Введение. Что значит объяснить евангельскую историю

§ 1. Scientific-historical explanation of the Gospel story The main task of scientific works on gospel history is to explain the life of Jesus Christ. Narrative works that do not explain anything in the Gospel story, but only present it with more or less external picturesqueness and psychological depiction 1, belong not to the scientific field, but to the artistic one and are subject to a completely different assessment: their dignity lies in the impact on the heart, in the touchingness of the Gospel image of Jesus Christ, and if they lack an artistic element, they lose all right to exist. In this latter kind, we could name several works under which the famous names of the authors are signed, which do not save their works from the strictest verdict of criticism. Three techniques are known and used in explaining the Gospel story. Firstly, by explaining the life of Jesus Christ we mean a scientific-historical, in the special sense of the word, processing of it, an external construction of the gospel history, as part of world history. In this case, the scientist’s attention is focused on solving scientific and historical questions as applied to the life of Jesus Christ - questions about the year of His birth, the duration of His activity, the sequence of events in His life and the objective appearance of each of the events, with the elimination of their subjective coverage by the evangelists. At the same time, enormous efforts are being made to externally harmonize the apparently discordant testimonies of the four gospels, which are almost the only source of gospel history. To appreciate this technique, it should be borne in mind that the gospels, so important as a source for the history of the life of Jesus Christ, do not constitute history in the strictly scientific sense of the word, nor material for it: they cannot be considered either as a scientific history or in the sense of chronicles. The Gospels have an ideological and practical purpose, illuminated differently by each evangelist, but essentially coinciding for all four gospels and expressed in the famous words of the Evangelist John: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). Therefore, scientific and historical questions as applied to the life of Jesus Christ are hardly resolvable, and science has so far added too little on these questions to the information reported in the Gospels. It is strong enough to prove the incorrectness of the chronology you have accepted, but it is completely powerless to accurately resolve the question of the year of Christ’s birth and, in general, to establish the Gospel chronology. While for the actual purposes of the Gospels the chronological dates indicated in the Gospels are quite sufficient, historical science cannot make almost any use, in accordance with its special tasks, from the Gospel chronology. Also, the question of the externally scientific, objective sequence of events in gospel history must be recognized as insoluble. To be convinced of this, it is enough to pick up a dozen or so later scientific works on gospel history and compare them with each other in this regard: in each of them the events of gospel history are presented in a different sequence. Eg. the story of the Jews' blasphemy against the Lord, that He casts out demons by the power of Beelzebub, with the preceding events - the plucking of ears of corn by the apostles on the Sabbath, the healing of a man with withered hands and a demon-possessed blind and dumb man; this story in some works is placed before the embassy of the twelve apostles to preach, the beginning of teaching in parables and the feeding of five thousand with five loaves, and in others - later. The assassination attempt on the Lord in Nazareth, the healing of the demon-possessed Gadarene man, the resurrection of the Nain youth, the events reported in the Gospel of John - the healing of the paralytic at Bethesda, the stay in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, the healing of the man born blind, all these events are usually conveyed in various connections with other events in the life of Jesus Christ. Apparently, the gospel of Luke, unlike the others 2, can be taken as “a narrative in order, after a thorough examination of everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:8); but it is not difficult to see that much of it is presented in order not chronological, but logical. Eg. The social activity of Christ in Galilee begins, according to the Gospel of Luke, with a visit to Nazareth, when the inhabitants of this city were ready to say to the Lord: “Do here, in Your fatherland, what we heard happened in Capernaum” (Luke 5:23), meanwhile, the visit to Capernaum is conveyed only below. Therefore, in this case, the narrative of Matthew and Mark must be recognized as chronological, placing the story of the visit to Nazareth after the day on which Jesus taught the people in parables (Matthew 13:53–54; Mark 6:1ff., cf. 4:1ff.), unless all the evangelists talk about the same visit to Nazareth. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the gospel of Luke contains a large section, namely from Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:15, in which events and speeches are conveyed that are not found, with few exceptions, in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, not to mention the gospel of John. In the Gospel of Luke, the matter is presented in such a way that this section describes one journey of Jesus Christ from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51; 10:38; 13:22; 17:11). But if we recognize a chronological order for this section, then we will not be able to find a place for it in the connection of events in the other gospels. Therefore, it is necessary to see in this section a logical grouping of events that took place at different times, probably during different time journeys towards Jerusalem 3, which gives the historian of the life of Jesus Christ the opportunity to break the connection of this section at his own discretion. In the Gospel of Luke itself, reasons are given not to recognize a chronological arrangement for this section: Luke 9:52–53 (Jesus Christ is not accepted in the Samaritan village); Luke 10:38–42 (He is received by Martha and Mary in their home); Luke 13: 31 (He is asked to leave the region of Herod); Luke 17:11–19 (He heals ten lepers between Samaria and Galilee). Some of the few places in the section of Luke's gospel in question that coincide with the gospels of Matthew and Mark are conveyed by the latter in a connection that has every reason for itself, for example. Luke 11:14‒26 (about the healing of a demon-possessed mute and about the blasphemy against Jesus Christ) cf. Matt. 9:32–38 in connection with Luke 10 and Luke 11, also Luke 12:24 seq. in connection with Luke 13. In what relation does this section of the gospel of Luke have to the gospels of Matthew and Mark, in the same relation to the first three gospels is the gospel of John, which complements the synoptic gospels: the latter primarily describe the activity of Christ in Galilee, and the gospel of John mainly depicts His Jewish activity. Again, there is no basis for a clear chronological distribution of the synoptic gospel accounts among the events of John's gospel. In addition to this, difficulties for the scientific history of the life of Jesus Christ stemming from the differences in the general plan of each of the four gospels, and in many particulars there is no way to restore the chronological sequence of the gospel history and the objective, externally historical appearance of each of its events. So, for example, the questions cannot be resolved: did the second and third temptations of Christ follow the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 4:5–8), or the Gospel of Luke (Luke 4:5–9)? How do the stories of the evangelists relate to each other about the woman who anointed Christ with chrism? In Matt. 26:1‒2; 6‒13 and Mark 14:1‒9 the woman is not called a sinner, the anointing took place in the house of Simon the leper in Bethany, two days before the last Passover; in Luke (Luke 7:36‒50) the wife is called a sinner, Simon is called a Pharisee, the anointing took place in one of the Galilean cities much before the Passover of Christ’s suffering; according to ev. John (John 12:1-8) the event took place six days before Easter in Bethany, in the house where Martha served the Lord, and the anointing was performed by her sister Mary. In which of the last days of Christ’s life did He cleanse the church according to the weather forecasters: on the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1. 12. 17 and Luke 19:37. 45), or on the next day (Mk. 11:11. 12)? What kind of Passover did Christ celebrate with his disciples before His suffering: before the Jewish Passover (John 13; 18:28) or together with the Jews (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7)? What was the inscription on the cross of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19)?.. The number of these scientifically insoluble questions of gospel history could be significantly increased by other examples. Of course, the conclusion drawn from their abundance by malicious negative criticism, which does not recognize the significance of reliable narratives in our Gospels, is completely false. The complete and unshakable authenticity of our gospels is confirmed by their internal character. They portray in the person of Jesus Christ a morally perfect personality, set forth His moral teachings, imagine in His life the fate of the Son of God - they depict, present and present in terms completely opposite to the views and expectations of men. We Christians live the life of Christ, according to His teaching and His example; but humanity before Jesus Christ, all without exception, imagined and now all people outside of Christianity, all without exception and even including imaginary Christians, imagine moral perfection and the fate of the righteous in such a way that the gospel story and moral teaching serve as temptation and foolishness for them. This contrast between divine reality and human hopes is evidenced by the Gospel history itself, and what is especially remarkable is that the apostles who depicted the life of Jesus or conveyed it to their disciples who described it were themselves among those who thought humanly and seduced by the fate of Christ until they were reborn spiritually. This provides evidence that the apostles could not invent the Gospel story. The Four Gospels, in terms of their depiction of the life of Christ and His moral teachings, represent an exceptional phenomenon in human history and cannot be recognized as a human work. But if the external disagreement of the evangelists cannot serve as a basis for denying the authenticity of their stories, then it expressively testifies to the direction and methods of their stories. Evangelists see under each event of the Gospel history and in the sequence of the life of Christ the internal meaning that governed the Gospel history, and it is this meaning, and not the external historical truth, that they convey in their Gospels. For their purposes, it was