LUCIUS

could scarcely have been a morning-star, whose chief point would be its brightness. This allusion to a waning luminary possibly reflects some myth similar to the Greek Phaethon legend (Gunkel, SchBpfung und Chaos, 132-134). From a supposed reference in Lk 10" and Rev 9'-" to this passage in Isaiah, the name 'Lucifer' came to be used synonymously with 'Satan.'

N. A. KoENia.

LUCIUS. — 1. A 'consul of the Romans' (1 Mao IS's"-), who transmitted the decree of the senate in favour of the Jews. Prbbably the reference is to Lucius Calpurnlus Piso, consul in b.c. 139. 2. Of Cyrene, one of certain prophets and teachers at Antioch in Syria, mentioned in Acts 13', to whom it was re-vealed that Paul and Barnabas should be separated for the work to which they had been called. The sugges-tion that he was the same person as St. Luke, the Evangelist, has nothing to support it. 3. Mentioned in Ro 16", as sending greetings to the brethren at Rome. Possibly the same person as 2, but of this there is no certain proof. Mobley Stevenson.

LUCRE. — The Eng. word 'lucre' is in AV always quaUfled by the adj. 'filthy,' because the word itself had not then the offensive meaning it has now. Erasmus speaks of God turning men's wickedness ' into the lucre and encreace of godlynesse." It simply meant gain. Filthy lucre means sordid gain.

LUD, LUDDI. — Usually supposed to stand for the country and people of Lydia (wh. see). In Gn 10^ (1 Ch 1") Lud is named as one of the 'sons' of Shem, along with the well-known Elam, Asshur, and Aram, and the uncertain Arpachshad. In this Ust the Elamites at least are not Semitic, but are regarded as such by reason of association with the Babylonians. In a similar way the Lydians may be associated here with the Semitic Assyrians, whose rule once extended to the borders of the Lydian empire. No better explanation has been given, and they are at any rate an Asiatic people.

On the other hand, Ludim is given as the name of one of the descendants of Mizraim (Egypt) in Gn 10" (1 Ch 1") in a list of peoples all undoubtedly African. Here there can be no question of Asiatic Lydians, and ex-perts are divided as to whether an unknown African people is referred to, or whether we are to read Lubim (wh. see). This reading would suit equally well Jer 46', and even the singular form Lud might with advan-tage be emended into Lub in Ezk 27'° 30=, Is 66".

J. F. M'Cubdt.

LUHITH.— The ascent of 'Luhith' (Is 15«) is prob-ably the path called the 'descent or going down of Horonaim,' the latter lying, probably, higher than Luhith (cf. Jer 48^). The way leading through WOdy Bene Hammad, from the district of Zoar to the eastern plateau,' may be intended. The Onomasticon places Luhith between Areopolis and Zoar. It is not now known. W. Ewing.

LUKE (EVANGELIST) .—Luke, a companion of St. Paul, is mentioned in Col 4'-", Philem «, 2 Ti 4", in all three places in connexion with Mark. He is generally believed to be the author of the Third Gospel and Acts, and therefore a frequent fellow-traveller with the Apostle of the Gentiles. (See art. Acts of the Apostles for proofs, and tor his place of origin.) He has been identi-fied, but without probability, with Lucius of Cyrene (Ac 13'). He may have been converted by St. Paul, possibly at Tarsus, where he could have studied medicine. TertuUian calls St. Paul his 'illuminator' and 'master' {adv. Marc. iv. 2), which perhaps has this meaning; but it may be a mere conjecture. Luke joined St. Paul on his Second Missionary Journey, apparently for the first time, at Troas. He was not an eye-witness of the Gospel events (Lk 1^), but had ample means of getting information from those who had been. He was a Gentile (cf. Col 4'"'- and v."); thus he could not have been of the Seventy, or the companion of Cleopas (Lk 2V-'- "), as

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

some have thought. He was a doctor (Col 4'0, and perhaps had attended St. Paul in his illnesses. A tradition, perhaps of the 6th cent., makes him a painter, who had made a picture of the Virgin. He was possibly of servile origini his name, which seems to be an abbrevi-ation of Lucanus, Lucius, Lucilius, or Lucianus, may well have been a slave's name; and physicians were often slaves. Chrysostom and Jerome take him for 'the brother whose praise in the gospel' is spread abroad (2 Co 8"; see art. Gospel). Other traditions connect him with Achaia, Bithynia, or Alexandria; some assign to him a martyr's crown. A. J. Maclean.

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.— 1. The Third Gospel in the Early Church.— Of 2nd cent, writers the following can without doubt be said to have known the Gospel or to imply its previous composition: Justin Martyr (c. 150 a.d.), who gives particulars found in Lk. only; Tatian, his pupil, who included it in his Harmony (the Diatessaron); Celsus (c. A.r>. 160 or c. 177), who refers to the genealogy of Jesus from Adam; the Clementine Homilies (2nd cent.); the Gospel of pseudo- Peter, a Docetic work (c. a.d. 1667 Swete); the Testa-ment of the Twelve Patriarchs, a Jewish-Christian work (before a.d. 135, Sinker in Smith's Diet, of Christ. Biog.); the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (a.d. 177); Marcion, who based his Gospel upon Lk. and abbreviated it [this is certain — as against the hypothesis that Lk. is later than, and an expansion of, Marcion, as the Tubingen school maintained — from the evidence of Irenffius, Tertullian, and Epiphanius; from the exact similarity of style between the portions which are not in Marcion and those which are; and for other reasons]; the Valentinians; and Heracleon, who wrote a com-mentary upon it. The first writers who name Luke in connexion with it are Ireneeus and the author of the Muratorian Fragment (perhaps Hippolytus), TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria — all at the end of the 2nd century. If we go back earlier than any of the writers named above, we note that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Didache writer perhaps knew Lk.; but we cannot be certain if their quotations are from Mt. or from Lk. or from some third document now lost, or even from oral tradition. Yet Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp probably, quote Acts, and the title of the Didache seems to come from Ac 2« and this presupposes the circulation of Luke. It wiU be observed that the ecclesiastical testimony shows the existence of Lk. before the second quarter of the 2nd cent., but we have not, as in the case of Mt. and Mk., any guidance from that early period as to the method of its composition or as to its author.

2. Contents of the Gospel. — The preface (!'-') and the Birth and Childhood narratives (l'-2'^) are peculiar to Luke. The Evangelist then follows Mk. (up to 6") as to the Baptist's teaching and the early ministry, inserting, however, sections common to him and Mt. on the Baptist and on the Temptation, and also the genealogy, the miraculous draught of fishes, the anointing by the sinful woman, and some sayings (especially those at Nazareth) pecuUar to himself. From 6'° to 8' Lk. entirely deserts Mk. The intervening portion contains part of the Sermon on the Mount (not in the order of Mt.), the message of the Baptist, and the heaUng of the centurion's servant (so Mt.) and some fragments peculiar to himself, especially the raising of the widow's son at Nain (Lk. practically omits the section Mk 6<s-82«=Mt 14!2-16'2). The Markan narrative, containing the rest of the GaUlsean ministry, the charge to the Twelve, the Trans-figuration, etc., is then resumed, nearly in the same order as Mk., but with some omissions, to 9'° ( =Mk 9<»), where a long insertion occurs (9"-18'*). After this Luke takes up Mk. almost where he left it (Lk 18" -= Mk 10'^). The insertion deals largely with the Peraean ministry and the journeys towards Jerusalem, and contains many parables peculiar to Lk (the Good

557