« ZurückWeiter »
nage, · Dr. Heumann, whose observations and arguments I transcribe below. On the other hand Estius, and Mr. Jones, strongly argue, that the same Luke is here intended, who is mentioned by St. Paul in some other epistles, even our evangelist.
Upon the whole it must be acknowledged, that this distinguishing character, · beloved physician,' has occasioned a difficulty. Nevertheless, I would hope, that it is not insuperable. It is allowed, that in all other places of St. Paul's epistles by Luke is intended the evangelist. We know from the book of the Acts, that Luke, the writer of it, went with Paul to Rome, and stayed with him to the end of his captivity there; nor is there any reason to surmise, that at the time of writing this epistle he might be absent from the apostle upon some special occasion : for he joins in the salutations in the epistle to Philemon of Colosse, sent at the same tiine with this epistle to the Colossians, where also he is styled a “ fellow-labourer.' Philem. ver. 24. So that I cannot but think it probable, that Luke the evangelist was by profession a physician.
5. St. Luke. was a Jew by birth, at least by religion.
None of the writers out of whom we have made collections, call him a Gentile. Some, in Jerom's time, whose names we do not know, said, Luke had been a Jewish proselyte, that is, had been converted from Gentilism to Judaism, and afterwards became a Christian : but none; that I remember, expressly say that he was converted from Gentilism to Christianity; unless we should make an exception for Nicephorus Callisti, who in one place says so.
But he is too late, and of too little credit to be much regarded: especially if he be singular. All our writers, who speak of Luke as a companion and disciple of apostles, must have supposed him to be a Jew: and some have said that he was one of the seventy, as we have seen.
That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a constant companion of Paul in many places, particularly at Jerusalem. If Luke had been an uncircumcised Gentile, some exceptions would have been made to him. Nevertheless nothing of that kind appears either in St. Paul's epistles or in the Acts. Another thing leading to this supposition is his « following the Jewish computations of times : such as the passover, pentecost, the fast. Of all which instances may be seen in Acts xii. 3; xx. 6 and 16; xxvii. 9.
Here it will be objected, that “ Luke the physician," mentioned Col. iv. 14, must have been a Gentile, because at ver. 10, 11, the apostle had mentioned “ all those of the circumcision, who were his fellow-workers, and had been a comfort to him.” To which I answer. It is not certain, that Luke, the evangelist, is the “ beloved physician,” there spoken of: we just now saw the reasons of doubting about it. But there is another solution. St. Paul e needs not to be understood to speak absolutely: there might be several exceptions to that proposition. Timothy was one, who joins with the apostle in sending the epistle: but he and Luke were so well known to all, as faithful to the apostle, that they needed not to be there mentioned. And Luke and Demas follow afterwards, somewhat lower, 'nearer the end of the epistle, very properly, ver. 14, “ Luke the beloved physician, and Demas greet you.” And I should be unwilling from this text, and the coherence, to conclude, that Demas was a Gèntile. Says the apostle : Philem. ver. 24, “ There salute thee Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.” The two first named were certainly Jews: I suppose, the other two were so likewise. Salutations from believers, of the Jewish people, would be very acceptable and encouraging to Gentile converts. tendo, ut de re certà, sed tamen conjecturas affero. Calvin. mentio est ; (neque enim alium Lucam Paulo familiarem in Col. iv. 14.
