[1] Tychicus may be the other "brother," in viii. 22.
[2] So also A. Hilgenfeld, _Zeit. f. theol. Wissenschaft_ (1907), p.
214, argues that "we" marks the author's wish to give his narrative
more vividness at great turning-points of the story--the passage from
Asia to Europe, and again the real beginning of the solemn progress
of Paul towards the crisis in Jerusalem, as yet later towards Rome,
xxvii. 1 ff.
[3] Note that Luke is at pains to explain why Paul passed by Asia and
Bithynia in the first instance (xvi. 6 f.).
[4] Compare what A. W. Verrall has said of the poet Statius and "the
gentle doctrine of humanity" on Hellenic soil, as embodied in his
description of The Altar of Mercy at Athens (_Oxford and Cambridge
Review_, i. 101 ff.).
LUKE, GOSPEL OF ST, the third of the four canonical Gospels of the
Christian Church.
1. _Authorship and Date._--The earliest indication which we possess of
the belief that the author was Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul
(Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11), is found in Justin Martyr,
who, in his _Dialogue with Trypho_ (c. 103), when making a statement
found only in our Luke, instead of referring for it simply to the
"Apostolic Memoirs," his usual formula, says that it is contained in the
memoirs composed by "the Apostles and _those that followed them_." But
the first distinct mention of Luke as the author of the Gospel is that
by Irenaeus in his famous passage about the Four Gospels (_Adv. Haer._
III. i. 2, c. A.D. 180).
This tradition is important in spite of the fact that it first comes
clearly before us in a writer belonging to the latter part of the 2nd
century, because the prominence and fame of Luke were not such as would
of themselves have led to his being singled out to have a Gospel
attributed to him. The question of the authorship cannot, however, be
decided without considering the internal evidence, the interpretation of
which in the case of the Third Gospel and the Acts (the other writing
attributed to Luke) is a matter of peculiar interest. It is generally
admitted that the same person is the author of both works in their
present form. This is intimated at the beginning of the second of them
(Acts i. 1); and both are marked, broadly speaking throughout, though in
some parts much more strongly than in others, by stylistic
characteristics which we may conveniently call "Lucan" without making a
premature assumption as to the authorship. The writer is more versed
than any other New Testament writer except the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and very much more than most of them, in the literary Greek
of the period of the rise of Christianity; and he has, also, like other
writers, his favourite words, turns of expression and thoughts. The
variations in the degree to which these appear in different passages are
in the main to be accounted for by his having before him in many cases
documents or oral reports, which he reproduces with only slight
alterations in the language, while at other times he is writing freely.
We have next to observe that there are four sections in Acts (xvi. 9-17,
xx. 4-16, xxi. 1-17, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16) in which the first person
plural is used. Now it is again generally admitted that in these
sections we have the genuine account of one who was a member of Paul's
company, who may well have been Luke. But it has been and is still held
by many critics that the author of Acts is a different person, and that
as in the Third Gospel he has used documents for the Life of Christ, and
perhaps also in the earlier half of the Acts for the history of the
beginnings of the Christian Church, so in the "we" sections, and
possibly in some other portions of this narrative of Paul's missionary
life, he has used a kind of travel-diary by one who accompanied the
Apostle on some of his journeys. That neither this, nor any other,
companion of Paul can have been the author of the whole work is supposed
to follow both from its theological temper and from discrepancies
between its statements and those of the Pauline Epistles on matters of
fact.
A careful examination, however, of the "we" sections shows that words
and expressions characteristic of the author of the third Gospel and the
Acts are found in them to an extent which is very remarkable, and that
in many instances they belong to the very texture of the passages. This
linguistic evidence, which is of quite unusual force, has never yet been
fairly faced by those who deny Luke's authorship of Acts. Moreover, the
difficulties in the way of supposing that the author of Acts could at an
earlier period of his life have been a companion of St Paul do not seem
to be so serious as some critics think. Indeed it is easier to explain
some of the differences between the Acts and St Paul's Epistles on this
assumption than on that of authorship by a writer who would have felt
more dependent upon the information which might be gathered from those
Epistles, and who would have been more likely to have had a collection
of them at hand, if his work was composed c. A.D. 100, as is commonly
assumed by critics who reject the authorship by Luke.
