Евангелия

The meaning of the name "Εὐαγγέλιον" The first four books of sacred New Testament writing are called the Gospels (Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον [Gospel according to Matthew], κατὰ Μάρκον [according to Mark], κατὰ Λουκ ᾶ ν [according to Luke], κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην [according to John]), and the use of this technical name is not only usual, but also obligatory in speech about them, because it is consecrated by extreme antiquity and in the end received exceptional predominance. What is connected with this name and what is special about it indicated in the monuments we are considering? The word εὐαγγέλιον in the ancient classical language and in general among Greek pagan writers 221 means the actual reward for good news as a sign of gratitude, to express spiritual contentment, complete satisfaction of cherished desires. Naturally, this feeling was revealed primarily in relation to the one who conveyed such news with the corresponding gift: εὐαγγέλιον δέ μοι ἔστω [lit.: there will be a gospel for me], - we read in Homer 222, that is - Eustathius adds in explanation - δῶρον ὑπὲρ ἀγαθῆς ἀγγελίας [gift for good news] 223. Therefore, the Greeks often said εὐαγγέλια στεφανοῦν, ἀναδῆσαί τινα [literally: to crown someone with the Gospels] 224, στεφανοῦν ἐπ ᾿ εὐαγγελίοις [literally: to crown for the gospel] 225, when it came to “crowning” someone for a joyful message. But the pagan consciousness has always been characterized by the view that all good can only come from ἀγαθός [good] in the absolute sense - from the gods as good; hence, first of all, a person had to bring his gift to them under such circumstances. Εὐαγγέλια θύειν [literally: to sacrifice the gospel] 226 τοῖς θεοῖς [to the gods] 227 , εὐαγγέλια θύειν ἑκατὸν βοῦς τ ῇ θεῷ [lit.: to sacrifice the gospel to the goddess, a hundred bulls 228, εὐαγγέλια ἑορτάζειν [lit.: to celebrate the gospel] 229 - so written by Greek historians and poets. Εὐαγγέλιον, therefore, is a gift to God or man for good news 230. This means that it is in the latter that the reason for such actions lies - εὐαγγελίων θυσίαι [lit.: sacrifices of the gospels] 231 - and legal logic naturally made it so that this is a word that first pointed to τὸ ἀγαθάς ἀγγελίας δωρούμενον [that which is given for the good news] 232 began to express the gospel itself, τὰ κάλλιστα ἀπαγγέλλον [that which proclaims best] 233 – any message containing something pleasant 234 . We find both of these concepts - reward and glad tidings - in seventy interpreters, whose version is especially important for us, because it is both materially and philologically close to the New Testament terminology 235. Here εὐαγγέλιον replaces the Hebrew, בּשׂוֹדָה, בְּשׂדָה. “He who told me,” says David, “that Saul and Jonathan had died, and that same one preached the gospel before me (who considered himself a pleasant messenger), and I killed him and killed him in Sikelaza, to whom should be given a gift (ᾧ ἔδει με δοῦναι εὐαγγέλια , בְּשׂדָה לְתִתִּי־לוֹ )" 2 Sam. 4, 10). “What do you want,” Joab remarks to Ahimaas, “mother-in-law, my son? Come, bring you a message for the benefit of the one who comes ( מֹצֵאת אֵין־בְּשׂוֹרָה)” (2 Kings 18:22), when you cannot convey good news, for (v. 20) “the son of the kings is dead.” But he ran - and, having learned about this from the watchman, the king remarked: “If there is one, good is the proclamation in his mouth (εὐαγγέλια ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, בְּפִיו בְּשׂוֹרָה" (2 Kings 18:25) 236. Wed. 2 Kings 18:20: “a man who proclaims good” - ἀνὴρ εὐαγγελίας, בְּשֹׂרָה אִישׁ ; “but proclaim” – καὶ εὐαγγελι ῇ, וּבִשַּׂרְתָּ ; “not good announcement” – οὐκ εὐαγγελι ῇ, לא תְבַשֵּׂר ; 2 Kings 18, 27: “and good tidings” - εἰς εὐαγγελίαν ἀγαθήν, בְּשׂוֹדָה; 2 Kings 7, 9: “day of annunciation” – ἡμέρα εὐαγγελίας, יוֹם־בְּשׂדָה; “proclaiming” – εὐαγγελίζοντες, לְבַשֵּׂר. From these additional examples it is clear that among the LXX interpreters εὐαγγέλιον is sometimes directly identified with ἀγγελία ἀγαθή [good news] 237 . These two shades were combined with the term εὐαγγέλιον in the immediate and early times of Christianity. For example, Josephus writes: ἐπετέλει [each city organized festivities on the occasion of the good news and made sacrifices in his (Vespasian’s) honor] 238; τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥ ώμης εὐαγγέλια ἦ κε [good news came from Rome] 239; and Cicero calls the release of Valerius εὐαγγέλια [good news] 240. The same word is used in the story about the miraculous deliverance of St. Peter from prison - also used by St. John Chrysostom 241, which generally connects these two meanings into one inseparable whole, as is always the case de facto ἀγαθά [this is what the gospel is: it will be good for you] 242. The “gospel,” therefore, is good news with a decent reward. But even for a pagan, its source is God itself, and it itself had value not for its pleasantness alone, but - first and most importantly - for its ethical dignity, since it revealed the true will of God and offered man a real ideal of perfection. Moreover, for a Jew, completely imbued with strict theocratic views, the gospel was the only thing that directly revealed the law of the Lord, which alone can give the proper direction to the life and activities of people and give them pure joy. Jehovah alone - always and in everything - was able to communicate through his messengers “the only thing needed” and thereby bring the soul into an enthusiastic mood of complete contentment 243. And we know that the basis of the entire existence of legal Israel was faith in the coming Savior, the hope of redemption through the Messiah - and only what related to this subject in the true sense joyfully elevated his heart. It is now clear that בְּשׂוֹדָה – εὐαγγέλιον in the Old Testament are also attached to the messianic prophecies, pointing to the New Testament kingdom of inner peace and freedom from the burden of the spiritual yoke 244 . “If the feet of those who bring good news are red on the mountains (ὡ ς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου, מְבַשֵּׂר) peace, those who bring good news (ὡ ς εὐαγγελιζόμενος, מְבַשֵּׂר) good, for it is heard that I will work out your salvation, saying in Zion: Your God will reign,” exclaims Isaiah (Is. 52:7). “Come up to a high mountain, preach the good news (ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος, מְבַשֶּׁרֶח) to Zion, lift up your voice with strength, preach the good news (ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος, מְבַשֶּׁרֶח) Jerusalem. The Lord comes with strength, and His arm with power. Like a shepherd he will feed his flock, and with his arm he will gather the lambs, and he will comfort those who have in the womb” (Is. 40:9-11). “All from Sheba will come bearing gold, and they will bring Lebanon and an honorable stone, and they will proclaim the salvation of the Lord 245 (Isa. 60:6). “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,” the Old Testament evangelist proclaims on behalf of the Messiah, “for the sake of My anointing, to bring good news to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to preach to the captives.” remission and recovery of sight for the blind; call the year of the Lord pleasant” (Isa. 61:1-2). From the above biblical quotations it is easy to see that εὐαγγέλιον for the Jew was only a prediction of the glorious coming of the Messiah; then it had no correspondence 246 with existing reality, for the Reconciler was still only the aspiration of the tongues (Gen. 49:10), but - according to the view of every son of the Old Testament theocracy - it pointed to the redemption that was undoubtedly to follow. Naturally, being the gospel as an expected event, it did not cease to be such even after it received its realization 247. Philologically, we come to the conclusion that the term εὐαγγέλιον, denoting the joyful news that calls a person to a reward, in sacred language is applied primarily to the deliverance of people from sins through the Messiah, in Whom the cherished hopes of all pre-Christian humanity were to be fulfilled. Therefore, at the beginning of our era, this particular word was chosen to express what the Lord did to free us from the slavery of sin, and the fortune-telling בְּשׂוֹדָה became a living reality. “And we preach the gospel to you (ὑμ ᾶ ς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα), preaches the apostle. Paul in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, “that God fulfilled the promise given to the fathers to us their children by raising Jesus” (Acts 13:32). “The Lord commanded,” we read in 1 Cor. 9, 14, - preaching the Gospel (τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν, that is, setting forth the work of Christ as it was), - living from the gospel (ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν – from reporting this fact).” We see that in the New Testament use of εὐαγγέλιον, in accordance with the biblical expression, indicates, firstly, the redemption itself through Jesus Christ and, secondly, the announcement of it to others as something exclusively joyful. In the first respect, the “Gospel” is a sacrament (τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου [the sacrament of the gospel] - Eph. 6:19), thanks to which the Gentiles (along with the Jews) are made co-heirs and partakers promises in Christ Jesus through the gospel (διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου – Eph. 3:6), why it is great joy for all people (Luke 2:10), as the Angel said (εὐαγγελίζομαι) Bethlehem shepherds. Understood in this sense - as a designation of the fact of liberation from sin and the torment associated with it - the Gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16) and puts everyone equally in a new position, giving the means to live in peace and joy. In parallel to the political system, it now turns out to be the Gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4, 23; 9, 35; 24, 14: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας), founded by the Lord - a kingdom not earthly, hovering before the darkened the gaze of the scribes and Pharisees, but of God (Mark 1:14 according to textus receptus: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ [Gospel of the Kingdom of God]): and in its own way its origin is from God, and its purpose is to lead its members to Him. This is the Gospel of salvation (Eph. 1, 13: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν [the good news of your salvation]) and complete peace (Eph. 6, 15: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς εἰρήνης [the gospel of peace]), the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ), poured out in fullness on people through the Only Begotten Son. With such qualities, this Gospel opens a direct and sure path to perfection and bliss for every person, if he humbly and with spiritual devotion accepts it (ὑπακούειν τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ [obey the Gospel] - Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8), with with a contrite consciousness of his sinful weakness he will believe (μετανοεῖτε και πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ [repent and believe in the Gospel] - Mark 1:15 ), to strive for the faith of the Gospel (Phil. 1, 27: συναθλεῖν τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), to testify to the Gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, 24: by his worthy life (Phil. 1:26: ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθαι [to live worthy of the gospel of Christ]) and with his compassion for him (2 Tim. 1:8 : συνκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ [suffer with the gospel]). By doing all this, a Christian becomes a participant in the Gospel, as the apostle says about himself. Paul (1 Cor. 9, 23 γένωμαι [I do all this for the Gospel, to be a partaker of it]). But this Gospel is founded and confirmed by the divine Word, Who is the radiance of the glory (Heb. 1:3) of the Father, and inevitably reflects His splendor; therefore it is τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ [the gospel of the glory of the blessed God] (1 Tim. 1:11; cf. 1 Thess. 4, 6) or τοῦ Χρίστοῦ [Christ] (2 Cor. 4:4), and from the hope of the gospel (Col. 1:23: ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) grants people for this hope (διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα - Col. 1:5) the eternal kingdom prepared for them in heaven. Hence, and for this reason alone, it is εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον [the eternal Gospel] (Rev. 14:6), besides the fact that it is endless in its very essence, like its Lord Christ. Our conclusion now will be that in the literal sense, the “Gospel” means pouring out the sacrament of the redemption of mankind from sins through the teaching and deeds - the whole life - of the Son of God. “The Gospel has something significant,” writes the smch. Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Philadelphians - the coming of our Savior Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection; for the kindly prophets announced Him, and the Gospel is the perfection of immortality” 248. “It is appropriate,” he instills in the Smirnians, “to listen to the prophets, especially to the Gospel, in which suffering was revealed to us and the resurrection was accomplished” 249 . In the words of St. Athanasius the Great, “The Gospel is the coming of God the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the salvation of the human race incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary 250; and according to St. Basil the Great, the Gospel is “the destiny of life from the resurrection” 251. But if εὐαγγέλιον points to the actual historical work of saving mankind, then in this case only one person who accomplished it can be an evangelist. “And Jesus,” notes Matthew, “went through all the cities and villages preaching the Gospel of the kingdom (κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας)” (Μ f. 9, 35; cf. Μ f. 4, 23; Μκ 1, 14). Old Testament בְּשׂוֹדָה [good news, gospel] and thereby sanctifying the use of this term in relation to Him for all future times, He read in Nazareth synagogue prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 61:1–2), - ο ὗ ε ἵ νεκεν ἔχρισέν Με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς [for He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor] (Luke 4:18), and then solemnly testified that this mission was completed by Him (Luke 4:21). “Go tell John,” He answered the Baptist’s ambassadors, “what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor are evangelized (πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται - literally, the poor are evangelized, are announced by My Gospel, the essence of which is expressed by the examples given above)” (Matthew 11:4–5; Luke 7:22). Therefore, the evangelist, in a precise and strict sense, is Christ and no one else, and the Gospel belongs as the property of Him alone, for it is His work, His teaching, His whole life in general 253. For this reason, among the New Testament writers, the Gospel refers to Christ: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Y ἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ [Gospel of the Son of God] (Rom. 1:9), Ἰ ησοῦ Χριστοῦ [Jesus Christ] (Mark 1:1) or simply τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Christ] (Rom. 15:19; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27). By Him this kingdom of God was founded - the kingdom of salvation, peace and glory - and the Gospel should be called by His name even when they communicate it to others by word of mouth, which is what the apostle constantly maintains. Paul in his terminology (cf. 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12; 10:14). But just as every divine revelation has its primary source in God, who was the subject of this revelation, so He also offered the sacrifice of cleansing with the blood of His Son (Rom. 3:25), and He first promised the gospel itself through His prophets (Rom. 1:1-2). This means that, in its original form, the Gospel is εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ [Gospel of God] (Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8, 9; 1 Pet. 4:17), although in the closest way it is given Jesus Christ, since it was accomplished by Him. But, being salvation for mankind, the Gospel is and will be assimilated by people only on the condition that it is communicated to them in detail and accurately. “How to hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14). “Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). In this case, the Gospel, which was de facto, already becomes a story about it, a presentation of it with possible fidelity and comprehensiveness. In this way, a derivative concept of the word “Gospel” is obtained to denote the proclamation of Christ (Rom. 10:16: not all have heard the gospel; Phil. 4:15; 1 Cor. 4:15; 9:14: from the gospel to live; Gal. 2:7) with the goal that through the mediating (through someone) the gospel of happened (κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου ἡμῶν [according to my/our gospel]: Rom. 2, 16; 16, 25; 2 Tim. 2, 8; 2 Cor. 4, 3; 2 Thess. 