LUKE. The name Aovezils is abbreviated from Aourcapos, Lueanas, Or AOURIXt6s, Lucilius (Meyer) ; cf. Szlas for Silvaines ; Annas for Annanus ; Zenas for Zenodorns ; Winer, Gram. p. 115. The contraction of avos into Eis is said to be charac teristic of the names of slaves (see Lobeck, De Suh stantiv. as exeuntibus ; Wolf, Azzalect. iii. 49), and it has been inferred from this that St. Luke was of heathen descent (which may also be gathered from the implied contrast between those mentioned Col. iv. 12-14, and the 01 bc ireptrogs ver. and a libertxs. This latter idea has iound con firmation in his profession of a physician (Col. iv. 14) ; the practice of medicine among the Romans having been in great measure confined to persons of servile rank (Middleton De Medicorum apud , Roman. degent. Condition4 To this, however, there were many exceptions (cf. Smith, Dict.
Medicus'), and it is altogether an insuffi cient basis on which to erect a theory as to the evangelist's social rank. So much, however, we may probably safely infer from his profession, that he was a man of superior education and mental culture to the generality of the apostles, the fisher men and tax-gatherers of the Sea of Galilee.
All that can be with certainty known of St. Luke must be gathered from the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles of St. Paul. The result is but scanty. IIis name does not once occur in the Acts, and we can only infer his presence or absence fiom the sudden changes from the third to the first person, and vice versa, of which pheno menon, notwithstanding all that has of late been urged against it, this, which has been accepted since the time of Irenxus (cf. Contr. 14), is the only satisfactory explanation. Rejecting the reading ertmeerrpal.cnevcov ibuc'Ov, Acts xi. 28 (which only rests on D., and Augustine, De Serm. Dom. ii. 17), which would bring St. Luke into connection with St. Paul at a much earlier period, as well as the identification of the evangelist with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. ; Rom. xvi. 21), which was current in Origen's time (ad Rom. xvi. 39 ; cf. Lardner, Credibility, vi. 124; Marsh, Michaelis, iv. 234), which would make him a kins man of St. Paul, we first find St. Luke in St. Paul's company at Troas, and sailing with him to Mace donia (Acts xvi. io, ii). Of his previous history, and the time and manner of his conversion, we know nothing, bra Ewald's supposition (G'esch. d. V. Isr., vi. 35, 448) is not at ali improbable, that he was a physician residing- in Troas, converted by St. Paul, and attaching himself to the apostle
with all the ardour of a young convert. He may also, as Ewald thinks, have been one of the first uncircumcised Christians. He accompanied St. Paul as far as Philippi, but did not share in the imprisonment of his master and his companion Silas, nor, as the third person is resumed (xvii. r), did he, it would seem, take any further part in the apostle's missionary journey. The first person appears again on St. Paul's third visit to Philippi, A. D. 58 (Acts xx. 5, 6), from which it has been gathered that St. Luke had spent the whole inter vening time—a period, according to Wieseler, of seven or eight years—in Philippi or its neighbour hood. If any credit is to be given to the ancient opmion that St. Luke is referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as the brother Nt hose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches ' (a view adopted by the Church of England in the collect for St. Luke's clay), as well as the early tradition em bodied in the subscription to that epistle, that it was sent from Philippi by Titus and Lucas,' we shall have evidence of the evangelist's missionary zeal during this long space of time ; the word gospel' being of course to be understood, not as Jerome and others erroneously interpret it, of St. Luke's written gospel, but of his publication of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ. The mistaken inter pretation of the word gospel ' in this place has led others to assign thc composition of the gospel of St. Luke to this period ; a view which derives some support from the Arabic version published by Erpenius, in which its writing, is placed in a city of Macedonia twenty-two years after the As cension,' A. D. 52. From their reunion at Philippi, St. Luke remained in constant attendance on St. Paul chring his journey to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 6– xxi. IS), and disappearing from the narrative during the apostle's imprisonment at Jerusalem and Caesarea, reappears again when he sets out for Rome (Acts xxvii. 1). He was shipwrecked with Paul (xxviii. 2), and travelled with him by Syracuse and Puteoli to Rome (vers. 12-16), where he appears to have continued as his fellow-labourer (o-iwp7bs, Philem. 24 ; Col. iv. 4) till the close of his first imprisonment. The Second Epistle to Timothy (iv. I I) gives us the latest glimpse of the beloved physician,' and our authentic information regarding him beautifully closes with a testimony from the apostle's pen to his faithfulness amidst general defection.