To this cursory news can be added a letter from an unknown Syrian Stoic Mara to his son Serapion (probably 73-160 AD), which has survived in a Syriac manuscript of the sixth century. In support of her advice to neglect the wealth and perishable glory of this world and to avoid its passions and vanity, Mara refers to the sad fate of the sages. What did Athens gain from the death of Socrates, or the Samians from the burning of Pythagoras, or the Jews from the deposition of their wise king, for since that time their kingdom has been taken away from them (cf. Matt. 27:37) and they have been scattered everywhere from their land. Everyone was punished. And the slain wise men are not dead: the wise king of the Jews also lives, "because of the new law which he gave." Here is a dull and unclear memory of Christ.

In general, we learn very, very little about Christ from "outsiders." This is not surprising. The ancients wrote from their own point of view, they had their own standards of importance and interest. The Jews treated Christianity with irritation, the Greeks and Romans with contempt, "Jewish blindness" and "pagan impiety" met with each other. None of the "outsiders" set themselves the direct and special task of telling about Christ and Christians in these early years, and there is nothing strange in this. They did not anticipate or admit the historical future of Christianity, for the majority it was an empty and insignificant superstition. Only later did the pagan world recognize and feel a dangerous enemy in the Church. Then the pagan writers angrily attacked Christians and their faith. But again, no one ever expressed the slightest doubt about the real existence of the One from Whose name the Christians are so called. This silence is much more eloquent and convincing than that imaginary silence about which the opponents of the historicity of Christ hastily conclude from the paucity of "external" news. Moreover, Christians were accused above all and above all of veneration of a man, and moreover crucified. The Jews accused them of this. As we know from St. Justin. The pagans also accused them of this. The Stoic Fronto, as we learn from the defensive dialogue of Minucius Felix (circa 180-200), accused Christians of worshipping a man punished for evil deeds with a terrible punishment and of bowing down before the wood of the Cross (Octavius, ch. Lucian of Samosata in his book "On the Death of Perigrinus" says the following about the Christians: "They still highly revere the man crucified in Palestine", "worship the crucified sophist", their legislator (Chapter XIII; written about 170). And, finally, at about the same time, Celsus, who has already been mentioned more than once, in his extensive book against Christians, first of all attacks the veneration of a humiliated person. In the life of Christ, he does not find anything heroic and great. "How could we recognize as God one who did not fulfill anything that, according to rumors circulated among the people, he promised? And when we have denounced him and found him worthy of execution, he seeks to hide and flee in the most shameful way, but betrays himself to one of those whom he called his disciples"... Celsus puts his words in the mouth of the Jew, for the Jews were its main source. He retells the Gospel story with mockery. The veneration of Jesus Christ angers and angers him. And not a word, not a hint of unreliability... And it is clear to us why the ancient Christian writers did not stop at defending the historical reality of Christ – no one ever doubted it, it was beyond doubt and dispute. For the pagan world, Christianity was the veneration of the "historical Christ".

3. The testimony of the first Christian.

Who was Jesus Christ? There have been disputes around this issue since apostolic times. Not in the Church, for from the beginning it contained an immutable faith in Christ as the God-man, the Son of God, who became "man among men." But around the Church, in circles touched by the Gospel, but not accepting the apostolic preaching in the purity and simplicity of faith. These disputes have never been about the very existence of Christ. Divisions arose on the question of Who He was. And, again, the very opinions rejected and refuted by the Church show the universal conviction of the historical existence of Christ. In short, false interpretations tended to two opposite limits. For some (these were the Judeo-Christians) Jesus was only a great teacher and prophet - thus He was for them a historical person. Others were seduced precisely by the historical realism of the circumstances and events of His earthly life, they interpreted them in their own way, affirming only the appearance of His suffering and death. This "docetism" (from the Greek dokeomai – seeming) in all its insistence becomes understandable precisely in contrast to the historical realism of the Gospel narratives and the apostolic preaching. Docetism is not a historical, but a theological theory. And the Docetists did not deny in the least that what is told in the Gospels really happened at a certain time and in certain circumstances. And could be seen and described. They believed that Christ was not, but only seemed to be a man, appeared as a man. They did not doubt the historical merit and authenticity of the Gospel history, although they were engaged in an imaginary correction of the Gospel text, cutting and changing it. But they interpreted in their own way the meaning of the Gospel story, the meaning of the Incarnation and Theophany. The early, firm and decisive rebuff which the precetic temptations met in the Church once again confirms the indisputable and primordial nature of Christian realistic realism. The ancient Church with all its power, on the basis of the New Testament, affirmed the fullness and reality of mankind in Christ, but never admitted that he was only a man. By confessing that Christ is God, His real, historical, Gospel image was not in the least blurred. In the Christian understanding, historical reality is given an exceptional, decisive importance from the very beginning. The whole meaning of the original, ancient perception of Christ lies in the fact that God appeared in a living and individual human form, not only the signs of God, but also the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Christian antiquity was neither talkative nor verbose. It did not seek additions to the Gospels, and even cut them off when restless curiosity made them, perhaps on the basis of vague traditions and memories, as evidenced by the history of the early New Testament canon and the rejection of the apocrypha, the "renounced books." Incidentally, everything in them is full of historical, although not always theological realism, and in spite of the often restrained play of imagination, a solid historical foundation is felt in them. The Church preserved and contemplated the complete and integral face of the living and real Christ in a single "fourfold Gospel." She kept and explained. In the early Christian monuments it is in vain to look for a detailed historical narrative - they presuppose a well-known Gospel story, known not only from the Scriptures, but also from the unceasing oral gospel. The early Christian monuments are short and concise. These are letters and epistles composed for the occasion. And in them one should not look for an exhaustive and systematic exposition of the faith. But in them the living historical feeling of Christ's Face is expressed with all its power and vividness. Later, in the second century, more extensive Christian works appeared, also written on occasion, for protection from outsiders and from false brethren. Christian literature was gradually formed and developed. But the old spirit breathes in her too. A few examples are enough.

The Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch date back to the very edge of the first and second centuries A.D. (107-117 A.D.). There can be no serious doubts about this date. These are letters from the path to the Churches of Asia Minor, from the path of martyrdom to Rome, in order to become a victim of the sentence that had already taken place. These letters are imprinted with the spirit of living historical realism, which is in no way weakened by the thirst for a martyr's crown and separation from the outside world, which has already been accomplished in anticipation and will. Without any restrictions, St. Ignatius confesses Jesus Christ as God and boldly speaks of the "blood of God," of the "sufferings of God," but not of "God revealed in human form" and "made flesh." Christ is God, "perfectly made man," born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, "at once both the son of man and the son of God." His earthly life was not only a phenomenon. Against the Docetists, St. Ignatius strongly emphasizes the reality and fullness of Christ's human life. He was descended from the seed of David, was born of a virgin, was baptized by John, was pierced for us on the cross under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, and was resurrected. His sufferings are salvific, and He really, and not only visibly, suffered. In reality, his sufferings are all their saving power. To deny the reality of the incarnation is to deny Jesus Christ completely, and it is to be death-bearers. And Christ was resurrected in real flesh, tangible with hands, not some "demon without a body," and He drank and ate with the disciples. St. Ignatius persistently repeats this chronological reference – "under Pontius Pilate." He wants in every possible way to emphasize the historical concreteness of the image and life of Christ. This is all his hope, he lives by the historical image of Christ. In the Epistles of St. Ignatius it is the same as in the New Testament – there is no difference in spirit and perception. St. Ignatius also coincides with his friend, St. Polycarp of Smyrna. The same faith in the God-Man and the same confession of the real Incarnation. Both of them fight against Docetism.

In the middle of the second century, St. Justin the Martyr, as we already know, conversed with Tryphon the Jew. Whether his "Conversation" is a record of a real conversation or it is only a dialogical depiction of a typical, exemplary argument is not so important. The formulation of questions and their coverage are important. A Christian had to prove to a Jew that Jesus Christ was also God, and not only a man. Nevertheless, St. Justin also clearly emphasizes the fullness of humanity in Christ. He constantly refers to individual events in the earthly life of the Savior and explains their meaning and significance. With special attention he dwells on the origin of Christ from the house of David, from the tribe of Judah, from the family of Abraham. Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, during the Quirinian census, in Bethlehem. St. Justin speaks about the appearance of the star and the adoration of the Magi. He tells about the Baptist. He recounts the Gospel stories about the preaching and miracles of Christ. He describes the last days, the Last Supper, the prayer of Gethsemane, the taking in the garden, the trial of Pilate, the crucifixion, the apparitions after the resurrection. St. Justin reproduces the Gospel image of Christ, and precisely as a real historical image. Christ the Messiah, who came to fulfill prophecies. The reference to prophecies has the weight of a historical argument. The messianic dignity of Christ is also a historical feature. Christ became and was man, was born, grew, although He was from eternity as God. His whole life bears witness to the fullness and reality of his humanity, and especially to his sufferings – all these instructions of St. Justin are all the more powerful because it was precisely this that perplexed his interlocutors. In front of the Jews, he draws an image of the suffering Messiah, which is seductive and unacceptable to them. He proves to them a completely paradoxical position for them. And together with the affirmation of real humanity, it reveals the Divine dignity of Christ. He testifies to the same before the pagans in his Apologies.