2, 14) convey to others the truth of the Gospel (ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου - Gal. 2:5, 14), that is, the very essence of the redemption perfected by the Lord. And since the only means for this lies in the verbal reproduction of the event itself in all its depth and comprehensiveness, then the “Gospel” is generally a teaching about the Person and work of the Savior (even if it does not fully express them: ἕ τερον εὐαγγέλιον [another gospel] - Gal. 1, 6; 2 Cor. 11, 4) with all the particular points, such as, for example, the resurrection of Christ and the future rising of the dead (1 Cor. 15, 1-12), the promise of good things to believers (1 Cor. 9, 23), etc. The Gospel itself as a fact is evangelized here (2 Cor. 11, 7: did I sin by humiliating myself in order to exalt you, ὅ τι δωρεὰν τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν ? Gospel of God]; Gal. 1, 11: ὑπ ᾿ ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον [The gospel that I preached is not human]) through the apostolic gospel (1 Cor. 15, 1: γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν [I remind you, brothers, of the Gospel that I preached to you]), where this event is depicted in human words. Here the concept of the Gospel embraces the preaching of the redemption of the world by the Lord Savior and how it was accomplished 254, and thus marks both the content and form of the gospel of the apostles, who through this become evangelists (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5), for they are “bringing good news of peace, bringing good news” (Isa. 52, 7 in Rom. 10, 15). So: in a further sense, which quite logically follows from the basic concept, the Gospel is the oral presentation of the Christian teaching about the salvation of people, and the preachers themselves received the name evangelists. “Paul,” he also notes. Ignatius the God-Bearer, filled the countries from Jerusalem to Illyricum with the Gospel 255. “Εὐαγγέλιον,” comments Blessed Theodoret Rom. 1, 1, – τὸ κήρυγμα προσηγόρευσεν (Παῦλος), ὡ ς πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπισχνούμενον χορηγίαν [(Apostle Paul) called the sermon the Gospel, as promising the teaching of many good things], since it preaches reconciliation with God, trampling on the devil, the destruction of death, rebellion the dead, eternal life, the kingdom of heaven." 256 Naturally, with this meaning this term was transferred to the written apostolic works - in view of their content. "Take into your hands, we read from Clement of Rome, - the (first) letter of blessed Paul (to the Corinthians) 257. Illuminated by the Holy Spirit, he conveyed to you in writing about himself, Cephas. Apollos..." 258. “We recognize the intact Gospel of the New Testament in what Paul wrote somewhere: according to my gospel,” argues Origen. For among the writings of Paul there is not one which is commonly called the Gospel, but what he preached or spoke is the Gospel; therefore, what he wrote is also the Gospel. And if Paul’s epistles are the Gospel, then it is fair to say the same about Peter. Briefly: everything that confirms the coming of Christ, indicates His second appearance and encourages souls to accept the Word of God, standing at the gate, interpreting and urging to enter - all this is the Gospel” 259. From this it is clear how necessary it was that all records that primarily narrated primarily about the life and deeds of the Lord Christ should have immediately received the name Gospels κατ ᾿ ἐξοχήν [primarily]. And this is all the more natural and understandable since the Savior Himself sanctified this use when applied to stories about His entire redemptive feat and its individual episodes 260. “And this Gospel of the Kingdom (τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας) will be preached,” He says in his eschatological speech, “throughout the whole universe, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14) 261. Regarding the dissatisfaction of the disciples (actually, Judas) with the woman who anointed the Lord with ointment, He noted: “Wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world, it will be said about what she did” (Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9); cf. John 12:4). For this reason, and in relation to the sacred books, only the “writers” of the first four works of the New Testament canonical writing are evangelists, and of all the memorial records of the apostles, only the last are in the proper sense called Gospels (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια [memoirs of the apostles, which are called the Gospels]), says St. Justin Martyr regarding some historical narratives about Christ 262. Turning now closer to the subject of the present discussion, we can summarize our previous considerations in the following paragraphs: 1. The Savior Himself attached the title of the Gospels to the stories about Himself, which is why it is very likely that the title of our canonical records originates from their compilers, and St. John Chrysostom directly testifies that Matthew “justly called his work the Gospel” 263. The inexorable logic in the development of the concept of εὐαγγέλιον forced us to choose this particular term for the written gospel history, for it depicts the Gospel perfected by Christ - the greatest and only joy for the whole world. And we meet it in almost all Greek codes (εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον [Gospel according to Matthew], τὸ κατὰ Μαθθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον [Matthew's Gospel], τὸ κατὰ Μαθθαῖον ἅ γιον εὐαγγέλιον [Matthew's Holy Gospel], εὐαγγελίου κατὰ Μαθθαῖον τὰ κεφάλαια [chapters of the Gospel according to Matthew], ἁ γίου εὐαγγελίου τὸ ἀνάγνωσμα [reading of the Holy Gospel], τὸ ἀνάγνωσμα ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Μαθθαῖον εὐαγγελίου [reading from the Gospel according to Matthew]) and Latin (secundum Matthaeum Euangelium [Gospel according to Matthew], Euangelium cata Lucan [Gospel according to Luke]), in the Vulgate, in Syriac, Ethiopic, Gothic, Arabic and Persian translations. True, the Sinaitic manuscript has short inscriptions: κατὰ Μαθθαῖον [according to Matthew], κατὰ Μάρκον [Gospel according to Mark] etc. 264, but in the signatures of the individual Gospels we find complete formulas, which we must adhere to. Besides the fact that it comes from the Lord himself, this inscription is generally accepted in ancient Christian literature - for these reasons it can hardly be translated. It seems to us that it is better to keep it intact as a sacred terminus technicus and explain it with our “gospel”, because the latter more or less accurately expresses all the shades of the Greek εὐαγγέλιον, indicating with its grammatical structure both the fact (cf. “event”) and the communication of it to others orally and in writing (cf. “news”). 2. In New Testament language, “Gospel” denotes the redemption of people through Jesus Christ, and is applied metonymically to the Gospel records only because they convey to everyone the joyful news of this event as undoubtedly accomplished. “The Gospel,” we read from St. John Chrysostom, is an explanation (ἑρμηνεία) of a certain object and event: for the glorious economy of the Savior preaches to us, that God was among people out of love for mankind, not having put off His eternal dignity, but having put on a saving economy; The Gospel tells us that a doctor came to the sick, not healing with medicine, but with a wave of love for mankind, healing; The Gospel preaches that the way is shown to the lost, light to those in darkness, and salvation to the rejected.”265 According to Theophylact of Bulgaria, “The Gospel is so called because it proclaims to us things that are good and joyful for us, such as remission of sins, justification, ascension to heaven, sonship to God, inheritance of eternal blessings and liberation from torment; it also proclaims that we receive these benefits easily, for we do not acquire them through our labors and do not receive them through the law of good works, but we are rewarded with them through the grace and love of God” 266 . If in this way the apostolic narratives set out the cause of the salvation of mankind, then the name Gospels is quite appropriate for them. “Your work,” writes St. John Chrysostom, -Matthew rightly called it the Gospel, for he wants to proclaim to everyone - the enemies, the wicked, sitting in darkness - that punishment has been destroyed and remission of sins, justification, sanctification, redemption, adoption, heavenly inheritance, communion by blood with the Son of God have been granted. What, indeed, can compare with such good news (εὐαγγελίων)? Therefore, he called his story the Gospel, as if indicating that all other words that are considered good by people - for example, much wealth, strength, power, authority, glory, honors and everything else - do not actually have such a meaning, and the true and valid Gospel is the only one that is proclaimed by the fishermen - not only because these are goods that rise in dignity above all others, strong and unshakable, but also because that comes easy to us. Because it is not through our labor or our sweat, not through our hard efforts, but through God’s love for us that we receive them” 267 . So, the first four books of the New Testament canon are called Gospels in the sense that they convey to us (evangelize) the good news (εὐ – ἀγγέλιον, ἀγγελία) about the redemption of people through Christ as a special work of the goodness and mercy of God: By natural grace you have been saved through faith: and this is not from you, God's gift (Eph. 2:8). Therefore, on our part what is required here is not a reward for such a joyful message (which was in paganism and what the Magi did: Matt. 2:11), but first of all the assimilation, perception of the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness, in order to always and in everything have all contentment (π ᾶ σαν αὐτάρκειαν - 2 Cor. 9, 8 ) and reign in life through the one Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:17). All these provisions are extremely important for establishing the concept of the Gospel records and our attitude towards them during their scientific study. The written “Gospels” have the same goal that the Lord pursued with