Luke

VIEW:17 DATA:01-04-2020

luminous; white
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


(See Acts.) Contracted from Lucanus, as Silas is contracted from Silvanus. A slave name. As Luke was a "physician," a profession often exercised by slaves and freedmen, he may have been a freedman. Eusebius (H.E. iii. 4) states that Antioch was his native city. He was of Gentile parentage before he became a Christian; as appears from Col_4:11,14: "Luke the beloved physician" (one of "my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God which have been a comfort unto me") is distinguished from those "of the circumcision."
That he was not of "the seventy" disciples, as Epiphanius (Haer. i. 12) reports, is clear from his preface in which he implies he was not an" eye witness"; the tradition arose perhaps from his Gospel alone recording the mission of the seventy. His history in Acts is first joined with that of Paul at Troas (Act_16:10), where the "we" implies that the writer was then Paul's companion. He accompanied the apostle in his journey to Jerusalem and Rome, at Paul's first Roman imprisonment "Luke my fellow labourer," Philemon (Phm_1:24) written from Rome, as also Colossians (Col_4:14); also in Paul's last imprisonment there, when others forsook him Luke remained faithful (2Ti_1:15; 2Ti_4:11 "only Luke is with me".) His death by martyrdom between A.D. 75 and 100 is generally reported.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Luke. (light-giving). Luke or Lu'cas, is an abbreviated form of Lucanus. It is not to be confounded with Lucius, Act_13:1; Rom_16:21, which belongs to a different person. The name Luke occurs three times in the New Testament — Col_4:14; 2Ti_4:11; Phm_1:24 — and probably in all three, the third evangelist is the person spoken of.
Combining the traditional element, with the scriptura, l we are able to trace the following dim outline of the evangelist's life. He was born at Antioch in Syria, and was taught the science of medicine. The well known tradition that Luke was also a painter, and of no mean skill, rests on the authority of late writers.
He was not born a Jew, for he is not reckoned among those "of the circumcision" by St. Paul. Compare Col_4:11 with Col_4:14. The date of his conversion is uncertain.
He joined St. Paul at Troas, and shared his Journey into Macedonia. The sudden transition to the first person plural in Act_16:9 is most naturally explained, after all the objections that have been urged, by supposing that Luke, the writer of the Acts, formed one of St. Paul's company from this point. As far as Philippi, the evangelist journeyed with the apostle. The resumption of the third person, on Paul's departure from that place, Act_17:1, would show that Luke was now left behind.
During the rest of St. Paul's second missionary journey, we hear of Luke no more; but on the third journey, the same indication reminds us that Luke is again of the company, Act_20:5, having joined it apparently at Philippi, where he had been left. With the apostle, he passed through Miletus, Tyre and Caesarea to Jerusalem. Act_20:6; Act_21:18.
As to his age and death, there is the utmost uncertainty. He probably died a martyr, between A.D. 75 and A.D. 100. He wrote the Gospel that bears his name, and also the Book of Acts.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

The New Testament informs us of very few particulars concerning St. Luke. He is not named in any of the Gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles, which were, as will hereafter be shown, written by him, he uses the first person plural, when he is relating some of the travels of St. Paul; and thence it is inferred, that at those times he was himself with that Apostle. The first instance of this kind is in the eleventh verse of the sixteenth chapter; he there says, “Loosing from Troas, we came up with a straight course to Samothracia.” Thus, we learn that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in this his first voyage to Macedonia. From Samothracia they went to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. At this last place we conclude that St. Paul and St. Luke separated, because in continuing the history of St. Paul, after he left Philippi, St. Luke uses the third person, saying, “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis,” &c, Act_17:1; and he does not resume the first person till St. Paul was in Greece the second time. We have no account of St. Luke during this interval; it only appears that he was not with St. Paul. When St. Paul was about to go to Jerusalem from Greece, after his second visit into that country, St. Luke, mentioning certain persons, says, “These going before tarried for us at Troas; and we sailed away from Philippi,” Act_20:5-6. Thus again we learn that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul out of Greece, through Macedonia to Troas; and the sequel of St. Paul's history in the Acts, and some passages in his epistles, 2Ti_4:11; Col_4:14; Phm_1:24, written while he was a prisoner at Rome, informs us that St. Luke continued from that time with Paul, till he was released from his confinement at Rome; which was a space of about five years, and included a very interesting part of St. Paul's life, Acts 20-28.
