The Rudolf Steiner Archive

44. Modern Biblical Research

[ 1 ] My dear Theosophical friends! The Theosophical Movement does not seek to establish a sect in the world; it does not seek to be a sectarian movement; it does not seek to found any new religious system; nor does it seek to bind anyone to specific dogmas or doctrines; nor does it even seek to induce anyone to believe in such doctrines. All the teachings we disseminate and advocate are merely a means to deepen life itself.

[ 2 ] There are, in fact, many misconceptions circulating about the Theosophical Movement. It is believed that Theosophy is a doctrine, a system of dogma, a philosophy, or a religion; and because of such views, some people believe that they will become estranged from their own worldview if they devote themselves to Theosophy. This is not the case, nor is it the intention of those who founded the Theosophical Movement. On the contrary, the Theosophical Movement is intended to be one that enables us to gain a full understanding of what we call science and religion in life—those into which we are born, depending on our circumstances, and which we recognize as our own. Just as we survey the phenomena of nature and come to understand them only through a deeper engagement with them, so too do we come to know the phenomena of human life only through a deepened engagement with them. The various religious systems, the various scientific systems, and also the various philosophical worldviews are phenomena of human spiritual life. They reveal their outer aspects to human beings. The Theosophical Movement seeks to lead people deeper into the essence of spiritual phenomena themselves. Therefore, no one should believe that they need to become estranged from their religious creed or scientific convictions if they become a Theosophist. Our Theosophical Society is also widespread in India, and the Indian Brahmins have found that the ancient depth of their own time-honored wisdom has been restored to them through the Theosophical Movement. At the Religious Congress in Chicago, the Indian Brahmin Chakravarti emphasized that his people, like other peoples, had fallen into superficiality and materialism, straying from the lofty spiritual worldview that originated with the ancient Rishis, and that, through immersion in these ancient wisdoms, the Theosophical Movement has taught the Indian people once again the infinite depth that is revealed when one understands the Hindu system or the Buddhist religious system in their true essence and not merely from the outside.

[ 3 ] Similarly, we can delve deeper and deeper into that vast worldview system known to us as the ancient Hebrew system, that of the ancient Jews. I would like to say that this wisdom is recorded for us in the Old Testament only in fragmented glimpses. Yet the Old Testament nevertheless reveals itself to those who delve into it with theosophical understanding as a wisdom of extraordinary depth.

[ 4 ] Above all, I would like to emphasize that Christianity—the Christian worldview itself—can also be deepened and fully understood through the theosophical method, through the theosophical way of life. This Christianity, which for centuries has been what has shown countless people the path to their highest goal; this Christianity, which even today remains for countless people what they seek in life and what comforts them in death—we certainly understand this Christianity as well when we come to know it as it is presented to us through the various means of the different churches. But, my dear Theosophical friends, Christianity is something into which one can delve and delve ever deeper, and every degree of such delving always brings us teachings of an infinitely deeper nature from within Christianity itself. There is no degree of delving that does not continually bring forth something new from the layers from which the greatest Christian wisdom

[ 5 ] springs forth. Thus, above all, no one needs to become estranged from their Christian faith when they become a theosophist. Today, for those who may have become disillusioned with Christianity due to modern science—due to contemporary scientific inquiry and also due to the criticism that theological scholarship itself has leveled at Christianity—today, the only way for them to understand Christian truths once again is through theosophy.

[ 6 ] If we look back at the Middle Ages—no one can bring the Middle Ages back—but if we examine it psychologically, rather than superficially as modern psychology does, then we will see what passed through the souls of people at that time, then we understand what current of spirituality flowed through people’s souls at that time; then we understand that they did not have Christian dogmas, but that they sensed, to a greater or lesser extent, what was expressed by the Christian mystics—they sensed something of the radiance of the Christ-being, as expressed in the saying by Angelus Silesius: “And even if Christ were born a thousand times in Bethlehem and not within you, you would be lost for all eternity.” — The same is true of Meister Eckhart when he insists that a person must have experienced the essence of Christ within themselves, for only then can they understand what the event in Palestine truly means.

[ 7 ] For centuries, people have found their emotional, intuitive, and spiritual guidance for experiencing the Christian essence primarily in the Gospel of John—the Gospel which we call the fourth, the Gospel that upholds—seemingly rigidly, by today’s standards—the fundamental Christian truth that the great Teacher who once walked in Palestine—Jesus Christ—was the true God-man, that in him the divine principle of our universe became flesh. Today, people criticize above all the “Word” at the beginning of the Gospel of John from the standpoint of so-called humanity. The enlightened person can scarcely make sense of the opening words of the Gospel of John. He does not know what it is supposed to mean: the Word—the Word that is at the same time God.

[ 8 ] Go where the leaders of humanity have been, and you will find that their greatest efforts were devoted to understanding and grasping what it means: “Christ has come into the world.” It was a longing of the seekers to understand what lies within these words. Then, in the times when it was accepted as a self-evident truth that a Christ had lived—that a Christ had been at work throughout the centuries—medieval theology also believed this, and theologians never even remotely entertained the thought of doubting the true nature of the real Jesus. They all strove to construct extensive scientific systems that contained the revealed truths, which were simply accepted as they were and as prescribed by the Church; they were content merely to interpret them.

[ 9 ] We have what is known as the era of Scholasticism and, in a somewhat different form, Mysticism. This was a time when it was firmly established that a Christian can only be a Christian by feeling connected—vividly connected—to Christ Jesus. Those who sought to attain the summit of the spirit strove to awaken Christ within themselves—his life and essence. They lived out Goethe’s profound saying, as it was understood in that era:

If the eye were not like the sun,
It could never behold the sun.
If God’s own power did not dwell within us,
How could the divine delight us?

[ 10 ] The mind’s eye must first be trained to find God in the external world. No one at that time would have considered himself qualified to say anything about the historical Jesus Christ without first understanding the nature of Christ and what Christology is. Just as no one today feels qualified to pass judgment on lightning and thunder without having studied physics, so too no one at that time felt qualified to pass judgment on Christology without having studied it.

[ 11 ] Then something else emerged that was linked to the name of the Rosicrucians. This movement is similar to theosophy. It sought to understand the various religions—but Christianity in particular—at a deep level. These Rosicrucians differ from us in that we step forward publicly before the people and share with them what we ourselves have learned, whereas the Rosicrucians worked in secret. But what they sought to achieve was to make Christology understandable to people. They were deeply convinced and knew that these manifestations can only be grasped by those who have experienced the essence of Christ Jesus within themselves.

[ 12 ] I would like to highlight one aspect of the Rosicrucian movement. Every Rosicrucian had those who wished to become disciples practice one thing above all else: He required of the outsider disciple—who still had to remain in the outer court for a long time, and who thus first sought to approach the teachings found within the Rosicrucian sanctuary—he required, and urged, that they internalize the Gospel of John beginning with Chapter 13. This was regarded as a fundamental principle of this occult training. And the one who had developed within the Rosicrucian movement—who strove to grasp everything written there—will experience something that not everyone can experience when, in the sense of what we call “meditation,” he immerses himself in the Gospel of John. They experience a wealth of occult forces, so that anyone who places themselves under the influence of these passages undergoes a metamorphosis. They experience within themselves a reenactment of the mystery that Jesus exemplified for us. You can relive the life of Jesus point by point—from the washing of the feet to the crucifixion and resurrection—through the Gospel of John—not through the words themselves, but through the occult forces hidden within them.

[ 13 ] Just as one cannot explain something through theory alone, the Rosicrucians could not simply lecture anyone on it. They let their students experience it for themselves. And there were quite a few such students in the nineteenth century who experienced actual stigmata on their own bodies.

[ 14 ] Then came a moment when they knew that these things were more than abstract symbols, that they were truly to be taken literally. Until one has come to this realization within oneself, one does not know at all what is written in this Gospel; one does not know at all what is hidden within it. Thus, those who sought to lead their students to Christianity through occult means attempted to do so through the Gospel of John. But at the same time, they were convinced that a gifted person—that is, one who has developed the corresponding power—is capable, when speaking, of unleashing forces within their congregation, even if the congregation itself was unaware of it. This was the basis of public preaching. In the churches of the Middle Ages, people still understood something of this occult aspect. But even in more recent times, people still recognized a magical power, an occult power, in the Gospel of John. It was not without reason that Luther made the Gospel of John his favorite Gospel. He knew what it meant, even though he and his friends were not all occultists. But every person experienced a purification that led them to an understanding when they lived with a chapter, seeking to live through it sentence by sentence, lingering not for days but for weeks and months on a single verse, beginning to love it, beginning to live with it, so that it filled their entire being without their having to neglect the duties of their outer life.

[ 15 ] In the course of modern development, this has changed. Without wishing to say anything against modern church leaders, it must nevertheless be emphasized that the relationship between the religious person and the religious leader has become fundamentally different in more recent times. Consider the figures [of religious leaders] from the Middle Ages up to our own century: they were filled with true faith and with sacred mysteries and insights; they taught through inner experiences. The people who listened to them knew that they were hearing someone who spoke from a place of deep knowledge. They were not blind followers of authority. They sensed that something lived within the religious leader—something that flowed through his words but could not be expressed in an abstract or intellectual way. It was present, even more so, in the words of communal life.

[ 16 ] Things changed in more recent times. The whole way of looking at the world became different. People no longer understood at all what I have just said today about the Gospel of John; they no longer realized that there are hidden aspects to the Gospel. Increasingly, the Gospels came to be viewed as a scientific object, as a mere subject of methodological, historical research. And so, over time, we see a theology emerge that, in conjunction with Gospel research, presents a truly tragic story.

[ 17 ] Now let me give a brief overview of what contemporary theology recognizes regarding the value and truth of the Gospels. What is taught at universities today aspires to be a science like any other. Things are no longer as they were even a hundred years ago, when a man like Schleiermacher spoke to the educated with all the power of an orator. Today, although the word of the Gospel is often used for financial gain, the actual leaders have subjected the Gospel to theology, to a science, which has become tragic for the Gospel in a peculiar way.

[ 18 ] The first thing to be omitted was precisely this Gospel of John. You all know that Christians learn about the founder of their religion—the one from whom the doctrine originated, Christ himself—through the Gospels. Christians allow the Gospels to take root within them. The Gospels tell them about the teachings of Jesus Christ—about his teachings and deeds. For centuries, what was recounted was accepted because people were convinced of the basic fact that Jesus lived. No importance was attached to whether they [that is, the Gospels] contradicted one another in specific details; instead, people sought to deepen their understanding of one through the other. However differently they may have been presented, the focus remained on the single figure of this God-man. And the Gospels were well-suited to leading people to that understanding. The wording of the Gospels was not significant. It was not until the nineteenth century, in particular, that the Gospel came under close scrutiny—the kind to which every other human work is also subjected. At first, learned theologians asked themselves: To what extent can the Gospels serve as historical documents regarding the Jesus who lived in Palestine? Are they historical documents proving that what is proclaimed as doctrine is true? — Establishing the objective reality of Jesus of Nazareth historically was the foundation of nineteenth-century research. Then the question arose: Can the Gospels serve as historical documents for us, just like other historical documents? — It has become increasingly clear that the Gospels were written after Christianity had already begun. No scholar today would take the position that they were written in the first century A.D. It has been established that they were written only later.

[ 19 ] The question that interests us most of all is this: When we compare the Gospels and see that the individual evangelists directly contradict one another in their accounts, how can we regard these accounts as a testimony about Jesus? What are we to make of it when Mark speaks differently from John and Matthew, and differently from Mark and Luke? As it became increasingly clear that the Gospels contradict one another, efforts were made to investigate whether other testimonies—accounts and reports from historians—might be found. The result was—as is well known—that no such documents exist. Neither the accounts provided by Josephus nor those provided by Tacitus offer us any evidence regarding a Jesus of Nazareth.

[ 20 ] Protestant theology places little value on Christian tradition. But this tradition exists. And Irenaeus emphasizes that he knew disciples of the apostles who had known the Lord themselves. However, these are traditions that cannot be considered historically accurate. In short, all we have to construct a biography of Jesus are the Gospels. So one had to ask: “What do the Gospels testify to?” For everything else was deemed worthless.

[ 21 ] The next point of view was that the Gospel of John recounts many things quite differently from the other three Gospels. As you know, they are called “according to” Matthew, “according to” Mark, “according to” Luke, and “according to” John. Above all, increasing emphasis was placed on the fact that the image of Jesus of Nazareth presented in the Gospel of John is different from that of the other evangelists. Here are some key points: The Jesus of the Gospel of John is conceived as God incarnate. He is the one who does things that can flow only from divine power itself. These are miracles of omnipotence. This presents a different image than that of the other evangelists. It paints a picture of Jesus as one who feels within himself that he is God—that he is God come into the world to keep people steadfast in their faith in God.

[ 22 ] Even in its external details, the Gospel of John does not agree with the other Gospels. We are never told that Jesus’ mother and the disciples stood at the cross. There are many other points in which it differs radically from the others. For this reason, the Gospel of John has come to be excluded when it comes to the biography of Jesus. The Gospel of John is regarded as a confessional text that cannot claim to be anything other than a hymn-like chant. Modern theology does not regard the Gospel of John as a historical document. Matthew, Mark, and Luke show greater agreement among themselves than these three Gospels do with the Gospel of John. These three Gospels are called the Synoptic Gospels, and their authors are known as the Synoptics. What is found in Mark is, to a large extent, found in all three Synoptic Gospels. Matthew, therefore, is the one that could be omitted, and everything would still be found in Mark and Luke. There is nothing in Mark that is not also found in Matthew and Luke. For this reason, the Gospel of Mark is considered the original. It is also written in very ancient Greek. Therefore, scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark should be regarded as the first. The Gospel of Mark has thus been accepted as the first, and the others consequently drew upon what Mark recorded. In Matthew and Luke, one finds elements that are not present in Mark—so-called “Lord’s Sayings,” or core sayings, because they originate from Christ Jesus. These sayings correspond in Matthew and Luke. Since they agree, one can only assume that they originate from the same source. These “sayings of the Lord” are thought to be based on a Greek source—a collection of wisdom sayings—from which they were incorporated into what the authors copied from Mark. The agreement between Matthew and Luke is substantial, but the structure is quite different. Therefore, they could not have copied from one another, but they may have had a common collection of sayings as their basis.

[ 23 ] So what do we have? First, the Gospel of Mark, which mainly recounts the deeds of Jesus, beginning with his baptism. Second, the Gospel of Matthew, and third, the Gospel of Luke. The appropriate sayings of the Lord have always been added to these accounts of his deeds. However, in each of the two—Matthew and Luke—there is something distinctive that is not found in the others. Matthew includes passages that have a distinctly Jewish character. This is what sets Matthew apart, so that it should be regarded primarily as a Gospel intended for the Jewish people. Luke wrote more for others, namely for the poor and the oppressed. Therefore, the entire Gospel of Luke—insofar as the Sayings of the Lord and material from Mark are not taken into account—gives the impression that it was written for the poor and from a heart full of compassion.

[ 24 ] Theology has thus devised some curious ideas. First, that the Gospel of John is not to be considered at all; second, that Matthew and Luke each have something unique to offer, and that each can, to a certain extent, be decisive for the true facts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. But where do the Sayings of the Lord come from? There must have been a Greek collection of sayings that was added to the Gospels. Historical research cannot determine where they come from. It is impossible to say where this collection of sayings originated. So we are led back to Mark. Thus, we have the Gospel of Mark on the one hand and the collection of sayings on the other. As for what Matthew and Luke have in their respective Gospels, one could say that it goes back to Jesus and consists of retellings of deeds, but we cannot prove it. It may be based on true events, but that need not be the case. Likewise, what is referred to as the “Sayings of the Lord” may go back to Jesus, but we do not know this. And so we are led back to the Gospel of Mark. It recounts deeds, but they are of a peculiar nature. —What does modern theology say about this? It says: Let us examine the facts. There we find that Mark narrates in a way that someone would have done if he had heard it himself or had been an eyewitness. Mark speaks of a work. But then he strings the events together in such a way that this sequence of individual facts constitutes an artistic composition. He has arranged the facts in the way that best brings them together, much as a poet weaves individual details into a complete work. The narrative itself is Mark’s composition—the facts may be based on tradition. But they are told in such a way that they have a very general character. —Mark, therefore, recounts facts that have a general character. We see, then, that the composition is Mark’s work. The facts, however, are such that he says, for example: Christ did this or that, but in such a way that only three or four disciples saw it, and they were not allowed to share it. It is difficult to lead the Jews to believe in Jesus. Therefore, Mark seeks to structure the work in such a way that it becomes clear to Christians why the Jews found it so difficult to believe in Jesus.

[ 25 ] We find two things—so says the modern theologian: first, that Jesus is not understood. This is explained by the fact that Mark makes it difficult for the Jews to understand Jesus. When Jesus performs miracles, he forbids those who have seen them from telling others about them. - The modern theologian is left puzzled by this. The modern theologian can only admit: There must have been some kind of secret tradition here, but one that existed only between Jesus and his chosen ones. The modern theologian cannot make sense of this.

[ 26 ] We have a tradition that Mark the Evangelist is said to have been a disciple of Peter, who recorded what Peter said. There is no doubt that Peter did not write it himself, but that he generally taught Jesus’s doctrine and placed particular emphasis on transcending earthly facts, so that the scribes were unable to describe anything specific to a particular locality. This leads us to a later period, during which the Gospel of Mark was composed. A long span of time separates us from the oldest Gospel, from the true Jesus. We do not know what we can glean from the original Gospel about Jesus of Nazareth. We cannot construct a biography of Jesus’ life from it.

[ 27 ] The only thing theology believes is that it can gain a clue regarding the oldest section of the Gospel of Mark. This is a passage found in chapter 13:

When they bring you before the authorities and hand you over, do not worry about what to say or how to prepare your defense; but speak whatever is given you at that moment. For it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

But a brother will betray another to death, and a father his son; and children will rise up against their parents and help put them to death.

And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But whoever endures to the end will be saved.

But when you see the abomination of desolation, of which the prophet Daniel spoke—standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand)—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. And whoever is on the roof must not go down into the house or go back in to get anything from the house. And whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. [Mk 13:11–16]

[ 28 ] Modern theology believes that this passage may have been written under the immediate impression of the impending destruction of Jerusalem. Here, at this point, there must be something that is old—so old that we could place it in the time before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is said to have been a pamphlet, a tract intended to warn the people and tell them how to behave when this event occurs. Mark may have used this tract and incorporated it into his Gospel.

[ 29 ] There is yet another passage of particular importance to the modern theologian. It is found in Luke, chapter 11, verse 48:

Thus you bear witness to and approve of the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you build their tombs.

[ 30 ] If you read this passage in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 15, the comparison is very interesting:

Truly I tell you: The land of Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on Judgment Day than this city.

[ 31 ] In Matthew, it is a saying of Jesus; in Luke, it is a quotation. Therefore, “the wisdom of God” speaks. The latter must thus come from a source called “the wisdom of God.” Theology assumes that it was a collection of sayings—a collection of wisdom sayings—from which that theologian quoted and taught, saying, “Thus speaks the wisdom of God.” In Matthew, however, the situation is different. Modern theologians also trace the so-called “Lord’s Sayings” back to this collection of sayings.

[ 32 ] Take a broad, sketchy overview—as necessary—and compare what remains of scholarly Gospel research. - Nothing remains. The Gospel of John is ruled out; Matthew and Luke are traced back to the Sayings Collection. The Sayings Collection may be derived from Greek sources but cannot be traced further; we lose the thread. Mark must have been written long after Jesus’ time. Therefore, the modern theologian says: We cannot derive any of this from the Gospel. We cannot derive a biography of Jesus; we cannot derive what Jesus taught; we cannot derive what he taught about the intermediate judgment and the Kingdom of God. The Gospels tell us modern people nothing about any of this. And what they do tell us cannot be decisive in the sense of materialistic science.

[ 33 ] I call this study of the Gospels a tragic story. You see, you have judged the Gospel by the standards of external science, and now you find that the whole truth—as a result of your research—is not there.

[ 34 ] This reflects a completely different relationship between the believer and the theologian today than was the case in the past. In the past, the believer looked up to the theologian, who simply proclaimed the truth of the Gospels. That relationship was unshakable. Even Harnack’s book, which caused such a stir, is based on this modern theology. Thus, believers today are faced with a theologian who does not know what lies within the words of the Gospels, but can only say: “I am unable to state scientifically what the founder of Christianity taught, whether he even lived at all, and so on.” - Scholarship in this area has yielded entirely negative results. From this you can see that it becomes quite difficult for anyone who relies on [the theologians’] version of Christianity to place their trust in it. If one believes the theologians whose scholarship says this, one’s faith may begin to waver.

[ 35 ] It must therefore be regarded, hypothetically, as a new source of wisdom if the Theosophical Movement is now once again fostering a deeper study of the Gospel of John and attempting to restore a true understanding of it. The Theosophical Movement is not bound to cling to Buddhist dogmas forever. They are merely means; dogma is merely a means. Today, a movement is emerging from within the Theosophical Society that will bring a true understanding of Christianity—the Gospel hidden within the Gospels—which is not understood in the ordinary sense.

[ 36 ] Those who have experience may speak of it. For my part, I can mention in a few words that I have titled my new book Christianity as a Mystical Fact. I did not write this book based on historical sources; I deliberately wrote it without any historical sources at all. I set aside the historical sources and relied solely on occult sources. One could say that this book is drawn from the Akashic Records. When one examines these matters from the perspective that Annie Besant adopted in her book Esoteric Christianity—and that I have adopted in my book Christianity as a Mystical Fact—the subject takes on a completely different character. Next time, I will show you what a completely different picture we get. This science will lead us, from a different perspective, to the deepest possible understanding and to the revival of Christian truth. A counter-current is striving for this revival, and it concerns, first and foremost, the revival of the Gospel of John. People will come to understand them again—these great words with which I would like to conclude for today—in a translation that is reasonably accurate—so that we may take them up again next time:

In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was with God in the beginning.

All things came into being through Him; and without Him, nothing that has come into being came into being.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in the darkness, but the darkness did not comprehend it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

He came as a witness, to bear witness to

the Light, so that through him all might believe.

He was not the Light, but a witness to the Light.

For the true Light, which enlightens every person, was to come into the world.

It was in the world, and the world was made through it, yet the world did not recognize it.

It came to individual people [even to those who are self-centered]; but individual people [self-centered people] did not receive it. Yet those who did receive it were able, through it, to reveal themselves as children of God.

Those who believed in his name were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And we have heard his teaching—the teaching of the Father’s only Son, filled with devotion and truth.

[ 37 ] Whoever truly understands these words will see that it is only through this understanding that research will be able to find the right word. One should not quibble over the word. And let us understand this word once again—the greatest word of all:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.