His activity; in presenting it, they also wish to save the whole person and come into the mind of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4) and, according to this, they convey only that and in such a form that in a certain sense concerns this subject. Their task is practical-soteriological, and everything that goes beyond its limits is omitted by the divinely inspired “writers.” “There are many other signs,” notes the apostle. John the Theologian, Jesus did before His disciples what is not written in these books. Now this was written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that ye may believe in His name” (John 20:30-31). The Gospels, therefore, are not a purely historical and biographical work, giving a detailed and comprehensive depiction of the personality of the Lord, reproducing the chronological sequence with the punctuality of a protocolist, invading the field of psychological analysis with scientific insight, carefully revealing the gradualness of the spiritual growth of Jesus Christ, noting every little detail during the period of His appearance in the flesh, etc. True, St. ap. Luke expresses his intention to write “in order” (καθεξῆς), but only so that Theophilus “would know the solid foundation of the teaching in which he was instructed” (Luke 1:3–4). Such scientific comprehensiveness was impossible by the very essence of the matter, since “Jesus did many things; but if we were to write about this in detail, then, in the words of John the Theologian, “even the world itself could not contain the books written” (John 21:25). Detailed completeness was even completely unnecessary given the correct and only correct view of the Savior’s face. Christ was a historical figure, and His earthly activity was confined to a certain chronological framework, but every moment of His existence in the world, from the very beginning to the end, was an act of fulfilling a special mission, for the sake of which the incarnation itself took place. Therefore, His life should be considered only from this point of view, for only in this way does it receive its proper meaning and true illumination. The Lord was also a man, but in His development he followed a special path and steadily adhered to a predetermined plan, striving towards His intended goal. It is clear from this that much in His human development, naturally, served it only in a secondary way (for example, infancy as the transition to manhood) and from His diverse activities something especially expressed it. Therefore, in the narration of His stay among people, it was important and necessary only that which characterized Him precisely from this [essential] side, showing in Him God in the flesh, the Savior of the world, when it became clear to everyone that He was the Redeemer. Under this condition alone, it was possible to appropriately comprehend His Theanthropic Personality, since the salvation of humanity is the initial beginning, the life principle, and the final point of His earthly existence. All individual facts should have been arranged in accordance with this, which we find in our canonical Gospels, where each writer, for his own practical purposes and adapted to the benefit of his listeners, gives his own image of Christ as the Savior of the world. We repeat: this is the only correct and scientific view that explains the nature of the first four monuments of sacred New Testament writing. At the same time, the period of childhood is not necessary and in the story about the public ministry of the Lord it was not necessary to strictly adhere to strict chronology, to introduce each saying in its original factual setting. Hence the conclusion: the Gospel is not a weather record or a biography, but a holistic image of the work of Christ, illuminated by the idea that constituted its integral essence and, therefore, fully expresses it. Therefore, all researchers who apply exclusively a historical and life-descriptive template and try on and forcibly adjust our Gospel records to it are cruelly sinning. This method is a real Procrustean bed of modern “scientific” barbarism, and in the entire history of literary criticism I do not know of another monstrous and sad misunderstanding more terrible than the one that plagues rationalistic exegesis. Εὐαγγέλιον is the gospel of the redemption of people from sin, and our Gospels primarily depict this point, and everything else only in connection, contact and relation to it. From this point of view, one cannot help but recognize as a darkening of the true ideal of Gospel history and the loss of the correct concept of it, all known apocryphal legends that seek to fill the gap allegedly left by the weather forecasters and John - to fill it with legends from the childhood of Christ the Savior, news of His occupation as a carpenter, etc. But if in them there is still noticeable a perverted consciousness of the exclusive dignity of the person of Christ, who completely and always reflected the divine idea (which is why all the stories are unnaturally given the character of miraculousness), then positively, at their very root, all modern efforts to create the “life of the Lord” are vain. We have hundreds of similar attempts, and all of them turned out to be equally unsuccessful even with the most unpretentious criticism, although they continue to multiply every year. For us, the reason for such failure is completely understandable, and we are deeply convinced that the very intention in this sense is a futile undertaking. Christ was God in the flesh, and not one of men, primus inter pares [first among equals]. Naturally, His life and activity proceeded and developed differently than those of all celebrities, and cannot be completely deduced from the usual conditions of His earthly existence - the circumstances of birth, upbringing, education, environment, etc. This will always result in a remainder that does not follow from them and is even impossible under such assumptions, but which is undoubtedly valid. And if so, then we are deprived of the necessary means to achieve the perfection of the biographical ideal and must forever resolutely abandon dreams of realizing it 268. Christ was the God-man, and His humanity, perceived into the unity of hypostasis, always and invariably served the purposes of the deity. Therefore, in no case is His personality revealed from the acts of human existence, when they themselves had only subordinate and auxiliary significance and flowed from the divine plans of the Savior. It is clear that compiling a “scientific” life of the Lord is impossible. On the other hand, all moments of His activity stood in an inextricably causal connection with the idea of ​​redemption and were directed towards its implementation. Consequently, only those facts have importance that in one way or another reflect it, and they themselves receive their true illumination only if they are considered from this point of view. All these features are integral characteristic properties of our Gospels, therefore, even according to modern scientific principles, it is necessary to recognize them as the only correct and possible presentation of the Gospel history. Thus, our task should not be to create our own pseudo-scientific biographies of Christ, but solely to assimilate and scientifically present His redemptive work, as it - according to historical information - was accomplished during His earthly life. Inscription of the Gospels: their writers The Gospel as the deliverance of people from sins and the granting of salvation to them was brought by the God-man, belongs only to Him and, therefore, in its own sense can be assimilated only by its culprit - the Lord, who in relation to him is both actor [performer] and auctor [author]; That is why in the genitive case only the words ὁ Θεός [God] or ὁ Ἰ ησοῦς Χριστὸς υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ [Jesus Christ the Son of God] are composed with this term (see above on p. 117–118). St. ap. Paul, however, uses μοῦ [mine] and ἡμῶν [ours], but only because he designates his teaching about the gospel that came through Jesus Christ (Rom. 2:16: κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰ ησοῦ [according to my gospel through Jesus Christ] 269), as ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀλήθειας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου [he preached the true word] (Col. 1:5), in contrast to ἕ τερον εὐαγγέλιον [he preached another word] (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6) of the Judaizers 270. For this reason, understanding literally all such turns of his messages (Rom. 2, 16; 16, 25; 1 Cor. 15, 1; 2 Cor. 4, 3; 1 Thess. 1, 5; 2 Thess. 