Here ends the certain account of St. Luke. It seems probable, however, that he went from Rome into Achaia; and some authors have asserted that he afterward preached the Gospel in Africa. None of the most ancient fathers having mentioned that St. Luke suffered martyrdom, we may suppose that he died a natural death; but at what time, or in what place, is not known. We are told by some that St. Luke was a painter, and Grotius and Wetstein thought that he was in the earlier part of his life a slave; but I find, says Bishop Tomline, no foundation for either opinion in any ancient writer. It is probable that he was by birth a Jew, and a native of Antioch in Syria; and I see no reason to doubt that “Luke, the beloved physician,” mentioned in the Epistle to the Colossians, Col_4:14, was Luke the evangelist.
Lardner thinks that there are a few allusions to this Gospel in some of the apostolical fathers, especially in Hermes and Polycarp; and in Justin Martyr there are passages evidently taken from it; but the earliest author, who actually mentions St. Luke's Gospel, is Irenaeus; and he cites so many peculiarities in it, all agreeing with the Gospel which we now have, that he alone is sufficient to prove its genuineness. We may however observe, that his testimony is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and many others. Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson have compared many parallel passages of St. Mark's and St.
Luke's Gospels; and Dr. Townson has concluded that St. Luke had seen St. Mark's Gospel, and Dr. Owen, that St. Mark had seen St. Luke's; but there does not appear to be a sufficient similarity of expression to justify either of these conclusions. There was among the ancients a difference of opinion concerning the priority of these two Gospels; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point.
There is also great doubt about the place where this Gospel was published. It seems most probable that it was published in Greece, and for the use of Gentile converts. Dr. Townson observes, that the evangelist has inserted many explanations, particularly concerning the scribes and Pharisees, which he would have omitted if he had been writing for those who were acquainted with the customs and sects of the Jews. We must conclude that the histories of our Saviour, referred to in the preface of this Gospel, were inaccurate and defective, or St. Luke would not have undertaken this work. It does not, however, appear that they were written with any bad design; but being merely human compositions, and perhaps put together in great haste, they were full of errors. They are now entirely lost, and the names of their authors are not known. When the four authentic Gospels were published, and came into general use, all others were quickly disregarded and forgotten.
St. Luke's Gospel is addressed to Theophilus; but there was a doubt, even in the time of Epiphanius, whether a particular person, or any good Christian in general, be intended by that name. Theophilus was probably a real person, that opinion being more agreeable to the simplicity of the sacred writings. We have seen that St. Luke was for several years the companion of St. Paul; and many ancient writers consider this Gospel as having the sanction of St. Paul, in the same manner as St. Mark's had that of St. Peter. Whoever will examine the evangelist's and the Apostle's account of the eucharist in their respective original works, will observe a great coincidence of expression, Luke 22; 1 Corinthians 11, St. Luke seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education, than fell to the lot of the writers of the other three Gospels. This Gospel contains many things which are not found in the other Gospels; among which are the following: the birth of John the Baptist; the Roman census in Judea; the circumstances attending Christ's birth at Bethlehem; the vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna; Christ's conversation with the doctors in the temple when he was twelve years old; the parables of the good Samaritan, of the prodigal son, of Dives and Lazarus, of the wicked judge, and of the publican and Pharisee; the miraculous cure of the woman who had been bowed down by illness eighteen years; the cleansing of the ten lepers; and the restoring to life the son of a widow at Nain; the account of Zaccheus, and of the penitent thief; and the particulars of the journey to Emmaus. It is very satisfactory that so early a writer as Irenaeus has noticed most of these peculiarities; which proves not only that St. Luke's Gospel, but that the other Gospels also, are the same now that they were in the second century.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

According to evidence from early records, Luke was a Gentile who was born in Antioch in Syria. By profession he was a doctor (Col_4:14), but he also became a skilled historian. His most memorable writing was a lengthy account of the development of Christianity from the birth of its founder to the arrival of its greatest missionary in Rome. The first part of this record is called Luke’s Gospel, the second part the Acts of the Apostles (Luk_1:1-4; Act_1:1-2).
Luke first appears in the biblical record when he joined Paul and his party in Troas during Paul’s second missionary journey. This is shown by Luke’s inclusion of himself in the narrative – ‘we sought to go into Macedonia . . . we made a direct voyage’ (Act_16:10-11). Luke went with Paul to Philippi (Act_16:12; Act_16:16) and remained there when Paul and his party moved on (indicated by the use of ‘they’, not ‘we’, in Act_17:1). It seems that Luke lived in Philippi for some time. When Paul passed through Philippi on his way to Jerusalem at the end of his third missionary journey, Luke rejoined Paul’s party. This is indicated by the renewed use of ‘us’ and ‘we’ in the narrative (Act_20:5-6). (For a map of the area of Luke’s movements see ACTS, BOOK OF.)
From this time on, Luke kept close to Paul. This explains why the sea journey to Palestine and the events that followed in Jerusalem and Caesarea are recorded in some detail (Acts Chapters 20-26). Paul and his party were in Palestine for at least two years (Act_24:27), and Luke no doubt used this time to gather information from eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus to include in his Gospel. He was a very thorough and discerning person, who was careful to see that his story of Jesus was meaningful and accurate (Luk_1:1-4).
Luke travelled with Paul on the eventful sea voyage to Rome (Act_27:1; Act_28:16) and remained with him during his two years imprisonment there (Act_28:30; Col_4:14; Philem 24). Although he was close to Paul throughout those years, Luke says almost nothing about himself in his record. He seems to have been a humble person, never self-assertive, but always dependable. When the aged Paul, after being released and later recaptured, sat cold and lonely in prison awaiting his execution, Luke alone stayed with him (2Ti_4:11).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

This name is a contraction of Lucanus, and indicates that Luke was descended from heathen ancestors, and that he was either a slave or a freedman. According to ecclesiastical tradition, the author of the Gospel is the same Luke who is mentioned in Paul's Epistles (Phm_1:24; 2Ti_4:11; Col_4:14), 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 author of that work accompanied the Apostle Paul in his journeys (Act_16:10, sq.; Act_20:5-13). Luke accompanied Paul also in his last journeys to Jerusalem and Rome (Act_21:1-17; Acts 27; Acts 28). The profession of a physician harmonizes also with the condition of a freedman, indicated by the form of the name. The higher ranks of the Romans were disinclined to practice medicine, which they left rather to their freed-men. It harmonizes with this that Paul (Col_4:14) distinguishes Luke from the Christians of Jewish descent, whom, in Col_4:11-12, he styles, 'being of the Circumcision.' Eusebius states that Antioch in Syria was the native city of Luke. In this city there was at an early period a congregation of Christians converted from heathenism. Since Luke was a physician, we must suppose that he was a man of education. 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 medical sciences. The higher degree of his education is further proved by the classical style in which the introduction 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 geographical subjects.
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 attempted to compose a history of our Lord from the statements of eyewitnesses and of the first ministers of the word of God. As these 'many' are distinguished from eye-witnesses, we must suppose that many Christians wrote brief accounts of the life of Jesus, although they had not been eye-witnesses. It is possible that Luke made use of such writings. He states that he had accurately investigated the truth of the accounts communicated, and that, following the example of the 'many,' he had made use of the statements of eye-witnesses, whom he must have had frequent opportunities of meeting with when he traveled with Paul.
The Gospel of St. Luke contains exceedingly valuable accounts, not extant in the books of the other evangelists; for instance, those concerning the childhood of Jesus, the admirable parables in Luke 15-16, the narration respecting the disciples at Emmaus, the section from Luk_9:51 to Luk_19:27, which contains particulars mostly wanting in the other evangelists. It has been usual, since the days of Schleiermacher, to consider this portion as the report of a single journey to the feast at Jerusalem; but it is evident that it contains accounts belonging to several journeys, undertaken at different periods.
As to the statements of the ancients concerning the date or time when the Gospel of St. Luke was written, we find in Irenaeus, that Mark and Luke wrote after Matthew. According to Eusebius, Origen stated that Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark; but Clemens Alexandrinus, according to the same writer, asserted, on the authority of the 'tradition of the earlier elders,' that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written before the others. According to this view, Mark was written after Luke. It is however likely that this statement arose from a desire to explain why the genealogies were omitted by Mark and John.
From the circumstance that the book of Acts leaves St. Paul a captive, without relating the result of his captivity, most critics have, with considerable probability, inferred that Luke accompanied St. Paul to Rome, that he employed his leisure while there in composing the Acts, and that he left off writing before the fate of Paul was decided. Now, since the Gospel of St. Luke was written before the Acts, it seems to follow that it was written a considerable time before the destruction of Jerusalem.
