but this is unlikely, since Luke does not express any blame of them. But it is also unsatisfactory to refer the word "many," merely to Matthew and Mark, as Hug and De Wette have done, especially since the "many" are distin guished from the eye-witnesses. We must there fore suppose that many Christians wrote brief ac counts of the life of Jesus, although they had not been eye-witnesses. It is possible that Luke made use of such writings.