2, 14; 2 Tim. 2, 8), many ancient writers, according to the testimony of Eusebius and Blessed. Jerome 271, meant here the Gospel of Luke, which conveyed in writing the work of redemption under the leadership of the Apostle of the tongues. Under such circumstances, both in the essence of the subject itself and in the general church view, the Gospel could only be stated or written down by someone, but the latter in no case had the right to assimilate it for himself. Thus, the testimony of St. receives full credibility. John Chrysostom, that just as “Moses, who wrote five books, did not put his name in any of them, and likewise those who described subsequent events after him, so even Matthew, Mark, Luke, John did not put their names” 272. But it is indisputable that these designations appeared very early, as evidenced by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria 273, Muratorian fragment (I, 3: tertium Evangelii librum secundum Lucam [the third book of the Gospel according to Luke]) 274, since the connection of our first four canonical works occurred soon after their appearance, and this forced us to distinguish them from each other according to writers. This distinction was made by means of the preposition κατὰ [by] with the accusative case of the person, in all ancient translations adopted in the sense of the Latin “secundum” [by], with the exception of the Slavic, where the preposition “from” originated from liturgical collections with titles similar to “ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Μαθθαῖον ἁ γίου εὐαγγελίου ἀνάγνωσμα , ἀνάγνωσις "[reading from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew], as the surviving formulas convince us of this “Matthew of the Holy Gospel” (that is, reading). Our “from” reproduces the Greek “ἐκ” [from], for it is found in the books of the Acts of the Apostles and the conciliar epistles (Acts, James, Jude), in which, apart from this pretext, it is unthinkable to assume anything else (ἐκ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἀνάγνωσις [reading from the conciliar message]) 275. So, the names of the writers are associated with the name “Gospel” by means of κατά with the accusativus [accusative case] of the person, equal to our “by” with the dative (for example, Mark 7:5: according to tradition; Luke 1:9: according to custom; John 18:31: according to the law; 1 Pet. 1:15: according to him who called you; Rom. 1:15: according to my zeal; 2, 16: according to my gospel, etc.) or “about” with a prepositional word in the same meaning (Rom. 15: 5: “about Christ Jesus” - glor., “according to the teachings of Christ Jesus” - Russian). We have, therefore, one Gospel of Christ the Savior according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - according to four expositions, the records of these men. The “Gospel” itself belongs to His original author, and with him the genetivus auctoris [genitive case of the author] is legitimate only for the words Θεός [God], Χριστός [Christ], Κύριος [Lord]. Therefore, it could not be used to indicate our evangelists with a correct view of the subject, and κατά should in no way be identified with the Hebrew ל auctoris [preposition of character] (in the Septuagint dat. or gen. [i.e. translated in the dative or genitive case. -Ed.]). He expresses the Church's belief in the indivisibility of the Gospel as the work of Christ and precisely defines the significance of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in relation to it as editors who reproduced a true event, but independent of them and not in the least obliged to them, 276. It also follows that this κατά in no way excludes the idea of ​​the origin of our Gospels from the listed apostles, but directly demands its recognition, since it could not be expressed otherwise. It is in vain, therefore, that skeptical scientists forcefully reinterpret this formula in favor of their tendentious views that our Gospels were compiled either according to tradition or according to the original records of those persons whose names they bear in the titles, which gives them [these scientists] the freedom to attribute the completion [of the Gospels] to any time - just not to the apostolic 277. However, such commentary only shows the misunderstanding and limitations of such exegetes, who skim superficially on the subject and cannot penetrate in depth. The entire ancient Church considered Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be the compilers of Gospel reviews, and not the Gospel itself, which belongs to Christ; hence – κατά, and not genetivus [genitive case]. True, the heretic Faustus (and this is the only example) admitted that “incerti nominis viri <...> partim Apostolorum nomina, partim eorum, qui Apostolos secuti videntur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt” [men unknown by name <...> called their books partly the names of the apostles, partly those who, it seems, were followers of the apostles], but his opinion caused hot protest of the bl. Augustine and was rejected 278. History here is decisively against such fantastic guesses. Then, if those who put κατά in the title of our Gospels wanted to express their derivation from the tradition of the famous apostles in order to give the highest authority and reliability to their stories, they would rather use the combination κατά παράδοσιν, familiar to them and common in the New Testament monuments [according to tradition] (Col. 2, 8; 2 Thess. 3:6). Finally, in ancient times they were firmly convinced that Mark and Luke reproduced in their notes the preaching of Peter and Paul, and Matthew and John themselves set forth the works and words of the Lord; according to this, instead of the first there should be κατὰ Πέτρον, κατὰ Παῦλον [according to Peter, according to Paul], while the second would receive the genitive case. It should be added that κατά often denotes the author in both secular and ecclesiastical writers, for example in Diodorus Siculus: ἡ καθ ᾿ Ἡ ρόδοτον ἱστορία [history of Herodotus] 279; 2 Macc. 2, 13: ὲν τοῖς ὑπομνηματισμοῖς τοῖς κατὰ τὸν Νεεμίαν [in the memoirs of Nehemiah] (in the Vulgate: “in commentariis Neemiae"); in Epiphanius: ἡ πρώτη βίβλος τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα πεντατεύχου [the first book of the Pentateuch of Moses] 280; often among fathers: ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη ἡ κατὰ τούς ό, ἡ κατὰ Ἀκύλαν [Old Testament according to the Seventy, according to Aquila], etc. The Gospel, as the historical work of the redemption of mankind, owes its existence to the Lord Christ and to no one else. The apostles could only proclaim it to others in writing and orally, certifying its undoubted factual truth and reproducing it with the necessary accuracy. That’s why the formula Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John] clearly indicates in them the actual editors of the gospel narratives we have and at the same time aptly expresses their character - the objective fidelity of the image, alien to the slightest changes in the factual material and subjective inventions and tendentious originality in its coverage. “What was from the beginning, what we heard, what we saw with our eyes, what we looked at and what we touched with our hands, about the Word of life, what we saw and heard, we proclaim (ἀπαγγέλλομεν; cf. 1 John 1, 2: καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν [and we testify and proclaim]) to you,” this is what the Apostle John says about his writings (1 John 1, 1, 3). The Church also expressed the same thing with its κατά in the names of our evangelists, who were only witnesses before others about this historical event independent of them - the “Gospel of Christ.” The fourfold number of the Gospels and its meaning Therefore, the Gospel itself is one, like any real event, even if many people talk about it. “There are four Gospels,” we read from Adamantius, “but one Gospel” 281. For this reason and blzh. Augustine corrects himself: “In quatuor Evangeliis, vel potius quatuor libris unius Evangelii” [In the four Gospels or, more precisely, in the four books of the single Gospel] 282, - and sschmch. Irenaeus says that Christ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τετράμορφον τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον [gave us the Gospel in four types] 283 . “Just as He is one, Whom many preach,” writes Origen, “so the Gospel itself is one: written by many, it is truly one Gospel in four ( Εὐαγγέλιον)" 284. The evangelists did not invent anything of their own, setting out the work of the redemption of people through Christ - and, despite the fourfold edition, their content remains the same, equal in everything. Regarding the words of the Apostle Paul “according to my gospel” 285 St. John Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, argues: “Even if very many wrote the Gospel, if they write the same thing, then the many will be no more than one Gospel, and the multitude of those who write will not in the least prevent it from being one. On the contrary, even if someone wrote alone, but wrote the opposite, then what he wrote would be more than one. One or more than one Gospel is known not by the number of writers, but by the identity or difference of what is written. From this it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel, for when four say the same thing, then here it is not one and the other or different, because they say different things; but one, by agreement and unity of what they wrote. And Paul does not speak here about the number of preachers, but about the disagreement and contradiction of what is preached. Therefore, if the Gospel of Matthew is different, and the Gospel of Mark is