But the Gospel is not the history of man. And yet, nevertheless, a story, a description of what happened. There was something special and unprecedented, one and only: God appeared in the flesh, and in the form of a man was found... And therefore the Gospel is both the Gospel of the Son of God and the story of the Son of David. In the life of the God-Man one should expect in advance something unusual, unlike and different only from the life of people, to foresee the rupture and removal of ordinary human boundaries. Doubt opposes the Gospel evidence only with a preconceived denial of the possibility of God-manhood and the Incarnation of God in general.

With such a dissection of the Gospel story, its historical authenticity is indeed blurred, lost, for it is integral, for Christ was not a simple man. The story of Jesus of Nazareth, told within the boundaries of one humanity, is not history at all, but fiction, because it does not correspond to the depicted reality.

If Christ, depicted in the Gospel, is depicted as God, He was not a man, He did not exist at all in history, in earthly reality... Such a "mythological" conclusion is just as biased and vicious as the opposite extreme of "pure historicism": if man, then not God. These are two opposite, but conjugated, denials of the mystery of the Gospel, or, better said, of the Gospel fact. A biased denial of reality for the sake of a pretended impossibility... Either God or man... This false opposition is opposed by the reality of the Gospel: both God and man... The word was flesh...

You can break the Gospel image, and it will crumble into mortal fragments. But we must remember: the Gospel is an icon of the God-Man. Not a myth, and not a "pure story". Thus it was written, for so it was, was that which was described by the Evangelists. The seen and recognized face of the God-Man is inscribed. In the radiance of Divine dignity, human traits do not disappear or blur. They retain all their clarity and completeness. This is the mysterious originality of the Gospel image, which conveys the originality of the most miraculous face of Christ. The fullness of mankind - that is why Christ could be taken for "only a man", for the signs of the divinity are not intelligible to everyone. For others, they were a reason for bitter temptation. "The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said that He had Beelzebub, and that He cast out demons by the power of the prince of demons." And even "His neighbors" wanted to take Him, for they said that He had lost His temper (Mark 3:22, 21 et seq.: Matt. 9:34; Luke 11:15 et seq. John 8:48). "And when he came into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were amazed, and said, 'Whence hath he such wisdom and power?' Is He not the son of carpenters? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Josiah and Simon and Judas? and are not His sisters all among us? Where did He get all this? And they were offended because of him" (Matt. 13:54-57; Mk. 6:2-3)... From the Gospel we know that almost everyone took Jesus for a mere man – and not only His enemies, the scribes and elders, the bishops, Herod and Pilate, but also His neighbors and disciples – until the time comes... The fullness of humanity – hence the indisputable clarity and vividness of the pictorial drawing in the Gospel. The Gospel is full of living people, sketched in the fullness of their personal originality, which is often given to understand and feel in a few words. The faces of the Gospel appear before us so clearly and vividly that only from nature, from reality, can such an image be removed. And the image of Zechariah and the Forerunner, and the image of the Most-Pure Virgin, and the images of the often nameless believers and healed who flowed to Jesus - all of them bear in themselves a testimony to their authenticity, to their life reality. They are taken from life. Of course, the very clarity and figurativeness of the story does not fully ensure its historical authenticity. But in the Gospel story there is something more than just living visualization. There is a disinterested, free spontaneity of the story, which directly testifies to its reality. It is difficult to prove this, but it is even more difficult to doubt it, unless there is a preconceived will to doubt. It is directly felt that all the events of the Gospel are told from a living memory and a living impression. To give examples would be to retell the entire Four Gospels. A few recollections are enough. We have already mentioned Christ's sojourn in Nazareth, the temptation and doubt of His neighbors. More than once in the Gospel it is told about the perplexities and doubts of His disciples. Vivid realism captures the Lord's conversation on the way to the lands of Caesarea Philippi, the solemn confession and the senseless rebuke of St. Paul. Peter (Matthew 15:13-23; Mark 8:27-33). Or the story of how the mother of the Zebedee sons came to Jesus to ask Him to let them sit next to Him in the glory of His Kingdom (Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 10:35-41). Or the story of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1-46). The last days of the Lord are described in undeniable realistic detail. "A certain young man, wrapped in a veil over his naked body, followed Him; and the soldiers seized him. But he left the veil and fled naked from them" (Mark 14:51-52). "And they compelled a certain Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was passing by from the field, to bear his cross" (Mark 15:21; Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26). "And Mary Magdalene and Mary Josiah looked where they laid Him" (Mark 15:47; Matthew 27:61). All these small touches are appropriate only in the historical narrative, in the "memorable records" of eyewitnesses. The direct self-testimony of the Gospel stories is supported by certain realistic external features, names, nicknames, and names of cities. "After these things he went through the cities and villages, preaching and preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and with him the twelve, and certain women, whom he had healed of evil spirits and diseases: Mary, who was called Magdalene, from whom came seven demons, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who served him in their name" (Luke 8:1-3).