There is then strong reason for believing the tradition that Luke, the
companion of the Apostle Paul, was the author of our third Gospel and
the Acts. Another argument in support of this belief, upon which much
reliance has been placed, is found in the descriptions of diseases, and
the words common in Greek medical writers, contained in these two works.
These, it is said, point to the author's having been a physician, as
Luke (Col. iv. 14) was (see esp. Hobart, _The Medical Language of St
Luke_, 1882). The instances alleged are, many of them at least, not very
distinctive. Yet they have some value as confirming the conclusion based
on a comparison of the "we" sections of the Acts, with the remainder of
the two books.
If we may assume that the writer who uses the first person plural in
Acts xvi. 10 sqq. was the author of the two works, they can hardly have
been composed later than A.D. 96; he would then have been about 65 years
old, even if he was a very young man when he first joined the Apostle.
An earlier date than A.D. 96 cannot be assigned if it is held that his
writings show acquaintance with the _Antiquities of the Jewish People_
by Josephus. The grounds for supposing this appear, however, to be
wholly insufficient (see article on Acts by Bishop Lightfoot in 2nd ed.
of Smith's _Dict. of Bible_, p. 39) and it is not easy to see why he
should have deferred writing so long. On the other hand, a comparison of
Luke xxi. 20-24 with Mark xiii. 14 seq. seems to show that in using his
document Luke here mingled with the prophecy the interpretation which
events had suggested and that the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and
dispersion of its inhabitants had already taken place some little time
before. _Circa_ A.D. 80 may with probability be given as the time of the
composition of his Gospel.
2. _Contents, Sources and Arrangement._--In the preface to his Gospel,
i. 1-4, Luke alludes to other Gospel-records which preceded his own. He
does not say whether he made any use of them, but he seems to imply that
his own was more complete. And this was true in regard to the two which,
from a comparison of his Gospel with the other two Synoptics, we know
that he did use. These we may call his Marcan and his Logian document.
Luke also claims that he has written "in order." The instances in which
he has departed from the Marcan order, and the manner in which he has
introduced his additional matter into the Marcan outline, do not suggest
the idea that he had any independent knowledge of an exact kind of the
chronological sequence of events. By the phrase "in order" he may
himself have intended chiefly to contrast the orderliness and
consecutiveness of his account with the necessarily fragmentary
character of the catechetical instruction which Theophilus had received.
He may, also, have had in view the fact that he has prefixed a narrative
of the birth and infancy of Jesus and of John and so begun the history
at what he considered to be its true point of departure; to this he
plainly alludes when he says that he has "traced the course of all
things accurately from the first." He may, also, in part be thinking of
those indications which he--and he alone among the evangelists--has
given of the points in the course of secular history at which Jesus was
born and the Baptist began to preach (ii. 1-3, iii. 1, 2), though it may
be doubted whether these are in all respects accurate.
Chap. i. 5-ii. 52. _The Birth and Infancy of John and of Jesus._--This
portion of the Gospel differs in style and character from all the
remainder. Its source may be an Aramaic or a Hebrew document. Some
critics, however, hold that it is wholly Luke's own composition, and
that the Hebraic style--in which he was able to write in consequence
of his familiarity with the LXX.--has been adopted by him as suitable
to the subject in hand. Perhaps an intermediate view may be the most
probable one; he may have obtained part of his materials, especially
the hymns, from some source, and have skilfully worked these into his
narrative.
Chap. iii. 1-iv. 13. _From the Commencement of the Preaching of the
Baptist to the End of the Temptation in the Wilderness._--The accounts
of the Baptist's preaching and of the temptation are taken from the
Logian document. The genealogy of Jesus here given is peculiar to this
Gospel.