different, according to the meaning of what is written and according to the nature of the dogmas, then the Marcionites rightly cite the words of Pavlov. But since their Gospel is one, let these people cease their madness, who pretend to be ignorant of what even little children know.”286 In the words of St. Herman of Constantinople, “God, having appeared, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but at the same time imbued with one spirit” 287. Thus, the fourfoldness of the Gospel - according to paternal views - serves as a sign of the historical reliability of our Gospel records, since they reveal one content, reproduce one real event, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ [the gospel of Christ], which cannot be fragmented or divided, and therefore, in all editions it is presented in exactly the same way 288. But if so, then the question arises: why did the Gospel not find its full expression in only one edition or, conversely, in more works than are recognized and approved by the Church? The closest answer to this can, of course, be that only four gospel stories were written by servants and witnesses of the Word and only they have divinely inspired dignity. It goes without saying that this actually confirms the fact - but an explanation is not yet given, since further we would like to know the reason why not all the apostles conveyed their ἀπομνημονεύματα [memories] in writing, but only four, and two of them were not the direct companions of the Lord. In this case, we are obviously talking about the internal motive of sacred writing activity, guided by the Holy Spirit, whose intentions are unsearchable and cannot be fully comprehended. Without taking upon ourselves such an impossible task, we must limit ourselves to an approximately probable solution that somewhat illuminates this subject for us. Let us take as our starting point the concept of the Gospel that we know. It signifies the work of redemption of all people and, therefore, should be the property of the whole world. The apostolic preaching served to fulfill this goal, which, according to the commandment of the Lord, was the main and most essential goal of the “evangelical” ministry of the apostles; literature was not their direct responsibility and appeared later, according to the random requirements of time and circumstances, to supplement and replace the oral announcement. But both, in order to fulfill their task, had to reveal the salvation of mankind accomplished by Jesus Christ in such a form that it would be available to everyone - both in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and even at the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8) - and in such a volume that it would be reproduced as comprehensively as possible. Therefore, when discussing the fourfold number of the Gospels, we must have this dual point of view: the desire to satisfy the needs of the world of that time and to embrace the subject in all its fullness, necessary for everyone to become partakers of the kingdom of God. But we know that in their activities the apostles, for the benefit of their listeners, resorted to many different methods and allowed them: “What the hell? In every way, whether through guilt or truth, we preach Christ, and in this I rejoice, but I will also rejoice” (Phil. 1:18). “I would be everything to everyone, that I might save everyone” (1 Cor. 9:22), - St. testifies of himself. ap. Paul. It is natural from this that there should be more than one written proclamation about the Redeemer, since it appeared instead of and to continue the oral one, which is why it was also necessary to adapt to the situation of the believers. But if in oral communication such accommodations were easily replaced every day, then in the written word it was no longer conceivable to maintain this mobility and to provide for the character of all readers. For this reason, the evangelists were forced to take a broader measure and limit themselves to the then existing distribution of the population of the Greco-Roman Empire in religious terms into Jews, pagans (Hellenes) and the middle element of aliens (proselytes), a distribution that was already noted by the Savior Himself 289. This is what we see in our first three Gospels. Matthew, according to the concordant news of antiquity, wrote for Palestinian Jewish Christians, Mark intends his work for Roman Christians, Luke addresses his work to Theophilus, presumably considered a resident of Syrian Antioch, where Hellenic and Jewish blood have long merged with each other. Thus, the weather forecasters in their σωματικὰ εὐαγγέλια [Gospels according to the flesh] had already taken into account the national characteristics of the peoples of that era; All that remained was to complete their work, to fill in what was naturally omitted by them for practical purposes, and to bring the image of the life of Christ to the desired objective completeness. All this is what the fourth Gospel presents to us, as can be seen from the circumstances of its origin. According to church tradition, St. ap. John had our forecasters [the Gospel] at hand and approved of them, but noticed that not everything was stated in them, and therefore he himself made an addition to his writing 290. It is πνευματικόν [spiritual] and, therefore, is designed for the needs of the mind of every believer and is alien to adaptations only to temporary and random needs 291. Consequently, the Theologian concluded the process of reconstructing the Gospel history with his objective reproduction of the person and work of Christ and with his solemn words “this was written, that you may believe” (John 20:31), forever putting a limit to the writing productivity of “many” (Luke 1:1), who boldly sought to exhaust the immense depth (see John 21:25) of the Lord’s ministry. For this reason, the canonical Gospels could no longer appear, not to mention the fact that - after the death of the Savior’s direct eyewitnesses, the only ones competent to testify about Him (see Acts 1:21-22), there were no sufficiently authoritative writers available. It is clear that τετραευαγγέλιον [Four Gospels] (in the Months, in the Typikon of St. Sava the Sanctified) as τῶν ἱερῶν εὐαγγελίων τετρακτύς [the quartet of holy Gospels] 292 shows that the truth of the Gospel is fully revealed, and, moreover, in such a way that it is accessible to everyone’s perception. This is precisely the idea expressed by church writers. Sschmch. Irenaeus says: “Let no one accept that this number of Gospels is large or small. Since there are four countries in which we live, four main winds, and the Church is scattered throughout the entire universe, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, it is natural that it has four pillars, scattering incorruptibility everywhere and reviving man. When this is so, then those are vain, reckless and extremely daring who do not recognize this property of the Gospel and, in addition to the existing ones, introduce greater or lesser types of Gospels (εἴτε πλείονα, εἴτε ἐλάττονα τῶν εἰρημένων παρεισφέροντες Εὐαγγελίων πρόσωπα )" 293. Origen thinks that the four Gospels are, as it were, the elements of the church faith, of which our entire universe consists, reconciled through the Lord Christ 294. Considering the quaternity of Gospels in the sense of a complete whole created by the Wisdom of God, both of these writers equate them with unchanging cosmic relations and thereby express the concept that the truth of the Gospel is established as firmly as our earth, it is completely exhausted - and nothing can be added to it, just like to the four cardinal points or the four winds. At the same time, the truth of Christ is revealed in such a form that it becomes possible in the visible universe to found a new [universe] - the Church of Christ. Therefore, breaking up into four, the Gospel becomes accessible to everyone and realizes the idea of ​​universalism, and being ἓ ν διὰ τεσσάρων [united in four], it convinces of its authenticity by the identity of its content 295 . “Was one evangelist unable to say everything? - asks St. John Chrysostom. - Of course, he was able to, but when four wrote, not at the same time and not in the same place, without converging or conspiring with each other, and yet everything was uttered as if by one mouth, then this serves as the strongest proof of the truth. Meanwhile, you will say, the opposite has happened, for they are often exposed in disagreements. But this very thing is a sure sign of the truth. If they had exactly agreed with each other on everything, even regarding time, place and the very words, then none of the enemies would have believed that they wrote the Gospel without agreeing with each other and not by ordinary mutual agreement, and that the agreement of their writings was a consequence of sheer sincerity. And the slight disagreement that now exists between us frees them from any suspicion and clearly speaks in favor of those who wrote. What they disagree on regarding time and place does not in the least harm the truth of the stories <...