ulla prodit historia.) Quod vero tacuit hoc loco adjutorem, i Sunt tamen in Scripturâ Lucam Evangelistam a Luca id diserte expressit ad Philemonem scribens, • Demas et LuMedico distinguendi causæ, &c. Bastag. Ann. 60. n. xxxiii. cas, adjutores mei.' Non enim putavit Apostolus rem satis
notam ubique inculcandam esse. Ubi illud observandum est, a Lucam Evangelistam fuisse medicum, Hieronymus alii- Apostolum assidue Lucam cum Demâ nominare, tam hoc que probari posse credunt ex Col. iv. 14. Sed ex hoc ipso loco, et ad Philemonem, quam etiam in secundâ ad Tim. ep. loco confirmari posse puto contrarium. Si enim isto loco cap. iv. Quis ergo dixerit, alium atque alium esse Lucam Paulus innuisset comitem suum omnibus notum, Lucam Evan- cum eodem Demå nominatum? Com, in Col. iv. 14. gelistam, simpliciter vocâsset Lucam, uti fecit, 2 Tim. iv. 11. c. See Mr. Jones's Newand Full Method, Vol.III. p. 103, 104. At, ut significaret, se de alio Lucâ loqui, discriminis causâ • Quis vero cum veri specie aliquâ Lucam Evangelistam addit ó barpos. C. A. Heuman. Ep. Misc. T. II. p. 518. unum ex Judæis fuisse neget? Lucam, qui in designandis
b Sunt qui in dubium revocent, num de Luca Evangelista temporibus Judæorum disciplinam adhibet, Pentecostem scililoquatur Apostolus. Hunc enim dicunt notiorem fuisse, quam cet, jejunium, tertiam noctis vigiliam ; quæ omnia ex Judaïco ut artis nomine eum designaret. Ac saltem, inquiunt, eum more petuntur. Basnag. An. 60, n. xxxiii. coadjutorem suum, aut fidelem comitem, vocâsset. Verum, Adde, quod iste sermo, “hi soli,' non est ita rigide acut vetus et communis, ita probatissima sententia est. ... Lu- cipiendus, ut absolute excludat omves alios, sed berigno sensu : cam Evangelistam medicum fuisse, et eum ipsum, cujus hic hi fere soli sunt adjutores. Est. ad iv. Col. 11.
St. Luke says, Acts i. 19, “ insomuch as that field was called in their proper tongue Aceldama:" whence some may argue, that he was a Jew. But it might be observed, that none of the evangelists, when they speak of the Jews, say any thing, to denote they were of that people. Says St, Matthew, ch. xxviii. 15, “ And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”. Mark vii. 3, “ For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands, eat not.” John i. 19, “ The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem,” ch. v. 1, “ After this there was a feast of the Jews." See also ch. xix. 40–42. And does not St. Paul say, 1 Thess. ii. 14, 15, “ Ye became followers of the churches of God in Judea. For ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they of the Jews: who both' killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets.” It might not be amiss to observe also Acts xxviii. 17-19. And I might refer to other places.
That this evangelist was a Jew, is the opinion of many learned and judicious moderns; par: ticularly Mr. S. Basnage, whom I have cited at note 4 p. 193, and J. A. Fabricius, who likewise is clearly of the same opinion. . Indeed I think it ought not to be questioned.
6. Luke the evangelist was probably an early Jewish believer, soon after Christ's ascension, if not a hearer of Christ, and one of the seventy disciples.
Our most ancient writers, as we have seen, speak of Luke as a disciple of the apostles. Some have reckoned him one of the seventy, others have thought him to be Lucius, mentioned by St. Paul in the epistle to the Romans, and others have supposed that he was one of the two disciples that met Jesus in the way to Emmaus.
The large accounts which Luke has given in the book of the Acts of several below the rank of apostles, has made me think, that he was one of the same rank, and possibly one of them. There are three instances of this kind. The first is Stephen, one of the seven deacons, who, as we learn, “was full of faith and power, and did great wonders and miracles among the people:” against whom there arose a strong opposition, so that he was the very first martyr for Christ and his doctrine, and of whom St. Luke has recorded a long discourse before the Jewish council
, ch. vii. The second is Philip, another of the seven, of whom St. Luke writes, that he first preached Christ to the Samaritans, ch. viii
. 5–8; “so that the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did ;” and what follows. The same Philip afterwards, having first explained the scriptures to him, and brought him to sincere faith in Jesus as the Christ, baptized the chamberlain and treasurer of the queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish proselyte, and a man of great distinction, ver. 26–40. The third instance of this kind is that of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, “who travelled as far as Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to Jews only.” Who soon after their coming to “ Antioch, spake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord,” ch. xi. 19-21. These were the men who first preached to Gentiles out of Judea : as Peter was the first who preached to Gentiles at the house of Cornelius in Cæsarea, ch. x. and not long before them. We have, as it seems, the names of three of those men. Ch. xiii. 1, “ Simeon, called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen.” The second person here named may be our evangelist.
A like argument may be formed in favour of St. Luke's having been one of Christ's seventy disciples, in that he, and he only of all the evangelists, has inserted in his gospel an account of the commission which Christ gave unto them, ch. x. 1—20. And indeed some learned men of later times, as well as formerly, have been of opinion that Luke was one of the seventy. Among these is our Dr. Whitby, who reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been of that number. J. A. Fabriciuso was inclined to be of the same opinion. And in favour of it refers to the passages of Adamantius and Epiphanius, before taken notice of by us. This likewise was the sentiment of Mr. Basnage.
* Lucas, sive Lucius,... incertum, num idem cum Luca Adamantii cujusdam Dialogis adversus Marcionitas, et Epimedico, Col. iv. 14, quin Judæus fuerit, at antequam Christo phanii H. LI. n. xi. Neque adeo repugnat et Lucam et Mar.. nomen daret, ne dubito quidem, præcipue si verum est quod cum ex illis fuisse, licet veteres miro consensu, ut Marcum legas in Origenis sive Adamantii cujusdam dialogis, adversus Petri, ita Lucan tradunt Pauli fuisse interpretem et sectatoMarcionitas, et Epiphanii LI. II. eum fuisse e numero LXX. Haud dubie enim Apostolorum etiam præ LXX. illis discipulorum. Bib. Gr. 1. 4. c. v. T. III. p. 132.
magna prærogativa erat, &c. Bib. Gr. l. iv. cap. v. T. III. + See his Preface to St. Luke's gospel.
... præcipue, si verum est, quod legas in Origenis seu d Ann. 60. num, xxviii.
Dr. C. A. Heumann has lately published a dissertation concerning Christ's seventy disciples, containing many curious observations: and he supposeth that * these several following were of that. number. Matthias, chosen in the room of the traitor, Joseph, called Barsabas, surnamed Justus, and probably the seven deacons, or however some of them, and the four teachers and prophets of Antioch, Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, whom he thinks to be our Luke the evangelist, and Manaen. Acts xiii. 1. His argument is to this purpose. We have not in the gospels the names of those disciples; nor did Christ form a college or company of them, as he did of the twelve, because it was a temporary office, which subsisted for a short time only. They were but once sent forth; and when they were returned, their commission was at an end, Nevertheless they hereby became qualified for public service: and it may be reckoned very probable, that if an opportunity was afforded, they would be very willing, after Christ's ascension, to exert themselves in his cause. And it is very likely that some of these seventy were, chosen, and employed by the apostles as men who had been already exercised in the service of the gospel, and were thereby fitted for farther usefulness.
So that learned writer. And it must be acknowledged, that this is a specious argument; but it is rather founded in an ingenious speculation, than in the authority of testimony; which, in this case, would be more valuable.
Indeed Epiphanius, beside the places o formerly alleged, where he says, Mark and Luke were of the seventy, has another, where he mentions a great many who were said to be of that number: as the seven deacons, all whom he mentions by name, and also Matthias, Mark, Luke, Justus, Barnabas, Apelles, Rufus, Niger. And therefore, we cannot deny, that in the time of Epiphanius, there were some, who entertained an opinion, that all these were of Christ's seventy disciples. Nevertheless, we do not find it in Irenæus, or Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or any others of the highest antiquity, and best credit: nor in Eusebius, or Jerom, that I remember, who were acquainted with the writings of those ancient authors, and many others, which are not come to us. Eusebius has a chapter concerning the disciples of our Saviour: he says, the names of Christ's twelve apostles were well known; but there was no where any catalogue of the seventy. However, he mentions Barnabas, Matthias, and the disciple put up with him, and one. or two more, who were said to be of the seventy: but he takes not here any notice of Mark, or Luke, or of any of the seven deacons.
Matthias and Barsabas certainly were such men, as are described Acts i. 21, 22, and they may have been of the seventy: but we cannot be certain, because we have not been assured of it by any accounts, that demand full assent. Some of the seven deacons may have been of the seventy, as Stephen and Philip; but we do not know that they were. It is very probable, that all those deacons were not of the seventy, particularly, Nicolas, a proselyte, of Antioch. If Luke, the evangelist, be the same as Lucius, of Cyrene, there ariseth a strong objection against his having been one of the seventy. Simeon, called Niger, and Lucius, of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1, and “ the men of Cyprus and Cyrene,” (of whom those two just mentioned, were a part,) were early believers, after Christ's ascension, and they may have heard and seen the Lord in person: but they cannot be well supposed to have been of the seventy. Christ's twelve apostles were of Galilee: it is likely, that the seventy also were of the same country, or near it. Christ sent them forth from him, to go over the land of Israel, and to return to him in a short time, where he should be: and his usual residence was in Galilee, It does not appear to me at all probable, that our Lord put into that commission any men, who were born, and usually resided abroad, in other countries, out of the land of Israel.
Hitherto, then, we have not any full proof, that our evangelist was one of the seventy. Let us proceed.
