VERY little direct mention is made of this valuable contributor
to the sacred canon, in any part of the New Testament; and those
notices which seem to refer to him, are so vague, that they have
been denied to have any connection with the evangelist. The name
which is given in the title of his gospel is, in the original
form, _Lucas_, a name undoubtedly of Latin origin, but shown
by its final syllable to be a Hebrew-Greek corruption and
abridgment of some pure Roman word; for it was customary for
the New Testament writers to make these changes, to accord with
their own forms of utterance. Lucas, therefore, is an abridgment
of some one of two or three Roman words, either Lucius, Lucilius
or Lucanus; and as the writers of that age were accustomed
to write either the full or abridged form of any such name,
indifferently, it seems allowable to recognize the Lucius
mentioned in Acts and in the Epistle to the Romans, as the same
person with the evangelist. From the manner in which this Lucius
is mentioned in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,
it would seem that he was related to Paul by blood or marriage,
since the apostle mentions him along with Jason and Sosipater,
as his “kinsman.” In the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of
Acts, Lucius is called “the Cyrenian,” whence his country may
be inferred to have been the province of northern Africa, called
Cyrene, long and early the seat of Grecian refinement, art,
eloquence and philosophy, and immortalized by having given
name to one of the sects of Grecian philosophers,――the Cyrenaic
school, founded by Aristippus. Whether he was a Jew by birth,
or a heathen, is not known, and has been much disputed. His
birth and education in that seat of Grecian literature, may be
reasonably considered as having contributed to that peculiar
elegance of his language and style, which distinguishes him as
the most correct of all the writers of the New Testament.
His relationship to Paul, (if it may be believed on so slight
grounds,) was probably a reason for his accompanying him as he
did through so large a portion of his travels and labors. He
first speaks of himself as a companion of Paul, at the beginning
of his first voyage to Europe, at Troas; and accompanies him
to Philippi, where he seems to have parted from him, since, in
describing the movements of the apostolic company, he no longer
uses the pronoun “_we_.” He probably staid in or near Philippi
several years, for he resumes the word, in describing Paul’s
voyage from Philippi to Jerusalem. He was his companion as
far as Caesarea, where he probably staid during Paul’s visit
to Jerusalem; remained with him perhaps during his two years’
imprisonment in Caesarea, and was certainly his companion on
his voyage to Rome. He remained with him there till a short time
before his release; and is mentioned no more till Paul, in his
last writing, the second epistle to Timothy, says, “Luke alone
is with me.” Beyond this, not the slightest trace remains of
his history. Nothing additional is known of him, except that he
was a physician; for he is mentioned by Paul, in his Epistle to
the Colossians, as “Luke, the beloved physician.” The miserable
fiction of some of the papistical romances, that Luke was also a
painter, and took portraits of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, &c.
is almost too shamelessly impudent to be ever mentioned; yet the
venerable Cave, the only writer who has heretofore given in full
the Lives of the Apostles, refers to it, without daring to deny
its truth!
(That Luke was also regarded by the Fathers as an _apostle_, is
shown by the fact that, 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.’)