Chap. iv. 14-vi. 16 _From the Commencement of the Ministry of Jesus in
Galilee to the Appointment of the Twelve._--In the main Luke here
follows his Marcan document. He has, however, independent narratives
of the visit of Jesus to Nazareth (iv. 16-30) and the call of the
first disciples (v. 1-11). The former, which in Mark is placed some
way on in the Galilean ministry (vi. 1-6_a_), is given by Luke at the
very beginning of it, perhaps because of the previous connexion of
Jesus with Nazareth. But that it is not in its right position here,
before any mention of the work in Capernaum, appears from verse 23.
Luke has also slightly altered the position of the call of the first
disciples in the sequence of events.
Chap. vi. 17-viii. 3.--This is an insertion into the Marcan outline of
matter chiefly taken from the Logian document (the Address, Luke vi.
20-49, corresponds with portions of the Sermon on the Mount in Matt,
v.-vii.; the healing of the centurion's servant, Luke vii. 1-10 =
Matt. viii. 5-13; the message of the Baptist and the discourse for
which it gave occasion, Luke vii. 18-35 = Matt. xi. 2-19). He includes
besides, a few pieces peculiar to this Gospel which Luke had probably
himself collected.
Chap. viii. 4-ix. 50. _From the Adoption of Parabolic Teaching to the
End of the Ministry in Galilee._--He begins again to follow his Marcan
document for what he gives. Many sections, however, contained in the
corresponding part of Mark have no parallel in Luke, while the
parallel to one of them is placed later and differs considerably in
form. Possibly this fact points to his Marcan document having been
briefer than our Mark, and to its having afterwards received
interpolations (see MARK, GOSPEL OF ST).
Chap. ix. 51-xviii. 14. _Incidents and Teaching connected with Journey
towards Jerusalem._--This is another insertion into the Marcan
outline, much longer than the previous one, and consisting partly of
matter taken from the Logian document (warnings to men who offer to
become disciples, Luke ix. 57-60 = Matt. viii. 19-22; a
mission-charge, Luke x. 2-16 = Matt. ix. 37 and x. 7-16, 40;
thanksgiving that the Father reveals to the simple that which is
hidden from the wise, Luke x. 21-24 = Matt. xi. 25-27 and xiii. 16,
17, &c., &c.) and partly of sections peculiar to Luke, about which the
same remark may be made as before.
Chap. xviii. 15-xxii. 13. _From the Bringing of young Children to
Jesus to the Preparation for the Passover._--Luke again takes up his
Marcan document, nearly at the point at which he left it, and follows
it in the main, though he adds the story of Zacchaeus and the parable
of the Minae (the Ten Pieces of Money), and omits the withering of the
fig-tree and some matter at the end of the discourse on the Last
Things, which are given in Mark.
Chap. xxii. 14 to end. _The Last Supper, Passion and Resurrection._--
Though in this portion of his Gospel signs of use of Mark are not
wanting, he also has much that is peculiar to himself. It is supposed
by some that he here made use of another document. It seems more
likely that he had a good many distinct oral traditions for this part
of the history and that he used them freely, sometimes substituting
them for passages of the Marcan document, sometimes altering the
latter in accordance therewith.
3. _Doctrinal, Ethical and Literary Characteristics._--The thought of
divine forgiveness, as set forth in the teaching of Jesus and manifested
in His own attitude towards, and power over, the hearts of the outcasts
among the people, is peculiarly prominent in this Gospel. This feature
of Christ's ministry appears only in one passage of Mark; some other
illustrations of it are mentioned in Matthew, but in Luke there are
several more which are peculiar to himself (see the three individual
cases vii. 36 sqq.; xix. 1 sqq., xxiii. 40 sqq.; also the description at
xv. 1, and the three parables that follow). These were "lost sheep of
the house of Israel"; but Christ's freedom from Jewish exclusiveness is
also brought out (1) as regards Samaritans, by the rebuke administered
to the disciples at ix. 52 sqq., the parable in x. 30 sqq., and the
incident at xvii. 15-19; whereas they are not mentioned in Mark, and in
Matthew only in the saying (x. 5) in which the Twelve are forbidden to
enter any village of theirs; (2) as regards Gentiles, by the words of
Jesus at iv. 25-27, not to mention sayings which have parallels in the
other Gospels. The promises of Old Testament prophets that the Gentiles
would share in the blessing of the coming of Christ are also recalled,
ii. 32-iii. 6. Once more the word [Greek: euangelizesthai] ("to proclaim
good tidings") is a favourite one with Luke. These are all traits which
we should expect to find in one who was a companion of Paul and a
Gentile (Col. iv. 11, 14).