To the second half of the second century belong the works of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, a Western teacher in the place of his activity and Eastern in his origin and original connections. He was a pupil and listener of Polycarp in Smyrna and will forever remember his lessons. And Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostles, and especially of Ap. John, he dealt with many who had seen Christ. And in his conversations he told about them, "remembered their words, how and what he heard from them about the Lord, recounted about His miracles and teachings, about which he received tradition from people who themselves saw the Word of Life"... Polycarp receives the tradition of Christ from self-seers, and the image of Christ preserves in his memory all the vividness of the original direct living perception. In the same direct painting, St. Irenaeus remembers him. This connection with the self-witnesses is of decisive importance for Irenaeus, he always remembers it. And in his creations the living voice of the original vision still resounds. The immutability of the apostolic tradition is one of the most basic ideas of St. Irenaeus, and, above all, it extends to the image of Christ. Comparatively recently, the half-lost, half-forgotten work of St. Irenaeus, "The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching," has become available to us – an attempt at a brief, catechetical and edifying exposition of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The main idea of this book is the fulfillment of prophecies. Christ is God, and St. Irenaeus speaks of this clearly and in detail. And in the last days, He became a true man and lived among people, preaching and healing. He was mocked, tortured and killed, crucified on the cross. And he was resurrected. St. Irenaeus gives the details of the Gospel. Like St. Justin, he proves that all these events were foretold by the prophets. And in the whole composition of this proof it is felt that he proceeds from the direct image of the Gospel and seeks Old Testament parallels to it. At the same time, he goes, in fact, along the line of greatest resistance. He proves a difficult position, difficult for doubters. And all the persuasiveness of the proof is connected with the direct vividness and authenticity of the Gospel image of Christ. The false teachers of the second century, the Gnostics, with whom St. Irenaeus fought and argued a lot, made this task easier for themselves by denying the real fullness of Christ's historical existence, by admitting the illusory nature of his humanity. Such an idea fits most easily into the framework of the usual pagan views. They corrupted the Gospel image. St. Irenaeus defends the ancient image and relies primarily on the unchanging historical memory emanating from a living vision. This is the apostolic vision of the historical Christ Jesus. But the apostles did not see a mere man, but a man and God, a God who became a man, and a man who was God. This image stands vividly in the consciousness of St. Irenaeus. He emphasizes both sides: both deity and humanity. The whole value of the face and work of Christ is that the true God became true man, "took from man the essence of the flesh," "became what we were." He was indeed born, although of the Virgin, he grew, ate and hungered, wept and grieved, really suffered and died, crucified on the cross. In the life of Christ, the human path has been traversed in its entirety, and therefore this life acquires for everyone the character of a prototype and an example. And at the same time, in the life of Christ, as well as both God and man, the real reunification of man with God was realized. In this realism lies all the pathos of St. Irenaeus, and he recognizes it as the apostolic tradition. This reference to the apostolic tradition was not disputed by the opponents of St. Irenaeus, and this provides a new historical argument: it was realism and historicism that had the proof of antiquity behind them. The same is evidenced by the works of St. Irenaeus' younger contemporary, the Carthaginian presbyter Tertullian. And his worldview is entirely determined by the real historical image of Christ.

There is no need to continue the historical study further. Subsequent centuries preserve the historical tradition of the past with complete fidelity and affirm their confession in the Gospel image of Christ. No one doubts the historical existence of the Savior even among the most evil haters of the Christian faith. And the hatred itself is directed at the very person of Christ, and in this lies a new proof of all the indisputability with which the people of that time perceived His image. It is especially expressive and convincing that such doubts have never been raised at all. The very defenders of modern mythology do not deny that since the beginning of the second century Christian writers (the very ones whose testimony we have just cited) have indisputably confessed "humanity," i.e., the historical reality of Christ, but they see in this an innovation that is not based on any historical memory or knowledge, "an invention dictated by the political and practical needs of the young Christian Church in her struggle for existence." in the struggle against gnosis, which supposedly continued the ideological movement that gave rise to the "synoptic" Gospels. In this assertion there is no agreement with the actual historical relations as they are established by sober and completely free critical investigation. In reality, there was no gap in the Church's perception and consciousness.

On the contrary, it was Gnosticism, which weakened (but did not at all denie) the historical reality of Christ's image by its squeamish Docetism, that rejected and changed the Gospel tradition. Outside the Church, they abhorred Gospel realism and therefore curtailed the Gospel story. It was here that the continuity was broken. And it is immediately felt that a struggle is being waged here with the established tradition. The break assumed by mythologists did not exist at all, did not manifest itself in any way.

Christ came into the world unrecognized. "Outsiders" simply did not notice Him in their time, hence the paucity of ancient non-Christian testimonies about Him. His image was remembered and preserved by those who were illumined by His Divine Person. His preaching and deeds. And they fixed their vision in the word - this is the first historical testimony about Him, fanned by all the vividness of direct personal communication. They conveyed the same vision in oral speech. All early Christianity gathers around the living historical image of Jesus of Nazareth, Christ, the Son of God. And in a harmonious chorus they bear witness to Him. Against this testimony, which goes back to eyewitnesses and to living communion, any doubt remains powerless, based only on the preconceived idea of the impossibility of the God-man.

Printed according to the edition: YMCA PRESS PARIS Publishing House "Dobro" Warsaw, 1929