LUKE, ST., the Evangelist. Respecting the birth and early life of this evangelist we have no certain information ; of his later history we learn something from his own work, the 'Acts of the Apostles.' A considerable knowledge of the Greek language is displayed in his writings, especially in the introduction to his Gospel, which is written in elegant Greek. On the other hand, his language contains many Hebraisuis; and he was evidently well aequaiuted with the religious rites of the Jews, whose mode of computing time he follows. (Luke xxii. 1 ; Acts ii. 1; xii. 3, 4; xx. 6, 16, N.) Hence it has been much disputed whether he was a Jew or a Gentile before he embraced Christianity. The difficulty is best explained by the opinion of Bolten, coufirmed by a tradition current in Jerome's time, that Luke was a Greek by birth, but became a proselyte to Judaism early in life. This opinion is supported by Acts xxi 28-31, and Coloss. iv. 11, 14. From the former passage we learn that the Jews accused Paul of defiling the temple by bringing into it a Greek, Trophimus of Ephesus. Luke was then with Paul (Acts xxi. 17, 18), and the accusation would have regarded him also, if he had not been looked upon as a Jew by religion. In the latter passage Paul distinguiahes Luke from other individuals "who are of the circumcision," which seems to show that Luke was not a Jew by birth ; unless indeed the Luke here mentioned be another individual, which we have no reason to suppose. Of the period of his conversion to Christianity we know nothing. Cave and Mill havo supposed that he was converted by Paul at Antioch, but they are not supported by any ancient writer ; nor is it likely that Luke would have passed over such an event in writing the Acts.
From the passage quoted above (Coloss. iv. 14), and from the testi mouy of Eusebius, Jerome, and other early writers, it appears that Luke was a physician. Another tradition makes him a painter, but this statement is generally allowed to deserve no credit; and the opinion of Grotius and Wetatein, that he was a alive during part of his life, seems equally unfounded.
Luke's native country is unkuowu. Eusebius and Jerome say that he was a native of Antioch; but this statemeut is not found in Irenmus, Clement, Tertullian, or Origen, nor iu any writer before the time of Eusebius. Eichhorn has conjectured that this tradition arose from confounding the evangelist with Lucius of Cyrene, who is mentioned as living at Antioch, in Acts xiii. 1. Many writers however entertain the opinion, which is as old as the time of Origen, that this Lucius and the evangelist Luke were the same person. This conjecture is ably maintained by Mr. Charles Taylor, the editor of Calmat.
Some early writers, but of no very high authority, affirm that Luke was one of the seventy disciples sent forth by Christ, whose mission he alone of the evangelists records. (Luke x.) Others mention him as the companion of Cleopas in the journey to Emmaus, recorded in Luke xxiv. 13. It is alleged that the mention of Cleopas while his
companion's name is withheld, the fullness and general character of the narrative, and especially the notice of minute circumstances which none but an eye-witness could record, prove that the traveller was the evangelist himself. Other reasons are adduced for believing him to have been in Jerusalem at this time, namely, that the latter part of his Gospel and the earlier chapters of the Acts have every mark of being written by an eyewitness of the facts he narrates, and that all the appearances of Christ after his resurrection mentioned by him took place iu tho neighbourhood of Jerusalem. To this it is objected that wo can only understand the preface to his Gospel (i. 1.4) as a distinct assertion that St. Luke was not an eye-witness himself, but that he derived his information from others who were eye-witnesses.
In Acts xi. 28, the Cambridge Manuscript has a reading, "and when we were gathered together, there stood up," &c., which, if admitted, would prove that Luke was connected with the Church at -Antioch about A.D. 42; but this reading is not usually accounted of any great authority.
The first distinct mention of Luke in the New Testament is in Acts xvi. 10,11, where, in relating the vision which Paul saw at Troas, the writer suddenly begins to use the first person plural, whence it is inferred that Luke here joined the apostle (about A.D. 53), whom he accompanied to Philippi (ver. 12). He seems to have remained at Philippi (baring Paul's journey to Athena and Corinth, for be drops the first person at ver. 17, and does not resume it till he relates Paul's return to Philippi (xx. 5, 6). From this time it appears from the Acts that Luke was Paul's constant companion till his arrival at Rome (about A.D. 61 or 63), where he remained with the apostle for some time, probably during Paula first imprisonmeut. Ho is mentioned more than once in Paul's Epistles written during this period. (CoL iv, 14; 2 Tim. iv. 2; Philem. v. 24.) Some suppose him to be " the brother whose praise is in all the churches," mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 18; xii. 18). Besides his intimacy with Paul, he is said by Irensens, Eusebius, Jerome, and other early writers, to have had a considerable acquaintance with the rest of the apostles; indeed they often speak of Luke and Mark as disciples of the apostles, as'Aistiugnished from John and Matthew, who were disciples of Christ.
Iteepecting the end of Luke's life, the tradition is that, after Paul's liberation from his first imprisonment, he retired to Achala, where he resided some few years, wrote his Gospel and the Acta of the Apostles, and died at an advanced age (some say eighty, others eighty-four years), probably by a natural death, as we have no mention of his martyrdom.