necessary to describe the inner truth of the life of Christ, its meaning, its laws, and not the external photographic appearance of its events. Although they disagree with each other in some external details, they completely agree with each other in depicting the meaning of the life of Jesus Christ. Just as each evangelist portrays the life of Jesus Christ strictly consistently in all details, and His image appears before us alive, so the testimonies of all four gospels are strictly harmonious and internally connected by the single meaning of the gospel story. There is not one iota of disagreement between the gospels in this portrayal of living truth. For example, in the literal depiction of the inscription on the cross of Christ, all the evangelists disagree with each other (Matthew 27:37: “And they put an inscription over His head, signifying His guilt: this is Jesus, the king of the Jews”; Mark 15:26: “And the inscription of His guilt was: King of the Jews”; Luke 23:38: “And it was over Him an inscription written in Greek, Roman and Hebrew words: “This is the king of the Jews”; John 19:19: “It was written: Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews”), but in conveying the meaning of the inscription, namely, that the Jews deliberately crucified their true king, all the evangelists agree. Pointing out the differences between the evangelists in external details is not dangerous even in view of the conclusions of negative criticism, which goes much further, but it is directly useful for clarifying the true nature of the gospel narratives in order to properly evaluate the demands that are made of the gospels by learned historians of the life of Jesus Christ and which, in essence, lie at the basis of negative criticism. The Gospels do not represent either scientific history or chronicle records, and to use them as such means not to stand on the point of view on which the evangelists stood and on which Christians should stand, as the only carriers of the desire to understand the Gospel history. It is impossible to prohibit the use of the gospels only as historical monuments, reducing them to the same level as the literature of pagan religions, nor to deny the benefits of such an attitude to the gospels for scientific purposes; but on the other hand, who will deny that these purposes are not those for which the Gospels were written, and that this use of them is not that explanation of the Gospel history that corresponds to the internal character of the Gospels and the desire, as well as the benefit of Christians, and which can be called in the proper sense an explanation of the Gospel history? This is not what we want, so that learned works on Gospel history should not be written or read, but we want such works not to be considered as a valid explanation of Gospel history and not to hide from Christians the meaning that it contains and which is the light and salvation of Christians. We call the discovery of this meaning our own task of scientific works on gospel history, changing the very concept of scientificity as applied to the life of Christ, our Savior. § 2. Archaeological explanation of it Another technique in explaining gospel history can be called archaeological. Based on the position that “Jesus the Nazarene was a Jew, spoke to the Jews, moved among them in Palestine and at a certain period of its history,” learned historians of the life of Jesus Christ find it “absolutely necessary to consider His life and teaching in connection with the surrounding circumstances of the place, society, national life and mental or religious development” and in this they see “not only a frame in which the image of Jesus Christ can be placed, but also the background of the picture itself” 4 . The ideal here is “a complete picture of Jewish life and society” at the time of Jesus Christ. In such works we find detailed information about the Jerusalem temple, Old Testament worship and the Jewish priesthood regarding the appearance of the angel Zechariah, about Jewish wedding rites in the story of a miracle at a marriage, about Jewish sects in the story of the deputation to John from Jerusalem... In these writings we, of course, come across other interesting little things that are interesting to deal with. However, one should not greatly exaggerate the importance of this technique in explaining the Gospel history, which some scholars of later times tend to abuse. The fact is that the gospel story, being the history of living characters who lived and acted in a certain place and at a certain time, is at the same time completely free from any accidents. The exclusive advantage of the sinlessness and complete self-denial of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. His complete detachment from earthly passions consisted in the fact that all people’s relationships to Him were relationships in essence of His calling. An ordinary person pays for his earthly attachments, even those experienced in the past, by the fact that, even in the days of religious uplift of his spirit and holy service to people, the latter usually act with him according to their random moods and external motives: not wanting to know his high impulses, covered with rags, they are ready to suspect him of theft for his rags, etc. Such accidents did not happen in the life of Jesus Christ. All conscious attitudes of people towards Him, recorded in the Gospels, were determined by His religious calling, His divinely filial self-awareness and self-revelation. Therefore, these relationships, which made up the history of the Lord Jesus, are imprinted with the character of