With the breadth and depth of the Saviour's sympathy, which are so fully
exhibited in this Gospel, we may connect the clearness with which His
true humanity is here portrayed. An incident of His boyhood is related
in which His sense of vocation is revealed, and this is followed by the
years of quiet growth that succeeded (ii. 41-52). Further, during the
years of His public ministry more glimpses of His inner life are given
us than in either Matthew or Mark. His being engaged in prayer is
mentioned several times where there is no parallel in those Gospels
(iii. 21, v. 16, vi. 12, ix. 18, 28, 29, xi. 1). Again, besides
narrating the Temptation in the Wilderness and the Agony in the Garden,
this evangelist gives a saying which implies that Jesus had undergone
many temptations, or rather a life of temptation (xxii. 28). Once more
he records a saying that shows Christ's sense of the intense painfulness
of the work He was sent into the world to do, arising from the divisions
which it caused (xii. 49 sqq.).
Among practical duties, the stress laid on that of almsgiving is
remarkable (see especially xi. 41, xii. 33, xvi. 9 sqq., which are
peculiar to this Gospel). In the second of these passages the disciples
are exhorted to choose a life of voluntary poverty; the nearest parallel
is the ideal set before the rich young man at Mark x. 21 = Matt. xix. 21
= Luke xviii. 22. In the Beatitudes in Luke vi. 20, 21 a condition of
physical want is contemplated, not, as in Matt. v. 3, 6, poverty of
spirit and spiritual hunger, while woes are denounced against the rich
and the full (vi. 24, 25). The folly of absorption in the amassing and
enjoyment of wealth is also shown (xii. 15 sqq. and xvi. 19 sqq.). But
it would be an exaggeration to say, as some have done, that the poor are
represented as being the heirs of a blessed hereafter, simply on the
ground that they are now poor. In the Beatitudes Christ's own disciples
are addressed, who were blessed _though_ poor, whereas the rich as a
class were opposed or indifferent to the kingdom of God. Again, the
contrast between Lazarus and Dives in the future state pictures vividly
the reversals that are in store; but it is unreasonable to take it as
implying that every poor man, whatever his moral character, will be
blessed.
But while there is in Luke's Gospel this strain of asceticism--as to
many in modern times it will appear to be--the prevailing spirit is
gentle and tender, and there is in it a note of spiritual gladness,
which is begun by the song and the messages of angels and the hymns and
rejoicing of holy men and women, accompanying the birth of the Christ
(chaps. i. and ii., _passim_), and prolonged by the expressions of joy,
the ascriptions of thanksgiving and praise, called forth by the words
and works of Christ and the wonders of the cross and resurrection, which
are peculiarly frequent and full (iv. 15, v. 25, 26, vii. 16, x. 17,
xiii. 13, 17, xvii. 15-18, xviii. 43, xix. 6, 37, 38, xxiii. 47, xxiv.
41, 52, 53. Cf. also xv. 5, 7, 10, 32).
The peculiar charm which this Gospel has been generally felt to possess
is largely due to the spiritual and ethical traits which have been
noted. But from a purely literary point of view, also, it is
distinguished by great excellences. The evangelist's phraseology is
indeed affected to some extent by the rhetorical style of the period
when he wrote. Nevertheless his mode of narration is simple and direct.
And the many fascinating character-sketches, which he has added to the
portrait gallery of Scripture, are drawn clearly and without signs of
effort. In some cases he has skilfully suggested parallelisms and
contrasts. The chief instance is his careful interweaving of the
accounts of the births and early years of John the Baptist and of Jesus.