It is likely that Luke, during Paul's captivity at Cesarea, employed his leisure in collecting the accounts contained in his Gospel in the localities where the events to which they relate happened. The most ancient testimonies in behalf of Luke's Gospel are those of Marcion, at the beginning of the second century, and of Irenaeus, in the latter half of that century.
Besides the Gospel which bears his name, Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. This work contains the history of the foundation of the Christian church in two great sections: the first embracing the spread of Christianity among the Jews, chiefly by the instrumentality of Peter (Acts 1-12); and the second, its spread among the heathen, chiefly by the instrumentality of Paul (Acts 13-28).
That the accounts of Luke are authentic may be perceived more especially from a close examination of the inserted discourses and letters. The characteristic marks of authenticity in the oration of the Roman lawyer Tertullus, in Acts 24, and in the official letters in Act_23:26, sq.; 15:23, sq.; can scarcely be overlooked. The address of Paul to the elders of the Ephesian church is characteristically Pauline, and even so full of definite allusions and of similarity to the Epistle to the Ephesians, that it furnishes a confirmation of the authenticity of that letter.
As for the testimonies in behalf of the authenticity of the Acts, they are the same as for Luke's Gospel. Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, expressly mention the Acts, and Eusebius reckons them among the Homologoumena. However, the book of Acts was not read and quoted so often in the early church as other parts of Scripture.




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Luke
the evansgelist, and author of the Acts of the Apostles. Although himself not an apostle, he has admirably supplemented their labors by his pen, and has thus laid the literary world under lasting obligation.
I. His Name. — This, in the Greek form, Λουκᾶς, is abbreviated from Λουκανός, the Graecized representative of the Latin Lucanues, or Λουκιλιός, Lucilius (comp. Silas for Silvanus; Annas for Annanus; Zenas for Zenodorus: Winer, Gram. page 115). The contraction of ανός into ᾶς is said to be characteristic of the names of slaves (see Lobeck, De Substantiv. in ᾶς exeuntibus, in Wolf, Analect. 3:49), and it has been inferred from this that Luke was of heathen descent (which may also be gathered from the implied contrast between those mentioned Col_4:12-14, and the οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, Col_4:11), and a libertus, or freedman. This latter idea has found confirmation in his profession of a physician (Col_4:14), the practice of medicine among the Romans having been in great measure confined to persons of servile rank (Middleton, De Medicoruam apud Roman. degent. Conditione). To this, however, there were many exceptions (see Smith, Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Medicus), and it is altogether an insufficient 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 fishermen and tax-gatherers of the Sea of Galilee.
II. Scripture History. — All that can be with certainty known of Luke must be gathered from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul. The result is but scanty. He was not born a Jew, for he is not reckoned among them " of the circumcision" by Paul (comp. Col_4:11 with Col_4:14). If this be not thought conclusive, nothing can be argued from the Greek idioms in his style, for he might be a Hellenistic Jew, nor from the Gentile tendency of his Gospel, for this it would share with the inspired writings of Paul, a Pharisee brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. The date of his conversion is uncertain. He was not, indeed, "an eyewitness and minister of the Word from the beginning" (Luk_1:2), or he would have rested his claim as an evangelist upon that ground. His name does not once occur in the Acts, and we can only infer his presence or absence from the sudden changes from the third to the first person, and vice versa, of which phenomenon, notwithstanding all that has of late been urged against it, this, which has been accepted since the time of Irenaeeus (Contr. Haer. 3:14), is the only satisfactory explanation. Rejecting the reading συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν, Act_11:28 (which only rests on D. and Augustine, De Serm. Dom. 2:17), which would bring Luke into connection with Paul at a much earlier period, as well as the identification of the evangelist with Lucius of Cyrene (Act_13:1 : Rom_16:21), which was current in Origen's time (ad Romans 16:39; see Lardner, Credibility, 6:124; Marsh, Michaelis, 4:234), and would make him a kinsman of Paul, we first find Luke in Paul's company at Troas, and sailing with him to Macedonia (Act_16:10-11). A.D. 48. Of his previous history, and the time and manner of his conversion, we know nothing, but Ewald's supposition (Gesch. d. v. Isr. 6:35, 448) is not at all improbable, that he was a physician residing in Troas, converted by Paul, and attaching himself to the apostle with all the ardor of a young convert. He may also, as Ewald thinks, have been one of the first uncircumcised Christians. His conversion had taken place before, since he silently assumes his place among the great apostle's followers without any hint that this was his first admission to the knowledge and ministry of Christ. He may have found his way to Troas to preach the Gospel, sent possibly by Paul himself. There are some who maintain that Luke had already joined Paul at Antioch (Act_11:27-30; see Journal of Sacred Literature, October 1861, page 170, and Conybeare and Howson's Life of Paul, chapter 5, new ed. Lond. 1861).