Of course, all this concerns the external frame, and the inner content and the very image of Christ exceeds this level and this frame. And the historical and realistic character of the Gospel story is all the more pronounced. The same must be said of Christ's speeches. He spoke like a Jew, in the language and images of his time and people. His words have a bright historical flavor. In terms of content and meaning, His preaching, of course, exceeded even the Old Testament measure; it confused not only the blind guardians of the letter of the law, but also such pious "teachers of Israel" as Nicodemus, and at the same time it contained the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. In a sense, Jesus himself was one of the teachers of Israel. And this feature is in His Gospel image, of course, not only that. In a sense, the entire Gospel can be called a historical story from the life of the Jewish people. This is a half-truth that can easily degenerate into dangerous lies and deception. But this feature is also part of the Gospel truth. Christ submitted to the Law, lived according to the Law, and on the eve of His death on the Cross celebrated the Paschal Supper with His disciples according to the Law.

And not flesh and blood, but the Heavenly Father revealed that He is the Son of the living God, Ap. Peter (Matt. 16:16-17). He was not only a man and not only the Messiah, but also God. But not only by God, but also by man. "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us..." (John 1:14). According to ancient tradition, the Fourth Gospel was written last, in addition to and as if in the interpretation of the first three. This is a "spiritual" gospel, in contrast to the "carnal" narratives of the synoptics. In reality, of course, all the Gospels are "spiritual," and there is not a single "carnal" gospels. And the Gospel of Mark is "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). At the same time, the "spiritual" contemplation of the Evangelist John unfolds in the clear boundaries of concrete history, and the historical, Jewish coloring of the depiction in the Fourth Gospel is perhaps even sharper and brighter than that of the synoptics. Not a single Gospel speaks of "man alone" and not only of God, but everywhere of the God-man. In all of them, earthly life is vividly and realistically described and depicted, in the historical flesh of which the Divine glory, truth, and the path to life were revealed. And it was not just revealed or manifested, but united in an indissoluble and perfect unity. "The Word was flesh"... It is about this fact, event, and at the same time the miracle and mystery that the Gospels narrate. In them it is pictorially represented and only partially called by the word that. which the Church later expressed in dogmatic definitions.

Otherwise, it is impossible to define the essence and content of the apostolic gospel – the historical testimony of the God-Man Christ. From a certain point of view, the whole meaning of the Gospel is in its historicism, in the indication of a single and singular event, of the one and only, living and historical person of Christ. From the very beginning, all the emphasis was on historicity. The whole New Testament breathes historical pathos - it was and came true... But this is not the historicity of a closed and enclosed in itself, only an earthly and natural flow of events. This is a story about the past and what happened, and not a figurative or symbolic, but a realistic story. For it was and happened – the meeting of heaven and earth, God and man. Meeting and connecting... "The Word was flesh"...

2. The Testimony of External Witnesses

Christ came unrecognized. Few of his contemporaries, or even of those who heard Him, understood who He was. The meaning of His preaching and the significance of His work were not immediately revealed to many. Whoever has known Him believes; and the testimony of believers is preserved in the books of the New Testament. Those who did not recognize had no reason to attach great importance to His life and work, had no motives to talk much about Him. Therefore, it can be said in advance that it would be in vain to look for detailed testimonies about Christ in the writings of people alien to the Church in the first decades of Christian history. In addition, the Greeks and Romans had no reason to touch upon the events that took place in distant Palestine; in their eyes it was a remote province, the fate of which they had little interest in. The pagan world learned about Christianity only when the apostolic preaching went beyond the borders of Palestine and went around all the lands. But even then, for a long time, in pagan perception, Christians differed little from Jews. Only among Jewish contemporaries can one look for early mentions of Christ. However, a reservation should be made here as well. The Jewish people did not recognize Him either. In the eyes of the unbelieving Jews, He was only one of many teachers and preachers, and they had no reason to single Him out of the crowd. In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the speech of one of the Pharisaic teachers of the law, Gamaliel, is narrated in the Sanhedrin. He restrained from severe measures against the evangelists of Christianity. "For not long before this Theudas appeared, pretending to be someone great, and about four hundred men joined him: but he was killed, and all who obeyed him were scattered and disappeared. After him, during the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and carried away with him a number of people; but he perished, and all who obeyed him were scattered. And now, I say to you, leave these people and leave them; for if this enterprise and this work be of men, it will be destroyed" (Acts 5:34-38)... This speech is very characteristic of the first years of Christian history. The bloody persecution of the Church of God by the Judaists began early. But there was little inner attention to Christianity in the Jewish environment. Later, when Christian preaching became stronger and stronger, Jewish writers had reason to keep silent about it, to cast a shadow of oblivion on both Christ and the Church. That is why not only is it not surprising that there is a paucity of "external" news about Christ in these first decades of our chronology, but we should expect this paucity as a completely natural phenomenon.

