How did this second sense arise ? Can any links of connexion be traced between the earlier and the later signification '; Is it possible to ascertain the time at which the later usago began ? Tliese ques- tions are best answered liy st.udyinu (hi' references to the term in the Chunk Ui>;tnni .'.t iMisel.ius. It is obvious at once that Kusel)ius had twn senses of the word before him ; that he knew that its original import was a jireacher (jf the gospel, but that this meaning had lieen largely displaced by anotlier, that of a writer of a Gospel. Speakiiiu i;('nerall\-, the Church in the age of Eusrl.ln- iiiiJ- V In,,,! Uy the word ' evangeli-st ' the \m i ' > |iei,
though scholars like Eusebins 1 - iw.ire
that in earlier thnes it had bniih n i' imej.
Accordingly the refereuci's .>! Iji rliin, I.. Ilie original force of the leim .nc .ill :i-..ri,il,',l \(i(li the earlier history of the ( 'Ininli. Tlin^ lie lel.iies that the ApostleThomas sent Thuil.l^.u. l,, E.h;ssa
as a [ireacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ (HE I. xiii. 4). Again he speaks of tho.se who in the age of Trajan started out on long journeys and performed the office of an evangelist, tilled with the desire to preach Chri.st to those who had not heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them the Divine (;os|iels (III. xxxvii. 2). Once more, he tells that I'aiitanus was a herald of the gospel of Christ to the nations of tlie East, and that he was sent as far as India. For, he adds, there were still many evangelists of the word who sought earnestly to use their insiiired zeal, after the example of the Apostles, for the building up of the Divine word (V. X. 2). In all these passages 'evangelist' evi- dently denotes an itinerant preacher of the gospel. On the other hand, when Eusebius names John the evangelist (III. xxxix. 5), he is speaking of him as the author of the Gospel, and the reference to the voice of the inspired evangelists and Apostles (11. iii. 1) is probably to be explained in the same sense. How then was the transition eft'ected from the one of these significations to the other 1 How was the title transferred from a preacher to a writer? There are those who think that even from the first the term denoted not so much a travelling preacher in general as a preacher who set himself to relate the life and words of Jesus. Teaching and specific teaching regarding the ad- dresses delivered by Jesus and the miracles He l^jerformed was a characteristic of the evangelist from the first, hence there is little difficulty in realizing how the title passed from those who related to those who wrote our Lord's life, the latter meaning being only the natural development of the former. Even a scholar like Meyer (in Ac 21*) affirms that the chief duty of the evangelist was to conmiunicate to his hearers historical inci- dents from the ministry of Jesus, and some later writers of all schools have embraced the same view. It is believed to be corroborated by the language just quoted from Eusebius regarding the distribution of the written Gospels by evangelists. But there is nothing to show that the first evan- gelists of the Church made special use of the facts of our Lord's life, and that their teaching or preach- ing differed in this respect from that of the Apostles. The wide acceptation in which the words ' evangel ' and 'evangelize' are used in the NT is adverse to this conclusion. The earliest gospel was not the life of Jesus, but the message of salvation. To preach the gospel was necessarily to preach Jesus, but not to give any skcleh of the life of Jesus such as is found in um lom tiospels. Nor is the view probable in iisill. A iniidern missionary relates the life of .lesus ,is ]ie sees it expedient, but ho does not make the communication of the details of that life to his hearers one of his chief duties. The same freedom was doubtless exercised in the earliest ages of the Church. One evangelist would tell less and another more of the life of Jesus as he preached. Even the same evangelist would vary the amount of detail he gave regarding the life and words of Jesus according to the varying needs of his hearers. Beyond all doubt most of the ad- dresses delivered by the evangelists were largely occupied by an account of the career of Jesus, and especially of Tlis sayiiius and His miracles ; but tliis was hue (.f c'\ery person who sought to propa- uate Chiisliaiiitw an. I iK.t distinctive of the evan- yvlisl as ^nrli.' l-'nilhi'i-, it is difficult on this liypelliesis III e\|ilaiii the fact that the original si^nilii al inn 111 ■ i\ aiiL:elist ' as a preacher was riinent liinu afhr llir ( lospels had obtained the fnlli.t ieii.m,iii,,n »iil,in the Church. The evan- i^elisls earrieil I lir ( e.-pels willi them if they were fortunate eniiiiuli lo po-.^..^- ropies: they referred to the toisjieN a- llie aulllonlies for the life of Je-us, yet they letaineil their title. There is no
EVANGELIST
EVIL
evidence that the later meaning drove out the earlier so long as the Church possessed evangelists or called them by this name. Undoubtedly the two meanings flourislied side by side for a time.