Later examples are the two sisters, Martha and Mary (x. 38-42), and the
penitent and the impenitent thief (xxiii. 39-48). That he was a man of
great versatility appears in the Acts from the speeches introduced on
various occasions, if (as is probable) they were in part, at least, his
own composition. In the Gospel he had no opportunity for showing his
power in a manner strictly analogous. But if the hymns in the two
introductory chapters owe even their Greek form in any measure to him,
he was a poet of no mean order. His style varies greatly; at times, as
in i. 1-4, it is Hellenistic; at others, as in i. 5 to end of ii., it is
strongly Hebraic. Such differences are largely due, no doubt, to the
degree in which he was in various parts independent of, or dependent
upon, sources. But he would seem in some degree to have adapted his
manner of writing to the subject-matter in hand. And at all events it is
worthy of note that we pass without any sense of jar from passages in
one style to those in another.
See Godet, _Commentaire sur l'évangile de S. Luc_ (Eng. trans., 1875);
Plummer's _Comm. on St Luke_ (in international Series, 4th ed., 1906);
W. Ramsay, _Was Christ born in Bethlehem?_ (3rd ed., 1905); A.
Harnack, _Lukas der Arzt_ (1906); B. Weiss, _Die Quellen des
Lukas-Evangeliums_ (1907); also books on the Four Gospels, or the
Synoptic Gospels, mentioned at end of article GOSPEL. (V. H. S.)
LULEÅ, a seaport of Sweden, capital of the district (_län_) of
Norrbotten, on the peninsula of Sandö, at the mouth of the Lule river
and the north-west corner of the Gulf of Bothnia. Pop. (1900) 9484. It
is connected at Boden (22 m. N.) with the main line of railway from
Stockholm to Gellivara and Narvik on Ofoten Fjord in Norway. By this
line Luleå is 723 m. N.N.E. of Stockholm. It is the shipping place for
the iron ore mined at Gellivara, 127 m. N. by W., and there are smelting
works at Karlsvik in the vicinity. Timber is also exported, being
floated in large quantities down the Lule. As a rule the port is closed
by ice from November to the end of May. The town was almost entirely
burnt down in 1887, and its buildings are new--the church (1888-1893),
the Norrbotten Museum and a technical school being the most important.
Luleå as founded by Gustavus Adolphus was 7 m. higher up the river, but
was moved to the present site in 1649.
LULL (or LULLY), RAIMON, or RAYMOND (c. 1235-1315), Catalan author,
mystic and missionary, was born at Palma (Majorca). Inheriting the
estate conferred upon his father for services rendered during the
victorious expedition (1229) against the Balearic Islands, Lull was
married at an early age to Bianca Picany, and, according to his own
account, led a dissipated life till 1266 when, on five different
occasions, he beheld the vision of Christ crucified. After his
conversion, he resolved to devote himself to evangelical work among the
heathen, to write an exposure of infidel errors, and to promote the
teaching of foreign tongues in seminaries. He dedicated nine years to
the study of Arabic, and in 1275 showed such signs of mental exaltation
that, at the request of his wife and family, an official was appointed
to administer his estate. He withdrew to Randa, there wrote his _Ars
major_ and _Ars generalis_, visited Montpellier, and persuaded the king
of Majorca to build a Franciscan monastery at Miramar. There for ten
years he acted as professor of Arabic and philosophy, and composed many
controversial treatises. After a fruitless visit to Rome in 1285-1286,
he journeyed to Paris, residing in that city from 1287 to 1289, and
expounding his bewildering theories to auditors who regarded him as half
insane. In 1289 he went to Montpellier, wrote his _Ars veritatis
inventiva_, and removed to Genoa where he translated this treatise into
Arabic. In 1291, after many timorous doubts and hesitations for which he
bitterly blamed himself, Lull sailed for Tunis where he publicly
preached Christianity for a year; he was finally imprisoned and
expelled. In January 1293 he reached Naples where tradition alleges that
he studied alchemy; there appears to be no foundation for this story,