universality (cf. John 11:49-52). Scribes, Pharisees, publicans, fornicators, high priests, rulers appear before us in the gospel history not so much from the aspect of their historical and local characteristics, by which the Pharisees, tax collectors, rulers of the time of Christ differ from the Pharisees, tax collectors and rulers of any other time, but from that aspect that does not change depending on place and time. The Evangelical Pharisees, scribes, and sinners are quite similar to the Pharisees, scribes, and sinners of our time. That is why the gospel story, despite the distance of nineteen centuries, is understandable to us without any archaeological comments; The edification of the gospel story lies in the fact that it has full application to every time, to every reader. To attach excessive importance to the place and time in which the Gospel story took place means to deprive the Gospel story of its true character, to distract the reader’s attention from its salvific meaning, to take a different point of view than the evangelists stand and Christians should take, from which a true need arises to explain the Gospel story and gives the opportunity for a true understanding of it. From the point of view of the essential meaning of the life of Jesus Christ, the gospels provide as much archaeological information as is needed. What does science add to this information? Let's read non-canonical Old Testament books, Jewish apocrypha - the book of Enoch, the Ascension of Moses, the Book of Civilians, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees; Let's add here the later rabbinic writing. What do scholars extract from all this literature to illuminate the gospel, to depict the messianic views and expectations of the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ? If anything is extracted that had real significance in the life of the Jews and influenced their relationship to Jesus Christ, then we find this in the gospel, for example. about the national pride of the Jewish people, about the carnal nature of their messianic expectations, etc. On some of these issues, for example. on the question of the essential character of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the gospels provide even more than all non-canonical and pseudepigraphic Jewish writings, and in some cases information borrowed from the latter, for example. about the views of the Jews that the earthly life of the Messiah and His kingdom are limited in time (the book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the 3rd book of Ezra), must be corrected according to the gospels (John 12:34). What is given by Jewish writing that is completely absent in the Gospels, for example. complex theological views on the face of the Messiah, then we must admit for certain that such views had no vital significance, their dissemination, in all likelihood, was limited only to the school, not to mention the fact that here we encounter the fog and confusion of such mystical idle talk, which, of course, should have been silent in the presence of Jesus Christ - where the fatal question of life and death was put before the listeners. Finally, all this nonsense matters only for tendentious science, which wants to reduce the beginning of Christianity to pre-Christian times, and not for those who, recognizing the complete originality of Christianity, want to understand its own inner meaning. § 3. Rationalistic attitude to the life of Jesus Christ The third of the commonly used methods in explaining the Gospel history should be called rationalistic. This explanation applies to the miracles of Jesus Christ, and since the miracles of Christ are extremely important in gospel history, this explanation deserves special attention. It is based on the fact that “the miraculous in the New Testament is not a strong, but a weak side for our modern thought; it serves not as a convincing evidence, but as a point of attack and a source of difficulty.” The rationalistic explanation aims to reduce all the gospel miracles to natural phenomena and thus make them understandable to reason. Thus, rationalistic science explains the healing of the sick by the action of animal magnetism, suggestion, and the psychological power of faith. The narration of the Gospels about the miraculous feeding of five thousand with five loaves is explained in the sense that Jesus Christ distributed to the people the loaves that the apostles had, and this served as an example by which all those who had began to share with those who did not have, so that everyone was satisfied. The same applies to other miracles. About this scientific method in relation to the Gospel history, it should be noted that they are given a real explanation: the events of the Gospel in a rationalistic transmission become completely understandable to the mind. But the trouble is that this explanation is false. The rationalistic rendering of the Gospel event is understandable to reason, but the origin of the Gospel narrative is in no way explained by this technique. The rationalistic explanation of the Gospel story rests on the distortion of texts and facts, so that in essence it is not what requires explanation that is explained, but what is manipulated to fit the texts and facts. At the same time - which is usually not noticed, and yet deserves the deepest attention - by presenting the matter in such a way that the Gospel narratives have a naive faith as their source, in fact the rationalists themselves turn out to be extremely naive in understanding the Gospel history. What is naive is the rationalistic idea that a miracle is only “convincing evidence,” that the most important thing in a gospel miracle is its miraculousness. Meanwhile, the Gospels present the miracles of Jesus Christ in such a light that their “miraculousness” recedes into the background and they organically enter into the life of the Lord Jesus with its ending death. The Gospels do not dwell on the miraculous acts of Christ, but pay main attention to the connection of the miracles of Jesus Christ with His calling and with His outcome. This connection reveals the deepest meaning of the Gospel story, before which human rationalization, reasoning, turns out to be childish babble. Making the feasible disclosure of this connection, this meaning of the life of Christ, the main theme of our research and anticipating its conclusions, we boldly declare that the rationalistic transmission of the Gospel story, not only due to the distortion of its facts, but also due to its naivety in its understanding, stands immeasurably below its reason. We, bypassing this distortion of the Gospel history by the rationalists, about which much has already been written, hope to show the unreasonableness and frivolity of the rationalistic understanding of the goals and the frivolity of the rationalistic understanding of the goals in general, and in particular the Gospel miracles, according to which such a goal is the faith of people in the messenger of God (einen gottlichen Gesandten bei den. Menschen zu beglaubigen) 5 The technique in question in explaining the Gospel story can be used exclusively by rationalists who do not recognize the reality behind the Gospel miracles. However, in one case, believing theologians can apparently use the rationalistic method, namely in application to such events that are taken by some to be miraculous, without being miraculous. This is the external setting of the story of the temptations of Jesus Christ in the desert from the Devil. Actually, this method of explanation by believing theologians should not be applied to the miracles of the Gospel history at all, although in fact it sometimes finds use among believing theologians. Here we have a case of unconscious rationalism, innocent to the extent of unconsciousness, but also unreasonable to the same degree, just as it is unreasonable for a lamb to show himself in the skin of a wolf. For example, in the history of the transfiguration of the Lord Jesus, some theologians try to explain the very phenomenon of bodily transformation by His indication of the extraordinary psychological influence of prayer on the human body, by pointing to such phenomena as the fact that Mary of Egypt was seen rising above the ground during prayer, due to the “refinement” of her body from the feat of prayer 6 . We do not raise the question of the authenticity of the story about Mary of Egypt, but can the transfiguration of Christ be made “clearer and more understandable” in this way? This kind of explanation is also found in relation to other events in gospel history. What is the significance of such explanations? None. Any one of two things - either the gospel miracles were not miracles and admit of a natural explanation, in which case rationalism is right, or they really were miracles, in which case a natural explanation does not apply to them. In addition to the fact that we encounter here hidden rationalism in the general view of miracles, in this method of explaining the Gospel history among believing theologians, we encounter a repetition of the rationalistic opinion that it is their very miraculousness that requires explanation in the Gospel miracles, while the reason for the Gospel history lies in the connection of the miracles of Christ with His outcome. Of course, the view of a miracle as the basis of faith, which sees in a miracle first of all its miraculousness, first appeared not in rationalistic science and not in science in general, but in life. Many of the listeners of the Lord Jesus Christ, seeing the miracles that He performed, believed in His name - they believed only for the sake of miracles, why Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because their hearts were open before Him (John 2:23-25). The history of the Christian Church testifies that among Christian society there have always been quite a few imaginary, and perhaps weak, Christians who believed in Christ only for the sake of His miracles. For obvious reasons, a similar view of the gospel miracle penetrated, during medieval scholasticism, into theology. But theological science before the advent of rationalism was not critical; it said otherwise out of heartfelt simplicity. The emergence of rationalism was important in the sense that, having begun a critical explanation of the Gospel history, it consciously appropriated this naive view of miracles as a means of inciting faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ itself, saw in it the motives of the compilers of the Gospel history and therefore took it as the starting point for its explanation, i.e. to deny the gospel miracles. After this, how did believing theology, having entered into a struggle with rationalism, react, quite consciously, to the gospel miracles? Unfortunately, Christian apologetics, having come out to fight rationalism, agreed with it, as if embarrassed by it, in the main view of the gospel miracle and, refuting very thoroughly and convincingly the distortion of the gospel history by the rationalists, its positive task sets nothing more than to prove the reality of each of the miracles of Jesus Christ and their divinity. Thus, the naive view of miracles became the property of science, and for it the wisdom of the Gospel story turned out to be lost. “In the Founder of Christianity,” says apologetics, “as the culprit of everything extraordinary and supernatural in Christianity, we must think of miraculousness (unlike other bearers of it) not in some mediating form, in which He would be nothing more than a mediating giver of the highest divine help, sent down to people through His prayers, like later Christian miracle workers, but in its independent and amateur manifestation, with in which He was a completely free and sovereign performer. Only such an idea of ​​His miraculousness is fully consistent with the greatness of His moral character, does not relegate Him to the ranks of ordinary miracle workers of this time and, as a result, does not place Him in a false relationship with his contemporaries; in the name of only such miraculousness He rose above the ancient great prophets and figures of the Old Testament, with whom, comparing Himself, He said that if they had such powers as He possessed and acted, then their contemporaries would have brought more worthy fruits of repentance than His listeners; by it, separating himself and distinguishing himself from the ordinary and false prophets and miracle workers of His time, who often hid behind imaginary miracles, and rising above the great ancient prophets, He cultivated faith in Himself as the true Messiah in the circle of chosen and most devoted followers. The gospel of Jesus Christ, with all its greatness, with all the height of the truths He revealed, could not have attracted many followers if it had not been accompanied by miraculous power, arousing and inspiring faith in His Preacher as a divine messenger; miracles constituted the real basis in Him, which in the eyes of his contemporaries gave Him divine significance and attracted the attention of many to Him") 7. Thus, apologetics, affirming the unshakable truth that Christ is the incarnate Son of God, the Logos, however, forgets that His incarnation was a humiliation for Him, a renunciation of divine glory, that He was attested by God with powers, signs and wonders, which God did through Him (Acts 2:22), that the works that He did, and those who believe in Him, according to His promise, will do, and will do greater things than these (John 14:12), that He performed miracles by faith, condemned those who believed only for the sake of miracles and pleased those who did not see and believe that in reality His miracles were not doubted even by His enemies, who hated Him precisely for the sake of miracles (John 15:24) - all this is forgotten by apologetics, otherwise it would not have asserted that He rose above only in the name of miracles. prophets that only through miracles did He instill faith in Himself as the Messiah. It is easy to see that to affirm the reality of the miracles of Jesus Christ only means approaching the line beyond which lies the explanation of the Gospel story. If the evangelists report mass healings performed by Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:23; 8:16; 9:35; 11:5; 12:15; 14:14. 35‒36; 15:30; 19:1. 2; 21:14; Mark. 1:34; 3:10; 6:55. 56; OK. 4:40. 41; 6:17–18), if, according to their depiction, even his enemies did not doubt the reality of His miracles, then it is obvious that they tell about some miracles separately not only for the sake of their miraculousness, but for the sake of the meaning that is revealed in the connection of these miracles with the calling, ministry and outcome of Jesus Christ. Nowadays, the gospel story is the subject of a fierce struggle: some stubbornly deny it, others ardently and confidently defend it. But neither one nor the other is trying to understand it. They study the Gospel text extremely carefully, examine every iota of it, examine in the smallest detail the external side of the Gospel story, but remain indifferent to its internal consistency, its meaning, its spirit and in explaining it they are content with the views of medieval dogmatists. § 4. The concept of the philosophy of gospel history In addition to the three commonly used methods indicated, a fourth method in explaining the Gospel story is possible, highly beneficial, edifying and consistent with the goals of the Gospels - revealing its internal consistency, its universal reason, its laws, its spirit. This technique can rightfully be called the philosophy of gospel history. This is the scientific explanation. The purpose of the gospel stories is indicated by the evangelist John so that readers would believe in the sonship of Christ and have eternal life (John 20:31). But the evangelists themselves achieve this goal not by their own discussion of the gospel story, but by the transmission and grouping of its events, so that the meaning of the gospel story in their narratives turns out to be its spirit, and not its letter. To capture this spirit, this logos of the Gospel story and express it in reasoning, in logical formulas - such is the task of the philosophy of Gospel history. This is precisely the task of the proposed study. This is an immense task, beyond the strength of one person. Not to exhaust it, but only to make an experiment in solving the problem in order to arouse interest in it among scientists, to provoke those more “strong in words” to solve it - these are the modest desires of the author. What is the most general meaning of the gospel story? The fact is that the life of Jesus Christ is true, divine, spiritual, eternal life, that He revealed this life to the world, and became the leader and finisher of the spiritual life of Christians. In Him life appeared, eternal