> when in the main thing, which forms the basis of our life and the essence of preaching, not one of them disagrees with the other anywhere or in anything. What is this? The fact that God became man, performed miracles, was crucified, buried, resurrected, ascended to heaven and will come to judge; that He gave saving commandments, introduced a law not contrary to the old, that He is the only begotten, true Son, consubstantial with the Father, and the like. In all this we find the greatest agreement between them [the evangelists]. If, regarding miracles, not everyone said everything <...> then this should not be confusing: <...> although they said a lot in common, each of them chose something special for himself, so that, on the one hand, there would not be anything superfluous and thrown 296 without a purpose, and on the other hand, accurate evidence of the truth of the story would be obvious" 297 . Without moving away from the meaning of the fatherly views and adhering to the purpose of the Gospels, we come to the conclusion that it was precisely their fourfold number that fully realized the plans of divine economy - to give saving truth to the whole world. This was achieved only when it was reproduced in all its objective immediacy and in a form adapted to its convenient perception by all the peoples of the earth. All this is perfectly expressed only by our four Gospels, which, with small differences in particulars, while completely agreeing in essence, tangibly testify to their absolute authenticity for everyone and thereby direct readers to “let those who believe have life in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God” (see John 20:31). For relevant materials (with their analysis), see: Schniewind J. Euangelion. Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium. Teil 1. Gütersloh, 1927; cp. Idem. Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus. Bonn, 1910 S. 64 ss. Also rabbinic materials: Strack H. L., Billerbeck P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Bd. 3. München, 1926. S. 4–11. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsty-1932. -Ed.] Homerus. Odyssea XIV, 152 [cf. Ibid., 166. -Ed.]. Eustathius, episcopus Thessalonicensis. Commentarii ad Odysseam, ad XIV, 148 (T. 2. Leipzig, 1826. P. 66). Aristophanes. Equites, 647; Plutus, 765. Plutarchus. Sertorius, 11 (573d). Hanp. Xenophon. Historia Graeca I, 6, 37; Isocrates. Areopagiticus, 10; Plutarchus. Agesilaus, 17 (605c). Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca historica XV, 74, 2. Aristophanes. Equites, 656; cp. Xenophon. Historia Graeca IV, 3, 14: ἐβουθύτει ὡ ς εὐαγγέλια [literally: he slaughtered bulls as gospels]. Plutarchus. Phocion, 23 (752b). Wed. Schniewind J. Euangelion. S. 32, 99. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] Aeschines. In Ctesiphontem, 160. Etymologicum magnum, s. v. εὐαγγέλιον (Ed. 77. Gaisford. Oxford, 1848. P. 1113). Suidae Lexicon, s. v. εὐαγγέλιον (Ed. A. Adler. Pars 2. Stuttgart, 1931. P. 439). Cm. Passow F. Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache, s. v. εὐαγγέλιον (Bd. 1, Abt. 2. Leipzig, 5 1847. S. 1208). Contrary to the latest theories that the concept of “εὐαγγέλιον” comes from Hellenism. See Schniewind J. Op. cit. S. 11. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. – Ed. ] When quoting the Greek text of these verses, Glubokovsky probably follows Tischendorf’s edition: Tischendorf C. Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. T. 1. Leipzig, 1887. In the edition of the Septuagint by Ralphs (Rahlfs A. Septuaginta. Stuttgart, 1935) in 2 Kings. 18, 22 and 25 are not εὐαγγέλια, but εὐαγγελία, which suggests the existence of a distinction in the Septuagint between ἡ εὐαγγελία (good news) and τὰ εὐαγγέλια (reward for good news). See Kittel. V01. 2. R. 725 (see also not. 42). -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, this idea is expanded into a separate paragraph, the meaning of which is as follows: “... the terms under consideration always mean something objectively joyful, essentially so by the very nature of a thing or event, and are only very rarely applied to what is joyful by passion and only for a few.” -Ed. Josephus Flavius. De bello judaico IV, 10, 6. M. Tullius Cicero. Epistulae ad Atticum II, 3, 1. Joannes Chrysostomus. In acta apostolorum hom. 26, 3, PG 60, 201. Ibid., hom. 19, 5, PG 60, 157. Prof. Julius Schniewind states that בשׂר [to evangelize] in the Old Testament is a religious term (Schniewind J. Op. cit. S. 44, 52, 60–61), even with a cultic meaning (S. 51), but believes that the gap (der Schnitt) between “secular” and religious usage is formally obvious (S. 59), and the first is older and related to the message of victory (S. 33), but he himself agrees that such a message was announced in a cultic way, as the victory of Jehovah (S. 59), for He was for Israel the Lord of Hosts - the God of armies. Therefore, according to the original source, both applications are certainly religious. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] And prof. Julius Schniewind considers בשׂר (actually εὐαγγελίσασθαι) a messianic term, at least in Deuteroisaiah, as connecting with him messianic hopes (SchniewindJ. Op. cit. S. 43), reflected in Christ and in the concepts of the Gospel of the primal church (S. 57–58). [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] So with Glubokovsky. In the Slavic text of the Bible they “proclaim the good news.” -Ed. The phrase was corrected in accordance with Glubokovsky-1907 and 1932. In Glubokovsky-1899: “the correspondence remained.” This option; Most likely, it is erroneous: the sentence expresses the idea that before the coming of Christ, the gospels (“gospels”) were only predictions and plans, not yet fulfilled, not realized in reality (“present reality”). -Ed. In Gpubokovsty-1932, the author makes the following reservation: “True, the very term εὐαγγέλιον disappears in later, non-canonical monuments of the pre-Christian era, but this was associated with the rabbinic dimming of the messianic ideal and with its Hellenistic rationalization: in the first case, the aspiration of thought was towards the messianic crushingness, in the second - the theoretical dispersion of the messianic image did not allow specific characteristics.” -Ed. Ignatius Antiochenus. Epistula ad Philadelphios (recensio longior), 9, PG 5, 836. Idem. Epistula ad Smyrnaeos, 7, PG 5, 713. Athanasius Alexandrinus. De communi essentia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, 50, PG 28, 77 [in the Lampe dictionary this work of St. Athanasius is classified as a forgery. – Ed. ]. Basilius Magnus. De Spiritu sancto, 15, PG 32, 132. Ignatius Antiochenus. Epistula ad Trallianos, 10, PG 5, 793 (Funk II, P. 72). “... in which the word was the Gospel,” the author adds in the 1932 edition and provides the link: cf. Schiewind J. Op. cit. S. 18. -Ed. This syntactically unclear construction is repeated in all editions of Glubokovsky. "It" here refers to "redemption." -Ed. Ignatius Antiochenus. Epistula ad Tarsenses, 2, PG 5, 889 (Funk II, p. 96) [Lampe classifies this work as a forgery. -Ed.]. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Interpretatio epistulae ad Romanos I, 1, PG 82, 49. Most commentators are inclined to see here an indication not of the corpus of messages of St. Paul, but for his missionary activities. P. Preobrazhensky (see: Writings of the Apostolic Men. St. Petersburg, 1895. P. 103) translates ἐν ἀρχ ῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου as “at the beginning of the gospel sermon” (the same expression in Phil. 4:15: “at the beginning of the gospel” - synod, trans.). Annie Jaubert's translation has a similar meaning: “au début de lʼévangélisation” (SC 167, pp. 177–179). See also Kittel. V40;ol. 2. R. 736; PG 1, 306, not. 15. This quotation is missing in the Glubokovsky-1932 edition. -Ed. Clemens Romanus. Epistula 1 ad Corinthios, 47, PG 1, 305–308 (Funk I, p. 120). Origenes. Commentaria in Joannem I, praefatio, PG 14, 32. Christ's use of the term “εὐαγγέλιον” cp.Schiewind J. Op. cit. S. 6, 12. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] These are some (for example, Prof. M. D. Muretov: Gospel // Orthodox Review. 1890, February. pp. 195–228, see pp. 196, 200) are taken as an indication of the scriptures themselves, setting out the Gospel. But these expressions are found in the speeches of the Lord, and moreover in connection with the term “preach,” and therefore initially could not have such energy. And there is no undoubted evidence that Matthew and Mark gave them this exact meaning, adding τοῦτο [this] of their own to designate their notes - even if we assume that the words “if anyone reads, let them understand” (Matthew 24:15) were left behind by the first evangelist. But it is fair to think that they belong to Christ Himself and make sense of the prophecy of Daniel: ὁ ἀναγινώσκων [who reads] most likely refers to τὸ ῥ ηθὲν διὰ Δανιήλ [said by Daniel]. [A similar point of view is reflected in Kittel's dictionary, which explains that τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in Matt. 24, 14 and Matt. 26, 13 does not mean the written Gospel, but the sermon about Christ (Kittel. V40; ol. 2. R. 729). Wed. analysis of Matt. 24, 15 M. Thebeysky, who ultimately leans toward the idea that the words “whosoever honoreth, let him understand” belong to Christ (Explanatory Bible. Vol. 3. P. 372). It should be noted that Muretov’s article, with which the author is polemicizing in this case, nevertheless served in many ways as the basis for the present chapter of Glubokovsky’s lectures. -Ed.] Justinus Martyr. Apologia I, 66, PG 6, 429. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 2, PG 57, 15. In addition to Tischendorf, this designation is followed by Westcott-Hort, but they presuppose a common inscription for all gospel narratives - εὐαγγέλιον - to express the idea of ​​the unity of the Gospel as the work of Christ, revealed in four editions (Westcott V. F., Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. P. 321, 423). The Codex Sinaiticus indicates a later era when all our Gospels were collected together and needed only written distinction, but it goes without saying that initially they could not have been circulated separately without any “titles.” We were unable to establish the source of the quotation: most likely, its author is indicated incorrectly or it is greatly distorted. This fragment is missing from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed. Theophylactus Bulgariae archiepiscopus. Enarratio in Evangelium Matthaei, praefatio, PG 123, 145. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 2, PG 57, 15–16. In Gpubokovsky-1932, the author explains his thought as follows: “... since here the causes do not correspond to the effects and, when forcibly applied to the latter, they distort them, crudely and ugly spoil their subject. “The Life of Jesus,” in all its divine grandeur, is not revealed at all by the usual biographical method, for this human standard is not suitable to the matter, in fact, giving not a complete image, but only distortions and aberrations of it in incomplete and scattered fragments, abundantly subsidized by fantastic fabrications.” -Ed. The expression “through Jesus Christ” does not refer to the word “evangelizing” in the text of the message. The entire verse of Rom. 2:16 in the synodal translation reads like this: “on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secret deeds of men through Jesus Christ.” Similar syntax in the Church Slavonic Bible, Authorized King James Version of the Bible, La Bible de Jerusalem, etc. -Ed. Wed. Schniewind J. Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus. Bonn, 1910. S. 75–76, 106. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed)] Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 4, PG 20, 220; Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 7, PL 23, 622; cp. Patrizi F. S. De evangeliis. T. 1. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1852. P. 71. Joannes Chrysostomus. In epistulam ad Romanos hom. 1, 1, PG 60, 395. Tertullianus. Adversus Marcionem IV, 2, PL 2, 363; Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 11.8, PG 7, 887: τὸ μὲν κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην τὸ δὲ κατὰ Λουκ ᾶ ν [that which is according to John that which is according to Luke]; Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata I, 21, PG 8, 884, 889: ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ τῷ κατὰ Λουκ ᾶ ν ὲν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελί ῳ [in the Gospel according to Luke in the Gospel according to Matthew]. A small fragment in Latin, found by L. A. Muratori and dating back to about 200, gives a historical overview of almost all the New Testament books. See: Muratori L. A. Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi. T. 3. Milano, 1740. R. 851–854; publication in Russian, for example in: Metzger B. M. The Canon of the New Testament: Origin, development, meaning. M., 3 2001. pp. 300–303 (translated, apparently from English). -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, this idea is expressed as follows: “...“from” reproduces not κατά, but ὲκ, which was necessary to indicate liturgical readings from one or another Gospel. For the entire gospel composition, such a combination is not at all convenient, but it was traditionally retained from the original Slavic translation, which gave only liturgical selections from the entire gospel text.” -Ed. This meaning can be seen in the ancient inscriptions ὲκ τοῦ κατὰ Μαθθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον [Gospel from what is according to Matthew] or εὐαγγέλιον ὲκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰ ωάννην [The Gospel from that according to John]. See, for example, cod. 69 (cod. Laicesti) [minuscule manuscript of the New Testament of family 13, dating from the mid-15th century; currently kept in the Leicester Museum in England. – Ed.] in: Westcott B. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P. 214, not. 1. Credner K. A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Halle, 1836. S. 240; Volkmar G. Der Ursprung unsrer Evangelien. Zurich, 1866. S. 7; Renan E. Vie de Jésus. Paris, 1863. P. XVI; Reuss E. Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments. Braunschweig, 4 1864. § 177. S. 165–166; Holtzmann H. J. Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863. Augustinus Aurelius. Contra Faustum manichaeum, 32, 2, PL 42, 498. There is no such expression in the work of Diodorus. "καθ ᾿ Ἠ ρόδοτον" occurs twice: Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca historica II, 32, 3; IX, 20, 4. The expression “ἡ καθ ᾿ Ἡ ρόδοτον ἱστορία” was found in the comments of Eustathius of Thessalonica: Eustathius, episcopus Thessalonicensis. Commentarii ad Iliadem, ad ΧΙ II, 23 (T. 3. Leiden, 1979. P. 433); Idem. Commentarii ad Odysseam, ad XII, 396 (T. 2. Leipzig, 1826. P. 32). -Ed. Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 8, 4, PG 41, 209. Adamantius. Dialogus de recta in Deum fide I, PG 11, 1724 [actually in Adamantius: “There are four evangelists, but one Gospel” (Εὐαγγελισταὶ μὲν τέσσαρες, Εὐαγγέλιον δὲ ἕ ν ); the same Greek text in a later edition: GCS 4, p. 12. -Ed.]; Wed Glubokovsky N. N. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity. M, 1890. T. 2. pp. 383–384. Augustinus Aurelius. In Joannis Evangelium tractatus 36, 1, PL 35, 1662; cp. Idem. Sermo 231, 1, PL 38, 1104; De utilitate credendi, 7, PL 42, 69. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 11, 8, PG 7, 885. Origenes. Commentaria in Joannem V, PG 14, 193. See Rome. 2, 16; 14, 24; 2 Tim. 2, 8. -Ed. Joannes Chrysostomus. Commentarius in epistulam ad Galatas, in cap. 1, 6, PG 61, 621–622. Germanus I Constantinopolitanus. Rerum ecclesiasticarum contemplatio, PG 98, 413. Is it not for this reason that the Codex Sinaiticus (see above on pp. 122–123) does not place the title εὐαγγέλιον on each individual of our first four canonical works, considering it to denote the single content of all narratives taken together? This sentence, unclear in Glubokovsky-1899, was clarified by Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed. Wed. a passage quoted by Eusebius Pamphilus from Clement of Alexandria concerning the writing of the fourth Gospel: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 14, PG 20, 552, -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author slightly changes his thought, ending the sentence like this: “... designed for the inclinations of the believing mind in general, although with specific associations with modernity.” -Ed. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Epistula 130, PG 83, 1345 [cp. Idem. Epistula 145, PG 83, 1384; Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica IIII, 25, PG 20, 268.-Ed.]. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 11, 8–9, PG 7, 885–890; cp. Augustinus Aurelius. De consensu Evangelistarum I, cap. 2: isti quatuor Evangelistae universo terrarum orbe notissimi, et ob hoc fortasse quatuor, quoniam quatuor sunt partes orbis terrae, per cujus universitatem Christi Ecclesiam dilatari, ipso sui numeri sacramento quodammodo declararunt [these four evangelists are the most famous the universe - probably precisely because there are four parts of the world, at all ends of which they, by their very numbers, as if by some kind of sacrament, heralded the spread of the Church of Christ] (PL 34, 1043). Origenes. Commentaria in Joannem I, 6, PG 14, 29. In Gpubokovsky-1932 there is the following insert: “This is a truly divine monad, reflected in the four sacred letters, which accurately capture it and proclaim it everywhere. From this side, it is similar to the Old Testament Jewish “tetragram”, where the highest deity is fixed in four visible signs יהוה [Yahweh]. But there is also a fundamental difference that the latter [i.e. e. tetragram] states the ineffable divine name ( הַמִּפִרָשׁ שֵׁם ) and thereby confesses the essential inaccessibility of the deity, and the New Testament quaternity represents the understandable word of the Gospel and through it reveals to us God Himself. Here is the cardinal difference of the New Testament, that in it the only begotten and consubstantial Son of God confessed the Father to the world (John 1:18) for our knowledge and unity with Him.” -Ed. In the sense of "said". -Ed. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 2, PG 57, 16–17. You might be interested in: