Bible Dictionaries
Evangelist (2)

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Evangelist

Next Entry
Eve

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

EVANGELIST.—Although the word ‘evangelist’ (εὐαγγελιστής) does not occur in the Gospels, it justly finds a place in this work because it is the name commonly given to the authors of the four Gospels. The verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, from which the substantive ‘evangelist’ is derived, signifies to proclaim good tidings. The corresponding verbs in Hebrew and Aramaic (Dalman, NHW^{B [Note: HWB Neuhebräisehes Wörterbuch.]} , s.v. כָּשַר, Words of Jesus, 103) sometimes bear only the meaning ‘announce,’ but their prevailing import is to announce good tidings. There is no reason to doubt that the Aramaic word or words used by our Lord concerning His message to mankind described it as the proclamation of good news. Hence in Christian circles the term acquired the specific sense of announcing the gospel. The word ‘evangelist’ is not found in classical Greek or in the LXX Septuagint, nor has it as yet been found in any papyri. So far as our present knowledge goes, it belongs only to the NT and to ecclesiastical Greek. It is used thrice in the NT, and in none of the instances is its meaning doubtful. It is applied to Philip (Acts 21:8), either because of the labours described in Acts 8, or because he belonged to a class or order of Christian labourers whose function was to go abroad proclaiming the gospel to those who had not heard it. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, ‘evangelists’ are mentioned (Acts 4:11) as an order or class, after the Apostles and prophets, and before pastors and teachers. Here, too, the most probable view is that those spoken of were missionary preachers. Again, Timothy is charged by St. Paul (2 Timothy 4:5) to ‘do the work of an evangelist.’ Whether Timothy is here called an evangelist is open to discussion, but the nature of the work he is bidden to perform is clear: he is to visit new communities in order to preach the gospel to them. The force of the word suggested by its etymology is, therefore, the meaning attaching to it in the three passages of the NT where it is found. This is the view of all modern scholars of any note. Some of the Greek expositors, misled by the usage of their own time, assigned, at least to the passage in Ephesians, the sense which it came to bear subsequent to NT times, that of author or writer of a Gospel; but this interpretation has no supporters to-day.

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 usage began? These questions are best answered by studying the references to the term in the Church History of Eusebius. It is obvious at once that Eusebius had two senses of the word before him; that he knew that its original import was a preacher of the gospel, but that this meaning had been largely displaced by another, that of a writer of a Gospel. Speaking generally, the Church in the age of Eusebius understood by the word ‘evangelist’ the writer of a Gospel, though scholars like Eusebius himself were aware that in earlier times it had borne another meaning. Accordingly the references of Eusebius to the original force of the term are all associated with the earlier history of the Church. Thus he relates that the Apostle Thomas sent Thaddaeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ (Historia Ecclesiastica i. xiii. 4). Again he speaks of those who in the age of Trajan started out on long journeys and performed the office of an evangelist, filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them the Divine Gospels (iii. xxxvii. 2). Once more, he tells that Pantaenus was a herald of the gospel of Christ to the nations of the 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 inspired zeal, after the example of the Apostles, for the building up of the Divine word (v. x. 2). In all these passages ‘evangelist’ evidently 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 (ii. iii. 1) is probably to be explained in the same sense. How then was the transition effected from the one of these significations to the other? 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 addresses delivered by Jesus and the miracles He performed 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 Acts 21:8) affirms that the chief duty of the evangelist was to communicate to his hearers historical incidents 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 evangelists of the Church made special use of the facts of our Lord’s life, and that their teaching or preaching 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 sketch of the life of Jesus such as is found in our four Gospels. Nor is the view probable in itself. A modern missionary relates the life of Jesus as he sees it expedient, but he 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 addresses delivered by the evangelists were largely occupied by an account of the career of Jesus, and especially of His sayings and His miracles; but this was true of every person who sought to propagate Christianity, and not distinctive of the evangelist as such. Further, it is difficult on this hypothesis to explain the fact that the original signification of ‘evangelist’ as a preacher was current long after the Gospels had obtained the fullest recognition within the Church. The evangelists carried the Gospels with them if they were fortunate enough to possess copies; they referred to the Gospels as the authorities for the life of Jesus, yet they retained their title. There is no 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 flourished side by side for a time.