and the treatises on alchemy which bear his name are all apocryphal.[1]
His efforts to interest Clement V. and Boniface VIII. in his favourite
project of establishing missionary colleges were unavailing; but a visit
to Paris in 1298 was attended with a certain measure of success. He was,
however, disappointed in his main object, and in 1300 he sailed to
Cyprus to seek support for his plan of teaching Oriental languages in
universities and monasteries. He was rebuffed once more, but continued
his campaign with undiminished energy. Between 1302 and 1305 he wrote
treatises at Genoa, lectured at Paris, visited Lyons in the vain hope of
enlisting the sympathies of Pope Clement V., crossed over to Bougie in
Africa, preached the gospel, and was imprisoned there for six months. On
being released he lectured with increasing effect at Paris, attended the
General Council at Vienne in 1311, and there witnessed the nominal
adoption of his cherished proposals. Though close on eighty years of
age, Lull's ardour was unabated. He carried on his propaganda at
Majorca, Paris, Montpellier and Messina, and in 1314 crossed over once
more to Bougie. Here he resumed his crusade against Mahommedanism,
raised the fanatical spirit of the inhabitants, was stoned outside the
city walls and died of his wounds on the 29th of June 1315. There can be
no reasonable doubt that these events actually occurred, but the scene
is laid by one biographer at Tunis instead of Bougie.
The circumstances of Lull's death caused him to be regarded as a
martyr, local patriotism helped to magnify his merits, and his
fantastic doctrines found many enthusiastic partisans. The _doctor
illuminatus_ was venerated throughout Catalonia and afterwards
throughout Spain, as a saint, a thinker and a poet; but his doctrines
were disapproved by the powerful Dominican order, and in 1376 they
were formally condemned in a papal bull issued at the instance of the
inquisitor, Nicolas Emeric. The authenticity of this document was
warmly disputed by Lull's followers, and the bull was annulled by
Martin V. in 1417. The controversy was renewed in 1503 and again in
1578; but the general support of the Jesuits and the staunch fidelity
of the Majorcans saved Lull from condemnation. His philosophical
treatises abound with incoherent formulae to which, according to their
inventor, every demonstration in every science may be reduced, and
posterity has ratified Bacon's disdainful verdict on Lull's
pretensions as a thinker; still the fact that he broke away from the
scholastic system has recommended him to the historians of philosophy,
and the subtle ingenuity of his dialectic has compelled the admiration
of men so far apart in opinion as Giordano Bruno and Leibniz.
The speculations of Lull are now obsolete outside Majorca where his
philosophy still flourishes, but his more purely literary writings are
extremely curious and interesting. In _Blanquerna_ (1283), a novel
which describes a new Utopia, Lull renews the Platonic tradition and
anticipates the methods of Sir Thomas More, Campanella and Harrington,
and in the _Libre de Maravelles_ (1286) he adopts the Oriental
apologue from _Kalilah and Dimnah_. And as a poet Lull takes a
prominent position in the history of Catalan literature; such pieces
as _El Desconort_ (1295) and _Lo Cant de Ramon_ (1299) combine in a
rare degree simple beauty of expression with sublimity of thought and
impassioned sincerity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Histoire littéraire de la France_ (Paris, 1885), vol.
xxix.; _Obras rimadas de Ramon Lull_ (Palma, 1859), edited by G.
Rosselló; _Obras de Ramon Lull_ (Palma, in progress), edited by G.
Rosselló; José R. de Luanco, _Ramon Lull, considerado como alquimista_
(Barcelona, 1870) and _La Alquimia en España_ (2 vols., Barcelona,
1889-1897); K. Hofmann, "Ein Katalanische Thierepos," in the Bavarian
Academy's _Abhandlungen_ (Munich, 1872), vol. xii. pp. 173-240; M.
Menéndez y Pelayo, _Origenes de la novela_ (Madrid, 1905), pp. 72-86;
Havelock Ellis in _Contemporary Review_ (May 1906). (J. F.-K.)