« ZurückWeiter »
abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea... These going before, tarried for us at Troas. And we sailed away from Philippi...and came unto them at Troas in five days, where we abode seven days.” So that Luke accompanied Paul, at that time, from Greece through Macedonia to Philippi, and also went with him from thence to Troas.
And it appears from the sequel of the history in the Acts, that Luke was one of those, who accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem, and stayed with him there. And when the apostle was sent a prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, he was in the same ship with him, and stayed with him at Rome during the whole time of his two years' imprisonment there, with which the history of the Acts concludes.
From St. Paul's epistles written at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs of Luke's being with him. He is mentioned as with the apostle. 2 Tim. iv. 11. an epistle written, as I suppose, in the summer, after the apostle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24. he is one of those, who send salutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the apostle, as one of his fellowlabourers. And, if Luke the beloved physician, mentioned Col. iv. 14, be the evangelist, that is another proof of his being then with the apostle.
St. Luke is also supposed by some to be “ the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches,” 2 Cor. viii. 18. but that is not certain.
As I think, that all St. Paul's epistles, which we have, were written, before he left Rome and Italy, when he had been sent thither by Festus, I must be of opinion, that the New Testament affords us not any materials for the history of St. Luke, lower than his own book of the Acts, which brings us down to the end of that period.
II. I now therefore proceed without farther delay, to observe what light may be obtained from ancient Christian writers. And as St. Luke's two books, his gospel and the Acts, were all along universally received; I intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, chiefly, such passages only, as contain something, relating to the history and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two above-named works.
Irenæus, as before quoted : • Anda Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.' And the coherence seems to imply, that this was done after the writing of St. Mark's gospel, and after the death of Peter and Paul. In a passage formerly cited at length, Irenæus shows from the Acts, as we did just now, that Luke attended Paul in several of his journies and voyages, and was his fellow-labourer in the gospel. He likewise says : that • Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul.' Again, he calls him ad disciple and follower of the apostles.' • The apostles, he says, envying
none, plainly delivered to all the things which they had learned from the Lord. So likewise Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says: “ Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the
word.” By all which it seems, that Irenæus reckoned Luke to have been a disciple of the apostles, not a hearer of Jesus Christ himself.
Clement of Alexandria has borne a large testimony to this gospel, and the Acts, as well as to the other books of the New Testament. And as we learn from Eusebius, in' his Institu• tions he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gospels, which he had received from ‘presbyters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. He says, that the gospels con
taining the genealogies were written first :' according to that tradition therefore St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels were written before St. Mark's. Which, according to the same Clement and the tradition received by him, was written at Rome, at the request of Peter's hearers, or the Christians in that city.
Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ, of Mark and Luke as disciples of apostles: therefore I think he did not reckon these to have been of the seventy, or hearers of Christ. However, he ascribes a like authority to these, and says, “ that the gospel
, which Mark published, may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. For Luke's digest also is • Vol. i. p. 365. 1 P. 367.
sicut ipse testatur dicens: Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et ministri fuerunt verbi.
Adv. e Sic- Apostoli simpliciter, nemini invidentes quæ didice- H. I. 3. cap. 14. n. 2. rant ipsi: à Domino, hæc omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et
I Vol. i. p. 394,5. Lucas, nemini invidens, ea quæ ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis,
& P. 422,
h P. 420.
often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master's which the disciples " published.' Again : • Moreover - Luke was not an apostle, but apostolical ; not a master, but a disciple : certainly less than his master, certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the apostles. This likewise shows Tertullian's notion of St. Luke's character. Origen mentions the gospels in the order now generally received.
• The third, says he, is : that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile (converts." In his commentary upon the epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he says, upon ch. xvi. 21. • Some say Lucius is Lucas the evangelist, as indeed
it is not uncommon to write names sometimes according to the original form, sometimes • according to the Greek or Roman termination.' Lucius, mentioned in that text of the epistle to the Romans, must have been a Jew. Nevertheless, as Origen assures us, some thought him to be Luke the evangelist. The same observation we saw in Sedulius, who wrote a commentary upon St. Paul's epistles, collected out of Origen and others.