If this argument is sound, the origin of the later import of the term must be sought in another quarter. That quarter is not remote. The Church possessed from early days four narratives of our Lord’s life, and to these first the term ‘Gospel’ and subsequently its plural ‘Gospels’ was applied. It was necessary to refer to these writings individually, hence there arose the practice of speaking of the Gospel according to Matthew and the like: Matthew being regarded as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Very soon it became necessary to find a term to serve as a common designation of the writers of the Gospels. No more suitable word for this purpose could be found than ‘evangelist.’ It was already in use in the Church; it stood in the closest affinity to the word ‘evangel’ or ‘gospel,’ which had acquired by this time its new sense of a written work, and the term once applied proved so useful that it immediately became popular. Just as the term ‘gospel,’ which denoted a spoken message, an announcement of good news, the Christian good news, was current long before the written books called Gospels existed, and nevertheless gave its name to them, so also was it with the term ‘evangelist.’ By a similar transition it became the designation of the writers of the Gospels. After the word ‘Gospel’ was used to denote a written narrative of the life of Jesus, the extension of the meaning of the word ‘evangelist’ to designate the author of such a work was only a question of time.

Is it possible to ascertain the date at which the term was first used in this specific sense? The evidence at present available shows that it was thus employed by Hippolytus and by Tertullian. The first occurrence of the word is in the dc Antichr. of Hippolytus (56), where St. Luke is spoken of as ‘the Evangelist.’ The generally accepted date of this treatise is about the year 201 (Harnack, Chronol. ii. 214; Bardenhewer, Altkirch. Lit. ii. 521). Tertullian in his adv. Prax., which has been assigned to the years 213–218 (Bardenhewer, ii. 368; Harnack, ii. 286), speaks of ‘the preface of John the Evangelist’ (21, cf. 23). This evidence shows that towards the beginning of the 3rd cent. the term was used to denote the authors of the Gospels. The incidental manner in which both writers employ the word suggests that its use was not new. But this inference is precarious, and it is possible that Hippolytus was the first to employ it, and that Tertullian imitated his example and gave it a Latin form. The absence of the word from the opening chapters of the third Book of Irenaeus will appear to some to confirm the opinion that the use of the term is later than his time, but the proper conclusion is that a decisive verdict is impossible. All that can be affirmed with confidence is that, as the term ‘Gospels’ was admittedly used in the plural in the time of Justin Martyr (ap. i. 66), the employment of the term ‘evangelist’ to describe the author of a Gospel could have begun in his age, but that the first occurrence of the word is half a century later.

In dealing with the topic ‘Evangelist,’ it is desirable to add a brief notice of the animal symbols by which the Gospels are designated. This symbolism makes no appeal to us to-day, but it enters so largely into early Christian art and poetry that some acquaintance with it is necessary. The symbolism is founded on the description of the four living creatures in the Apocalypse (4:7). The first creature is stated to have been like a lion, the second like a calf, the third had the face of a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. It occurred to Irenaeus to compare, if not identify, these with the four Gospels, and it was therefore necessary for him to ascribe a particular symbol to each of the Evangelists. To him John is the lion, Luke the calf, Matthew the man, and Mark the eagle (Hœr. iii. xi. 11). The mode of illustration pursued by Irenaeus strikes us to-day as forced and profitless, but the example he set was followed by Hippolytus (Hipp. i. ii. 183, Berlin ed.; cf. Bardenhewer, Altkirch. Lit. ii. 532). In a Syriac fragment he repeats the comparison, but advances an interpretation of his own. Now the lion is Matthew, the calf Luke, the man Mark, and the eagle John. The symbolism spread throughout the Church, but there was no agreement as to the connexion between the different living creatures and the separate Evangelists. However, the authority of Jerome (Preface to Matthew), despite the divergent opinion of Augustine (Cons. Ev. i. 6), prevailed throughout the West, and furnished the interpretation which is best known, as most largely represented in Christian art, and as embodied in the noble hymn of Adam of St. Victor, ‘Psallat chorus corde mundo’ (Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry, 67). According to this view, St. Matthew is the man, St. Mark the lion, St. Luke the calf, and St. John the eagle.

Literature.—Commentaries on the NT passages; art. ‘Evangelist’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible; works on the organization and history of the Early Church; Suicer, s.v.; Zahn, ‘Die Tiersymbole der Evangelisten’ in Forschungen, ii.; art. ‘Evangelists’ in Dict. of Christian Antiquities; Farrar, Messages of the Books, 13.

W. Patrick.