St. Luke ch. xxiv. 13–34, relates how two disciples met Jesus after his resurrection, as they were going to Eminaus. And he says, that the name of one of them was Cleopas. Theo phylact in his comment upon this place, as o formerly shown, observes: “Some' say, that one of these two was Luke himself: but that the evangelist concealed his own name.' Nicephorus
· Dissertatio de Septuaginta Christi Legatis. ap. Nov. e This Vol. p. 87. Syllog. Dissertat. part I. p. 120-154.
* Τινες τον ένα τέτων των δυο αυτον τον Λουκαν είναι φασι" b Hær. LI. num. vi. xi.
CH. 20. num. iv.
διο και απεκρυψε το εαυτο ονομα ο ευαγγελισης. Τheoph. in 4 Των δε εβδομηκοντα μαθητων καταλογος μεν εδεις εδαμη Luc. cap. xxi, p. 539. Popstai. H. E. I. i. c. 12.
Callisti • in one place, makes no doubt, that Luke was the other disciple not named. It is likely, that he had met with it in more ancient writers. Sam. Basnage readily declares himself of the same opinion. Indeed, I think, it has a great appearance of probability. It is much more likely, than the tradition, or interpretation in Epiphanius that it was Nathanael. The same Basnage says, that if Nathanael had been the other, St. Luke would have named him.
St. Mark, ch. xvi. 12, 13, has a like account, but briefer, of two, to whom Christ appeared
they were walking into the country.” He does not name either of them. Grotius allows that Mark's and Luke's histories are of the same persons. Both the evangelists speak of these as two of them. They were not of the twelve, but yet they were of their company, such as had been with Jesus: as is allowed by Grotius, and 'Beza. Nevertheless they say that : Luke is not the other. He is excluded, as they say, by the tenour of his introductions both to his gospel, and the Acts. Their reasonings will be considered presently.
However, supposing Luke to be the person here intended, I do not think that he is thereby shown to be one of the seventy. Cleopas, and the other were disciples of Christ and eye- . witnesses: but it does not therefore follow that they were of the number of the seventy.
We proceed. Among the salutations in the epistle to the Romans are these, ch. xvi. 20. “ Timothy my work-fellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater my kinsmen, salute you." All these were Jewish believers, and the three last mentioned, as it seems, were the apostle's relations. That by Lucius some supposed the evangelist Luke to be intended, we have been informed by so ancient a writer as Origen. And it is very likely that St. Luke's name was written differently: Lucas, Lucius, and Lucanus. There is the more reason to think that the evangelist is here intended, because he must have been with the apostle at the time of writing the epistle to the Romans. Says Mr. Tillemont, • Many believe that St. Luke is he whom St. • Paul in his epistle to the Romans calls Lucius, making his name a little more Latin. And it * is the more likely, inasmuch as the Acts assure us, that St. Luke was then with St. Paul. If « that be so, he was related to this apostle.' Grotius, who supposed our evangelist to have been of Antioch, taking notice of the above mentioned observation of Origen, says, that · Lucius in Rom. xvi. is the same as Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1.
Fabricius * esteemed it somewhat probable that Lucius is the evangelist.
Dr. Heumann supposes' this Lucius to be St. Luke, and the same as Lucius of Cyrene, whom " he computes to be one of the seventy disciples, as before seen.
Mr. Basnage likewise argues very strongly, that · Lucius is our evangelist.
* Tous Trepi Ayxay xai Kasoway Thy do that apleri yowcasetai, anteloquio, ab oculatis testibus se separans. Grot. ad Luc. προς εσπεραν εις δειπνον αυτοις συγκατακλιθεις. Niceph. 1. 1.. Χxiv. 13. c. 34. p. 117.
h Mem. Ec, tom. II. S. Luc, • Nulla sane magis idonea ratio observatur animo, cuir Docet nos Origenes, in annotationibus epistolæ ad Cleopæ, non alterius, Lucas meminerit; quomodo Joannes, Romanos, fuisse qui crederent Lucium eum, qui in eâdem ubi de se mentionem agitat, nomen dissimulat suum. Si de epistolâ nominatur. xvi. 21. esse hunc ipsum Lucam, et grege Apostolorum fuissent, aut virorum multâ laude in Lucium dici flexione Romanâ, Lucam Græca Ego Lucium evangelio celebratorum, uti Nathanaël, quod Epiphanio illum, cujus ibi meminit Paulus, puto non alium esse a Cyrevisum, iterum atque iterum dicemus, tam ejus quam Cleopa nensi, quem noster hic nominat, Actor. xiii. 1. Grot. Præf. nomen fænerâsset. Ann. 33. num. CL.
ad Evang. S. Luc. • See Vol. ii. p. 420.
k Fuerant enim jam olim, qui, teste Origene, Lucam d Quare immerito Euthymius hic aliam putat historiam in- eundem putârunt cum Lucio, quem Paulus inter our gevens dicari, quam eam, quæ a Lucâ copiose describitur. Grot. ad suos refert Rom. xvi. 21. Neque verisimilitudine destituitur Marc. xvi. 12.
hæc sententia. Fab. Bib. Gr. ubi supra. p. 132. •... δυσιν εκ αυτων.] των μετα Ιησε γενομενων, ut supra Lucas non est verum, id est, pure expressum, nomen evandixit, ver. 10. Nam hoc nomine etiam alii extra xii. censen- gelistæ, sed vel Lucanus, (quem in modum et ex Silvanus tur, præcipue qui de numero erant illorum septuaginta. Grot. factum est Silas) vel Lucius. Ac perverisimile est, evangead Marc. xvi. 11.
listam nostrum esse Lucium illum Cyrenæum, cujus fit * Ex iis, et autwv, nempe discipulis, non autem ex Aposto- mentio Act. xiii. 1. Quem nec diversum esse credo ab illo lis. Aliorum enim præter Apostolos mentio facta fuit præ- Lucio, quem Paulus, Rom. xvi. 21, vocat cognatum suum, cedente versu 9. Bez. in Luc. xxiv, 13.
simulque testatur, eum in suo comitatu fuisse. Heumann. & Alterum fuisse hunc nostrum Lucam, quidam ex veteri- Ep. Misc. T. II. p. 519. bus arbitrantur, quorum opinio refellitur ex præfatione Actis m Jure igitur credimus, et hos quatuor (Act. xiii. 1.] fuisse Apostolorum præpositâ. Bez. ad Luc. xxiv. 18.
e septuaginta illorum discipulorum numero.
Jam inter hos si Duo ex illis, nempe eorum, quos modo 201www.cæterorum,' Lucius non est alius quam Lucas Evangelista, merito et nomine designârat, e sectatoribus Christi. . Probabiliter sen- Lucam nostrum recensemus inter septuaginta illos discipulos. tiunt veteres, fuisse hos de numero LXX. ... Nomen alterius Diss. de Lxx. Christi Legat. sect. 20. p. 149. infra exprimit Lucas, Cleopam vocans. Alterum ipsum Lucam Evangelistam Paulo consanguineum fuisse verisiLucam multi putârunt; quos satis ipse refellit in evangelii militudinis multum habet. Lucium sane, cujus nomine
Indeed this opinion cannot be well said to be destitute of probability: since there is a good deal of reason to think that Luke was in the apostle's company when he wrote the epistle to the Romans. And if Lucius be not he, no mention is made of him; which is very unlikely.
If this be our evangelist, we hence learn that he was a Jew, and related to the apostle. And if this be Lucius of Cyrene, we know his character, and, in part, his history, from Acts xi. 19–21. and xiii. 1-4. He was an early Jewish believer, after Christ's ascension, and together with others was very serviceable in early preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentiles out of Judea. And, once more, if the other, who accompanied Cleopas in the way to Emmaus, be Luke the evangelist, he was a disciple and eye-witness of Jesus Christ: but I do not say one of the seventy
Now we come to consider the objection of Beza, Grotius, and divers others: who have supposed, that St. Luke, in the introduction to his gospel excludes himself from the number of eyewitnesses. But though this has been a difficulty with many, there have been of late divers learned men, remarkable for inquisitiveness and good judgment, who are not much moved by it. One of them is Dr. Whitby in his preface to St. Luke's gospel, already taken notice of by us. Another is · Fabricius, a third • Basnage, the fourth Heumann: who in his forecited Disserta, tion observes, that · St. Luke's introduction imports no more, than that he was not an eye-witness from the beginning, nor an apostle. But he may have been for some while a follower of Christ, very consistently with what he there writes: and, probably, he was so. But he very fitly puts the credit and authority of his history upon the testimony of the apostles.