Eusebius of Cæsarea, as transcribed formerly, speaking of St. Paul's fellow-labourers, says, • And Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part a companion
of Paul, who had likewise a more than slight acquaintance with the rest of the apostles, has left • us in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned • from them. One of these is the gospel which he professeth to have written, as they delivered
it to him, “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word:” with all • whom, he says likewise, he had been perfectly acquainted from the very first. The other is the • Acts of the apostles, which he composed now, not from what he had received by the report of
others, but from what he had seen with his own eyes.' And in another place, cited also formerly, he observes, that? Luke had delivered in his gospel a certain account of such.things, as he had « been well assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversa' tion with the other apostles. From all which, I think it appears that Eusebius did not take Luke for a disciple of Christ, but of apostles only.
In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, “ that " the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle and physician Luke.'
The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, says, that · Mark and Luke were disciples of Christ, and of the number of the seventy.' Epiphanius * speaks to the like
purpose. Gregory Nazianzen says, 'that' Luke wrote for the Greeks,' or in Achaia.
Gregory Nyssen says, that Luke was as much a physician for the soul as for the body:' taking him to be the same that is mentioned Col. iv. 14.
In the catalogue of Ebedjesu it is said, that" Luke taught and wrote at Alexandria, in the • Greek language.'
The author of the Commentary upon St. Paul's thirteen epistles seems to have doubted whether o the evangelist Luke be the person intended Col. iv. 14. Jerom
agrees very much with Eusebius, already transcribed : nevertheless I shall put down here somewhat largely what he says. • Luke, a physician of Antioch, not unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel,
---and another excellent volume, entitled the Acts of the Apostles.... It is supposed that • Luke did not learn his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had
not conversed with the Lord • in the flesh, but also from other apostles : which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume,
saying, “ Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ' ministers of the word." Therefore he wrote the gospel from the information of others : but • the Acts he composed from his own knowledge. So writes Jerom in his book of illustrious men:
In the prologue to his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he says, • The third evangelist is • Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the apostle Paul, and published • his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bæotia.'
a Vol. i. p. 422.
b P. 532.
d Vol. iii. p. 32: e Vol.ii. p. 371. P. 369.
κατειληφεί, εκ της αμα Παυλω συνουσιας τε και διατριβης, κα
i P. 406.
* P. 418. I P. 470. m P. 475.
n P. 488.
O P. 521. P P. 552.
9 P. 550.
He observes elsewhere, that some said Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his, conversion to Christianity. He speaks of St. Luke in many other places, which I need not now take notice of.
Augustine says, that btwo of the evangelists, Matthew and John, were apostles...Mark and • Luke disciples of apostles.'
Chrysostom in the Synopsis, probably his, says, Two of the gospels were written by John and Matthew, Christ's disciples, the other two by Luke and Mark, of whom one was disciple of Peter, the other of Paul. The former conversed with Christ, and were eye-witnesses of what they wrote: the other two wrote what they had received from eye-witnesses.' And to the like purpose in his first homily upon St. Matthew. Again, he says, • Luke had the fluency of
Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters.' And upon Col. iv. 14, he says, this is the evangelist.
Upon Col. iv. 14. Theodoret says, “this person wrote the divine gospel, and the history of * the Acts.' He says the same upon. 2 Tim. iv. 11. * Paulinus' celebrates Luke, as having been first a physician of the body, then of the soul.
Here I would refer to the author of Quæstiones et Responsiones, probably written in the fifth century, who reckons both * the evangelists, writers of the genealogies, that is, Matthew and Luke, to have been Hebrews.
According to Euthalius,' Luke was a disciple of Paul, and a physician of Antioch.
Isidore of Seville, says, of the four evangelists, the first and last relate what they had * heard Christ say, or had seen him perform. The other two, placed between them, relate those
things, which they had learned from apostles. Matthew wrote his gospel first in Judea; then Mark in Italy; Luke the third, in Achaia ; John the last, in Asia. In another place, he says,
Of" all the evangelists Luke, the third in order, is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the • Greek tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his gospel in Greece.' In Theophylact are these things. In his preface to St.
Matthew's gospel he says, " that there < are four evangelists, two of which, Matthew and John, were of the choir of the twelve apostles: • the other two, Mark and Luke, were of the number of the seventy. Mark was a disciple and companion of Peter, Luke of Paul....Luke wrote fifteen years after Christ's ascension.' In the preface to his Commentary upon St. Luke he says, that from that introduction it appears, * Luke was not from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. For others were disciples • from the beginning, as Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the things which • they had seen or heard.' Upon which some remarks were made by us in the place referred to. In his comment upon the history of the two disciples, whom Jesus met in the way to Emmaus, one of whom is said to be Cleopas. Luke xxiv. 18. Theophylact says : Some have thought
the other to be Luke the evangelist, who out of modesty declined to mention himself.' In his preface to the Acts, Theophylact says: “The' writer is Luke, native of Antioch, by profes. ásion a physician.
Euthymius says: · Luke' was a native of Antioch, and a physician. He was a hearer of * Christ, and as some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul. He wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen years after our Lord's ascension.'
So Euthymius. But I should think, that very few, who supposed Luke to have been a native of Antioch, could likewise reckon him a hearer of Jesus Christ. But Euthymius, as it seems, puts together every thing he had heard or read, without judgment or discrimination.
What Nicephorus Callisti says, is, briefly, to this purpose. • Two' only of the twelve, Matthew and John, left memoirs of our Lord's life on earth : and two of the seventy, Mark and Luke... Matthew wrote about fifteen years after our Saviour's ascension. Long after that Mark and * Luke published their gospels by the direction of Peter and Paul. The same Luke composed also the book of the Acts of the apostles.'
To these authors I now add Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, in the tenth century, who
6 P. 583,
a Vol. ii. p. 553.
c P. 601. & P. 602, 603, and see 604.
e P. 604. TOUTOs 8511 ó svayye21595. Iu Col. hom. 12. T. XI. p. 412,
See this Vol. p. 11. note. # 18 2 Tim. T. III. p. 505.
i Vol. ii. p. 630.
See Vol. i. p. 343,
m P. 74. p Ibid.
4 P. 87. • P. 90,
says, "In: the time of the same emperor, (that is, Nero) Luke wrote his gospel in Greek to • å notable and wise man of the Romans, whose name was Theophilus : to whom also he wrote • the Acts, or the history of the disciples. The evangelist Luke was a companion of the apostle • Paul, going with him wherever he went. For which reason the apostle Paul in one of his epistles says: “ Luke, the physician, salutes you.
III. Having thus recited the testimonies of all these writers concerning the evangelist Luke, I shall now make some remarks.
1. We hence perceive, that the notion, that St. Luke was a painter, is without foundation, no notice having been taken of it in these ancient writers. Indeed this is said by one of our authors, Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, from whom a passage was quoted in the way of a summary conclusion. But we do not rely upon him for any thing not confirmed by other writers, more ancient, and of better credit. Nor is this account received by · Tillemont, or ^ Du Pin, but rejected by them, as altogether fabulous, especially the latter; though our Dr. Cave was somewhat inclined to admit one testimony to this affair, whilst he rejected the rest. For a farther account of St. Luke's pretended pictures of the Virgin Mary I refer tof Mr. Bower.
2. We learn also, what judgment ought to be formed of the account given of St. Luke by & Hugo Grotius, and “ J. J. Wetstein: which is, that he was a Syrian and a slave, either at Rome, or in Greece: and that having obtained his freedom, he returned to his native place, Antioch ; where he became a Jewish proselyte, and then a Christian. Which those learned interpreters endeavour to make out in a somewhat different manner. But neither has alleged any ancient writer, saying, that the evangelist Luke was once a slave, and afterwards became a free-man. Some slaves indeed were skilful in the art of medicine, and practised it in the families of their Roman masters. But does it follow, that because Luke was a physician, that he was also a slave? This therefore being entirely destitute of foundation in antiquity must be esteemed the fiction of some learned critic, who was much delighted with his own ingenious speculations.
3. The account given of this evangelist by Eusebius, and Jerom after him, that he was a Syrian, and native of Antioch, may be justly suspected. We do not find it in Irenæus, nor Clement of Alexandria, nor Tertullian, nor Origen, nor in any other writer before Eusebius. Probably, therefore, it is not founded in any general, or well attested tradition : but was the invention of some conjectural critic, who having first imagined, out of his own head, that Luke was originally a Gentile, at length determined, that he was converted by Paul at Antioch. But all this was taken up without any good ground, or sufficient authority: and Luke may have been a believer, before either Paul or Barnabas went to Antioch. The same account is in Jerom: but he only follows Eusebius. He does not seem to have had any information about it from any others: which is an argument, that there was not any early tradition to this purpose.
a Etiam tempore hujus Imperatoris scripsit Lucas Evange- tractum est ex Romano nomine, quod suspicor fuisse Lucillium suum Græcè, ad virum nobilem ex sapientibus Roma- lium. Nam ea gens tum Romæ florebat. ... Erat noster hic nis, cui nomen Theophilus, ad quem item scripsit Acta seu Syrus, ut veteres consentiunt, et medicinam fecit. ... Syria Discipulorum historiam. Erat autem Lucas Evangelista co- autem multos Romanis servos exbibebat. Et medicina, ut ex mes Pauli Apostoli, quocumque per aliquod tempus mansit. Plinio atque aliis discimus, munus erat servile. Manumissi Unde est, quod Paulus Apostolus in quâdam epistolâ sua autem nomen patroni induebant, ut comediarum scriptor, dicit : Lucas medicus vos salutat. Eutych. Annal. p. 335, Afer cum esset, dictus est a patrono Terentio Terentius.... 336.
Ita hic a Lucillio Lucillius, et contracte Arxas. Credibile ... axpus de try 3way papry TEXYY egetISA MEYOS. Niceph. est, cum Romæ medicinam factitâsset aliquamdiu, accepta 1. 2. cap. 43. T. I. 210.
libertate, rediisse in patriam, &c. Grot. Pr. in S. Lucam. e Saint Luc. Mem. Ec. T. II.
h Exercuisse medicinam Paulus ad Colossenses testator; d Nicéphore et les nouveaux Grecs le font peintre. Et il Eusebius autem et Hieronymus addunt fuisse natione Syrum ya en différens endroits des images de la Vierge, qu'on donne Antiochenum. ... Interpretes porro conjectura probabili, tum pour l'ouvrage de S. Luc. Ce sont des fictions, qui n'ont ni ex nomine, tum ex arte quam profitebatur, colligunt, fuisse vérité ni apparence. Du Pin Diss. 1. 2. ch. 2. sect. 5. servum manumissum. Observant enim primo, nomen ejus
• Of more authority with me would be an ancient inscrip- in compendium fuisse redactum, ut pro Lucillio vel Lucano tion, found in a vault near the church of S. Mary in via lata vocaretur Lucas. ... Observant secundo, servos et præcipue at Rome, supposed to be the place, where S. Paul dwelt: Syros medicinam factitâsse.... Quod vero quidam existimant, wherein mention is made of a picture of the B. Virgin, una eum Romæ serviisse, et a domino, qui ipsum manumiserit; ex vii, a B. Lucâ depictis : one of the seven painted by St. nomine Lucam appellatum fuisse, non satis certum videtur. Luke Cave's Lives of the Apostles, in English, p. 222. Nam, præter familiam Lucilliam, quæ Romana fuit, etiam
See his Lives of the Popes, Vol. III. p. 205, 206. Græcis illud nomen fuit impositum, ut ex Anthologiâ constat. s Nostro autem nomen quidem Romanum fuisse arbitror, Wetst. Pr. ad Lue. T. I. P.
643. sed aliquanto longius.... Quare et Lucas, si quid video, con
This story, I say, is in - Eusebius, and Jerom, and some others after them, but not in all succeeding writers. Some of the ancients, as Epiphanius, and others, supposed Luke to have been one of Christ's seventy disciples : which is inconsistent with his being a native of Antioch. If any did not see this inconsistency, and allowed both, it must have been owing to want of due attention and consideration. And the supposition, made by some, that Luke was one of the seventy, shews, that there was no prevailing, and well attested tradition, that he was a native of Antioch. For if there had been any such tradition, it is not easy to conceive, how any should have held the opinion, that he was one of the seventy.
It was formerly observed, that · Chrysostom no where says in his remaining works, that Luke was of Antioch. Indeed, we have lost one of his homilies upon the title and beginning of the Acts of the apostles. Nevertheless, it seems, that in some of his many homilies, still remaining upon that book, or elsewhere, we should have seen this particular, if it had been known to him. He takes notice, that there might be seen in his time the house, in which Paul dwelled at Antioch. And he often speaks of the prerogatives of that city, in his homilies preached there. Methinks this also should have been mentioned as one : that Luke, whom (as is well known) he often celebrates, was a native of that city. If this had been then known, or generally believed, it is reasonable to expect, that it should have been frequently mentioned by Chrysostom, a native and presbyter of Antioch, who shined there as a preacher twelve years. This has disposed me to think, that in his time there was not at Antioch any prevailing tradition to this purpose.
Cave says, it is likely, that Luke was converted by Paul at Antioch. Mill' says the same, rather more positively: which may now be the opinion of many. I have guessed, that it anight be the opinion of the person, who first gave rise to the account, that Luke was a Syrian, of Antioch, mentioned in Eusebius. But I do not remember, that this is expressly said by any of the ancient writers, out of whom I have made so large collections in the preceding volumes; and the thing is altogether unlikely. If Luke had been a Gentile, converted by Paul, he would have been always uncircumcised, and unfit to accompany Paul, as he did. For the apostle would not have allowed the Greeks, or Gentiles, of Antioch, or any other place, to receive that rite. Nor are there in the Acts, or Paul's epistles, any hints that Luke was his convert. Whereas, if he had been so, there would have appeared some tokens of it in the affectionate expressions of Paul toward him on the one hand, or in the respectful and grateful expressions of Luke toward Paul on the other hand.
4. It has been reckoned doubtful by divers learned men, whether the evangelist Luke was a physician.
This particular is different from the foregoing. Nor has it any connection with it. Luke may have been of Antioch, and not a physician. He may have been a physician, and not of Antioch. The question is, whether Luke, the beloved physician, mentioned by St. Paul, Col. iv. 14, be the evangelist. Divers of the ancients, as we have seen, have supposed him there intended. Chrysostom's expressions are these : • This is the evangelist: but he does • not diminish him by naming him so late ; he extols him, as he does Epaphras. It is likely, • that there were others by that name.' This last particular, perhaps, may deserve to be taken notice of. He affirms, that this is the evangelist; but he supposeth, that there were others of the same name.
That distinguishing character, beloved physician, not given to the apostle's companion, and fellow-labourer, in any other epistle, has induced divers learned and inquisitive moderns to doubt, whether one and the same person is intended. Among these are "Calvin, 'Sam. Bas. Vol. ji. p. 605.
b. P. 604.
c P. 614. because it appears not from any credible author, that St. ...a D. Paulo, dum Antiochiæ ageret, (uti verisimile est) • Paul ever was there. It is more probable from the silence Hist. Lit. T. I. p. 25.
. of St. Luke, and St. Paul, who never calleth him bis son, • Scriptor operi huic suscipiendo, si quis unquam, summe ' that he was a Christian, or a believer, long before.' idoneus; utpote qui ab ipso tempore conversionis, quæ conti- 8 Ούτος εςιν ο ευαγγελισης ... εικος ειναι και αλλες καλάgii circa annum æræ vulgaris XLI. Ipsum enim 'Eaamisas MEY85 TW OVOMATI T8TW. Chry. in Col. iv. hom. 12, T. XI. istis, qui magno numero Antiochiæ conversi sunt, [Act. xi. 20.] omnino adnemerârim. Prol. n. 112.
Non assentior iis, qui Lucam Evangelistam intelligunt. " This thought occurred to Dr. Whitby, who, in his pre- Nam et notiorem fuisse judico, quam ut opus fuerit tali indiface to St. Luke's gospel, speaks to this purpose :
catione, et splendidiore elogio fuisset insignitus. Certe coad• told that Luke was converted by Paul at Thebes. Answer. jutorem suum, aut fidum saltem comitem, et certaminum • But this we have only from Nicephorus. And it is the less participem, vocàsset. Potius conjicio, hunc abfuisse, et alte* credible, not only because it comes to us so late, but also rum medici epitheto ab illo discerni.. Quamquam non con