life, which was with the Father (1 John 1:2). The starting point for this understanding of the life of Christ is our inner experience. A Christian, living in nature, lives not only a natural life, but also a spiritual life: in fact, a Christian life is, in contrast to a natural life, a spiritual life 8. Where does this spiritual, divine life come from in nature? where does it start? In the life of Jesus Christ. True, divine life in the word of God is called divine glory. Having revealed spiritual life to the world, Christ glorified His heavenly Father among people, giving them the glory that He had with His Father. His life was a manifestation of divine glory. Calling the divine life of Christ glory introduces us to the manner in which the revelation of the divine life took place in Him. This method is humiliation. In order to glorify the Father on earth, to reveal His name to people, Christ humbled Himself, renounced the external manifestation of divine glory: in Him, divine life appeared not in the properties of unlimited omnipotence, boundless greatness, which the conditions of human existence cannot endure, but in the properties of spiritual life, which fits into the limitations of human life, tolerates its insignificance, endures its suffering. Thus He became the founder of the universal revelation of the name of God, made all people participants in the divine glory, partakers of the divine nature. So, the path that Christ walked is humiliation and humility; the fruit of His life is the internal glorification of man (Phil. 2:5‒11). But in addition to the glory that Christ had with the Father before the existence of the world and the external manifestation of which He renounced in the humiliation of the incarnation, and that internal glorification of human life, which was the fruit of His humiliation and humility, in the life of Christ we see external glory - His miracles. About His first miracle, the evangelist notes: “thus Jesus began the miracles in Cana of Galilee and showed His glory” (John 2:11). On the Mount of Transfiguration, the apostles also saw His glory (Luke 9:32). Jesus Christ was a great miracle worker. The narrative of His social activities, until the last days of His life, in which He suffered, is filled with His miracles and is, in fact, the gospel of His miracles. Many of the people who believed in Him for the sake of miracles said to those who did not believe: “When Christ comes, will He really do more signs than this man has done?” (John 7:31). From the outside, all the relations of the people to Jesus Christ, both those who believed and those who did not believe, were mainly relations to His miracles, to Him as a miracle worker. He Himself saw in miracles the means by which He, together with the teaching, acted on the people and determined their relationship to Himself. And here arises, of extraordinary importance for theology and for the Christian worldview, the question of the relationship of the miracles of Jesus Christ to His humiliation and inner glorification of human life, as the fruit of His activity. This is the main question of the philosophy of gospel history. The humiliation of the incarnation is the subject of the teaching of Christ and the apostles, the subject of faith 9; the humility of Jesus Christ, expressed in the inner feat of temptation, the feat of obedience to the Father, constituted His inner life 10; in contrast to both, the miracles of Jesus Christ, together with the death on the cross that ended His life, form the factual side of His life, the gospel story itself. The question of the meaning of miracles in the life of Christ, their relationship to His death, must be resolved by the actual study of gospel history. Of course, this difference does not break the connection: the teaching about the humiliation and humility of Christ is complemented by the Gospel story and its meaning; in turn, the meaning of the gospel story can be understood only on the basis of the teaching about the humiliation and humility of Christ, which determined His inner mood and brought the last fruit of His life - the glorification of the Father on earth. This connection predetermines the question posed in the sense that the miracles of Jesus Christ were a transition from humiliation in the incarnation to saving mortal suffering: they included the inner feat of His temptations; His humility and obedience were nourished by the will of God regarding them; they caused His enemies to put Him to death. Eg. F. W. Farrar, The Life of Jesus Christ. Already according to the response of Papias († 120), Mark wrote down the teachings and deeds of Christ out of order. Wed. arch. (ep.) Michael, “On the Gospels and Gospel History.” 1870, p. 220. A. Edersheim, “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,” vol. 1 (Russian ed. 1900), p. IX. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu. Leipzig 1864, S. 146. This is what the author of the article about the transfiguration of Christ does. V. and R. for. 1901 S. Selsky, “The supernatural element in the New Testament revelation.” Kyiv 1877, pp. 127 – 128, 219 – 220. We find the same view of miracles among Western apologists, for example. Göttingen “Apology of Christianity”, ½ (transl. St. Petersburg 1875), p. 114 (“without miracles people could not believe”), p. 170 (“without miraculous deeds Christ would not have found disciples among the Jews and believers among the pagans”). See "Purpose and Meaning of Life." M. 1902. See "The Humiliation of Our Lord Jesus Christ." M. 1901 See "The Temptations of Our Lord Jesus Christ." M 1900 You might be interested in: