L U K 
LUKLAVET'ZI, a river of Walachia, which funs into 
4he Alaut fixteen miles north of Brancovani. 
LUKAWET'Z, a town of Bohemia, in the circle of 
Czafiau : twenty-eight miles fouth-weft of Czaflau. 
LUKE, a Chriftian name of men ; fometimes adopted 
for a furnarne. 
LUKE (St.), an evangelift, and the companion of St. 
Paul in his labours, as St. Mark was of St. Peter. Ac¬ 
cording to Eufebius of Cxfarea and St. Jerome, who are 
followed by fome ancient and the greater number of mo¬ 
dern writers, he was a native of Antioch; but we do not 
find that hypothefis countenanced by any other fathers 
before Eufebius. Grotius and Wetltein are of opinion 
that he was not only born at Antioch, but was alfo a 
(lave, either at Rome or in Greece; who, haying obtained 
his freedom, returned to his native place, where he became 
firlt a Jewifh profelyte, and then a Chriitian. And Cave 
as well as Mill think it likely, that he was converted by 
Paul at Antioch. Thefe notions, however, appear to be 
entirely deliitute of foundation in antiquity. If he is the 
Lucius mentioned in Romans xvi. ai. the Lucius of Cyi ene 
r; Afts xiii. i. Luke the beloved phylician, in ColofT. iv. 
14. and the Lucas fpoken of in Philem. verfe 34. as feems 
probable in the judgment of fome ancient and modern 
critics; he mult have been of Jewifh defcent, a relation of 
St. Paul, and not unlikely a native of Judea. Plis pro- 
fefHon, it appears, was that of a phylician ; but that he 
was alfo a painter, as the catholic legends pretend, is re¬ 
medied as a fable by the moft judicious writers in that com¬ 
munion. Luke mult have been an early believer; and 
upon the fuppofition that he was one of the two whom our 
Lord met with on the way to Emmaus, on the day of his 
refurredtion, which has a great appearance of probabi¬ 
lity, he was a hearer and a difciple of Chrift himfelf. 
Fabricius, Dr. Whitby, and other learned men among the 
moderns as well as ancients, have been of the opinion that he 
was one of the feventy difciples; which feems to have been 
founded rather on conjecture, than on the authority of tef- 
timony. It is certain, however, that he was held in high 
elteem by St. Paul, who expvefsly calls him his fellow-la¬ 
bourer, and whom he accompanied when that apoltle firlt 
went into Macedonia. Jerome fays, that he was the con- 
ftant companion of St. Paul in his travels. This at lealt 
we may aflert, on the authority of Scripture-hiftory, that 
he was with St. Paul at Troas, whence they went by fea 
to Samothracia, thence to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. 
We find no exprefs mention of him afterwards till St. 
Paul was a fecond time in Greece, and was fetting out 
for Jerufalem w ith the collections which had been made 
for the poor Clitiftians in Judea. On this occafion he 
'accompanied St. Paul from Greece through Macedonia to 
Philippi, and in his fubfequent voyages along the coaft 
of Alia to Ctefarea ; whence they travelled to Jerufalem. 
Here he continued with the apoltle till the infurrection of 
the Jews againft him in the Temple, and attended him dur¬ 
ing his imprifonment at Ctefarea, after he had made his 
appeal to Casfar. And, when St. Paul was fent prifoner 
from Csefarea to Rome, Luke went with him in the 
fame (hip, and remained with him during the two years 
of his imprifonment in that city, beyond which period the 
hiltory of the Adts of the Apoftles is not carried. After 
the enlargement of St. Paul, it appears moll probable that 
St. Luke went into Greece, and continued to preach the 
Gofpel in different parts of that country till his death. 
With refpedt to the precife time, place, and manner, of 
that event, we have no certain information; but from a 
comparifon of the accounts handed down by tradition it 
feems probable that he lived a fingle life, and died a natu¬ 
ral death in Achaia, in the 84th year of his age, about 
the year of Chrift 70, but of what death is uncertain. Phi- 
loftorgius informs us, that inthe reign of the emperor Con- 
flantius the relics of St. Luke were t ran Hated from Achaia 
to Conftantinople ; and therefore it mult have been a ge¬ 
neral periuafion in thofe times, that he had died, and had 
Vot. XIII. No. 942. 