He accompanied 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 (Act_17:1), did he, it would seem, take any further part in the apostle's missionary journey. The first person appears again on Paul's third visit to Philippi, A.D. 54 (Act_20:5-6), from which it has been gathered that Luke had spent the whole intervening time — a period of seven or eight years — in Philippi or its neighborhood. If any credit is to be given to the ancient opinion that Luke is referred to in 2Co_8:18 as "the brother whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the churches" (a view adopted by the Church of England in the collect for Luke's day), as well as the early tradition embodied 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. If this be so, we are to suppose that during the "three months" of Paul's sojourn at Philippi (Act_20:3) Luke was sent from that place to Corinth and this errand, the word "gospel" being, of course, to be understood, not, as Jerome and others erroneously interpret it, of Luke's written gospel, but of his publication of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ. The mistaken interpretation of the word "gospel" in this place has thus led some to assign the composition of the Gospel of 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 Ascension," A.D. 51. From their reunion at Philippi, Luke remained in constant attendance on Paul during his journey to Jerusalem (Act_20:6 to Act_21:18), and, disappearing from the narrative during the apostle's imprisonment at Jerusalem and Csesarea, reappears again when he sets out for Rome (Act_27:1). A.D. 56. He was shipwrecked with Paul (28:2), and traveled with him by Syracuse and Puteoli to Rome (Act_27:12-16), where he appears to have continued as his fellow-laborer (συνεργός, Phm_1:24; Col_4:4) till the close of his first imprisonment, A.D. 58. The Second Epistle to Timothy (4:11) 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, A.D. 64.
III. Traditionary Notices. — The above sums up all we really know about Luke; but, as is often the case, in proportion to the scantiness of authentic information is the copiousness of tradition, increasing in definiteness, be it remarked, as it advances. His Gentile descent being taken for granted, his birthplace was appropriately enough fixed at Antioch, "the center of the Gentile Church, and the birthplace of the Christian name" (Eusebius, H.E. 3:4; comp. Jerome, De Vir. Illust. 7; In Matt. Praef.), though it is to be observed that Chrysostom, when dwelling on the historical associations of the city, appears to know nothing of such a tradition. He was believed to have been a Jewish proselyte, ignorant of Hebrew (Jerome, Quaest. in Genesis c. 46), and probably because he alone mentions their mission, but in contradiction to his own words (Luk_1:23) — one of the seventy disciples who, having left our Lord in offense (Joh_6:60-66), was brought back to the faith by the ministry of Paul (Epiphan. Haer. 51:11); one of the Greeks who desired to "see Jesus" (Joh_12:20-21), and the companion of Cleopas on the journey to Emmaus (Theophyl. Proem in Luc.). An idle legend of Greek origin, which first appears in the late and credulous historian Nicephorus Callisus (died 1450), Hist. Eccl. 2:43. and was universally accepted in the Middle Ages, represents Luke as well acquainted with the art of painting (ἄκρως τὴν ζωγράθφου τέχνην ἐξεπιστάμενος), and assigns to his hand the first portraits of our Lord, his mother, and his chief apostles (see the monographs of Manni [Florent. 1764] and Schlichter [Hal. 1734]).
Nothing is known of the place or manner of his death, and the traditions are inconsistent with one another. Gregory Naz. reckons him among the martyrs, and the untrustworthy Nicephorus gives us full details of the time, place, and mode of his martyrdom, viz., that he was crucified to a live olive-tree in Greece, in his eightieth year. According to others, he died a natural death after preaching (according to Epiphanius, Contra Haer. 51:11) in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and Macedonia; was buried in Bithynia, whence his bones were translated by Constantius to Constantinople (Isid. Hispal. c. 82; Philostorgius volume 3, chapter 29). See generally Koöhler, Dissert. de Luca Ev. (Lipsiae, 1695); Credner, Einleit. ins N.T. 1:124.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores