Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

DONATE

The Essence of Christianity
GA 68a

Hamburg, December 5, 1908

43. The Bible and Wisdom

It cannot he doubted that the influence of the Bible on Western Culture has been greater than that of any other document. It may truly be said that as a result of the influence of the Bible, the human soul has for thousands of years maintained a hold on the most inward being of man,—a hold which has extended to the life of feeling and also to the life of will. The influence in these two spheres of man's being has been stronger than in his thinking and conceptional life, although it may be said that all spiritual life, be it in the region of religion or of exact science, bears traces of the influence of the Bible. And it is evident to those who look more deeply into things, that the very arguments of men who to-day feel bound to attack the Bible—taking up in some cases the radical standpoint of downright denial—themselves show traces of its influence. There has never been any general recognition, and to-day there is practically none, of the extent of the influence of this document; but it exists nevertheless in actual fact to those who have an unbiased outlook. The attitude adopted towards the Bible by modern thought, feeling and perception, has for some time past changed very considerably from what it used formerly to be. The value of the Bible, the attitude adopted towards it by men who to-day take it seriously has altered essentially in the course of the 19th Century. We must not of course undervalue in any sense the standpoint of many modern thinking men who feel themselves bound to take a firm stand on the ground of Science. There are others who hold fast to the Bible, who derive all their deepest convictions from this most significant record, and who prefer to pay no attention when the value of the Bible is under discussion. The attitude of such people is: ‘Others may think as they like; we find in the teachings of the Bible all that our souls need and we are quite satisfied.’ Such a point of view, however justifiable it may be in individual cases, is, in a certain sense entirely egoistical and by no means without danger for spiritual evolution.

That which in a given epoch has become an universal blessing to men—or, let us say, an universal belief and conviction, has always originated with the few; and it may well be that an ever increasing stream of conviction may flow out to become universal in no very distant future from the few who to-day feel themselves compelled to attack the Bible because of their desire to build up their world-conception conformably with their Science. For this reason to ignore such spiritual and mental currents and to refuse to listen because one is oneself satisfied is not without an element of danger. Anyone who really takes the evolution of mankind seriously ought rather to regard it as a duty to take notice of the objections brought by sincere seekers for Truth, and to see what relation these objections have to the Bible.

I have said that the attitude adopted by men, and especially by leaders of intellectual and spiritual life has changed. To-day we shall do no more than point to this change. Were we to look back into the past we should find civilisations where men, especially when they stood at the summit of their spiritual life, doubted not at all that the very highest wisdom flowed from the Bible; and that those with whom it originated were not just average men who were responsible for human errors in it, but were under lofty inspiration and infused it with wisdom. This was a feeling of reverent recognition among those who stood on the heights of spiritual life. In modern times this has changed.

In the 18th Century there was a French investigator who came to the conclusion that certain contradictions exist in the Old Testament. He noticed that the two Creation stories at the very beginning of the Bible contradict one another, that one story describes the work of the six or seven days including the creation of man, and that then there is a further account with a different beginning, which ascribes quite a different origin to man. This investigator was specially disconcerted by the fact that at the beginning of the Bible two names of the God-head occur, the name of the ‘Elohim’ in the narrative of the six days' creation, and then later the name of Jehova. There is an echo of this in the German Bible. In the German Bible the name of the God-head is translated ‘Lord,’ ‘God,’ and then Jehova is translated by ‘God the Lord’ or in some such way; at all events the difference is apparent. Upon noticing this the investigator suspected that something had given rise to the untenable statement that the Bible was written by a single individual, whether Moses or someone else, and that different accounts must have been welded together. And after much deliberation he came to the conclusion that all the existing accounts corresponding to the different traditions were simply welded together; one account being amalgamated with another and all the contradictions allowed to stand.

After, and as a result of this, there appeared the kind of investigation which might well be called a mutilation of the Bible. To-day there are Bibles in which the various points of detail are traced back to different traditions. In the so-called Rainbow Bible it is stated for instance, how some portion or other that has come to be inserted into the collective statement has its origin in quite a different legendary tradition—hence it is said that the Bible must have been welded together from shreds of tradition. It became more and more general for investigators to proceed along this line in regard to the Old Testament, and then the same thing happened in the case of the New Testament. How could the fact be hidden that when the four Gospels are submitted to literal comparison they do not agree with each other? It is easy to discover contradictions in the Matthew, Luke and John Gospels. And so the investigators said: How can the single Evangelists have written their respective Gospels under lofty inspiration, when the accounts do not agree? The Gospel of St. John—that most profound writing of Christendom—was divested of all worth as an historical document in the minds of some investigators of the 19th Century. Men came more and more to be convinced of the fact that it was nothing but a kind of hymn, written down by someone on the basis of his faith and not an historical tradition at all. They said that what he had written down could in no way lay claim to being a true description of what had actually taken place in Palestine at the beginning of our era. And so the New Testament was torn into shreds. The Old and New Testaments were treated just like any other historical document; it was said that bias and error had crept into them, and that before all things it was necessary to show by purely historical investigation, how the fragments had been gradually pieced together. This is the standpoint which more and more came to be adopted by historical, theological investigation.

On the other side let us turn to those who felt compelled to stand firmly on the ground of the facts of Natural Science,—who said, quite sincerely and honestly as a result of their knowledge: ‘What we are taught by Geology, Biology and the different branches of Natural Science, flatly contradicts what the Bible relates. The Bible story of the development of the earth and living beings through the six days of creation, is of the nature of a legend or a myth of primitive peoples, whereby they tried, in their childlike fashion to make the origin of the earth intelligible to themselves.’ And such men alienated themselves from the New Testament in the same degree as from the Old Testament. Men who feel compelled to hold fast to the facts of Natural Science will have nothing to do with all the wonderful acts performed by the Christ, with the way in which this unique Personality arises at the critical point of our history, and they radically oppose the very principle on which the Bible is based. Thus we see on the one hand the Bible torn to pieces by historical-theological investigation, and on the other hand put aside, discredited by scientific research.

That may serve briefly to characterise the outlook of to-day; but if nobody troubled about this, and simply persisted in the attitude: ‘I believe what is in the Bible’—that would be Egoism. Such men would only be thinking of themselves and it would not occur to them that future generations might hold as an universal conviction that which to-day is only the conviction of a few.

We may now ask: is there perhaps yet a further standpoint other than the two we have indicated? Indeed there is, and it is just this that we want to consider to-day. It is the standpoint of Spiritual Science, or Anthroposophy. We can in the first instance understand this best by means of comparison. The Anthroposophical standpoint with regard to the Bible offers to our modern age something similar to that which was accomplished three or four centuries ago by the mighty achievements of scientific research; Anthroposophy seeks to form a connecting link with what was achieved by such men as Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo.

To-day we build upon the foundations of what was achieved by such personalities as these. When we look back to the relation which in former days existed between men and nature, we find that in the old Schools or Academics, certain books carried just as much weight as the Bible does with many people to-day. Aristotle, the ancient Greek scholar, whose achievements were by no means confined to the sphere of Natural Science, was looked upon by the widest circles both in the early and later Middle Ages as a far-reaching Authority. Wherever men were taught about nature the books of Aristotle were taken as the basis. His writings were fundamental and authoritative not only in spheres where men pursued the study of Nature in a more limited, philosophical sense, but also in spheres of definitely scientific thought. It was not customary in those days to look out at Nature with one's own eyes, and it was not a question of instruments, apparatus and other things of that kind. In the time of Galileo a highly symptomatic incident occurred, and it has been handed down as a kind of anecdote. It was pointed out by a colleague to a man who was a convinced follower of Aristotle, that many of the master's utterances were not correct; for instance that the nerves proceeded from the heart, this being contrary to the real facts. A corpse was placed in front of the man and it was demonstrated to him that this utterance of Aristotle did not agree with the facts. He said: ‘Yes, when I look at that myself it seems a contradiction, but even if Nature does show it to me I still believe Aristotle.’ And there were many such men,—men who had more faith in the teachings and the authority of Aristotle than in their own eyes. To-day men's point of view about Nature and also about Aristotle has changed. In our time it would be considered ridiculous to derive from ancient books the knowledge of nature which men ought to possess. To-day the scientist confronts nature with his instruments and tries to explore her secrets in order that they may become a common good for all men. But circumstances were such that in the time of Galileo, those who were imbued with the teachings of Aristotle to the same degree as this above mentioned follower, did not understand the Greek Master in the very least, Aristotle meant something different, something very much more spiritual, than what we understand to-day by the nerves. And because of this we cannot do real justice to Aristotle—whose vision was in accordance with the age in which he lived—until we look into nature with free and impartial eyes.

That was the great change that took place three or four centuries ago—and we are experiencing such another now in reference to the Spiritual Science and those spiritual facts and processes which are the spiritual foundations of existence.

For centuries the Bible was taken by a very large number of men to be the only book able to give information about all that transcended the tangible, physical world. The Bible was the Authority so far as the spiritual world was concerned, just as Aristotle in the Middle Ages was the authority for the physical world.

How has it come about that to-day we are in a position to do greater justice to Aristotle? It is because we face the physical world from a position of greater independence. And what Anthroposophy has to give to man of modern times, is the possibility of acquiring direct cognition of the invisible world, just as centuries ago the new age began to acquire direct knowledge of the visible world. Spiritual Science states that it is possible for man to look into and perceive the spiritual world; that he need not be dependent upon tradition, but can see for himself. This is what true Spiritual Science has to achieve for modern humanity—it has to convince man that slumbering powers and faculties exist within him; that there are certain great moments in life when these spiritual faculties awaken just as when a blind man is operated upon and is able to see colour and light. To use Goethe's phrase: the spiritual ears and eyes awaken, and then the soul of man can perceive in its environment what is otherwise concealed. The awakening of the faculties slumbering in the soul is possible; it is possible for man to acquire an instrument whereby he call look into spiritual causes, just as with his physical instruments he looks into the physical world. We have all kinds of instruments for the perception of the physical world—and for perception of the spiritual world there is also an instrument—namely, man himself, transformed. From the standpoint of spiritual science the most important thing of all is that the word ‘Evolution’ should be taken in all seriousness,—‘Evolution,’ which is a kind of magic word on many lips. It is not difficult to-day to perceive how the imperfect continually develops and evolves, and this evolution is carefully followed up in external Natural Science. To this conception Anthroposophy would not set up the slightest opposition where it remains in the region of scientific facts. But Anthroposophy takes the word ‘Evolution’ in its full meaning,—and so seriously that it points to those faculties which lie in the soul of man by means of which he can become aware of the Spiritual world. Spiritual beings are the foundation and basis of the physical world, and man only needs organs to be able to perceive them. I must here again lay stress upon the fact that today only a few men are in a position to transform their souls in this way. It requires a highly developed soul whose spiritual eyes are open before investigation of the spiritual world can be undertaken and information as to the events and beings there obtained. But if facts about the higher worlds are made manifest, then all that is necessary for the understanding of what is told by the spiritual investigator is healthy discernment, free from all bias pertaining to the intellect or to human logic. There is no justification for criticising the use of spiritual investigation, because we cannot see for ourselves. How many men are able to form a clear conception of Ernst Haeckel's researches and follow them up? It is exactly the same in regard to research in the region of senselife, where what is illuminated by the understanding passes over into the consciousness, as it is in regard to what the spiritual investigator has to say about the information he has gained in the super-sensible world. That which is known as the super-sensible world through direct perception and human powers of cognition must pass over into the universal consciousness of mankind as a result of the Anthroposophical conception of the world.

On the one hand then, we have the ancient Bible bringing before us in its own way the secrets of the super-sensible worlds and their connection with the sensible worlds, and on the other we have, in Spiritual Science, the direct experiences of the investigator in regard to the super-sensible world. This is surely a point of view similar to that which one finds at the dawn of modern Natural Science.

The question now arises: ‘What has Spiritual Science to say that is able to help us to understand the biblical truths?’ We must here enter into details. We must above all point out that when as a result of the methods laid down by Spiritual Science, man awakens his soul faculties, he sees into the spiritual world and develops what in comparison to objective cognition is an Imaginative Knowledge. What is this Imaginative Knowledge? It has nothing in common with those vague fantasies readily associated with the word ‘Imagination’ nor has it anything whatever to do with somnambulism and things of that nature, but fundamental to it is a strict discipline by means of which a man has to awaken these faculties. Let us proceed from external knowledge in order to make more intelligible what is really meant by ‘Imaginative Knowledge.’ What is characteristic of external objective cognition? There is for example, the perception of a ‘table’; when the table is no longer before us there remains an idea, a concept of it, as a kind of echo. First there is the object, and then the image. Certain systems of philosophy affirm that everything is only image, conception. This is incorrect. Let us take, for example, the conception of red hot steel or iron. The conception will not burn, but when we are faced by the reality the experience is different. The characteristic of objective cognition is that first the object is there and then the image is formed within us. Exactly the opposite process must take place in a man who wishes to penetrate into the higher world. He must first be able to transform his conceptual world in such a way that the conception may precede the perception. This faculty is developed by Meditation and Concentration, that is to say by sinking the soul into the content of certain conceptions which do not correspond to any external reality. Just consider for a moment how much of what lives in the soul is dependent upon the fact of your having been born in a particular town on a particular day. Suppose that you had not been born on that day, and try to imagine what other experiences would then live within your soul, and stream through it from morning to evening. In other words, make it clear to yourself how much of the content of the soul is dependent on your environment, and then let all that has stimulated you from outside, pass away. Then try to think how much would still remain in the soul. All conceptions of the external world which flow into the soul must, day by day, be expelled from it and in their place there must live for a time the content of a conception that has not in any way been stimulated from without and that does not portray any external fact or event.

Spiritual Science—if our search is sincere—gives many such conceptions and I will mention one as an example. I want to show you how the soul may gradually be led up into the higher worlds through certain definite conceptions. Such conceptions may be considered to be like letters of the alphabet. But in Spiritual Science there are not only twenty-two to twenty-seven letters, but many hundreds, by means of which the soul learns to read in the spiritual world. Here is a simple example: suppose we take the well known Rose Cross and in its simplest form, the black cross adorned with seven red roses. Very definite effects are produced if for a quarter of an hour each day the soul gives itself wholly up to the conception of this Rose Cross, excluding everything that acts as an external stimulus. In order to be able to understand what comes to pass in the soul as a result of this, let us consider intellectually the meaning of the Rose Cross. This is not the most important element, but we shall do it to show that it is possible to explain the meaning. I shall give it in the form of an instruction given by teacher to pupil.

The teacher says to the pupil:—‘Look at the plant standing with its root in the ground and growing upwards to the blossom. Compare the greater perfection of man standing before you, organised as he is, with the lesser perfection of the plant. Man has self-consciousness, has within him what we call an Ego, an ‘ I ’. But because he has this higher principle within him he has had to accept in addition all that constitutes his lower nature, the passion of sense. The plant has no self-consciousness; it has no Ego, hence it is not yet burdened with desires, passions or instincts. Its green beauty is there, chaste and pure. Look at the circulation of the chlorophyl fluid in the plant and then in man at the pulsation of the blood. That which, in man constitutes his life of passions and instincts, comes to expression, in the plant, as the blossom. In exchange for this man has won his self-consciousness. Now consider not only present day man, but look in a spiritual sense at a man of the far distant future. He will develop, he will over come, cleanse and purify his desires and passions and will obtain a higher self-consciousness. Thus, spiritually, you can see a man who has once more attained to the purity of the plant-nature. But it is because he has reached a higher stage that his self-consciousness exists in this state of purity. His blood is as pure and chaste as the plant fluids. Take the red roses to be a prototype of what the blood will be at some future time, and in this way you have before you the prototype of higher man. In the Rose Cross you have a most beautiful paraphrase of Goethe's saying:—“The man who is without this dying and becoming is a sad stranger on this dark earth”! Dying and becoming,—what does this mean? It means that in man there exists the possibility of growing out of and beyond himself. That which dies and is overcome is represented by the black cross which is the expression of his desires of senses. The blossoms in their purity are symbolical of the blood. The red roses and the black cross together represent the inner call to grow beyond oneself.’

As I said, this intellectual explanation is not the most important element and it is only given in order that we may be able better to understand these things. In a Meditation of this kind the point is that we shall sink ourselves into the symbol, that it shall stand as a picture before us. And if it is said that a Rose Cross corresponds to nothing real, our answer must be that the whole significance lies not in the experience of something pertaining to the external world through the Rose Cross, but that the effect of this Rose Cross upon the soul and its slumbering faculties is very real. No image pertaining to the external world could have the same effect as this image in all its varied aspects and in its non-reality. If the soul allows this image to work upon it, it makes greater and greater progress, and is finally able to live in a world of conceptions that is at first really illusory; but when it has lived sufficiently long in this conceptual world with patience and energy, it has a significantly true experience. Spiritual realities, spiritual beings which otherwise are invisible emerge from the spiritual environment. And then the soul is able quite clearly to distinguish what is merely conception, illusion, from true and genuine reality.

Of course one must not be a visionary, for that is very dangerous; it is absolutely necessary to maintain reason and a sure foundation for one's experience. If a man dreams in a kind of phantasy, then it is not well with him, when the spiritual world breaks in upon his consciousness. But if he maintains a sense of absolute certainty in his perception of reality, then he knows how the spiritual events will be made manifest, and he ascends into the spiritual world.

You will perhaps have surmised from what I have said, that cognition of the spiritual world is quite different from that of the sense world. The spiritual world cannot be brought into the range of direct perception by means of conceptions having but one meaning, and anyone who thinks it possible to describe what he finds in the spiritual world in the same way as he would describe what he finds in the sense world—simply has no knowledge of the nature of the spiritual world. The spiritual world can only be represented in pictures, and in imagery, which must be regarded merely as such. When the spiritual investigator looks into the spiritual world he sees the spiritual causes behind the physical phenomena, and he sees not only what underlies the present but what underlay the past. One thing above all else is manifest to him; namely, that man as he stands before us to-day as a physical being, was not always a physical being. External Natural Science can only lead us back by way of physical phenomena to what man as a physical being once was, and the spiritual investigator has no objection to that. But what surrounds us physically, has a spiritual origin. Man existed as a spiritual being before he became physical.

When the earth was not yet physical, man existed in the bosom of divine beings. As ice condenses from water, so did physical man condense from spiritual man. Spiritual Science shows that the physical is in perpetual contact with the spiritual. But what underlies the physical can only be expressed in pictures, if one wants to approximate to physical ideas.

What happens when a man has re-attained the spiritual stage of evolution,—what comes before him? In a certain sense the spiritual investigator re-discovers the Bible imagery, as given in the six or seven days of Creation. The pictures as given there actually appear before him. These pictures are not, of course, a description of physical occurrences, but the investigator who looks into the spiritual world, sees in clairvoyant consciousness, in how wonderful a way the writer of Genesis has portrayed in these pictures the formation of man from out of the Spirit. And it is marvelous how, point by point, agreement is established between what is so perceived by the spiritual investigator and the Bible imagery. The spiritual investigator can follow in just as unbiased a way as the Natural Scientist approaches the physical world. He does not derive his wisdom directly from the Bible, but he finds emphatic agreement with Bible imagery.

I will only mention one such point of agreement. When we go back to ancient times, it is seen that behind the evolution of man stand certain spiritual beings who are different from the beings who are there from a definite and later point of time onwards. Many of you will know that man as he is to-day is a fourfold being, consisting of physical body, etheric body, astral body (the vehicle of joy, passions and so forth), and the Ego, the bearer of human self-consciousness. The three lower members, physical body, etheric body and astral body, were in existence long before the Ego, which was incorporated into man last of all. Spiritual beings who are designated in the Bible as the Elohim worked on these three earlier principles. And when the Ego began to be incorporated into this three-fold nature, another being from the spiritual world co-operated in the work of the Elohim. If we penetrate more deeply into the Bible we shall find that this Spiritual Being is given the name of Jehova, and rightly so. And in accordance with the inner principles of evolution itself we see that at a certain point in the narrative a new name is introduced in place of the old name of the God-head. We see too, the circumstances surrounding the origin of man which is described in a two-fold way in the Bible. For in point of fact man as a threefold being was dissolved into the universe: as a three-fold being he came into existence afresh, and then from out of the transformed three-fold man, the Ego developed. So that the cleft that would seem to lie between the first and second chapter of Genesis, and that has been the subject of so many false interpretations, is explained by spiritual investigation. It is only a question of rightly understanding the Bible and that is not very easy to-day. Spiritual Science shows that in the beginning higher Spiritual Beings were present; the descendants of these Beings are men, man has emerged from the bosom of Divine Spiritual Beings. We may speak of man as the descendant of the Gods in the same sense as we speak of the child being the descendant of his parents. From the standpoint of Spiritual Science we must look upon the human being standing before us as an Earth-man, the descendant of divine-spiritual beings.

Does the Bible tell us anything about this? Indeed it does, but we first must learn how to read it. The fourth sentence of the Second Chapter of Genesis runs: ‘These are the generations of the heavens’ ... and so on. This sentence is misleading, for it does not give what is really to be found at this place in the Bible. The text ought really to stand as follows: ‘What follow here and will now be described are the descendants of the Heavens and the Earth as they were brought forth by the divine power.’ And by the words ‘the Heavens and the Earth,’ divine spiritual beings are meant, divine spiritual beings whose descendant is man. The Bible describes exactly what the spiritual investigator rediscovers independently. Many of those who fight against the Bible to-day are directing their attacks against something of which they have no real knowledge. They are tilting against straws. The Anthroposophical view is exactly expressed in this fourth sentence. We might show verse by verse through the Old and New Testaments how man, when he ascends into the spiritual world through his own faculties, rediscovers the results of his investigation in the Bible. It would lead us too far now if we tried to describe the New Testament in a similar way. In my book Christianity as Mystical Fact the Lazarus miracle among others is given in its real form. The manner of treating such subjects to-day makes it impossible for us to get at their real meaning, for modern commentators of the Bible are naturally only able to find what accords with their own personal knowledge. Their knowledge does not transcend sense-cognition, hence the many contradictory interpretations and expositions of the individual Biblical ‘Authorities.’ The only qualified expositor of the Bible is a man who, independently of the Bible, is able to reach the same truths as are there contained. Let us take for sake of example an old book—Euclid's Geometry. Anyone who understands something of Geometry to-day will understand this book. But one would of course only place reliance on someone who had really studied Geometry to-day. When such a man comes to Euclid he will recognise his teachings to be true. In the same sense a man who approaches the Bible with philological knowledge only can never be a real ‘Authority.’ Only a man who is able to create the wisdom from out of his own being can be a real Authority on the Bible.

It may be said then, that the Bible is intelligible to a man who can penetrate into the spiritual world, who can receive its influences into himself. The Bible induces in such a man an absolute certainty that it is written by Initiates and inspired souls; a man who can to-day penetrate into the spiritual world, understands the great Scribes of the Bible. He knows them to have been true Initiates, ‘awakened souls’ who have written down their experiences from the levels of the spiritual worlds; if he knows this, he also knows what is hidden within their words.

I would like here to mention an experience of my own in reference to another matter. When I was engaged on special work in the Goethe Archives in Weimar, I tried to prove something quite externally. You all know Goethe's beautiful prose Hymn to Nature ‘Oh Nature we are encircled and embraced by thee,’ and so on. This hymn depicts in beautiful words that everything given to us by Nature is given in Love, that Love is the crown of Nature. This composition was lost sight of for a time by Goethe himself, and when he was an old man and what remained of his literary work was given over to the Duchess Amelia, it was found. Goethe was questioned about it, and said ‘Yes, I recognise the idea that came to me then.’ The composition was accepted as having been written by Goethe until certain hair-splitters refused to admit that he was the author and attributed it to someone else. My purpose was to investigate the truth about this composition. It had come to my knowledge that at an early period of his life Goethe had with him a young man called Tobler, who had an exceedingly good memory. During their walks together Goethe had elaborated his idea, Tobler had thoroughly assimilated it, and because of his marvelous memory had been able afterwards to write it down very nearly word for word. I tried to show that a great deal of what is to be found in Goethe's conceptions later on is intelligible in the light of this composition. The point is that someone other than Goethe had penned it on paper, but the idea itself in its phrasing and articulation was Goethe's—and that is what I tried to make clear. Later on, when my work was published, a celebrated Goethean scholar came to me and said: ‘We owe you a debt of gratitude for throwing light upon the subject, for now we know that this composition is by Tobler.’ You may well imagine how amused I was! This is how things present themselves to the minds of people who are at pains to prove that in the course of time some particular portion of the Bible was written by one man or another. Some people consider the most important thing to be who finally did the writing, and not which Spirit was the origin and source. But with us the essential thing is to understand how the Bible was able to come into being from the Spirits of those who looked into the Spiritual World and experienced it.

And now let us examine whether there is in the Bible itself, anything that explains this way of looking at things.

The Old Testament lends itself to a great deal of controversy, for the events there have grown dim. But it will be clear to anyone who does not want to wrangle, that the Old Testament faithfully describes the significant process of the penetration of the Ego into the entire nature and being of man. Anyone who from the point of view of Spiritual Science, reads of the call to Moses at the Burning Bush will understand that in reality Moses was then raised into the Spiritual world. When God appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, Moses asked: ‘Who shall I say to the people hath sent me?’ God said: ‘Tell them that One Who can say “I am” hath sent thee.’ And if we follow up the whole process of the incorporation of the Ego, step by step, then the Bible illuminates what is found in Spiritual Science independently.

But something else is evident as well, namely, that from a Christian point of view the Bible should not be considered from the same point of view as other historical documents. If we consider the figure of Paul we can learn a great deal that can lead us to this realisation. When we study the earliest form in which Christianity was promulgated, from which all its later forms are derived, we shall find that none of the Gospel narratives are given by Paul at all, but that he speaks of something quite different. What gave the impulse to Paul? How did this unique Apostle acquire his understanding of the Christ? Simply and solely as a consequence of the event of Damascus, that is, not as a result of physical but of super-sensible truths. Now what is at the basis of the teaching of Paul? It is the knowledge that the Christ—although he was crucified—lives; the event of Damascus reveals Christ as a Living Being who can appear to men who ascend to him;—it reveals, moreover that there is in very truth a spiritual world. And Paul makes a parallel between Christ's appearance to him and His appearance to others. He says: ‘First He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred Brethren at once, to James and then all the Apostles, and last of all to me also as to one born out of due time.’ This reference by Paul to ‘one born out of due time’ is strange. But this very expression is evidence to experienced Initiates that Paul speaks with perfect knowledge of Spiritual Science. He says that he is ‘born out of due time.’ and from this we realise that his illumination is to be traced back to a certain fact. I will just hint at the meaning. He means to explain in these words that because he has been born out of due time he is less entangled in material existence. He traces back his illumination to his knowledge: the Christ lives and is here. He shows that he bases his Christianity upon this super-sensible truth and that it is conviction acquired as the result of direct perception.

The earliest form of Christianity as it spread abroad is based upon super-sensible facts. We could show that what is contained in the John Gospel is based upon super-sensible impressions which the writer of that Gospel gives as his own experience, and realising that originally it was possible for Christianity to win belief on the basis of super-sensible experiences of men who were able to look into the spiritual worlds, we can no longer imagine that it is right to apply to the Bible the same standard as we apply to other external documents.

Anyone who examines the Gospels with the same methods as he employs in the case of other documents, is confronted by something whose inner contents he can never fathom. But a man who penetrates into the experiences of the writers of the Gospels will be led into the spiritual world and to those personalities who have built up their knowledge and their wisdom from out of the spiritual world and have given them to us.

We should realise that those from whom the Gospels proceeded were Initiates, awakened souls, taking into consideration as well that there may be different stages of awakening. Just imagine that different people are describing a landscape from a mountain; one stands at the bottom, another in the middle and another at the summit. Each of these men will describe the landscape differently, according to his point of view. This is how the spiritual investigator looks at the four Gospels. The writers of the four Gospels were Initiates of different degrees. It is understandable that there may be external contradictions, just as there would be in the description of a landscape from a mountain. The deepest of all is the Gospel of John. The writer of the John Gospel was the most deeply initiated into the mysteries of what took place in Palestine at the beginning of our era because he wrote from the summit of the mountain.

Spiritual Science is able to elucidate the Gospels fully, and to prove that the various contradictions in Genesis at the beginning of the Old Testament disappear. Direct perception, then, of the spiritual worlds brings us again to an understanding of the Bible which is a most wonderful document. A man who engages in spiritual investigation will find that there are four standpoints to be distinguished among men who approach the study of the Bible. The first is the standpoint of the naive believer, who has faith in the Bible as it stands and pays no attention to any other consideration; the second is that of ‘clever’ people who stand neither on the ground of historical research, nor of Bible analysis, nor of Natural Science. They say: ‘We cannot recognise the Bible to be an uniform document.’ And when such men realise that Natural Science contradicts the Bible they become ‘Free Thinkers,’ so-called ‘Free Spirits.’ They are in most cases honest, sincere seekers after truth. But then we come to something that transcends the standpoint of the ‘clever’ people. Many Free Thinkers have held the point of view that the Bible is only suitable for a childlike stage of human evolution, and cannot hold its own against Science. But after a time it strikes them that much of what is given in the Bible has a figurative sense; that it is a garment woven around experiences. This is the third standpoint—that of the Symbolist. Here a pure arbitrariness reigns, and the view that the Bible is to be understood symbolically.

The fourth standpoint is that of Spiritual Science. Here there is no longer ambiguity, but in a certain sense literal interpretation of what is said in the Bible. We are brought back again to the Bible in order to understand it in a real sense. An important task of Spiritual Science is to restore the Bible to its real position. It will be a happy day when we hear in modern words what really is to be found in the Bible, different, indeed, from all that is said to-day.

We may pass from sentence to sentence and we shall see that the Bible everywhere contains a message to Initiates from Initiates; awakened souls speak to awakened souls. Spiritual investigation does not in any way alienate us from the Bible. A man who approaches the Bible by spiritual investigation experiences the fact that details become clear to him about which he formally had doubts because he could not understand them. It becomes evident that it was his fault when he was not able to understand. Now, however, he understands what once escaped him, and he gradually works through to a point of view where he says: ‘Now I understand certain things and see their deep content: others, again appear to be incredible. But just as formerly I did not understand what is now clear to me, so later I shall discover that it has a deep import.’ And then such a man will with gratitude accept what hashes up in him, leaving to the future what he cannot yet explain.

The Bible in all its depth will be revealed only in the future, when spiritual investigation, independently of any kind of tradition, penetrates into the spiritual facts, and is able to show mankind what this document really contains. Then it will no longer seem unintelligible, for we shall feel united with what streamed into spiritual culture through those who wrote it down. In our age it is possible for us, through Initiation, again to investigate the spiritual world. Looking back to the past we feel ourselves united with those who have gone before us, for we can show how step by step they communicated what they had received in the spiritual world. We can promise that the Bible will prove itself to be the most profound document of humanity, the deepest source of our civilization. Spiritual Science will be able to restore this knowledge. And, however much bigoted people may say: ‘The Bible does not need such a complicated explanation—it is the very simplicity that is right’—it will be realised some day that the Bible, even when it is not fully understood works upon every heart by virtue of its intrinsic mysteries. It will be realised too that not only is its simplicity within our grasp, but that no wisdom is really adequate for a full understanding of it. The Bible is a most profound document not only for simple folk, but also for the wisest of the wise. Wisdom, therefore, investigated spiritually and independently, will lead back to the Bible. And Spiritual Science, apart from everything else that it has to bring to humanity, will be the means of accomplishing a re-conquest of the Bible.

43. Bibel und Weisheit

Es ist zweifellos, dass die Bibel wenigstens für unsere abendländische Kultur das einflussreichste Dokument ist; denn wir dürfen sagen, dass durch dieses Dokument Jahrtausende hindurch die Seele der Menschen ein Gefüge erhalten hat bis in ihr innerstes Wesen hinein, bis in das Empfindungs- und Gefühlsleben und bis in die Willensimpulse hinein. Das ist wichtiger als der Einfluss auf das Gedanken- und Vorstellungsleben. Wir dürfen sagen: Alles, was uns im Geistesleben entgegentritt, sei es auf religiösem Boden oder auf dem Boden der exakten Wissenschaft, alles das ist, wenigstens in irgendeiner Weise, von den Wirkungen der Bibel beeinflusst. Und auch diejenigen Menschen, die heute glauben, die Bibel bekämpfen zu müssen, die sogar auf dem radikalen Standpunkt der Ablehnung stehen, auch sie erscheinen für den, welcher den Tatsachen tiefer ins Auge blickt, so, dass sie selbst in den Gründen, welche sie gegen die Bibel vorbringen, beeinflusst sind von dieser Bibel selber. In solchem Umfange erkennt man allerdings im Allgemeinen nicht den Einfluss dieses Dokumentes, und heute vielleicht am allerwenigsten; aber für den vorurteilslos Blickenden ist er tatsächlich vorhanden. Die Stellung des modernen Denkens, des Fühlens und Empfindens zu der Bibel hat sich seit langer Zeit schon gegenüber dem, was auf diesem Gebiete geherrscht hat, sehr geändert.,/p>

Die Wertschätzung der Bibel, die Art und Weise, wie sich der Einzelne, der es heute ehrlich meint, dazu stellt, das alles hat sich im Laufe des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts ganz wesentlich geändert. Und wir dürfen den Standpunkt eines großen Teiles der heutigen denkenden Menschheit, der da glaubt, fest auf dem Boden der Wissenschaft stehen zu müssen, wir dürfen diesen Standpunkt keineswegs irgendwie unterschätzen. Andere gibt es heute in unserer Bevölkerung, die ganz auf dem Boden der Bibel stehen, die alle ihre tiefsten Überzeugungen aus dieser bedeutungsvollen Urkunde schöpfen und die am liebsten nicht rechts und links schauen möchten, wenn die Wertschätzung der Bibel besprochen wird. Sie sagen: Mögen die andern denken, wie sie wollen; wir finden in den Lehren dieser Bibel alles, was unsere Seele braucht; wir sind erfüllt und befriedigt von dem, was uns die Bibel gibt.

Nun, verehrte Anwesende, dieser Standpunkt, so sehr er berechtigt sein mag für den Einzelnen, ist in gewisser Hinsicht ein recht egoistischer und keineswegs für die Geistesentwicklung ungefährlich; denn das, was in einer bestimmten Zeit Allgemeingut der Menschen geworden ist, sagen wir allgemeiner Glaube und allgemeine Überzeugung, das ist ursprünglich immer von wenigen ausgegangen. Und so könnte es wohl geschehen, dass von den wenigen, die heute glauben, die Bibel bekämpfen zu müssen, weil sie ihre Weltanschauung auf ihre Wissenschaft aufbauen wollen, dass - von diesen aus — die Überzeugungsströme sich immer weiter und weiter ergießen und schon in nicht so ferner Zukunft zu einer allgemeinen Überzeugung werden. Und deshalb ist es nicht ungefährlich, wenn man an solchen Geistesströmungen achtlos vorübergeht, wenn man nicht nach rechts oder links schaut, weil man selbst befriedigt ist. Dem, der es ehrlich meint mit der Entwicklung der Menschheit, sollte es vielmehr als eine Pflicht erscheinen, sich um das zu bekümmern, was ehrliche Wahrheitssucher gegen die Bibel einzuwenden haben und wie es sich gerade mit dieser Bibel verhält.

Es wurde gesagt, dass der Standpunkt, den die Menschen, namentlich die Führer des Geisteslebens, der Bibel gegenüber einnehmen, dass dieser Standpunkt sich geändert habe. Wir wollen diese Änderung heute nur andeuten. Wenn wir zurückschauen würden in vergangene Zeiten, so würden wir Kulturen finden, innerhalb deren die Menschen gerade dann, wenn sie auf der höchsten Spitze ihres Geisteslebens standen, nicht im Geringsten daran zweifelten, dass aus der Bibel höchste Weisheit fließt; und dass die, von denen die Bibel herrührt, nicht Durchschnittsmenschen waren, die menschliche Irrtümer in die Bibel hineingebracht haben, sondern unter höherer Inspiration standen, dass sie Weisheit in diese Bibel hineingelegt haben. Und ein heiliges Gefühl der Anerkennung war es, das gerade bei denen vorhanden war, die an der Spitze des Geisteslebens standen.

Das ist in neuerer Zeit anders geworden. Da finden wir im achtzehnten Jahrhundert einen französischen Forscher, der herausgebracht hat, dass im Alten Testament gewisse Widersprüche vorhanden sind. Er bemerkte, dass die beiden Erzählungen, die gleich im Anfang der Bibel stehen über die Schöpfungsgeschichte, einander widersprechen; da, wo das Sechs- oder Siebentagewerk geschildert wird und innerhalb desselben die Erschaffung des Menschen, und wo dann gleichsam noch einmal von Anfang angefangen erzählt wird, wie der Mensch auf eine ganz andere Weise entstanden ist.

Namentlich aber machte diesen Forscher eines stutzig: dass ein zweifacher Gottesname im Beginn der Bibel auftaucht, einmal da, wo vom Sechstagewerk die Rede ist, der Name der Elohim, und dann später der Jahve-Name. Sie können in der deutschen Bibel einen Nachklang empfinden. Sie wissen ja, dass in der deutschen Bibel der Gottesname mit «Herr», mit «Gott» und dass dann Jahve mit «Gott, der Herr» übersetzt ist oder in ähnlicher Weise. Jedenfalls können Sie den Unterschied wahrnehmen. Ich will nur erwähnen, dass die Forschung, nachdem sie dieses bemerkt hatte, sich sagte: Da muss irgendetwas geschehen sein, was unmöglich so dargestellt werden kann, als ob ein einzelner Mensch, sei es nun Moses oder ein anderer, diese Bibel geschrieben habe; es müssen da verschiedene Berichte zusammengeflossen sein. - Und nach mancherlei Erwägungen ist man darauf gekommen, dass alle Berichte, die vorhanden waren und die den verschiedenen Überlieferungen entsprachen, dass die einfach zusammengeschweißt worden sind. Ein Bericht wurde mit dem anderen vereinigt, und alle Widersprüche, die da vorhanden waren, hat man eben stehen lassen; so sagte man sich.

Von da ausgehend, verehrte Anwesende, kam dann diese Forschung, die man nennen könnte eine Zerfetzung, eine Zerstückelung der Bibel. Und heute gibt es sogar schon Bibeln, in denen die mannigfaltigsten Einzelheiten auf verschiedene Überlieferungen zurückgeführt werden. In den sogenannten Regenbogenbibeln wird dargestellt, wie zum Beispiel irgendein Stück, das in den Gesamtbericht hineingeheimnisst worden ist, von einer ganz anderen sagenhaften Überlieferung herrührt, dass also aus Fetzen der Überlieferung diese Bibel zusammengeschweißt sein soll. Immer weiter gingen so die Forscher mit dem Alten Testament vor, und dann trat mit dem Neuen Testament ein Ähnliches ein; wie könnte es denn auch verborgen bleiben, dass die vier Evangelien, wenn man sie buchstabenmäßig vergleicht, nicht übereinstimmen! Sie werden leicht herausfinden, dass im Matthäus-, Johannes- und Lukasevangelium sich Widersprüche ergeben. Man sagte: Wie kann der einzelne Evangelist es unter einem höheren Einflusse geschrieben haben, wenn die Berichte nicht einmal miteinander stimmen!

Namentlich aber wurde von gewissen Forschern besonders im neunzehnten Jahrhundert das Johannesevangelium, diese tiefste Schrift des Christentums, seiner Würde, ein historisches Dokument zu sein, entkleidet. Immer mehr kam man zu der Überzeugung, dass nichts anderes darin zu erblicken sei als eine Art von Hymnus, der von irgendjemand, der nicht aufgrund historischer Überlieferung, sondern aufgrund seines Glaubens niedergeschrieben sei. Keineswegs könne das, was er geschrieben habe, so sagte man, Anspruch darauf erheben, eine wahrhafte Schilderung dessen zu sein, was eigentlich im Beginne unserer Zeitrechnung in Palästina sich abgespielt habe.

So ist auch das Neue Testament in Stücke gerissen worden. Man behandelte das Alte und das Neue Testament wie irgendwelche andere historische Dokumente und sagte sich, dass Vorurteile und Irrtümer hineingeflossen seien und dass man vor allen Dingen mit rein historischer äußerer Forschung zeigen müsse, wie die Stücke nach und nach zusammengefügt worden sind.

Wenn wir uns so den Standpunkt klarzumachen versuchen, den die historische theologische Forschung immer mehr eingenommen hat, so müssen wir auf der anderen Seite auch auf die hinweisen, welche glauben, fest stehen zu müssen auf dem Boden naturwissenschaftlicher Tatsachen, und die in ihrer ehrlichen Erkenntnis sagen: Was uns die Geologie, die Biologie und die Zweige der Naturwissenschaft lehren, das widerspricht krass dem, was die Bibel erzählt. Wenn erzählt wird, wie die Erde und die Lebewesen sich entwickelt haben, so erscheint dieses Tagewerk wie eine Legende, wie ein Mythos, der eben bei primitiven Völkern auftritt und durch den man sich in kindlicher Weise das Entstehen der Erde erklärlich machen wollte. Und ebenso weit wie vom Alten Testament hat man sich auch vom Neuen entfernt. Von all den wunderbaren Handlungen, die der Christus verrichtet haben soll, von der Art und Weise, wie diese einzigartige Persönlichkeit in den Mittelpunkt unserer Geschichte hineingerückt wird, davon will der nichts wissen, der da glaubt, feststehen zu müssen auf dem Boden naturwissenschaftlicher Tatsachen; und er bekämpft radikal gerade das Prinzipielle der Bibel.

So sehen wir, dass auf der einen Seite durch die historische theologische Forschung die Bibel zerrissen und auf der anderen Seite durch die naturwissenschaftliche Forschung beiseitegestellt wird. Das mag, wie gesagt, heute nur den Gesichtspunkt Weniger charakterisieren; aber wenn sich niemand darum kümmern wollte und einfach dabei beharren wollte: Ich glaube, was in der Bibel steht! — so wäre das Egoismus. Er würde nur an sich denken und nicht daran, dass die anderen Generationen in der Zukunft als allgemeine Überzeugung haben könnten, was heute nur Überzeugung Weniger ist.

Nun können wir uns die Frage stellen: Gibt es vielleicht noch einen anderen Gesichtspunkt als die beiden, die wir eben charakterisiert haben? In der Tat gibt es noch einen anderen, und gerade dieser andere Gesichtspunkt ist es, den wir heute ins Auge fassen wollen. Es ist der, den die Geisteswissenschaft oder Theosophie vertritt. Wenn wir diesen Gesichtspunkt begreifen wollen, so können wir das am besten zunächst einmal durch Vergleiche. Der Gesichtspunkt der Theosophie gibt für die heutige Zeit gegenüber der Bibel etwas Ähnliches, wie es vor drei bis vier Jahrhunderten durch die großen Errungenschaften naturwissenschaftlicher Forschung getan worden ist. Wir wollen anknüpfen an das, was Kopernikus, Kepler und Galilei geleistet haben.

Heute fußen wir auf dem, was durch solche Persönlichkeiten wie die eben genannten geleistet worden ist. Wenn wir aber darauf zurückschauen, wie man sich vorher zur Natur verhalten hat, dann finden wir, dass in den Lehranstalten der vorhergehenden Zeit ein Buch oder eine Summe von Büchern in ganz ähnlicher Weise gegolten hat, wie für viele heute die Bibel gilt. Aristoteles, der alte griechische Forscher, der nicht nur auf dem Boden der Naturwissenschaft viel geleistet hat, der galt das frühe und auch das spätere Mittelalter hindurch im weitesten Umfange als eine umfassende Autorität; überall, wo gelehrt wurde über die Natur, da lagen zugrunde die Bücher des Aristoteles. Nicht etwa nur da, wo man sich im engeren Rahmen philosophischer Naturbetrachtung betätigte, sondern auch dort, wo es sich um spezielle naturwissenschaftliche Anschauungen handelte, lagen überall die autoritativen Schriften des Aristoteles zugrunde. Es war nicht üblich, mit eigenen Augen in die Natur hinauszuschauen, von Werkzeugen, Apparaten und sonstigen Mitteln war nicht die Rede. Noch zu Galileis Zeiten spielte sich etwas Symptomatisches ab, was in einer Art von Anekdote überliefert worden ist.

Einer von denen, die so fest standen auf dem Boden des Aristoteles, wurde von einem Kollegen seines Faches darauf hingewiesen, dass manches bei Aristoteles nicht richtig sei; so zum Beispiel wäre Aristoteles der Anschauung, dass die Nerven vom Herzen ausgingen, das widerspräche aber den tatsächlichen Verhältnissen. Er wurde nun an eine Leiche geführt, wo ihm dann wirklich gezeigt wurde, dass das nicht mit den Tatsachen übereinstimmte. Und da sagte dieser Anhänger des Aristoteles: Ja, wenn ich mir das ansehe, dann scheint es sich zu widersprechen; aber wenn die Natur mir das auch zeigt, ich glaube doch dem Aristoteles. So gab es viele, die mehr der Überlieferung, der Autorität des Aristoteles glaubten als ihren eigenen Augen.

Heute hat sich der Standpunkt gegenüber der Natur und dem Aristoteles geändert. Heute wäre es lächerlich, das, was man über die Natur wissen wollte, aus alten Büchern zu schöpfen. Heute steht der Forscher mit seinen Werkzeugen der Natur gegenüber und sucht ihre Geheimnisse zu erkunden, dass sie Gemeingut der Bevölkerung werden. Nun verhält es sich aber so, dass die, die zu Galileis Zeiten den Aristoteles so auffassten wie der vorhin erwähnte Forscher, dass die den Aristoteles gar nicht verstanden hatten. Aristoteles meinte etwas anderes, etwas viel Geistigeres mit den Nerven als das, was wir heute darunter verstehen. Darum können wir dem Aristoteles, der für seine Zeit gesehen hat, nicht eher gerecht werden, als bis wir frei und unbefangen den Blick in die Natur hineinrichten.

Das war der große Umschwung, der vor drei bis vier Jahrhunderten sich vollzog. Einen ähnlichen Umschwung erleben wir in Bezug auf die Geisteswissenschaft gegenüber dem, was geistige Tatsachen, was die geistigen Urgründe des Daseins sind.

Durch Jahrhunderte galt für unzählige Menschen die Bibel als das einzige Buch, das Auskunft geben konnte über alles, was über das Tastbare und physisch Sichtbare hinausging. Die Bibel war Autorität für die geistige Welt, wie Aristoteles im Mittelalter Autorität für die physische Welt war. Was hat es gemacht, dass wir heute dem Aristoteles gerechter gegenüberstehen können? Dass wir der physischen Welt heute unbefangener gegenüberstehen!

Und das ist es, was die Theosophie dem modernen Menschen geben soll: die Möglichkeit, in unmittelbarer Weise Kunde zu erhalten von der unsichtbaren Welt; so wie die neuere Zeit vor Jahrhunderten begonnen hat, sich von der sichtbaren Welt unmittelbare Kunde zu verschaffen. Das betont die Geisteswissenschaft, dass es eine Möglichkeit gibt für den Menschen, auch in die geistige Welt hineinzuschauen, sie wahrzunehmen, dass er nicht angewiesen ist auf Überlieferungen, sondern dass es möglich ist, selber hineinzuschauen. Das ist es, was durch die verschiedenen Mittel die wahre Geisteswissenschaft der modernen Menschheit leisten soll, ihr die Überzeugung zu bringen, dass im Menschen schlummernde Kräfte und Fähigkeiten vorhanden sind, dass es große Momente im Menschenleben gibt, in denen diese geistigen Fähigkeiten erwachen, so wie etwa bei dem Blindgeborenen, der operiert wird, die Fähigkeit erwacht, Farben und Licht zu sehen. Um mit Goethes Ausdrücken zu sprechen: Es erwachen die Geistesohren und Geistesaugen. Und dann kann die menschliche Seele in ihrer Umgebung wahrnehmen, was ihr sonst verschlossen ist. Die Erweckung der in der Seele schlummernden Fähigkeiten ist möglich, möglich ist es, dass der Mensch ein Instrument gewinnt, um in die geistigen Urgründe hineinzuschauen, wie er mit physischen Instrumenten heute in die physische Welt hineinschaut. Für die physische Welt haben wir mancherlei Instrumente, für die geistige Welt gibt es ein Instrument; das ist der umgestaltete Mensch selber.

Denn das ist das Wichtigste, dass für die Geisteswissenschaft ehrlich und ernst das Wort gilt, das wie ein Zauberwort in vieler Munde ist, das Wort «Entwicklung». Man sieht heute leicht, wie sich das Unvollkommene immer mehr entwickelt; man verfolgt diese Entwicklung emsiglich in der äußeren Naturwissenschaft, der die Theosophie nicht den geringsten Widerspruch entgegensetzen will, sofern sie auf dem Boden naturwissenschaftlicher Tatsachen bleibt. Aber die Theosophie nimmt dieses Wort Entwicklung in seiner ganzen Bedeutung, sie nimmt es so ernst, dass sie hinweist auf die Fähigkeiten, die in des Menschen Seele liegen, durch die er die geistige Welt wahrnehmen kann. In diesem Raume sind geistige Wesen als die Urgründe der physischen Welt, und der Mensch bedarf nur der Organe, um sie wahrzunehmen.

Ich muss immer wieder betonen, dass es heute nur wenige geben kann, welche imstande sind, ihre Seele so umzugestalten. Zum Forschen in der geistigen Welt, zum Erkunden der Tatsachen und Wesenheiten der geistigen Welt gehört eine große entwickelte Seele, die geöffnete Geistesaugen hat. Sind aber die Tatsachen der höheren Welt enthüllt, dann gehört nur der gesunde Menschenverstand, frei von allem Vorurteil menschlichen Intellekts und menschlicher Logik, dazu, um das, was der Geistesforscher erzählt, einzusehen. Es ist nicht richtig, wenn gesagt wird: Was nützt es uns, wenn uns dies oder jenes von der Geistesforschung mitgeteilt wird, wenn wir nicht selber hineinschauen können? —- Wie viele können sich denn von Haeckels Forschungen eine Vorstellung machen und sie verfolgen? Genau ebenso, wie es sich mit solchen Forschungen auf sinnlichem Gebiete verhält, wie da ins Bewusstsein übergeht, was der Vernunft einleuchtet, geradeso verhält es sich mit dem, was der geistige Forscher zu sagen hat, was er erforscht, erkundet in der übersinnlichen Welt. Das, was durch unmittelbare Anschauung, durch die menschlichen Erkenntniskräfte selber als übersinnliche Welt erkannt wird, das soll durch die theosophische Weltanschauung ins allgemeine Bewusstsein übergehen.

Auf der einen Seite haben wir die alte Bibel, welche uns auf ihre Art die Geheimnisse der übersinnlichen Welt und deren Zusammenhang mit der Sinneswelt darstellt, und auf der anderen Seite haben wir durch die Geisteswissenschaft das, was der Forscher unmittelbar erfährt über diese übersinnliche Welt. Ist das nicht ein ganz ähnlicher Gesichtspunkt, wie er bei der Morgenröte der modernen Naturwissenschaft uns entgegentritt?

Nun entsteht die Frage: Was hat die Geisteswissenschaft zu sagen, das uns zum Verständnis der biblischen Wahrheiten bringen könnte? Da müssen wir auf Einzelheiten eingehen. Wir müssen vor allen Dingen zeigen, dass dann, wenn der Mensch durch die von der Geisteswissenschaft überlieferten Mittel seine Fähigkeiten erweckt, er hineinsieht in die geistige Welt und sich ihm gegenüber der gegenständlichen Erkenntnis eine höhere, zunächst eine imaginative Erkenntnis entwickelt.

Was ist das: imaginative Erkenntnis? Damit ist nicht jene unbestimmte Ekstase gemeint, die man leicht mit diesem Worte verbindet, nichts von Somnambulismus und ähnlichen Dingen, sondern da liegt zugrunde eine strenge Methodik, durch die der Mensch sich diese Fähigkeiten erwecken muss. Lassen Sie uns von der äußeren Erkenntnis ausgehen, um das, was mit imaginativer Erkenntnis bezeichnet wurde, dem Verständnis nahezubringen.

Was ist denn das Charakteristische für die äußere Gegenstandserkenntnis? Sie haben die Wahrnehmung zum Beispiel des Tisches; es bleibt Ihnen nachher, wenn Sie den Tisch nicht mehr sehen, eine Vorstellung; das ist eine Art Nachklang. Zuerst haben Sie den Gegenstand und dann das Vorstellungsbild. Es gibt Philosophiesysteme, die behaupten, dass alles nur Vorstellung sei. Das ist falsch. Nehmen Sie die Vorstellung des glühenden Stahls oder Eisens; die Vorstellung wird Sie nicht brennen; aber wenn Sie der Wirklichkeit gegenüberstehen, werden Sie etwas anderes erfahren. Das ist das Charakteristische der Gegenstandserkenntnis: zuerst ist der Gegenstand da, und dann bildet sich in uns die Vorstellung. Genau das Umgekehrte muss stattfinden bei dem Menschen, der hinaufdringen will in die höhere Welt. Er muss die Möglichkeit haben, seine Vorstellungswelt zunächst so umzuwandeln, dass die Vorstellung vorangehen kann der Wahrnehmung. Das geschieht auf dem Wege der Meditation und Konzentration, das heißt durch das Versenken unserer Seele in gewisse Vorstellungsinhalte, die keiner äußeren Wirklichkeit entsprechen.

Beachten Sie einmal, wie viel von dem, was in Ihrer Seele lebt, abhängig ist von der Tatsache, dass Sie an einem bestimmten Tage in einer bestimmten Stadt geboren sind. Nehmen Sie an, Sie wären nicht an diesem Tage und nicht in dieser Stadt geboren, und versuchen Sie einmal zu denken, welche anderen Erfahrungen dann in Ihrer Seele leben würden, was dann vom Morgen bis zum Abend Sie durchströmen würde. Mit anderen Worten: Machen Sie sich klar, wie viel von dem Inhalt Ihrer Seele abhängig ist von Ihrer Umgebung, und dann lassen Sie alles das weg, wovon Sie von außen her angeregt werden. Versuchen Sie einmal zu denken, wie viel dann noch darinnen bleiben würde in Ihrer Seele. Alles, was in Ihrer Seele an Vorstellungen der äußeren Welt hineinfließt, das muss Tag für Tag gründlich hinausgeworfen werden, und dafür muss eine Zeit lang in Ihrer Seele an Vorstellungsinhalten leben, was nicht irgendwie von außen angeregt ist, was nicht eine äußere Tatsache, ein äußeres Geschehnis abbildet.

Da gibt Ihnen die Geisteswissenschaft, wenn Sie den Weg ernstlich suchen, eine ganze Summe von Vorstellungen an die Hand, von denen ich beispielsweise sprechen will. Ich will Ihnen zeigen, wie durch bestimmte Vorstellungen die Seele heraufgeführt werden kann nach und nach in die höheren Welten. Diese Vorstellungen betrachten wir wie die Buchstaben im Alphabet. Es gibt in der Geisteswissenschaft nicht bloß 22 bis 27 Buchstaben, sondern Hunderte und Aberhunderte, durch die die Seele lesen lernt in der geistigen Welt. Ein einfaches Beispiel: Wir nehmen das bekannte Rosenkreuz, und zwar in seiner einfachsten Form, das schwarze Kreuz mit sieben roten Rosen geziert. Es hat ganz besondere Wirkungen, wenn die Seele sich einmal fünfzehn Minuten lang mit Ausschluss von allem, was von außen anregt, ganz hineinversenkt in die Vorstellung dieses Rosenkreuzes.

Um ein wenig einsehen zu können, was da in der Seele geschieht, wollen wir uns verstandesgemäß vertiefen in das, was das Rosenkreuz bedeutet. Es ist das nicht das Wichtigste dabei; aber damit Sie sehen, dass man es wenigstens skizzenhaft angeben kann, sei das hingestellt. Ich werde es in Form eines Dialogs zwischen Lehrer und Schüler sagen.

Der Lehrer sagt zum Schüler: Sieh’ dir die Pflanze an, die mit der Wurzel im Boden steht und herauswächst bis zur Blüte hin. Vergleiche sie mit dem Menschen, der vor dir steht, wie er organisiert ist. Vergleiche den vollkommeneren Menschen mit der unvollkommenen Pflanze. Der Mensch hat Selbstbewusstsein, er hat in sich, was wir ein Ich nennen. Aber dafür, dass er dieses Höhere in sich hat, dafür hat er in den Kauf nehmen müssen etwas, was seine niedere Natur ausmacht, die sinnlichen Leidenschaften. Schauen wir auf die Pflanze, sie hat kein Selbstbewusstsein. Sie hat nicht in sich ein Ich. Aber dafür ist diese Pflanze auch noch nicht behaftet mit Leidenschaften, Trieben und Instinkten. Keusch und rein stellt sie sich in ihrer grünen Schönheit vor das Auge. Sieh’ dir an, wie der Chlorophyllsaft in der Pflanze kreist, und sieh’, wie im Menschen das Blut pulsiert. Da, im Blute, drückt sich aus, was an Instinkten und Leidenschaften dem Menschen eigen ist. Dafür hat er sein Selbstbewusstsein errungen. Jetzt sieh dir nicht bloß den jetzigen Menschen an, sondern schaue im Geiste auf einen fernen Zukunftsmenschen, auf das, was aus dem Menschen werden kann in einer fernen Zukunft. Er wird sich weiterentwickeln, er wird überwinden, läutern und reinigen die Begierden und Leidenschaften, und ein höheres Selbstbewusstsein wird er erhalten, sodass im Geiste du erblicken kannst einen Menschen, der wiederum die reine Keuschheit der Pflanzennatur errungen hat. Aber weil er auf höherer Stufe angelangt ist, lebt sein Selbstbewusstsein in der reinen Keuschheit. Sein Blut wird gereinigt sein, so keusch und rein wie der Pflanzensaft. Sieh dir an, wie in der roten Rosenblüte das Vorbild von dem ist, was das Blut einstmals werden soll. Da hast du das Vorbild des höheren Menschen. Du hast dann im Rosenkreuz die schönste Umschreibung des Spruches von Goethe: Wer das nicht hat, dieses Stirb und Werde, der bleibt ein trüber Gast auf dieser dunklen Erde. «Stirb und Werde», was bedeutet es? Das heißt, dass im Menschen die Möglichkeit vorhanden ist, über sich hinauszuwachsen. Das, was abstirbt, was überwunden wird, das bedeutet das schwarze Kreuz, das, was heute der Ausdruck ist für seine sinnlichen Begierden. Die reine, keusche Pflanzenblüte, die Rosenblüte soll symbolisch sein für das Blut. Die roten Rosen und das schwarze Kreuz, sie stellen dar die innere Aufforderung, über sich selbst hinauszuwachsen.

Diese verstandesgemäße Aufklärung ist nicht die Hauptsache, sie ist nur da, damit wir so etwas begreifen können. Das, worauf es ankommt bei einer solchen Meditation, ist, dass man sich vertieft in dieses Symbolum, dass es als Bild vor uns steht. Und wenn einer kommt und sagt: Ja, da sprichst du vom Rosenkreuz, das ist aber nichts Wirkliches und entspricht keiner Realität, dann muss erwidert werden: Nicht darauf kommt es an, dass du durch das Rosenkreuz etwas über die äußere Welt erfährst, sondern wichtig ist die Wirkung des Rosenkreuzes auf die Seele und die in ihr schlummernden Fähigkeiten. Es würde keine der äußeren Welt entsprechende Abbildung so wirken können wie gerade dieses Bild in seiner Vieldeutigkeit und in seiner Unwirklichkeit. Wenn die Seele dieses Bild auf sich wirken lässt, dann schreitet sie immer weiter, und es wird ihr endlich möglich, in einer Vorstellungswelt zu leben, die zunächst freilich eine illusorische ist. Wenn aber die Seele genügend lange in Geduld und Energie in dieser Vorstellungswelt lebt, dann erlebt sie ein bedeutsames Ereignis. Es kommen ihr dann aus ihrer geistigen Umgebung die geistigen Tatsachen, die geistigen Wesenheiten entgegen, die sie sonst nicht einsehen kann. Und jetzt kann sie ganz genau unterscheiden die bloße Vorstellung, die Illusion, von der wahren, echten Wirklichkeit.

Gewiss, man darf kein Schwärmer werden, denn das ist gefährlich. Kein Phantast darf man werden, sondern man muss sich alle Nüchternheit und den festen Boden bewahren. Wenn man schwärmt, dann geht es einem schlecht, wenn die geistige Welt hereinbrechen soll. Erhält man sich aber bis dahin seine absolute Sicherheit in der Empfindung des Wirklichen, dann weiß man, wo hereinbrechen wird die geistige Tatsache, und man lebt sich hinauf zur geistigen Welt.

Sie werden es vielleicht schon geahnt haben aus dem, was ich gesagt habe, dass die Vorstellung über die geistige Welt eine ganz andere ist als die über die sinnliche Welt. Die geistige Welt kann für unmittelbare Anschauung nicht gegeben werden durch eindeutige Vorstellungen; und jeder, der da glaubt, das, was einem entgegentritt in der geistigen Welt, ebenso beschreiben zu können wie die sinnliche Welt, der kennt sie eben nicht. Man kann nur Bilder hinstellen, die aber verstanden werden müssen als Bilder. Wenn der Geistesforscher hineinblickt in die geistige Welt, dann sieht er das, was als geistige Urgründe dem Physischen zugrunde liegt. Und er sieht nicht nur, was in der Gegenwart zugrunde liegt, sondern auch, was in der Vergangenheit zugrunde gelegen hat. Eines zeigt sich ihm vor allem: dass der Mensch, der uns heute zunächst als physisches Wesen entgegentritt, nicht immer ein physisches Wesen war. Die äußere Naturwissenschaft kann uns nur an der Hand der physischen Tatsachen zurückführen zu dem, was der Mensch als physisches Wesen einmal war, und der Geistesforscher hat dagegen nichts einzuwenden. Aber das, was uns physisch entgegentritt, hat seinen Ursprung in einem Geistigen. Der Mensch war als ein geistiges Wesen früher da als irgendetwas anderes.

Als die Erde überhaupt noch nicht physisch war, befand sich der Mensch im Schoße göttlicher Wesenheiten. Geradeso wie sich das Eis aus dem Wasser heraus verfestigt, so hat sich der physische Mensch verfestigt aus dem geistigen Menschen. Die Geisteswissenschaft zeigt, dass das Physische mit dem Geistigen fortdauernd in Berührung steht. Aber alles das, was dem Physischen zugrunde liegt, kann nur in Bildern ausgedrückt werden, wenn wir überhaupt der physischen Vorstellung uns annähern wollen.

Was zeigt sich zum Beispiel, wenn der Mensch wieder die geistige Entwicklungsstufe erreicht hat, was stellt sich ihm dann dar? Dann findet er in gewisser Beziehung die biblischen Bilder wieder, wie sie im Sechs- oder Siebentagewerk gegeben sind. Dem Geistesforscher erscheinen die Bilder in der Tat so, wie sie uns im Sechs- oder Siebentagewerk gegeben werden. Diese Bilder entsprechen allerdings nicht einer physischen Beschreibung, aber der Forscher, der in die geistige Welt hineinschaut, sieht in einem hellseherischen Bewusstsein, wie der Schreiber der Genesis in den Bildern die Entstehung des Menschen aus dem Geistigen heraus gegeben hat. Und wunderbar, Stück für Stück stellt sich eine Kongruenz dar zwischen dem, was der Geistesforscher sieht, und dem, was uns als die biblischen Bilder entgegentritt. So unbefangen wie der Naturforscher an die physische Welt herangeht, so kann der Geistesforscher das verfolgen, was in der Bibel steht. Seine Weisheit sucht er nicht in der Bibel; er findet aber eine gewaltige Übereinstimmung mit den biblischen Bildern.

Nur eine solche Übereinstimmung will ich noch erwähnen. Es zeigt sich, wenn wir auf alte Zeiten zurückgehen, dass da andere geistige Wesenheiten hinter der Entwicklung des Menschen stehen als später von einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt ab.

Viele werden wissen, dass wir in dem heutigen Menschen ein Wesen haben, das aus vier Gliedern besteht. Er ist zusammengesetzt aus dem physischen Leib, dem Ätherleib, dem Astralleib — Träger von Lust und Leidenschaften und so weiter - und dem Ich, dem Träger des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins. Die drei niederen Glieder, der physische Leib, der Ätherleib und der Astralleib, waren lange vor dem Ich schon vorhanden. Das Ich ist am spätesten hineingegliedert worden in den Menschen. An diesen drei Gliedern haben geistige Wesenheiten mitgewirkt, die uns in der Bibel als Elohims bezeichnet werden. Und als nun das Ich begann, sich einzugliedern in die dreigliedrige Wesenheit, da wirkte eine andere Wesenheit aus der Geisteswelt mit; und wer tiefer in die Bibel eindringt, wird finden, dass diese geistige Wesenheit mit Recht als Jahve bezeichnet wird. Und aus inneren Gründen der Entwicklung selber sehen wir, wie an einem bestimmten Punkt der Darstellung anstelle des alten Gottesnamens der neue eingeführt wird. Wir sehen auch, wie es mit dem Ursprung des Menschen sich verhält, der auf zweifache Weise in der Bibel erzählt wird. Denn in der Tat ist der dreigliedrige Mensch aufgelöst gewesen im ganzen Weltall; er ist von Neuem geworden, und dann bildete sich im umgestalteten dreigliedrigen Menschen das Ich heraus.

Das also, was wie ein Riss liegt zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Kapitel der Genesis, was so viele falsche Deutungen erfahren hat, diese zweifache Darstellung von dem Ursprunge des Menschen, findet seine Erklärung durch das, was der Geistesforscher erforschen kann. Nur müssen wir die Bibel richtig verstehen, und das ist heute nicht ganz leicht. Durch die Geisteswissenschaft zeigt sich uns, wie sozusagen im Anfange vorhanden waren höhere geistige Wesenheiten. Die Nachkommen dieser Wesenheiten sind die Menschen; sie sind entsprungen aus dem Schoße göttlich-geistiger Wesen. Ebenso wie das Kind der Nachkomme der Eltern ist, so können wir auch von den Menschen als Nachkommen der Götter sprechen. Vom Standpunkt der Geisteswissenschaft müssen wir den Menschen da, wo er als einzelner Erdenmensch vor uns auftritt, als den Nachkommen göttlich-geistiger Wesenheiten ansehen.

Sagt uns die Bibel darüber etwas? Ja, wir müssen sie nur lesen können. Der vierte Satz des zweiten Kapitels lautet: «Dies ist die Entstehungsgeschichte des Himmels und der Erden, wie sie Gott geschaffen hat ...» und so weiter (1 Mos 2,4). Dieser Satz in deutscher Sprache ist irreführend; denn er sagt gar nicht das, was an dieser Stelle in der Bibel steht. In Wahrheit müsste man den Ursprungstext so übersetzen: «Dieses, was da folgt, was jetzt erzählt wird, sind die Nachkömmlinge des Himmels und der Erde, wie sie durch die göttliche Kraft hervorgebracht sind.» Und wenn da steht: «Im Urbeginne war Himmel und Erde» (1 Mos 1,1), so sind das göttlich-geistige Wesenheiten, deren Nachkomme der Mensch ist. Ganz sachgemäß schildert uns die Bibel, was unabhängig von ihr die Geistesforschung wiederfindet. Viele von denen, die heute gegen die Bibel kämpfen, richten sich gegen etwas, was sie in Wirklichkeit gar nicht kennen. Sie kämpfen gegen Windmühlen. Genau der theosophische Sinn steht gerade im vierten Satze.

Und so könnte man Stück für Stück durch das Alte und Neue Testament hindurch zeigen, wie der Mensch, wenn er durch seine eigenen Fähigkeiten in die geistigen Welten hinaufsteigt, seine eigenen Forschungsresultate in der Bibel wiederfindet.

Es würde heute zu weit führen, wollten wir das Neue Testament in ähnlicher Weise besprechen. In meinem Buche «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache» ist unter anderem das Lazaruswunder in seiner wahren Gestalt dargestellt. Wie heute solche Dinge behandelt werden, können sie uns niemals in ihrer wirklichen Bedeutung entgegentreten, denn die heutigen Bibelexegeten können natürlich nur das finden, was mit ihrem eigenen Wissen im Einklange steht. Ihr Wissen geht aber nicht über die sinnliche Erkenntnis hinaus, daher die vielen sich widersprechenden Deutungen und Auslegungen der einzelnen Bibelstellen. Der berufene Ausleger der Bibel kann nur derjenige sein, der dieselben Wahrheiten, die die Bibel enthält, erst unabhängig von ihr zu gewinnen vermag. Denken Sie, dass es ein altes Buch gibt, die Geometrie des Euklid. Wer von Geometrie etwas versteht, kann das Buch lesen. Aber Sie werden sich jedenfalls nur auf den verlassen, der heute Geometrie gelernt hat. Wenn ein solcher dann an Euklid herantritt, wird er dessen Lehre als wahr anerkennen. So ist auch der nicht maßgebend, der mit philologischem Sinn an die Bibel herantritt, sondern nur der, der aus sich allein die Weisheit zu schöpfen vermag.

So dürfen wir sagen, dass, wer heute eindringen kann in die geistige Welt, wem der Einfluss der geistigen Welt zugänglich ist, dass der die Bibel versteht. Ihm tritt aus der Bibel die Gewissheit entgegen, dass sie von Eingeweihten, von Inspirierten verfasst worden ist, und derjenige, der heute in die geistige Welt einzudringen vermag, der versteht die großen Schreiber der Bibel. Der weiß, dass es wirkliche Eingeweihte, Erweckte sind, die ihre Erfahrung aus der geistigen Welt heraus geschrieben haben; und wer das erkennen kann, der erkennt auch, was sie hineingeheimnisst haben.

Ich möchte hier eine Erfahrung erwähnen, die ich selbst machen konnte in Bezug auf etwas anderes. Als ich beim Goethe-Archiv in Weimar beschäftigt war und eine bestimmte Arbeit vorgelegt bekam, da war ich bemüht, rein äußerlich etwas zu zeigen. Sie kennen alle den schönen Prosahymnus «An die Natur»: «Natur, wie sind von ihr umgeben und umschlungen ...» und so weiter. Es ist mit schönen Worten darin beschrieben, dass alles, was die Natur bietet, sie durch die Liebe bietet, dass ihre Krone die Liebe ist. Dieser Aufsatz war selbst für Goethe eine Zeit lang verschollen, und als Goethe ein alter Mann war und der schriftliche Nachlass der Herzogin Amalie übergeben wurde, fand man diesen Aufsatz. Man fragte Goethe, und er sagte: Ja, ich erkenne meine Idee von damals wieder. — Es ist dann dieser Aufsatz als von Goethe verfasst angenommen worden, bis besondere Haarspalter ihn nicht mehr gelten lassen wollten und ihn jemand anders zuschrieben. Ich war dabei zu erforschen, wie es sich mit diesem Aufsatze verhält. Es hatte sich herausgestellt bei mir, dass damals Goethe einen jungen Mann an der Hand hatte, der Tobler hieß und der ein sehr gutes Gedächtnis besaß. Goethe hatte bei seinen Spaziergängen seine Idee entwickelt, und jener Tobler hatte sie in sich aufgenommen; und weil er eben ein vorzügliches Gedächtnis hatte, sie nachher fast ganz wörtlich aufgeschrieben. Ich versuchte nachzuweisen, wie man aus diesem Aufsatz heraus vieles, was sich später in den Goethe’schen Ideen findet, verstehen kann. Es handelte sich also im vorliegenden Fall darum, dass die Feder zu diesem Aufsatz einer geführt hatte, der nicht Goethe war; aber die Idee selbst in ihrer Wendung und Fügung, die war von Goethe. Und das versuchte ich nachzuweisen. Nachher, als meine Arbeit erschienen war, kam ein Mann zu mir, ein berühmter Goetheforscher, der sagte: Ach, man muss Ihnen dankbar sein, dass Sie nun Licht in die Sache gebracht haben; denn jetzt wissen wir, dass dieser Aufsatz — von Tobler ist! — Wie komisch mir zu Mute war, können Sie sich wohl denken.

So stellen die sich dar, die beweisen wollen, dass im Laufe der Zeiträume dieser oder jener Teil der Bibel von diesem oder jenem geschrieben worden ist. Das ist den Leuten das Wichtigste, wer die Dinge zuletzt niedergeschrieben hat, und nicht, aus wessen Geist sie geflossen sind. Uns kommt es aber darauf an, wie so etwas wie die Bibel entstanden sein kann aus dem Geiste derjenigen heraus, die hineingeschaut haben in die geistige Welt und sie erlebt haben.

Und nun wollen wir einmal untersuchen, ob es in der Bibel selbst etwas gibt, was uns gerade diese Auffassung nahelegt. Über das Alte Testament lässt sich viel streiten, denn da haben sich die Tatsachen verdunkelt. Aber dem, der nicht streiten will, dem wird klar sein, dass uns die bedeutsame Tatsache von dem Eindringen des Ich in des Menschen ganze Natur und Wesenheit entgegentritt und sachgemäß geschildert wird. Wer vom geisteswissenschaftlichen Standpunkt die Berufung des Moses am brennenden Dornbusch liest, der wird erkennen können, wie da in Wirklichkeit die Erhebung des Moses zur Geisteswelt zugrunde liegt. Als Gott dem Moses im brennenden Dornbusch erscheint, fragt Moses: «Was soll ich dem Volke sagen, wer hat mich geschickt?» Gott sprach: «Sage, der da ist, habe dich geschickt, der da sagen kann: Ich bin.» (2 Mos 3,13-14) Und wenn wir die ganze Eingliederung des Ich Stück für Stück verfolgen, dann leuchtet uns aus der Bibel erwas entgegen, was wir unabhängig von der Bibel in der Geisteswissenschaft finden.

Aber noch etwas anderes wird gezeigt; es wird gezeigt, dass es einfach durch den christlichen Standpunkt ausgeschlossen sein sollte, die Bibel wie ein anderes historisches Dokument zu betrachten. Wenn wir die Gestalt des Paulus betrachten, so können wir vieles aus einer solchen Betrachtung lernen, was uns zu dieser Erkenntnis führen kann. Wenn wir die erste Ausbreitung des Christentums in der Form, von der die späteren Gestalten des Christentums sind, studieren wollen, da finden wir bei Paulus noch gar nicht die Erzählungen, die uns in den Evangelien entgegentreten, sondern etwas ganz anderes. Was bewirkt bei Paulus den Impuls? Wodurch ist dieser einzigartige Apostel zu seiner Erkenntnis des Christus gekommen? Einzig und allein durch das Ereignis von Damaskus, nicht durch sinnliche, sondern durch übersinnliche Tatsachen. Was war es denn, was der Lehre des Paulus zugrunde liegt? Die Erkenntnis, dass Christus, trotzdem er gekreuzigt worden ist, lebt! Das Ereignis von Damaskus zeigt, dass Christus ein Lebendiger ist und dem erscheinen kann, der sich zu ihm hinaufhebt, und dass es eine geistige Welt gibt. Und er parallelisiert die Erscheinung des Christus für sich ganz und gar mit der Erscheinung für die anderen. Er sagt: «Zuerst ist er dem Kephas erschienen, dann den Zwölfen, dann fünfhundert Brüdern auf einmal, dem Jakobus und den Aposteln allen, dann zuletzt endlich mir als einer Frühgeburt.» (1 Kor 15,5-8) Sonderbar, dass Paulus als Frühgeburt angeführt wird. Gerade dies zeigt aber den intimen Eingeweihten, wie Paulus als vollendeter Sachkenner der Geisteswissenschaft spricht. Er erwähnt, dass er eine Frühgeburt ist; und man erfährt daraus, dass seine Erleuchtung auf diese Tatsache zurückzuführen ist. Ich will auf die Deutung nur hinweisen. Er will damit sagen, dass er dadurch, dass er als Frühgeburt geboren ist, weniger in die Materie verwickelt ist. Darauf führt er seine Erleuchtung zurück. Er zeigt, dass er eigentlich sein Christentum auf diese übersinnliche Tatsache basiert, und dass es Überzeugung ist, die er aus unmittelbarer Anschauung gewonnen hat: Der Christus lebt und ist da.

Die erste Ausbreitung des Christentums beruht auf übersinnlichen Tatsachen. Wir könnten nachweisen, dass das, was im Johannesevangelium enthalten ist, auf übersinnlichen Eindrücken beruht, die der Schreiber des Johannesevangeliums als Mitteilung seiner eigenen Erfahrung gibt. Und dann, wenn wir wissen, dass das Christentum ursprünglich geglaubt werden konnte aufgrund von übersinnlichen Erfahrungen, und dass diese Erfahrungen gegeben sind von solchen, die hineinschauen konnten in die geistigen Welten, dann, verehrte Anwesende, werden wir nicht mehr glauben können, dass man denselben Maßstab an die Bibel legen kann wie an andere äußere Urkunden.

Wer die Evangelien prüft wie andere Urkunden, der prüft ein Dokument, dessen inneren Inhalt er gar nicht ermessen kann. Wer durch den Inhalt des Neuen Testamentes hineinsieht in die Erfahrung der Schreiber der Evangelien, der wird zurückgeführt in die geistige Welt und auf diejenigen Persönlichkeiten, die ihre Erkenntnis, ihre Weisheit aus der geistigen Welt herausgeschöpft und uns wiedergegeben haben.

Betrachten Sie diejenigen, von denen die Evangelien herrühren, in einer gewissen Weise als Eingeweihte, als Erweckte, und nehmen Sie in Betracht, dass man in verschiedenem Grade erweckt sein kann. Stellen Sie sich einmal vor, dass verschiedene Personen die Landschaft von einem Berge aus schildern; der eine steht unten, der andere in der Mitte, und der dritte am Gipfel des Berges. Da werden diese Menschen die Landschaft verschieden schildern, je nach ihrem Standpunkte. So sieht der Geistesforscher die vier Evangelien an. In verschiedenen Graden Eingeweihte waren die Schreiber der vier Evangelien. Man kann verstehen, dass sich äußerlich dies oder jenes widerspricht, wie sich in der Beschreibung der Landschaft am Berge manches widersprechen würde. Das Johannesevangelium ist das tiefste. Über das, was sich im Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung in Palästina abgespielt hat, war der Schreiber des Johannesevangeliums am tiefsten eingeweiht, weil er vom Gipfel des Berges aus geschildert hat.

So werden von der Geisteswissenschaft die Evangelien völlig erklärt, so wird auch gezeigt, wie die scheinbaren Widersprüche in der Genesis, im Beginn des Alten Testamentes, in nichts zerfließen. So bringt uns die unmittelbare Anschauung der geistigen Welt erst wiederum zur Erkenntnis der Bibel, dieses wundervollen Dokuments. Ja, wer sich einlässt in diese Geistesforschung, der wird finden, dass es vier Standpunkte gegenüber dieser Bibel gibt: Der erste ist der des naiv Gläubigen, der ihr glaubt und nicht nach rechts oder links schaut. Der zweite ist der der gescheiten Leute, die entweder auf dem Boden der historischen Forschung, der Bibelzergliederung oder der Naturwissenschaft stehen. Die sagen: Wir können die Bibel nicht als ein einheitliches Dokument anerkennen. Und ein solcher, der einsieht, dass die Naturwissenschaft der Bibel widerspricht, der wird dann ein sogenannter Freidenker oder Freigeist. Er ist in den meisten Fällen ein ehrlicher ernster Wahrheitsstreber. Man kommt dann aber über den Standpunkt der gescheiten Leute hinaus. Manche Freidenker haben zuerst den Standpunkt vertreten, dass die Bibel einer kindlichen Stufe der Menschenentwicklung entspricht und vor der Wissenschaft nicht bestehen kann. Nach einer Weile aber sind sie darauf gekommen, dass doch manches, was in der Bibel dargestellt ist, bildlich gemeint sein muss. Und das stellte sich nun dar, als wenn es eine Umkleidung wäre von Erlebnissen. Das ist der Standpunkt der Symboliker, der dritte Standpunkt. Da herrscht die reine Willkür, da herrscht die Ansicht, dass die Bibel symbolisch aufzufassen ist.

Der vierte Standpunkt ist der der Geisteswissenschaft. Da gibt es keine Vieldeutigkeit mehr; da gibt es in gewisser Beziehung das Wörtlichnehmen von dem, was in der Bibel gesagt ist. Wir werden wieder zurückgeführt zur Bibel, um sie im wahren Sinn zu verstehen. Das ist eine wichtige Aufgabe der Geisteswissenschaft, die Bibel in ihrer wahren Gestalt wiederherzustellen. Das wird ein glücklicher Tag sein, wo man in einer neuen Sprache hört, was in der Bibel ursprünglich steht, und wie verschieden das sein wird von dem, was heute gesagt wird.

Wir können von Satz zu Satz gehen und wir würden sehen, dass diese Bibel wirklich uns in allen ihren Teilen zeigt, dass sie zu den Eingeweihten spricht als ein Dokument von Eingeweihten, dass sie spricht von Erweckten zu Erweckten. Ja, wir werden durch die Geistesforschung von der Bibel nicht entfernt. Derjenige, der durch die Geistesforschung an die Bibel herantritt, der erlebt Folgendes. Er sagt sich: Einzelnes leuchtet mir auf, was ich früher bezweifelt habe, weil ich es nicht verstanden habe, und es zeigt sich, dass an ihm die Schuld lag, wenn er es nicht begreifen konnte. Jetzt aber versteht er das, was er früher nicht verstanden hatte; nun arbeitet er sich allmählich zu dem demütigen Standpunkt durch: Einiges verstehe ich und sehe den tiefen Inhalt ein; anderes dagegen erscheint mir unglaublich. Da ich jedoch früher verschiedenes nicht verstanden habe, was mir jetzt klar ist, so werde ich wohl später auch noch finden, dass auch dort ein tiefer Gehalt darinnen ist. - Und dann wird man das, was einem aufleuchtet, dankbar hinnehmen, und das, was man noch nicht erklären kann, der Zukunft überlassen.

Und die Bibel wird in Zukunft erst ihre volle Tiefe enthüllen, wenn die Geistesforschung, von allerlei Überlieferung frei, selbst in die geistigen Tatsachen eintritt; dann wird sie dem Menschen zeigen, was alles in dieser Bibel enthalten ist. Und dann wird sie uns nicht unbedeutend erscheinen; denn dann werden wir brüderlich vereint fühlen, was durch diejenigen, die die Bibel verfasst haben, in die geistige Kultur hineingeströmt ist. Wir können auch in unserer Zeit wieder erforschen durch die Einweihung das, was in den geistigen Welten lebt. Wir sehen zurück in die Vergangenheit und fühlen uns eins mit den Vorgängern, indem wir zeigen, wie Stück für Stück mitgeteilt ist von dem, was in den geistigen Welten enthalten ist. Wir können versprechen, dass die Bibel wiederum sich zeigen wird als das tiefste Dokument der Menschheit, als tiefster Quell unserer Kultur. Der geisteswissenschaftliche Standpunkt wird das alles wiedergeben können. Und wenn heute mancher, der nicht nach links und rechts schaut, sagt: Ach, die Bibel braucht nicht in so komplizierter Weise ausgelegt zu werden, gerade die Einfalt ist recht —, dann wird man einstmals erkennen, dass die Bibel, wenn man sie auch nicht versteht, wohl durch ihren geheimnisvollen Gehalt auf jedes Herz wirken muss, dass sie aber nicht nur die Einfalt verstehen kann, sondern dass keine Weisheit ausreicht, um die Bibel vollständig zu verstehen. Nicht nur für die Einfältigen, sondern auch für die Weisesten der Weisen ist die Bibel ein tiefes Dokument. Und so wird die Weisheit, wenn sie geistig unabhängig erforscht wird, zur Bibel zurückführen. Die Geisteswissenschaft wird aber der Menschheit zu allem Übrigen, was sie bringen soll, auch das bringen, was wir zusammenfassen können in die Worte: Durch die Theosophie oder Geisteswissenschaft wird eintreten eine Wiedereroberung der Bibel.

43. The Bible and Wisdom

There is no doubt that the Bible is the most influential document, at least for our Western culture; for we can say that through this document, over thousands of years, the soul of human beings has been given a structure that reaches into their innermost being, into their emotional and feeling life, and into their impulses of will. This is more important than its influence on our thoughts and imagination. We can say that everything we encounter in our spiritual life, whether on religious ground or on the ground of exact science, is influenced, at least in some way, by the effects of the Bible. And even those people who today believe they must fight against the Bible, who even take the radical standpoint of rejection, even they, to those who look more deeply into the facts, appear to be influenced by this Bible itself in the very reasons they put forward against it. To such an extent, however, the influence of this document is generally not recognized, and perhaps least of all today; but for the unprejudiced observer, it is indeed present. The attitude of modern thought, feeling, and perception toward the Bible has changed greatly over a long period of time from what prevailed in this area.

The appreciation of the Bible, the way in which individuals who are sincere today relate to it, all this has changed significantly in the course of the nineteenth century. And we must not underestimate the viewpoint of a large part of today's thinking humanity, which believes that it must stand firmly on the ground of science. There are others in our population today who stand firmly on the ground of the Bible, who draw all their deepest convictions from this meaningful document, and who would prefer not to look right or left when the appreciation of the Bible is discussed. They say: Let others think what they will; we find everything our soul needs in the teachings of this Bible; we are fulfilled and satisfied by what the Bible gives us.

Well, dear friends, this point of view, however justified it may be for the individual, is in a certain sense quite selfish and by no means harmless to spiritual development; for what has become common knowledge among people at a certain time, let us say general belief and general conviction, always originated with a few. And so it could well happen that the few who today believe they must fight the Bible because they want to base their worldview on their science will cause a stream of conviction to spread further and further, becoming a general conviction in the not-too-distant future. And that is why it is not without danger to carelessly pass by such intellectual currents, not to look to the right or to the left, because one is satisfied with oneself. Those who are sincere about the development of humanity should rather consider it a duty to concern themselves with what honest seekers of truth have to object to the Bible and how things stand with this Bible.

It has been said that the position taken by people, especially the leaders of spiritual life, toward the Bible has changed. We will only hint at this change today. If we were to look back to past times, we would find cultures in which people, precisely when they were at the highest peak of their spiritual life, did not doubt in the least that the highest wisdom flowed from the Bible; and that those from whom the Bible originated were not average people who brought human errors into the Bible, but were under higher inspiration, that they put wisdom into this Bible. And it was a sacred feeling of recognition that was present especially in those who were at the peak of spiritual life.

This has changed in more recent times. In the eighteenth century, we find a French researcher who pointed out that there are certain contradictions in the Old Testament. He noticed that the two accounts of the creation story at the beginning of the Bible contradict each other; one describes the six or seven days of creation and, within that, the creation of man, and the other starts again from the beginning, as it were, and tells how man came into being in a completely different way.

But what particularly puzzled this researcher was that two names for God appear at the beginning of the Bible, first the name Elohim in the account of the six days of creation, and then later the name Yahweh. You can sense an echo of this in the German Bible. As you know, in the German Bible, the name of God is translated as “Herr” (Lord) or ‘Gott’ (God), and Yahweh is translated as “Gott, der Herr” (God, the Lord) or something similar. In any case, you can perceive the difference. I just want to mention that, after noticing this, researchers said to themselves: Something must have happened that cannot possibly be presented as if a single person, be it Moses or someone else, wrote this Bible; various accounts must have been merged. And after much consideration, it was concluded that all the accounts that were available and that corresponded to the various traditions were simply welded together. One account was combined with another, and all the contradictions that were present were simply left as they were; that is what they said.

From there, dear attendees, came this research, which could be called a shredding, a dismemberment of the Bible. And today there are even Bibles in which the most diverse details are traced back to different traditions. In the so-called Rainbow Bibles, for example, it is shown how a certain passage that has been secretly inserted into the overall report originates from a completely different legendary tradition, so that this Bible is supposed to have been welded together from fragments of tradition. Researchers continued to proceed in this manner with the Old Testament, and then something similar occurred with the New Testament; how could it remain hidden that the four Gospels, when compared letter by letter, do not agree! You will easily find that there are contradictions in the Gospels of Matthew, John, and Luke. People said: How could the individual evangelists have written under a higher influence if the accounts do not even agree with each other!

In particular, certain researchers, especially in the nineteenth century, stripped the Gospel of John, the most profound writing of Christianity, of its dignity as a historical document. More and more people came to the conclusion that it was nothing more than a kind of hymn written by someone who was guided not by historical tradition but by his faith. What he had written, they said, could in no way claim to be a true account of what actually happened in Palestine at the beginning of our era. Thus, the New Testament was also torn to pieces. The Old and New Testaments were treated like any other historical documents, and it was said that they were based on prejudices and errors.

Thus, the New Testament was also torn to pieces. The Old and New Testaments were treated like any other historical documents, and it was said that prejudices and errors had crept into them and that, above all, purely historical external research was needed to show how the pieces had been gradually pieced together.

If we try to clarify the position that historical theological research has increasingly taken, we must also point out those who believe that they must stand firm on the ground of scientific facts and who, in their honest recognition, say: What geology, biology, and the branches of natural science teach us blatantly contradicts what the Bible tells us. When we hear how the earth and living creatures developed, this work of days seems like a legend, like a myth that arises among primitive peoples and through which they sought to explain the creation of the earth in a childlike way. And just as far as they have distanced themselves from the Old Testament, they have also distanced themselves from the New Testament. Those who believe they must stand firm on the ground of scientific facts want nothing to do with all the wonderful deeds that Christ is said to have performed, or with the way in which this unique personality is placed at the center of our history; and they radically oppose the very principles of the Bible.

So we see that, on the one hand, the Bible is being torn apart by historical theological research and, on the other hand, it is being set aside by scientific research. As I said, this may only characterize the point of view of a few today; but if no one wanted to care about it and simply insisted, “I believe what is written in the Bible!” — that would be selfishness. They would only think of themselves and not of the fact that future generations might have as a general conviction what is only the conviction of a few today.

Now we can ask ourselves the question: Is there perhaps another point of view besides the two we have just characterized? In fact, there is another, and it is precisely this other point of view that we want to consider today. It is the one represented by spiritual science or theosophy. If we want to understand this point of view, the best way to do so is first of all through comparisons. The perspective of theosophy offers something similar to the Bible today as the great achievements of scientific research did three or four centuries ago. We want to build on what Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo accomplished.

Today we build on what has been achieved by such personalities as those just mentioned. But when we look back at how people previously related to nature, we find that in the educational institutions of earlier times, a book or a collection of books was regarded in much the same way as the Bible is regarded by many today. Aristotle, the ancient Greek researcher, who not only achieved a great deal in the field of natural science, was regarded throughout the early and later Middle Ages as a comprehensive authority in the broadest sense; wherever nature was taught, Aristotle's books formed the basis. Not only in the narrower field of philosophical observation of nature, but also in the field of specific scientific views, Aristotle's authoritative writings formed the basis everywhere. It was not customary to look at nature with one's own eyes; there was no question of tools, apparatus, or other means. Even in Galileo's time, something symptomatic took place, which has been handed down in a kind of anecdote.

One of those who stood so firmly on Aristotle's ground was pointed out by a colleague in his field that some of Aristotle's ideas were not correct; for example, Aristotle believed that the nerves originated in the heart, but this contradicted the actual facts. He was then taken to a corpse, where he was shown that this did not correspond to the facts. And this follower of Aristotle said: Yes, when I look at it, it seems to contradict itself; but even if nature shows me this, I still believe Aristotle. There were many who believed more in tradition and the authority of Aristotle than in their own eyes.

Today, the view of nature and Aristotle has changed. Today, it would be ridiculous to draw what one wanted to know about nature from old books. Today, researchers stand before nature with their tools and seek to explore its secrets so that they become common knowledge among the population. However, the fact is that those who, in Galileo's time, understood Aristotle in the same way as the researcher mentioned earlier, did not understand Aristotle at all. Aristotle meant something different, something much more spiritual with the nerves than what we understand today. That is why we cannot do justice to Aristotle, who saw for his time, until we look at nature freely and impartially.

That was the great change that took place three or four centuries ago. We are experiencing a similar shift in relation to spiritual science with regard to what spiritual facts are, what the spiritual origins of existence are.

For centuries, countless people regarded the Bible as the only book that could provide information about everything that went beyond the tangible and physically visible. The Bible was the authority on the spiritual world, just as Aristotle was the authority on the physical world in the Middle Ages. What has enabled us today to take a more balanced view of Aristotle? The fact that we now have a more open-minded attitude toward the physical world!

And that is what theosophy should give to modern man: the opportunity to obtain direct knowledge of the invisible world, just as centuries ago the modern era began to obtain direct knowledge of the visible world. Spiritual science emphasizes that there is a possibility for human beings to look into the spiritual world, to perceive it, that they are not dependent on traditions, but that it is possible to look into it themselves. This is what true spiritual science should achieve for modern humanity through various means: to convince them that there are dormant powers and abilities within human beings, that there are great moments in human life when these spiritual abilities awaken, as in the case of the man born blind who, after undergoing an operation, awakens the ability to see colors and light. To use Goethe's words: The spiritual ears and spiritual eyes awaken. And then the human soul can perceive in its surroundings what is otherwise closed to it. It is possible to awaken the abilities that lie dormant in the soul; it is possible for human beings to gain an instrument with which to look into the spiritual origins, just as they look into the physical world today with physical instruments. We have many instruments for the physical world, and there is one instrument for the spiritual world: the transformed human being themselves.

For the most important thing is that spiritual science takes seriously and honestly the word that is on many people's lips like a magic word: the word “development.” Today, it is easy to see how the imperfect is developing more and more; this development is eagerly followed in the external natural sciences, to which theosophy does not wish to offer the slightest contradiction, provided that it remains on the ground of scientific facts. But Theosophy takes this word “development” in its fullest sense, taking it so seriously that it points to the abilities that lie within the human soul, through which we can perceive the spiritual world. In this realm, spiritual beings are the foundation of the physical world, and humans only need the organs to perceive them.

I must emphasize again and again that there can be only a few today who are capable of transforming their souls in this way. To research the spiritual world, to explore the facts and beings of the spiritual world, requires a highly developed soul with open spiritual eyes. But once the facts of the higher world have been revealed, all that is needed to understand what the spiritual researcher tells us is common sense, free from all the prejudices of human intellect and human logic. It is not right to say: What use is it to us if spiritual research tells us this or that, if we cannot see it for ourselves? —- How many people can form an idea of Haeckel's research and follow it? Just as it is with such research in the sensory realm, where what is clear to reason enters into consciousness, so it is with what the spiritual researcher has to say, what he researches and explores in the supersensible world. What is recognized as the supersensible world through direct observation, through the human powers of cognition themselves, should pass into general consciousness through the theosophical worldview.

On the one hand, we have the old Bible, which in its own way presents us with the mysteries of the supersensible world and its connection with the sensory world, and on the other hand, we have what the researcher directly experiences about this supersensible world through spiritual science. Is this not a very similar point of view to that which confronts us at the dawn of modern science?

Now the question arises: What does spiritual science have to say that could lead us to an understanding of biblical truths? Here we must go into detail. Above all, we must show that when human beings awaken their abilities through the means handed down by spiritual science, they see into the spiritual world and develop a higher, initially imaginative, knowledge as opposed to objective knowledge.

What is imaginative knowledge? This does not refer to the vague ecstasy that is easily associated with this word, nor to somnambulism or similar things, but is based on a strict methodology through which human beings must awaken these abilities. Let us start from external knowledge in order to bring what has been described as imaginative knowledge closer to understanding.

What is characteristic of external object cognition? For example, you perceive a table; afterwards, when you no longer see the table, you are left with an idea; this is a kind of after-effect. First you have the object and then the mental image. There are philosophical systems that claim that everything is just imagination. That is wrong. Take the idea of red-hot steel or iron; the idea will not burn you, but when you are confronted with reality, you will experience something else. That is the characteristic feature of object knowledge: first the object is there, and then the idea forms in us. Exactly the opposite must happen to the person who wants to ascend into the higher world. They must first have the opportunity to transform their world of ideas so that the idea can precede perception. This happens through meditation and concentration, that is, by immersing our soul in certain ideas that do not correspond to any external reality.

Consider how much of what lives in your soul depends on the fact that you were born on a certain day in a certain city. Suppose you had not been born on that day and in that city, and try to think what other experiences would then live in your soul, what would flow through you from morning to night. In other words, realize how much of the content of your soul depends on your environment, and then leave out everything that stimulates you from outside. Try to think how much would then remain in your soul. Everything that flows into your soul from the external world must be thoroughly discarded day after day, and for a time, your soul must be filled with ideas that are not stimulated in any way from outside, that do not reflect an external fact or event.

If you are seriously seeking the path, spiritual science provides you with a whole range of ideas, which I would like to talk about, for example. I want to show you how, through certain ideas, the soul can be gradually led up into the higher worlds. We regard these ideas as the letters of the alphabet. In spiritual science, there are not just 22 to 27 letters, but hundreds and hundreds through which the soul learns to read in the spiritual world. A simple example: let us take the well-known Rosicrucians, in their simplest form, the black cross adorned with seven red roses. It has very special effects when the soul immerses itself completely in the image of this Rosicrucians for fifteen minutes, excluding all external stimuli.

In order to gain some insight into what happens in the soul, let us delve into the meaning of the Rosicrucians with our intellect. This is not the most important thing, but let us leave it there so that you can see that it can at least be outlined. I will express it in the form of a dialogue between teacher and student.

The teacher says to the student: Look at the plant that stands with its roots in the ground and grows up to the flower. Compare it with the human being standing before you, how he is organized. Compare the more perfect human being with the imperfect plant. The human being has self-awareness, he has within himself what we call an ego. But in order to have this higher quality within himself, he has had to accept something that constitutes his lower nature, the sensual passions. Let us look at the plant; it has no self-awareness. It does not have an ego within itself. But in return, this plant is not yet afflicted with passions, drives, and instincts. Chaste and pure, it presents itself to the eye in its green beauty. Look at how the chlorophyll juice circulates in the plant, and see how the blood pulses in humans. There, in the blood, is expressed what is inherent in humans in terms of instincts and passions. In return, they have gained self-awareness. Now look not only at the human being of the present, but look in your mind to a distant future human being, to what humans can become in the distant future. He will continue to develop, he will overcome, purify, and cleanse his desires and passions, and he will attain a higher self-awareness, so that in your mind you can see a human being who has in turn attained the pure chastity of plant nature. But because they have reached a higher level, their self-awareness lives in pure chastity. Their blood will be purified, as chaste and pure as the sap of plants. Look at how the red rose blossom is the model of what blood should one day become. There you have the model of the higher human being. In the Rosicrucians, you have the most beautiful paraphrase of Goethe's saying: “Whoever does not have this dying and becoming remains a gloomy guest on this dark earth.” “Dying and becoming” — what does it mean? It means that human beings have the potential to grow beyond themselves. That which dies, which is overcome, is symbolized by the black cross, which today represents sensual desires. The pure, chaste flower, the rose blossom, is symbolic of blood. The red roses and the black cross represent the inner call to rise above oneself.

This intellectual explanation is not the main thing; it is only there so that we can understand something like this. What is important in such meditation is that we immerse ourselves in this symbol, that it stands before us as an image. And if someone comes and says: Yes, you are talking about the Rosicrucians, but that is not real and does not correspond to reality, then the reply must be: It is not important that you learn something about the outer world through the Rosicrucians, but what is important is the effect of the Rosicrucians on the soul and the abilities that lie dormant within it. No image corresponding to the outer world could have the same effect as this image in its ambiguity and unreality. When the soul allows this image to work on it, it progresses further and further, and it finally becomes possible for it to live in a world of imagination, which is, of course, illusory at first. But if the soul lives long enough in this imaginary world with patience and energy, it experiences a significant event. Spiritual facts and spiritual beings that it cannot otherwise perceive come to meet it from its spiritual environment. And now it can distinguish very clearly between mere imagination, illusion, and true, genuine reality.

Of course, one must not become enthusiastic, for that is dangerous. One must not become a fantasist, but must remain completely sober and keep one's feet firmly on the ground. If one becomes enthusiastic, one will suffer when the spiritual world breaks in. But if you maintain your absolute certainty in the perception of the real until then, you will know where the spiritual reality will break in, and you will live your way up to the spiritual world.

You may have already guessed from what I have said that the idea of the spiritual world is quite different from that of the sensory world. The spiritual world cannot be given for immediate observation through clear ideas; and anyone who believes that what one encounters in the spiritual world can be described in the same way as the sensory world does not know it. One can only present images, but these must be understood as images. When the spiritual researcher looks into the spiritual world, he sees what lies at the basis of the physical as spiritual foundations. And he sees not only what lies at the basis of the present, but also what lay at the basis of the past. One thing above all becomes clear to him: that the human being who first appears to us today as a physical being was not always a physical being. External science can only lead us back to what human beings once were as physical beings on the basis of physical facts, and the spiritual researcher has no objection to this. But what we encounter physically has its origin in the spiritual. Human beings existed as spiritual beings before anything else.

When the earth was not yet physical, human beings were in the bosom of divine beings. Just as ice solidifies out of water, so the physical human being solidified out of the spiritual human being. Spiritual science shows that the physical is in constant contact with the spiritual. But everything that underlies the physical can only be expressed in images if we want to approach the physical concept at all.

What appears, for example, when human beings have reached the spiritual stage of development again? What presents itself to them? Then they rediscover, in a certain sense, the biblical images as they are given in the six or seven days of creation. To the spiritual researcher, the images indeed appear as they are given to us in the six or seven days of creation. These images do not correspond to a physical description, but the researcher who looks into the spiritual world sees in clairvoyant consciousness how the writer of Genesis has given the creation of man out of the spiritual in images. And wonderfully, piece by piece, a congruence emerges between what the spiritual researcher sees and what we encounter as the biblical images. Just as the natural scientist approaches the physical world with an open mind, so the spiritual researcher can pursue what is written in the Bible. He does not seek his wisdom in the Bible, but he finds a tremendous correspondence with the biblical images.

I would like to mention just one such correspondence. When we go back to ancient times, we see that different spiritual beings were behind the development of human beings than those who were involved from a certain point in time onwards.

Many will know that in today's human being we have a being that consists of four members. It is composed of the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body — the bearer of desires and passions and so on — and the I, the bearer of human self-consciousness. The three lower members, the physical body, the etheric body, and the astral body, existed long before the ego. The ego was the last to be incorporated into the human being. Spiritual beings, referred to in the Bible as Elohim, were involved in the formation of these three members. And when the I began to integrate itself into the threefold being, another being from the spiritual world was involved; and anyone who delves deeper into the Bible will find that this spiritual being is rightly called Yahweh. And for inner reasons of development itself, we see how at a certain point in the narrative the new name is introduced in place of the old name of God. We also see how this relates to the origin of man, which is recounted in two ways in the Bible. For in fact, the threefold human being was dissolved in the entire universe; he became new, and then the I formed in the transformed threefold human being.

So what appears to be a break between the first and second chapters of Genesis, which has been subject to so many misinterpretations, this twofold account of the origin of human beings, finds its explanation in what spiritual researchers can discover. But we must understand the Bible correctly, and that is not entirely easy today. Spiritual science shows us how, in the beginning, so to speak, there were higher spiritual beings. The descendants of these beings are human beings; they sprang from the womb of divine-spiritual beings. Just as a child is the descendant of its parents, so we can also speak of human beings as the descendants of the gods. From the standpoint of spiritual science, we must regard human beings, when they appear before us as individual earthly human beings, as the descendants of divine spiritual beings.

Does the Bible tell us anything about this? Yes, we just have to be able to read it. The fourth sentence of the second chapter reads: “This is the story of the creation of heaven and earth, as God created them...” and so on (Genesis 2:4). This sentence in English is misleading, because it does not say what is actually written in the Bible at this point. In truth, the original text should be translated as follows: “What follows, what is now being told, are the descendants of heaven and earth as brought forth by divine power.” And when it says, “In the beginning there was heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1), these are divine spiritual beings whose descendants are human beings. The Bible describes to us in a very factual way what spiritual research independently discovers. Many of those who fight against the Bible today are directing their attacks against something they do not really know. They are fighting against windmills. The fourth sentence expresses precisely this theosophical meaning.

And so, piece by piece, one could show throughout the Old and New Testaments how human beings, when they ascend into the spiritual worlds through their own abilities, find their own research results reflected in the Bible.

It would go too far today to discuss the New Testament in a similar way. In my book Christianity as Mystical Fact, among other things, the miracle of Lazarus is presented in its true form. The way such things are treated today can never reveal their real meaning to us, because today's Bible exegetes can of course only find what is in harmony with their own knowledge. However, their knowledge does not go beyond sensory perception, hence the many contradictory interpretations and explanations of individual passages in the Bible. The only person qualified to interpret the Bible is someone who is able to arrive at the same truths contained in the Bible independently of it. Consider an ancient book, Euclid's geometry. Anyone who understands geometry can read the book. But you will only rely on someone who has studied geometry today. When such a person approaches Euclid, they will recognize his teachings as true. Similarly, it is not those who approach the Bible with a philological sense who are authoritative, but only those who are able to draw wisdom from within themselves.

So we can say that those who can penetrate the spiritual world today, those who are accessible to the influence of the spiritual world, understand the Bible. The Bible gives them the certainty that it was written by initiates, by inspired people, and those who are able to penetrate the spiritual world today understand the great writers of the Bible. They know that these are truly initiated, awakened individuals who have written about their experiences from the spiritual world; and those who can recognize this also recognize what they have revealed in it.

I would like to mention here an experience I had myself in relation to something else. When I was working at the Goethe Archive in Weimar and was given a certain task, I was eager to show something purely external. You all know the beautiful prose hymn “To Nature”: “Nature, how we are surrounded and embraced by her...” and so on. It is described in beautiful words that everything nature offers, it offers through love, that its crown is love. This essay was lost even to Goethe for a time, and when Goethe was an old man and the written estate of Duchess Amalie was handed over, this essay was found. Goethe was asked about it, and he said: Yes, I recognize my idea from back then. This essay was then accepted as having been written by Goethe until particular hair-splitters no longer wanted to accept it and attributed it to someone else. I was in the process of researching the status of this essay. I had discovered that Goethe had a young man at his side at the time named Tobler, who had a very good memory. Goethe had developed his idea during his walks, and Tobler had absorbed it; and because he had such an excellent memory, he wrote it down almost word for word afterwards. I tried to prove how much of what later appears in Goethe's ideas can be understood from this essay. So in this case, the pen that wrote this essay was not Goethe's, but the idea itself, in its form and arrangement, was Goethe's. And that is what I tried to prove. After my work was published, a man came to me, a famous Goethe scholar, and said: "Oh, we must be grateful to you for shedding light on the matter; for now we know that this essay is by Tobler!" You can well imagine how strange I felt.

This is how those who want to prove that, over the course of time, this or that part of the Bible was written by this or that person present themselves. The most important thing for people is who wrote things down in the end, and not whose spirit they flowed from. But what matters to us is how something like the Bible could have come into being from the spirit of those who looked into the spiritual world and experienced it.

And now let us examine whether there is anything in the Bible itself that suggests this view to us. Much can be argued about the Old Testament, because the facts have become obscured there. But to those who do not want to argue, it will be clear that the significant fact of the ego's penetration into the whole nature and essence of man is presented to us and described appropriately. Anyone who reads the story of Moses' calling at the burning bush from a spiritual scientific point of view will be able to recognize how Moses' elevation to the spiritual world is actually the basis of this story. When God appears to Moses in the burning bush, Moses asks, “What shall I say to the people who sent me?” God said, “Say, ‘He who is there has sent you, he who can say, 'I am.’” (Exodus 3:13-14) And when we follow the entire integration of the ego piece by piece, something shines out to us from the Bible that we find independently of the Bible in spiritual science.

But something else is also shown; it is shown that, from a Christian point of view, it should simply be out of the question to regard the Bible as just another historical document. If we consider the figure of Paul, we can learn a great deal from such a consideration that can lead us to this realization. If we want to study the early spread of Christianity in the form that later figures of Christianity took, we do not find in Paul the stories that we encounter in the Gospels, but something quite different. What was the impulse behind Paul? How did this unique apostle come to his knowledge of Christ? Solely through the event at Damascus, not through sensory but through supersensory facts. What was it that formed the basis of Paul's teaching? The realization that Christ, despite having been crucified, lives! The event at Damascus shows that Christ is alive and can appear to those who lift themselves up to him, and that there is a spiritual world. And he draws a parallel between the appearance of Christ to himself and the appearance to others. He says: “First he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred brethren at once, to James and all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me as to one born out of due time.” (1 Cor 15:5-8) It is strange that Paul is referred to as a premature birth. But this shows the intimate initiate how Paul speaks as a consummate expert in spiritual science. He mentions that he is a premature birth, and we learn from this that his enlightenment is due to this fact. I just want to point out the interpretation. He means that because he was born prematurely, he is less involved in material things. He attributes his enlightenment to this. He shows that his Christianity is actually based on this supersensible fact and that it is a conviction he has gained from direct observation: Christ lives and is here.

The initial spread of Christianity is based on supersensible facts. We could prove that what is contained in the Gospel of John is based on supersensible impressions that the writer of the Gospel of John gives as a communication of his own experience. And then, when we know that Christianity could originally be believed on the basis of supersensible experiences, and that these experiences were given by those who could look into the spiritual worlds, then, dear friends, we will no longer be able to believe that the same standards can be applied to the Bible as to other external documents.

Those who examine the Gospels like other documents are examining a document whose inner content they cannot even begin to comprehend. Those who look through the content of the New Testament into the experience of the writers of the Gospels are led back to the spiritual world and to those personalities who drew their knowledge and wisdom from the spiritual world and passed it on to us.

Consider those from whom the Gospels originate as initiates, as awakened beings, and take into account that one can be awakened to varying degrees. Imagine that different people are describing the landscape from a mountain; one stands at the bottom, another in the middle, and the third at the summit of the mountain. These people will describe the landscape differently, depending on their point of view. This is how the spiritual researcher views the four Gospels. The writers of the four Gospels were initiates to varying degrees. It is understandable that there may be external contradictions, just as there would be contradictions in the descriptions of the landscape on the mountain. The Gospel of John is the most profound. The writer of the Gospel of John was most deeply initiated into what took place in Palestine at the beginning of our era, because he described it from the summit of the mountain.

Thus, spiritual science explains the Gospels completely and shows how the apparent contradictions in Genesis, at the beginning of the Old Testament, melt away into nothing. Thus, the direct view of the spiritual world brings us back to an understanding of the Bible, this wonderful document. Yes, anyone who engages in this spiritual research will find that there are four points of view regarding the Bible: The first is that of the naive believer who believes in it and does not look to the right or left. The second is that of intelligent people who stand either on the ground of historical research, biblical analysis, or natural science. They say: We cannot recognize the Bible as a uniform document. And someone who realizes that natural science contradicts the Bible then becomes a so-called freethinker or free spirit. In most cases, he is an honest, serious seeker of truth. But then one goes beyond the viewpoint of intelligent people. Some free thinkers initially took the position that the Bible corresponds to a childish stage of human development and cannot stand up to science. After a while, however, they came to realize that some of what is presented in the Bible must be meant figuratively. And this now appeared to be a kind of cloak for experiences. This is the position of the symbolists, the third position. Pure arbitrariness prevails here, as does the view that the Bible should be understood symbolically.

The fourth point of view is that of spiritual science. Here there is no longer any ambiguity; in a certain sense, what is said in the Bible is taken literally. We are led back to the Bible in order to understand it in its true sense. It is an important task of spiritual science to restore the Bible to its true form. It will be a happy day when we hear in a new language what is originally written in the Bible, and how different that will be from what is said today.

We can go from sentence to sentence and we would see that this Bible really shows us in all its parts that it speaks to the initiated as a document of the initiated, that it speaks from the awakened to the awakened. Yes, we are not removed from the Bible by spiritual research. Those who approach the Bible through spiritual research experience the following. They say to themselves: Individual things that I previously doubted because I did not understand them now become clear to me, and it becomes apparent that it was their own fault that they could not comprehend them. But now they understand what they did not understand before; now they gradually work their way to the humble position: I understand some things and see their deep meaning; other things, on the other hand, seem incredible to me. However, since I did not understand various things before that are now clear to me, I will probably find later that there is also a deep meaning in them. - And then we will gratefully accept what becomes clear to us and leave what we cannot yet explain to the future.

And the Bible will only reveal its full depth in the future when spiritual research, free from all kinds of tradition, enters into spiritual facts itself; then it will show people everything that is contained in this Bible. And then it will not seem insignificant to us; for then we will feel united in brotherhood with what has flowed into spiritual culture through those who wrote the Bible. In our time, too, we can once again explore through initiation what lives in the spiritual worlds. We look back into the past and feel united with our predecessors by showing how, piece by piece, what is contained in the spiritual worlds is communicated. We can promise that the Bible will once again reveal itself as the deepest document of humanity, as the deepest source of our culture. The spiritual scientific point of view will be able to reflect all this. And when today some who do not look left and right say: Oh, the Bible does not need to be interpreted in such a complicated way, simplicity is enough — then one day it will be recognized that even if one does not understand the Bible, its mysterious content must have an effect on every heart, but that not only simplicity can understand it, but that no wisdom is sufficient to understand the Bible completely. The Bible is a profound document not only for the simple-minded, but also for the wisest of the wise. And so, when wisdom is explored independently in a spiritual way, it will lead back to the Bible. But spiritual science will bring humanity, in addition to everything else it is supposed to bring, what we can summarize in the words: Through theosophy or spiritual science, a reconquest of the Bible will take place.