In the first century AD, the fate and life of the Jewish people was described by the famous Jewish historian Josephus. He was born about 37 A.D. and died in Rome about 100 A.D. He wrote his "Jewish Archaeology" in Rome, in the years of his old age, and finished it about 93-94 A.D. In this book he touches on the events and persons of the Gospel history three times. One testimony relates to John the Baptist. Joseph speaks of him as a "virtuous man" who urged the Jews to strive for virtue, so that they, observing justice in mutual relations, and due reverence for God, would approach baptism. People flocked to him, and the number of his listeners was great. Fearing his influence on the people, fearing a popular uprising, Herod ordered John to be arrested and imprisoned, and then put to death (XVIII. 5). The authenticity and reliability of this report of Josephus Flavius did not and does not raise any doubts. And the same must be said about Josephus's mention of the death of James, "the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ," and others who were stoned for breaking the law by the sentence of the Sanhedrin under the high priest Annas (XX. 9). It was in 62. Joseph was living in Jerusalem at that time and speaks, obviously, from personal recollections. He gives James the name by which he was known. In both reports one senses an external observer, who notes facts to which he attaches little importance. In addition, he conveys them as political events. Josephus wrote in Greek, not for his countrymen, but for the Romans, and everywhere he avoided speaking of anything that might cast a shadow of political unreliability on his people in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Therefore, he hushed up the messianic aspirations of his people and tried to give the idea of the Jews as calm and good-natured citizens, alien to any rebellious designs. He ingratiated himself with the Roman authorities. And for the same reason, it was natural for him to avoid talking about Christianity, which by the end of the first century had begun to attract the unfavorable attention of the authorities as some kind of rebellious conspiracy. Nevertheless, Joseph has a direct testimony of Christ. There have long been disputes around him and doubts have been expressed whether an unbelieving Jew could speak of Christ in this way. Speaking of the time of Pontius Pilate, Joseph says, among other things, as follows: "At the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if he be called a man, for he was a doer of wonderful things, a teacher of men who gladly received the truth. He attracted many to himself as Jews. and from the Hellenes. It was Christ (the Messiah). And when Pilate, on the complaint of our nobles, condemned him to death on the cross, those who had previously loved him did not depart from Him (did not cease to love him). For He appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had foretold of this and many other miraculous things concerning Him. Even now the generation of Christians named after him has not ceased" (XVIII. 3). In its entirety, this testimony is difficult to recognize as authentic and belonging to Joseph. Of course, he could not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, recognize His resurrection. It is hardly denying, however, that Joseph mentioned Christ at all. It would be more correct to assume that its original report was altered and inserted later, at any rate quite early, since already at the beginning of the fourth century it was given in its present form by the then historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his "Church History". In any case, in all the surviving manuscripts of the "Archaeology" of Josephus Flavius, one reads a controversial passage about Christ. And it must be confessed that Josephus could well have written the words emphasized in the above excerpt. Perhaps Origen read Joseph's news in this original form, reproaching him for not believing in Jesus as the Messiah, "not acknowledging him as the Messiah," and wondering that he nevertheless testified to the great righteousness of James. As if Origen had in mind some kind of direct non-recognition of Joseph. In a Syrian monument, probably of the fifth century, which recounts the disputes at the Sassanid court between a Greek, a Jew and a Christian, Josephus assimilates the testimony of Christ as "a righteous and good man, testified by divine grace by signs, and benefited many by miracles." Probably, such a brief mention was limited to the initial reading of the news in Joseph. Very many modern scholars admit that Joseph was speaking of Christ, although his message cannot be assimilated to him in its present form. However, even Joseph's complete silence would not mean that he did not know about Christ. You can not speak not only from ignorance, but also from inattention and unwillingness to say. Joseph had many reasons for deliberate silence. He wrote not a history, but an apology for his people, he did not strive for completeness, but always considered it permissible to keep silent about what might disturb Roman suspicion. Equally understandable is the omission of Christ in another first-century Jewish historian, Justus of Tiberias. And he did not write history in the proper sense of the word. But the historical pamphlet against Joseph, and most of all, tried to prove his betrayal of the precepts and interests of his native people. He didn't need to talk about Christ. And in general, he was very brief and did not talk about many things at all. Justus' book has not come down to us at all, and it is only from the words of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (ninth century), who was still reading it, that Justus did not mention Christ in his chronicle.