I shall likewise transcribe below a passage of Petavius a from his animadversions upon Epiphanius, though it be somewhat long. I do it the rather, because he is an older author than any of those hitherto cited in behalf of this interpretation. He is considering what Epiphanius says of Luke's being one of Christ's seventy disciples. The sum of what he advanceth is to this purpose: · He dares not affirm, that Luke was a disciple of Christ, because many of the fathers * have thought otherwise. But he says, there is nothing in St. Luke's introduction to induce us • to think, he was not a disciple of Christ, or that he had not seen a large part of the things • related by him: but rather the contrary. And he was willing to show, that Epiphanius is not • contradicted by St. Luke himself.'
7. St. Luke was for a good while a constant companion of St. Paul. But he was also acquainted with the other apostles.
Tertullian and Chrysostom, as we have seen, call St. Paul Luke's master.. But they need not to be understood to intend that Luke learned nothing from other apostles. So Irenæus said: "Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel that had been preached by
Romanos salutat Apostolas, ex ipsius cognatis unus erat. habere Apostolis, testibus nulli obnoxiis exceptioni. Heum. Sunt vero non pertenues conjecturæ, quibus adducamur ad Diss. ib. num. XX. existimandum unum eumdemque virum cum Lucâ Lucium d Quod Lucas e discipulorum numero fuerit, asserit et esse. Quæ antiqua sane sententia fuit, cujus meminit Ori- Dorotheus in Synopsi. . . Sed contra sentiunt plerique, et id ex genes in Rom. xvi. ... Silam quidem Paulus ipse Silvanum ipsis Lucæ verbis colligunt, cum ait: Edote zquos... Sed tanvocat. Aderat etiam Paulo comes Lucas, cum missa est ad tum abest, ut hæc discipulum Cliristi fuisse, ac non pleraque, Romanos epistola, quem insalutatos præteriisse, prorsus sit cum ab eo gererentur, oculis usurpasse negent, ut contrarium incredibile ; quod tamen factum fuisset, si Lucius est a Luca polius hinc educi possit. Verbum enim rapaxonebely nonnundiversus. Basn. ann. 60. 11. xxxiii.
quam ad eam notitiam refertur, quæ oculis ipsis, ac propria Neque obstat porro, quod Lucas affirmat, se ea scribere, intelligentiâ comparatur, non aliorum sermonibus; ut, cum quæ acceperit ab illis, qui fuissent ati apyens AUTOTTA.. Nam Demosthenes av TW TEPI TAPATÇerbelas, de Æschine, cujus in non de omnibus Lxx dici hoc poterat, quod Act. i. 21. et seq. legatione comes fuerat, sic loquitur: Kai ở T8T8 TO'YSEUP.OTOS ad Apostolum requiritur. Bib. Gr. T. III. p. 133.
ειδως, και παρακολοθηκως απασι κατηγορω. Sic igitur Lucas b Ann. 60. num, xxviii.
ανωθεν παρηκολgθηκεναι πασιν ακριβως dicitur, hoc est, comRepugnare quidem videri possit ipse Lucas cap. i. 2. perta, explorataque, ac spectata etiam, habuisse. Ac videri scribens, se que tradat accepisse a τοις απ' αρχής αυτοπταις.
onnulla hic antithesis esse, ut cum superiore versu Verum non se negat fuisse αυτοπτην, qui negat se αυτοπτην απ' dixerit: Quemadmodum multi res a Christo gestas scribere anys fuisse. Concedimus itaque non ab initio statim, uti aggressi sunt, καθως παρεδoσαν ημιν οι απ' αρχής, statim subjiA postolos, quos impetas T8 2.078 appellat, interfuisse rebus a ciat: Edote nguo wagrxon 801,xoti, hoc est, qui non, ut illi, Christo gestis Lucam. Sed aliquo jam tempore
functo ex tapadores, sed ex propria id scientiâ compererim. Cæmunere Messiæ se applicuisse Lucam, et postea semper in terum, tametsi ad euni sensum accommodari Lucæ verba nihil ejus comitatu fuisse, quo minus credamus, hoc ipsius testimo- prohibet, non idcirco tamen Christi discipulum fuisse certo nium minime impedit. Accedit, quod modestiæ erat, Aposto- pronuntiare ausim, cum huic adversari sententiæ longe plures lorum potius, quam suum ipsius testimonium cominendare, Patres intelligam. Sed ista commemoravi, ut ne Lucæ ipsi jubereque lectores, si forte sibi credituri sint ægrius, fidem de se testanti refragari quisquam Epiphanium arbitretur.
Petav. Animadv. in Epiphan. Hær. li. num. xi. p. 89, 90.