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, Acts xvii, 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,” Acts xx, 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, 2 Tim. iv, 11; Col. iv, 14, Philemon 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 xx-xxviii.
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, iv, 14, was Luke the evangelist.
Lardner thinks that there are a few allusions to this Gospel in some of
the apostolical fathers, especially in Hermas 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 Irenæus;
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 to 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 xxii; 1 Cor. xi.
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 Irenæus 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.
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, Acts xvii, 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,” Acts xx, 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, 2 Tim. iv, 11; Col. iv, 14, Philemon 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 xx-xxviii.
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, iv, 14, was Luke the evangelist.
Lardner thinks that there are a few allusions to this Gospel in some of
the apostolical fathers, especially in Hermas 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 Irenæus;
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 to 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 xxii; 1 Cor. xi.
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 Irenæus 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.