L U K IQS 
been buried, in Achaia, which; Gregory Nazianzen fays,, 
was the province afiigned to St. Luke. 
The writings for which the Chriftian church is indebted 
to St. Luke, are his Gofpel, and the hiltory of The Adis 
of the Apoltle^. Thefe books are inferibed to a perfon 
named Theophilus, who appears from the titles to have 
been a man of rank ; but whether he was a Gentile, or a 
Jew, it is difficult, if not impoffible, and certainly of no 
moment, to determine. The Gofpel of St. Lukeprefents 
us with the hiltory of. the life and adtions of Chrift, from 
his birth till his afeenfion ; to which is prefixed an ac¬ 
count of the birth of his forerunner, John the Baptift. 
His motive for undertaking it was, to give an accurate 
hiltory of the events in our Saviour’s life, founded on the 
teftimony of the apoltles and eye-witneffes; of which 
many had attempted to furnilh narratives, which were 
either imperfect or erroneous. Among the productions 
of thefe many, St. Luke could not mean to include the 
Gofpels of St. Matthew and St. Mark ; for it may be fa- 
tisfadlorily ffiown from internal evidence, that, if thofe 
Gofpels were written and publilhed at fo early a period as 
his ow n, which there is Itrong reafon for queltioning, they 
were at the time when lie wrote unknown to him. And 
he fpeaks of the authors of thofe narratives as if they 
themfelves were not eye-witneffes of the fadts which they 
recorded ; and, therefore, at any rate he could not have 
Matthew in view. But whether thole hiltories were the 
produdtions of honelt men, who had given defedlive ac¬ 
counts, as fome maintain, or were erroneous and fabulous 
narratives, as others contend, are queltions which it docs 
not belong to our province to difculs ; and we refer our 
readers for the arguments in fupport of thofe oppofite hy- 
pothefes to Lardner and Michaelis. With refpedt to the 
time when this Gofpel was written, the commonly.re¬ 
ceived opinion is, that St. Luke wrote it not long before 
the Adtsofthe Apoflles, which were publilhed in the year 
63 or 64; and our Englilh critic juft mentioned has 
pointed out fome marks of time in the Gofpel itfelf, which 
lerve conliderably to l'upport, that hypothefis. On the 
other hand, the learned German employs much ingenuity 
in endeavouring to invalidate that opinion, and to prove 
that for aught we know it may have been written many 
years before the Adis of the Apoflles. But the place where 
St. Luke wrote his Gofpel has given rife to a ftill greater 
variation infentiment than the time when it was compofed. 
Michaelis enumerates no lefs than nine different opinions 
which have been advanced in ancient or in modern times, 
on this fubjedt ; and, after enquiring into the evidence 
on which each is built, concluded it to be moft probable 
that St. Luke wrote his Gofpel in Paleftine, while St. Paul 
was a prifoner at Caefarea. Lardner coincides in opinion 
with Jerome, that it was written in Achaia, and fuppofes 
that, during St.Paul’s imprifonment in Judea, St. Lukeem- 
braced the opportunity ot completing his collections for 
it, in his converlations with feveral of the apoflles, and 
other eye-witneffes of our Lord’s perfon and works ; and 
that when he left St. Paul at Rome, on the termination of 
his imprifonment, he went into Greece, and there com¬ 
pofed and publilhed his Gofpel. It mull be acknowledged, 
however, that the different hypothefes on this fubjedt are 
all founded on traditionary reports; and it is not ealy to 
determine which is the moft eligible conjecture. 
The other work of our evangelift is the hiftory of The 
Adts of the Apoftles ; which was intended, as appears 
from the very firlt ientence, to be a continuation of bis 
Gofpel. According to Mill, it was written intheyear64. 
That it was not written before the year 63 muft be granted, 
fince it continues the hiltory of the actions of the apoftles 
to the termination of St. Paul’s imprifonment, which is 
allowed to have taken place in that year. It is not im. 
probable, therefore, that St. Luke finilhed it either in that 
or the following yearat Rome or in Greece. From a fur- 
vey of its contents, it will be fufficiently obvious, that 
St. Luke did not intend to write a general hiftory of the 
j? D Chriftian 
