The Rudolf Steiner Archive

43. The Bible and Wisdom

[ 1 ] There is no doubt that the Bible is, at least for our Western culture, the most influential document; for we may say that, through this document, over the course of millennia, the human soul has been shaped right down to its innermost essence, right down to its life of sensation and feeling, and right down to the impulses of the will. This is more important than its influence on our intellectual and imaginative life. We may say: Everything we encounter in our spiritual life—whether on religious grounds or in the realm of exact science—is, at least in some way, influenced by the effects of the Bible. And even those people who today believe they must oppose the Bible—who even hold a radical stance of rejection—even they appear, to those who look more deeply at the facts, to be influenced by the Bible itself, even in the very arguments they put forward against it. To this extent, however, the influence of this document is generally not recognized—and perhaps least of all today; but for the unbiased observer, it is indeed present. The attitude of modern thought, feeling, and sensibility toward the Bible has long since changed significantly from what previously prevailed in this area.

[ 2 ] The regard in which the Bible is held—the way in which individuals who are sincere today relate to it—all of this has changed quite significantly over the course of the nineteenth century. And we must not in any way underestimate the viewpoint of a large portion of today’s thinking humanity, who believe they 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 significant document, and who would prefer not to look left or right when the value of the Bible is being discussed. They say: Let the others think as they will; we find in the teachings of this Bible everything our souls need; we are fulfilled and satisfied by what the Bible gives us.

[ 3 ] Well, ladies and gentlemen, 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 call it general belief and general conviction—originated, as a rule, with only a few. And so it could well happen that from the few who today believe they must oppose the Bible—because they wish to base their worldview on their science—the currents of conviction will flow farther and farther afield, becoming a general conviction in the not-too-distant future. And that is why it is not without danger to pass by such intellectual currents carelessly, without looking to the right or to the left, simply because one is satisfied with oneself. For anyone who is sincere about the development of humanity, it should rather seem a duty to concern oneself with what honest seekers of truth object to in the Bible and with the nature of this very Bible itself.

[ 4 ] It has been said that the attitude people—namely, the leaders of spiritual life—have toward the Bible has changed. We will merely touch on this change today. If we were to look back to times past, we would find cultures in which people, precisely when they were at the very pinnacle of their spiritual life, did not doubt in the least that supreme wisdom flows from the Bible; and that those from whom the Bible originates were not ordinary people who introduced human errors into the Bible, but were under higher inspiration, so that they imbued the Bible with wisdom. And it was a sacred sense of reverence that was present precisely among those who stood at the pinnacle of spiritual life.

[ 5 ] This has changed in more recent times. In the eighteenth century, a French scholar demonstrated that there are certain contradictions in the Old Testament. He noted that the two accounts of the creation story, which appear right at the beginning of the Bible, contradict each other: one describes the six- or seven-day creation—including the creation of humankind—while the other, as it were, starts over from the beginning and tells how humankind came into being in an entirely different way.

[ 6 ] One thing in particular, however, gave this researcher pause: the fact that two different names for God appear at the beginning of the Bible—first, where the six-day creation is described, the name “Elohim,” and then later, the name “Yahweh.” You may sense an echo of this in the German Bible. As you know, in the German Bible, God’s name is rendered as “Herr” or “Gott,” and Yahweh is translated as “Gott, der Herr” or something similar. In any case, you can perceive the difference. I just want to mention that once researchers had noticed this, they said to themselves: Something must have happened here that cannot possibly be presented as if a single person—be it Moses or someone else—had written this Bible; various accounts must have been compiled together. - And after much deliberation, it was concluded that all the accounts that existed—which corresponded to the various traditions—had simply been welded together. One account was merged with another, and any contradictions that existed were simply left as they were; that’s what they concluded.

[ 7 ] From there, ladies and gentlemen, this line of research emerged—one that could be called a dissection, a fragmentation of the Bible. And today there are even Bibles in which the most diverse details are traced back to various traditions. In the so-called “Rainbow Bibles,” it is presented, for example, that a particular passage—which has been woven into the overall narrative—originates from an entirely different legendary tradition, suggesting that this Bible has been pieced together from fragments of tradition. Scholars continued to apply this approach to the Old Testament, and then something similar occurred with the New Testament; after all, how could it remain hidden that the four Gospels, when compared word for word, do not agree! You will easily discover that contradictions arise in the Gospels of Matthew, John, and Luke. People asked: How could each evangelist have written it under a higher influence if the accounts do not even agree with one another!

[ 8 ] In particular, however, certain scholars—especially in the nineteenth century—stripped the Gospel of John, this most profound of Christian writings, of its status as a historical document. More and more, people came to the conviction that it was nothing more than a kind of hymn, written by someone not on the basis of historical tradition but on the basis of his faith. By no means, it was said, could what he had written lay claim to being a true account of what actually took place in Palestine at the beginning of our era.

[ 9 ] The New Testament, too, was torn to pieces. People treated the Old and New Testaments as if they were just any other historical documents, telling themselves that prejudices and errors had crept into them and that, above all, purely historical, external research was needed to show how the fragments had been pieced together over time.

[ 10 ] As we try to clarify the position that historical theological research has increasingly adopted, we must also point out those who believe they must stand firmly on the ground of scientific facts and who, in their honest assessment, say: What geology, biology, and the branches of natural science teach us stands in stark contradiction to what the Bible recounts. When the story is told of how the earth and living beings developed, this account appears like a legend, like a myth of the sort found among primitive peoples, through which they sought to explain the origin of the earth in a childlike manner. And just as far as we have strayed from the Old Testament, so too have we strayed from the New. Those who believe they must stand firmly on the ground of scientific facts want nothing to do with all the miraculous deeds that Christ is said to have performed, or with the way this unique personality is placed at the center of our history; and they radically oppose the very principles of the Bible.

[ 11 ] Thus we see that, on the one hand, historical-theological research tears the Bible apart, and on the other hand, scientific research sets it aside. As I said, this may currently characterize only the viewpoint of a few; but if no one were willing to concern themselves with this and simply insisted, “I believe what is written in the Bible!”—that would be selfishness. Such a person would be thinking only of themselves and not of the fact that future generations might hold as a general conviction what is today the conviction of only a few.

[ 12 ] Now we can ask ourselves: Is there perhaps another perspective besides the two we have just described? In fact, there is another, and it is precisely this other perspective that we wish to consider today. It is the one advocated by spiritual science, or theosophy. If we wish to understand this perspective, the best way to begin is through comparisons. For our time, theosophy offers something similar to what the great achievements of scientific research did three to four centuries ago in relation to the Bible. Let us build on the achievements of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo.

[ 13 ] Today we build upon what has been achieved by figures such 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—held a status very similar to that of the Bible for many people today. Aristotle, the ancient Greek scholar who made significant contributions not only in the field of natural science, was regarded throughout the early and later Middle Ages, to the greatest extent, as a comprehensive authority; wherever nature was taught, Aristotle’s books served as the foundation. Not only in the narrower realm of philosophical observation of nature, but also in areas involving specific scientific views, Aristotle’s authoritative writings served as the foundation everywhere. It was not customary to observe nature with one’s own eyes; there was no mention of tools, instruments, or other means. Even in Galileo’s time, a telling incident took place, which has been handed down in the form of an anecdote.

[ 14 ] One of those who stood so firmly on Aristotelian ground was pointed out by a colleague in his field that some of Aristotle’s ideas were incorrect; for example, Aristotle held the view that the nerves originated in the heart, but this contradicted the actual facts. He was then taken to a cadaver, where it was indeed shown to him that this did not correspond to the facts. And then this follower of Aristotle said: “Yes, when I look at this, it does seem to contradict itself; but even if nature shows me this, I still believe Aristotle.” Thus, there were many who trusted the tradition and the authority of Aristotle more than their own eyes.

[ 15 ] Today, our perspective on nature and Aristotle has changed. Today, it would be ridiculous to draw what we want to know about nature from old books. Today, researchers stand before nature with their tools, seeking to uncover its secrets so that they may become the common property of the people. The fact is, however, that those who, in Galileo’s time, interpreted Aristotle in the same way as the researcher mentioned earlier had not understood Aristotle at all. Aristotle meant something different—something far more intellectual—by “nerves” than what we understand by the term today. That is why we cannot do justice to Aristotle, who saw things from the perspective of his time, until we direct our gaze toward nature freely and without prejudice.

[ 16 ] That was the great turning point that took place three to four centuries ago. We are now experiencing a similar turning point in the field of spiritual science with regard to what spiritual realities are and what the spiritual foundations of existence are.

[ 17 ] For centuries, countless people regarded the Bible as the only book that could provide insight into anything 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 to view Aristotle more fairly today? The fact that we now approach the physical world with a more open mind!

[ 18 ] And that is what Theosophy is meant to offer modern humanity: the opportunity to gain direct insight into the invisible world, just as modern times began centuries ago to gain direct insight into the visible world. Spiritual science emphasizes that there is a way for human beings to look into the spiritual world and perceive it, that they are not dependent on tradition, but that it is possible to look into it for themselves. This is what true spiritual science, through various means, is meant to offer modern humanity: to instill in people the conviction that there are latent powers and abilities within them, and that there are significant moments in human life when these spiritual abilities awaken—just as, for example, in the case of a person born blind who, following surgery, gains 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 would otherwise remain hidden from it. The awakening of the abilities lying dormant in the soul is possible; it is possible for a person to gain an instrument with which to look into the spiritual depths, just as today we use physical instruments to look into the physical world. We have all manner of instruments for the physical world; for the spiritual world, there is one instrument: the transformed human being himself.

[ 19 ] For the most important thing is that, in spiritual science, the word that is on many people’s lips like a magic word—the word “development”—is taken honestly and seriously. Today it is easy to see how the imperfect is constantly evolving; this development is diligently pursued in the external natural sciences, to which Theosophy does not wish to offer the slightest objection, provided it remains grounded in scientific facts. But theosophy takes this word “development” in its full meaning; it takes it so seriously that it points to the faculties lying within the human soul through which one can perceive the spiritual world. In this realm, spiritual beings are the primal foundations of the physical world, and human beings need only the organs to perceive them.

[ 20 ] 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 explore the spiritual world, to investigate the facts and beings of the spiritual world, one needs 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 describes is sound common sense, free from all prejudice of human intellect and human logic. It is not correct to say: What good does it do us if this or that is communicated to us through spiritual research, if we cannot look into it ourselves? —- How many people, after all, can form a conception of Haeckel’s research and follow it? Just as it is with such research in the sensory realm—where what is evident to reason enters into consciousness—so it is with what the spiritual researcher has to say, what he investigates and explores in the supersensible world. That which is recognized as the supersensible world through direct perception, through the human powers of cognition themselves, is to be brought into general consciousness through the theosophical worldview.

[ 21 ] On the one hand, we have the ancient Bible, which in its own way reveals to us the mysteries of the supersensible world and its connection to the sensory world; and on the other hand, through spiritual science, we have what the researcher directly experiences regarding this supersensible world. Isn’t this a perspective quite similar to the one we encounter at the dawn of modern natural science?

[ 22 ] This raises the question: 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 a person awakens their faculties through the methods handed down by spiritual science, they gain insight into the spiritual world and develop a higher form of knowledge—initially an imaginative one—as opposed to objective knowledge.

[ 23 ] What is this: imaginative knowledge? This does not refer to that vague ecstasy that one easily associates with this term, nor to somnambulism or similar phenomena, but rather it is based on a rigorous methodology through which a person must awaken these abilities within themselves. Let us begin with external cognition in order to help the reader understand what is meant by “imaginative cognition.”

[ 24 ] What, then, is the defining characteristic of external object knowledge? Take, for example, your perception of a table; even after you can no longer see the table, an idea remains with you—a kind of afterimage. First you have the object, and then the mental image. There are philosophical systems that claim that everything is merely a mental image. That is false. Take the mental image of glowing steel or iron; the mental image will not burn you; but when you are confronted with reality, you will experience something else. That is the defining characteristic of the perception of objects: first the object is there, and then the mental image forms within us. Exactly the opposite must take place in the person who wishes to ascend into the higher world. He must first be able to transform his world of imagination in such a way that the mental image can precede perception. This occurs through meditation and concentration—that is, by immersing our soul in certain mental images that do not correspond to any external reality.

[ 25 ] Just consider how much of what lives within 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 or in that city, and try to imagine what other experiences would then be alive in your soul, what would then flow through you from morning to night. In other words: Realize how much of the content of your soul depends on your surroundings, and then set aside everything that is stimulated in you from the outside. Try to imagine how much would then remain within your soul. Everything that flows into your soul in the form of ideas about the external world must be thoroughly cast out day after day; and in its place, ideas must live within your soul for a time that are not stimulated in any way by the outside world—ideas that do not reflect an external fact or an external event.

[ 26 ] If you are earnestly seeking the path, spiritual science provides you with a whole range of concepts, which I would like to discuss, for example. I want to show you how, through certain concepts, the soul can be gradually guided up into the higher worlds. We regard these concepts as the letters of the alphabet. In spiritual science, there are not merely 22 to 27 letters, but hundreds upon hundreds through which the soul learns to read in the spiritual world. A simple example: Let us take the well-known Rose Cross, specifically in its 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 Rose Cross for fifteen minutes, excluding all external distractions.

[ 27 ] To gain some insight into what is happening in the soul, let us rationally delve into the meaning of the Rosicrucian symbol. This is not the most important aspect of the matter; but so that you may see that it can at least be outlined in broad strokes, let this be stated. I will present this in the form of a dialogue between a teacher and a student.

[ 28 ] The teacher says to the student: Look at the plant, whose root is in the ground and which grows upward toward the flower. Compare it to the person standing before you—how he is organized. Compare the more perfect human being to the imperfect plant. Human beings have self-awareness; they possess within themselves what we call an “I.” But in order to have this higher aspect within them, they have had to accept something that constitutes their lower nature: the sensual passions. Let’s look at the plant—it has no self-awareness. It does not possess an “I” within itself. But in return, this plant is not yet burdened with passions, drives, and instincts. Chaste and pure, it presents itself to the eye in all its green beauty. Look at how the chlorophyll sap circulates within the plant, and see how the blood pulses within the human being. There, in the blood, is expressed what is unique to human beings in terms of instincts and passions. In exchange for this, they have attained their self-awareness. Now do not merely look at the human being of the present, but gaze in your mind’s eye upon a human being of the distant future—upon what the human being can become in a distant future. He will continue to develop; he will overcome, purify, and refine his desires and passions, and he will attain a higher self-awareness, so that in spirit you can behold a human being who has, in turn, attained the pure chastity of plant nature. But because he has reached a higher level, his self-awareness lives in pure chastity. His blood will be purified, as chaste and pure as plant sap. Look at how the red rose blossom is the model of what the blood is once to become. There you have the model of the higher human being. In the Rose Cross, you then have the most beautiful interpretation of Goethe’s saying: “Whoever does not possess this—this ‘die and become’—remains a gloomy guest on this dark earth.” “Die and become”—what does it mean? It means that within the human being lies the possibility of transcending oneself. That which dies, that which is overcome—this is what the black cross signifies; it represents what today is the expression of one’s sensual desires. The pure, chaste plant blossom—the rose blossom—is meant to symbolize the blood. The red roses and the black cross represent the inner call to transcend oneself.

[ 29 ] This rational explanation is not the main point; it is merely there so that we can understand such things. What matters in such a meditation is that one immerses oneself in this symbol, that it stands before us as an image. And if someone comes along and says, “Yes, you’re talking about the Rose Cross, but that’s not something real and doesn’t correspond to any reality,” then one must reply: What matters is not that you learn something about the outer world through the Rose Cross, but rather the effect the Rose Cross has on the soul and the abilities lying dormant within it. No representation corresponding to the external world could have the same effect as this very image, with its ambiguity and its unreality. When the soul allows this image to take effect upon it, it progresses further and further, and it finally becomes possible for it to live in a world of imagination—which, admittedly, is at first an illusory one. But if the soul lives in this world of imagination long enough, with patience and energy, it will experience a significant event. Then, from its spiritual surroundings, it will encounter spiritual facts and spiritual beings that it cannot otherwise perceive. And now it can distinguish very clearly between mere imagination—illusion—and true, genuine reality.

[ 30 ] Certainly, one must not become a dreamer, for that is dangerous. One must not become a dreamer, but must retain all sobriety and a firm footing. If one becomes carried away, one will suffer when the spiritual world breaks in. But if one maintains, until then, absolute certainty in the perception of reality, then one knows where the spiritual reality will break in, and one lives one’s way up to the spiritual world.

[ 31 ] You may already have surmised from what I have said that our conception of the spiritual world is quite different from that of the sensory world. The spiritual world cannot be presented for direct perception through unambiguous concepts; and anyone who believes they can describe what they encounter in the spiritual world in the same way as the physical world simply 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 as spiritual foundations underlying the physical world. And he sees not only what underlies the present, but also what has underlain the past. One thing becomes clear to him above all: that the human being who appears to us today primarily as a physical being was not always a physical being. External natural science can only lead us back, on the basis of physical facts, to what the human being once was as a physical being, and the spiritual researcher has no objection to this. But what we encounter physically has its origin in the spiritual. The human being, as a spiritual being, existed earlier than anything else.

[ 32 ] When the Earth was not yet physical at all, human beings were in the bosom of divine beings. Just as ice solidifies from water, so did the physical human being solidify from 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 are to approach the physical concept at all.

[ 33 ] What, for example, becomes apparent when a person has once again reached that stage of spiritual development—what is revealed to them then? Then, in a certain sense, they rediscover the biblical images as they are presented in the account of the six or seven days of creation. To the spiritual researcher, these images do indeed appear just as they are presented to us in the account of the six- or seven-day creation. These images do not, however, correspond to a physical description; but the researcher who looks into the spiritual world sees, through clairvoyant consciousness, how the writer of Genesis portrayed in these images the emergence of humankind from the spiritual realm. And wonderfully, bit by bit, 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 too can the spiritual researcher explore what is written in the Bible. He does not seek his wisdom in the Bible; rather, he finds a remarkable correspondence with the biblical images.

[ 34 ] I would like to mention just one more such correspondence. If we look back to ancient times, it becomes apparent that different spiritual beings were behind human development than those who were involved from a certain point onward.

[ 35 ] Many will know that modern human beings are beings composed of four parts. They consist of the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body—the bearer of desires, 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—already existed long before the “I.” The “I” was the last to be integrated into the human being. Spiritual beings, referred to in the Bible as the Elohim, were active 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 referred to as Yahweh. And for internal reasons of development itself, we see how, at a certain point in the narrative, the new name of God is introduced in place of the old one. We also see how the origin of humankind is described in two different ways in the Bible. For in fact, the threefold human being had been dissolved into the entire universe; it was made anew, and then the “I” emerged within the transformed threefold human being.

[ 36 ] That which lies like a rift between the first and second chapters of Genesis—that which has been subject to so many misinterpretations—this dual account of the origin of humankind finds its explanation in what the spiritual researcher can uncover. We must, however, understand the Bible correctly, and that is not entirely easy today. Spiritual science reveals to us how, so to speak, higher spiritual beings existed from the very beginning. 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 too can we 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.

[ 37 ] 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 account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, as God created them…” and so on (Genesis 2:4). This sentence in German is misleading; for it does not at all say what is written in this passage of the Bible. In truth, the original text should be translated as follows: “What follows here, what is now being told, are the descendants of heaven and earth, as they were brought forth by divine power.” And when it says, “In the beginning were heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1), these are divine-spiritual beings whose descendants are human beings. The Bible accurately describes to us what spiritual research has discovered independently of it. Many of those who fight against the Bible today are directing their opposition against something they do not actually know at all. They are fighting windmills. The very theosophical meaning is contained precisely in the fourth sentence.

[ 38 ] And so, step by step, throughout the Old and New Testaments, one could show how, when a person ascends into the spiritual worlds through his own abilities, he finds the results of his own research reflected in the Bible.

[ 39 ] It would take us too far afield today to discuss the New Testament in a similar manner. In my book Christianity as a Mystical Fact, the miracle of Lazarus, among other things, is presented in its true form. The way such things are treated today prevents us from ever encountering their true significance, for today’s biblical exegetes can, of course, only find what is in harmony with their own knowledge. Their knowledge, however, does not extend beyond sensory perception; hence the many contradictory interpretations and exegeses of individual biblical passages. The true interpreter of the Bible can only be someone who is first able to grasp the very truths contained in the Bible independently of the Bible itself. Consider that there is an ancient book: Euclid’s Elements. Anyone who understands geometry can read the book. But in any case, you will rely only on someone who has studied geometry today. When such a person then approaches Euclid, he will recognize his teachings as true. Likewise, the one who approaches the Bible with a philological sensibility is not authoritative; rather, only the one who is able to draw wisdom from within himself is so.

[ 40 ] Thus we may say that whoever is able to enter the spiritual world today—whose life is open to the influence of the spiritual world—understands the Bible. From the Bible, they gain the certainty that it was written by initiates, by those who were inspired; and whoever is able to enter the spiritual world today understands the great writers of the Bible. They know that these were true initiates and enlightened beings who wrote down their experiences drawn from the spiritual world; and whoever can recognize this also recognizes what they have encoded within it.

[ 41 ] I would like to mention here an experience I had myself in connection with something else. When I was working at the Goethe Archive in Weimar and was given a particular piece of work to review, I made an effort to focus purely on the external aspects. You are all familiar with the beautiful prose hymn “To Nature”: “Nature, how we are surrounded and embraced by her...” and so on. It describes in beautiful words that everything nature offers, she offers through love, that her crown is love. This essay had even been lost to Goethe for a time, and when Goethe was an old man and the Duchess Amalie’s written estate 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 certain nitpickers refused to accept it as such and attributed it to someone else. I was in the process of investigating the circumstances surrounding this essay. I had discovered that at the time, Goethe was accompanied by a young man named Tobler, who possessed a very good memory. Goethe had developed his idea during his walks, and this Tobler had absorbed it; and because he had such an excellent memory, he later wrote it down almost word for word. I attempted to demonstrate how much of what is later found in Goethe’s ideas can be understood from this essay. In this particular case, therefore, the pen that wrote this essay belonged to someone other than Goethe; but the idea itself, in its phrasing and structure, was Goethe’s. And that is what I sought to prove. Later, after my work had been published, a man came to me—a famous Goethe scholar—who 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 odd I felt.

[ 42 ] This is how those who seek to prove that, over the course of time, this or that part of the Bible was written by this or that person present themselves. For these people, the most important thing is who ultimately wrote these things down, not from whose spirit they flowed. For us, however, what matters 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.

[ 43 ] And now let us examine whether there is anything in the Bible itself that suggests precisely this view to us. There is much room for debate regarding the Old Testament, for the facts there have become obscure. But to those who do not wish to argue, it will be clear that we are confronted with—and that it is accurately described—the significant fact of the “I” penetrating the whole nature and being of the human being. Anyone who reads the account of Moses’s calling at the burning bush from the perspective of spiritual science will be able to recognize how, in reality, Moses’s ascent into the spiritual world underlies this event. When God appears to Moses in the burning bush, Moses asks, “What shall I say to the people? Who has sent me?” God said, “Say, ‘The One who is has sent you—the One who can say, “I am.”’” (Exodus 3:13–14) And when we trace the entire development of the “I” step by step, something shines forth from the Bible that we find in spiritual science independently of the Bible.

[ 44 ] But something else is also demonstrated: it is shown that the Christian perspective alone should preclude viewing the Bible as just another historical document. When we consider the figure of Paul, we can learn much from such an examination that can lead us to this realization. If we wish to study the early spread of Christianity in the form that shaped later Christian figures, we find in Paul not at all the narratives we encounter in the Gospels, but something entirely different. What was the driving force 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 realities. What, then, was the foundation of Paul’s teaching? The realization that Christ, even though he was crucified, lives! The event at Damascus shows that Christ is a living being who can appear to those who lift themselves up to him, and that a spiritual world exists. And he draws a complete parallel between Christ’s appearance to him personally and Christ’s appearance to others. He says: “First he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred brothers at once, to James, and to all the apostles, and finally to me as one born out of due time.” (1 Cor. 15:5–8) It is remarkable that Paul is described as a premature birth. Yet this very fact reveals to the closely initiated how Paul speaks as a consummate expert in spiritual science. He mentions that he was a premature birth; and from this we learn that his enlightenment is attributable to this fact. I will merely point out the interpretation. What he means is that, because he was born prematurely, he is less entangled in the material world. He attributes his enlightenment to this. He shows that his Christianity is actually based on this supersensory fact, and that it is a conviction he has gained from direct perception: Christ lives and is present.

[ 45 ] The early spread of Christianity was based on supernatural events. We could demonstrate that what is contained in the Gospel of John is based on supernatural impressions, which the author of the Gospel of John presents as an account 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 provided by those who were able to look into the spiritual worlds, then, ladies and gentlemen, we will no longer be able to believe that the same standard can be applied to the Bible as to other external documents.

[ 46 ] Anyone who examines the Gospels as one would other historical records is examining a document whose inner meaning they cannot possibly fathom. Anyone who, through the content of the New Testament, gains insight into the experience of the Gospel writers is led back into the spiritual world and to those individuals who drew their knowledge and wisdom from the spiritual world and passed it on to us.

[ 47 ] Consider those from whom the Gospels originate, in a certain sense, as initiates, as those who have been awakened, and bear in mind that one can be awakened to varying degrees. Imagine, for a moment, that different people are describing the landscape from a mountain; one stands at the foot, another in the middle, and the third at the summit. These people will describe the landscape differently, depending on their vantage point. 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, on the surface, certain details may seem to contradict one another, just as some aspects of the description of the landscape from the mountain would contradict each other. The Gospel of John is the most profound. The writer of the Gospel of John was the most deeply initiated regarding the events that took place in Palestine at the beginning of our era, because he described them from the summit of the mountain.

[ 48 ] In this way, spiritual science fully explains the Gospels; it also shows how the apparent contradictions in Genesis, at the beginning of the Old Testament, dissolve into nothing. Thus, it is the direct perception of the spiritual world that leads us back to an understanding of the Bible, this marvelous document. Indeed, anyone who engages in this spiritual research will find that there are four perspectives on the Bible: The first is that of the naive believer, who believes in it and looks neither to the right nor to the left. The second is that of the intelligent people who base their views either on historical research, biblical exegesis, or natural science. They say: We cannot accept the Bible as a coherent document. And anyone who realizes that natural science contradicts the Bible then becomes a so-called free thinker or free spirit. In most cases, such a person is an honest, serious seeker of truth. But one then goes beyond the standpoint of the intelligent people. Some free thinkers initially held the view that the Bible corresponds to a childlike stage of human development and cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. After a while, however, they came to realize that much of what is described in the Bible must be meant figuratively. And this now appeared to be a metaphorical representation of actual experiences. This is the viewpoint of the symbolists, the third viewpoint. Here, pure arbitrariness prevails, along with the view that the Bible must be interpreted symbolically.

[ 49 ] The fourth perspective is that of spiritual science. Here there is no longer any ambiguity; in a certain sense, it involves taking what is said in the Bible literally. We are led back to the Bible in order to understand it in its true sense. This 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 was originally written in the Bible—and how different that will be from what is said today.

[ 50 ] We can go through it sentence by sentence, and we would see that this Bible truly 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, spiritual research does not distance us from the Bible. Anyone who approaches the Bible through spiritual research experiences the following. He says to himself: Certain things are becoming clear to me that I used to doubt because I did not understand them, and it turns out that the fault lay with him if he could not grasp them. But now he understands what he did not understand before; now he is gradually working his way toward a humble perspective: “I understand some things and grasp their deep meaning; other things, however, seem unbelievable to me. But since I did not understand various things in the past that are now clear to me, I will probably discover later that there is a deeper meaning in those as well.” — And then one will gratefully accept what becomes clear, and leave what one cannot yet explain to the future.

[ 51 ] And in the future, the Bible will reveal its full depth only when spiritual research, free from all manner of tradition, enters into the spiritual realities itself; then it will show humankind everything that is contained in this Bible. And then it will not seem insignificant to us; for then we will feel fraternally united with what has flowed into spiritual culture through those who wrote the Bible. Even in our time, we can once again explore, through initiation, what lives in the spiritual worlds. We look back into the past and feel at one with our predecessors by demonstrating how, bit by bit, what is contained in the spiritual worlds has been communicated. We can promise that the Bible will once again reveal itself as humanity’s most profound document, as the deepest source of our culture. The spiritual-scientific perspective will be able to reflect all of this. And when today some who do not look to the left or right say: “Oh, the Bible doesn’t need to be interpreted in such a complicated way; simplicity is just right”—then one day people will recognize that even if one does not understand the Bible, its mysterious content must surely touch every heart; that not only can simplicity grasp it, but that no wisdom is sufficient to fully understand the Bible. The Bible is a profound text not only for the simple-hearted but also for the wisest of the wise. And so, when wisdom is explored with spiritual independence, it will lead back to the Bible. Spiritual science, however, will bring to humanity—in addition to everything else it is meant to provide—what we can summarize in these words: Through theosophy or spiritual science, a rediscovery of the Bible will take place.