The "Archaeology" of Josephus is generally the only Jewish monument of the first century in which one could look for evidence of Christianity. Another famous Jewish writer of the first century, who wrote in Greek, Philo of Alexandria, died too early (soon after the year 40) to be able to speak about Christ, especially since he lived in Palestine and had to learn about the affairs there at second hand. We do not know the rabbinical literature of the first century at all. All the rabbinic sources that have come down to us are not older than the second half of the second century, and they bear the stamp of a different time than the New Testament time, the time of Christ. There is a lot of information about Christ in the Talmud, but all of them are of later origin and represent an obvious distortion and blasphemous alteration of the Gospel texts. By the very purpose and content of the Talmud, there was no place in it for a historical story about Christ. Here we are talking about rites and moral or legal decrees, the opinions and sayings of individual teachers are transmitted. This is not a historical book at all. Most of the Talmud's references to Christians are caused by polemical motives. From the very beginning, the Jews were haters of Christianity and the first instigators of persecution. And it seems that the oldest Jewish evidence of Christianity is the curse of the Nazarenes and the "heretics" ("mins", minim) in the daily prayer of Shmoneh Ezre, dating back to the very end of the first century (80-100 AD). The Talmud avoids calling Jesus by name, designating Him vaguely: "that man", "some". In the eyes of Judaists, Christians are dangerous dreamers, believing in "someone," in "somebody." Perhaps in two or three places a softer and more ancient attitude towards the person of Christ Himself shines through the general hatred. But in general, the spirit of enmity prevails. From this hatred and enmity is born the Jewish lampoon against Christ. It is already mentioned by Justin the Philosopher (in the second century), and it was apparently used by Celsus in his book against Christianity (also in the second century), on which Origen wrote his famous refutation (in the first half of the third century). Celsus collected in his book everything that malicious Judaism and perplexed paganism knew about Christianity and accused it. It would be in vain to look for historical truth in these reports. But all the more characteristic and expressive in this tension of slander and slander is the complete absence of any doubt about the historical reality of Jesus himself. For the rabbis and Jews who cursed and persecuted Christianity, Jesus was a historical personage, and their hatred and malice are directed to the historical image. They told shameful and filthy fables about Christ, but they never denied that he lived. And through the murky veil of hateful limes, some historical features of the Gospel image shine through, and, above all, the memory of the miracles of Christ. The Jews remember and know that He performed miracles, but they interpret it in their own way, calling Jesus a sorcerer and seducer of the people, a magician and a necromancer. So it is in the Talmud, and in those denunciators of Christianity, about whom we learn from the ancient Christian apologists. Among these monuments of ancient Christian polemics against the Jews, the most remarkable is the "Conversation with Tryphon the Jew" by St. Justin Martyr (mid-second century). The dispute with the Jews boiled down to the question of the person of Christ. Whether Christ could be the Messiah promised and foretold by the prophets, whether His shameful death on the cross did not cast shadows on His person and His work – this was the temptation of the Jews. This is the same old "temptation of the cross". "You do not observe feasts or Sabbaths, you do not have circumcision, but you put your trust in the crucified man, and yet you hope to receive good from God without fulfilling His commandments" - this is the main reproach of Tryphon the Jew (Discourse, 10). "This Christ you call was inglorious and dishonored, so that he was subjected to the most extreme curse that is prescribed in the law of God, he was crucified on the cross" (32). This was the temptation of the Jews. We do not find any traces of their doubts about the historicity of Christ. Justin the Martyr tells the entire earthly life of Jesus, and his Jewish interlocutor only interprets it differently, but does not object to the facts themselves. And so does the Jew in Celsus, who, moreover, directly refers to the "Scriptures" and the "gospel" of Christians, without any hint of their unreliability, except, of course, the story of the resurrection. – The Jewish enemies of Christianity knew about Christ, and the paucity of Jewish information about His life has the character of deliberate silence about Him. And about Ap. The Talmud does not speak, and yet in it one constantly hears a direct and deliberate polemic with the teaching and preaching of the Apostle. The interlocutor of St. Justin speaks directly about the prohibition of arguing with Christians: "It would be better to follow the advice of the rabbis, who have decreed not to argue with any of you; nor should we have started a conversation with you" (38). Are these not echoes of Gamaliel's advice?

In Rome, they learned about Christ when they met with Christians. The historian Suetonius (wrote about 120 A.D., in his biography of Nero mentions the persecution of Christians as not a kind of new and accursed superstitions (On the Life of the Caesars, XVI, 2)). In the biography of Imp. Claudius (41-45) he speaks of the expulsion from Rome of "the Jews, who were constantly agitated under the influence of Chrestus" (Chresto impulsore, - XXV. 3). The question may arise whether the latter news applies to Christians. It should be remembered that Tacitus also writes: Christians. The example of Tertullian shows that in the West, even before the beginning of the third century, the Greek chrystianoi was read and pronounced with e, chrestiani, and not with i. In the apologists of the second century we find a play on words on this point: chrystos in Greek means useful, and St. Justin says that if we are judged only by the name for which we are accused, "we are the most useful people." Therefore, the unusual spelling of the name in Suetonius is quite consistent with the usage of the word at that time. Christ is precisely Christ. And the fact that Suetonius does not add to this name "some" or "someone" shows that he assumed this name to be known. He could easily confuse Christians with Jews. From his words it is not at all clear that the Chrestus he calls lived in Rome. He only connects the Roman agitation of the Jews with his personality. From the words of Suetonius we can conclude that, at the first appearance of Christians on the Roman stage, they were placed in connection with the historical figure of Christ. It is unlikely that Suetonius was interested in further details. Rather, he showed the same indifferent inattention to Christians as his friend Pliny the Younger, who, as governor of the regions of Bethnia and Pontus, met with Christians there around 110-113. Reporting on them, Imp. Trajan, he notes, among other things, that at their meetings they "sing a song to Christ as God." There is only one name here, without any explanation. Pliny adds that "real Christians" cannot be persuaded either to participate in pagan worship or to "curse Christ." Pliny speaks mildly of the Christians themselves, but considers them crude superstitions (Letters, X. 96). He was apparently not interested in investigating this superstition in more detail. And the Roman authorities were then interested in Christians only from the point of view of public order. The "Annals" of the famous Tacitus (written around 110-117) date back to about the same time. He mentions Christ in connection with the persecution of Nero. The authenticity of this story of Tacitus must be recognized as proven beyond doubt. According to Tacitus, in order to deflect the suspicion of setting fire to Rome, Nero blamed it on "people whom the people already hated for their vices and called Chrestians (chrestianos)." This name comes from Christ, who in the "reign of Trajan was punished by the procurator Pontius Pilate." "This impious superstition, suppressed for a time, flared up again, and not only in Judea, where this evil began, but also in the City, where all abominable and shameful things flow and are committed" (XV. 44). Tacitus' testimony attests to the historical reality of Christ, "crucified under Pontius Pilate," for an unbelieving pagan at the turn of the first and second centuries. One can raise the question of the sources of Tacitus' message about Christ. Surely this is not a Jewish source, since a Jew would not call Jesus Christ (i.e., the Messiah). It is equally certain that this is not a Christian source. It remains to recognize the Roman source. It is hardly possible to see here the official acts of the imperial archives; according to Tacitus, he was inaccessible to him as well. In this archive, indeed, the reports of the provincial governors should have been stored, but it is unlikely that they were available to private individuals. St. Justin Martyr in his Apology, submitted about 150 A.D. Antonina Pius, in confirmation of the reality of Christ's death on the cross and His miracles, invites him to verify his words according to the "acts under Pontius Pilate" (35 and 48); Tertullian in his Apology (about 197) mentions Pilate's report to Tiberdius (ch. 5). In reality, of course, these are not links to an available source, but a call for verification. And it shows an indisputable confidence in the historical authenticity of the story of Christ. The "Acts of Pilate" and Pilate's letter to Imp. Claudia are certainly not authentic and belong to a later time.