The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] When we were gathered here some time ago, we were able to discuss the deeper currents of Christianity from the perspective of the Gospel of John. And at that time, those powerful images and ideas emerged before our inner eye—the ones a person can grasp when immersing themselves in this unique document of humanity, namely the Gospel of John. On various occasions at that time, we had to emphasize how the deepest depths of Christianity come to light when one engages in reflection guided by this text. And today, many of those who listened then—or who listened to another lecture series on the Gospel of John—might well ask themselves: Is it now possible to somehow expand or deepen the perspectives—which, in a certain sense, must truly be described as the deepest, and which can be gained through the Gospel of John—is it possible to somehow broaden or deepen these perspectives through the study of the other Christian texts, for example, the three other Gospels—the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Matthew, or the Gospel of Mark? And anyone, one might say, who loves theoretical convenience will ask: Is it even necessary—now that we have become aware of how the deepest depths of Christian truths are revealed to us in the Gospel of John—is it even necessary at all to discuss the nature of Christianity on the basis of the other Gospels, particularly from the perspective of the Gospel of Luke, which—as one might easily believe—is less profound?

[ 2 ] Anyone who posed such a question—and anyone who believed they had said anything substantial from such a perspective—would be succumbing to a very significant misunderstanding. Not only is Christianity as such immeasurable in its essence and can be examined from a wide variety of perspectives, but the opposite is also true—and this very series of lectures is intended to provide proof of that—: even though the Gospel of John is such an infinitely profound text, one can still learn things by studying the Gospel of Luke, for example, that cannot be learned from the Gospel of John alone. What we came to regard as the “deep ideas of Christianity” during the Gospel of John lecture series is by no means Christianity in its full depth; rather, there is a possibility of penetrating the depths of Christianity from a different starting point. And this other starting point is to be gained precisely by placing the Gospel of Luke at the center of our reflections this time, from the anthroposophical, spiritual-scientific standpoint.

[ 3 ] Let us consider a few points to help us understand the claim that there is still something to be gained from the Gospel of Luke, even after one has exhausted the depths of the Gospel of John. We must proceed from what strikes us when we contemplate every line of the Gospel of John: that documents, such as the Gospels, appear to the anthroposophical observer as documents composed by people who have looked more deeply into the essence of life and the essence of existence—people who, as initiates and clairvoyants, have gazed into the depths of the world. When we speak in general terms like this, we can use the terms “initiate” and “clairvoyant” interchangeably. But if we now wish to penetrate to deeper layers of spiritual life in the course of our anthroposophical reflections, then we must distinguish between what we initially, and rightly, did not distinguish—the clairvoyant and the initiate—and regard them as two categories of people who have found their way into the supersensible realms of existence. In a certain sense, there is a difference between an initiate and a clairvoyant, although there is nothing—absolutely nothing—to prevent the initiate from also being a clairvoyant, and the clairvoyant from being, to a certain degree, an initiate at the same time. If you wish to distinguish precisely between these two categories of people—the initiate and the clairvoyant—then you must recall the descriptions given in my treatise on “How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?” You must bear in mind that there are essentially three stages that lead beyond the ordinary perception of the world.

[ 4 ] The kind of knowledge that is initially accessible to human beings can be characterized as follows: human beings perceive the world through the senses and, through the intellect and the other powers of the soul, make what they have perceived their own. Beyond this, there are three other levels of understanding the world. The first is that of so-called imaginative cognition; the second stage is that of inspired cognition; and the third stage is that of intuitive cognition, if we understand the word “intuitive” in its true, spiritual-scientific sense.

[ 5 ] Who, then, possesses imaginative insight? It is the person before whose mind’s eye that which lies beyond the sensory world unfolds in images—in a vast cosmic tableau of images—which, however, bear no resemblance whatsoever to what we call “images” in ordinary life. Apart from the difference that, for these images of imaginative perception, there is no such thing as what we call the laws of three-dimensional space, there are also other peculiarities of these imaginative images that cannot be easily compared to anything in the ordinary sensory world.

[ 6 ] We can arrive at a conception of the imaginative world if we imagine a plant standing before us and that we were able to extract from the plant everything that is perceptible to the eye as color, so that it literally floats freely in the air. If we were to do nothing more than extract this color from the plant and let it float freely before us, we would have a lifeless color form before us. For the clairvoyant, however, this form of color is by no means a lifeless image; rather, when he extracts the color inherent in things from those things, this image of color begins—through his preparations and exercises—to be animated by the spiritual, just as it was animated in the sensory world by the material substance of the plants; and the person then has before them not a lifeless form of color, but—floating freely—colored light, shimmering and sparkling in the most manifold ways, yet inwardly animated. Thus, every color is the expression of the uniqueness of a spiritual-soul entity that is not perceptible in the sensory world; that is to say, it is in the sensory plant that color begins to become, for the clairvoyant, an expression of spiritual-soul entities.

[ 7 ] Now imagine a world filled with such colorful forms, reflecting in the most diverse ways, eternally changing and transforming—but do not limit your gaze to the colors themselves, as you might in a painting of shimmering color reflections; rather, imagine all of this as an expression of spiritual and soul entities, so that you say to yourself: When a green image flashes here, it is to me the expression of an intelligent being behind it; or when a bright reddish image flashes, it is to me the expression of something that is a passionate being. Now imagine this entire sea of interplaying colors—I could just as easily take another example and say: a sea of interplaying sound sensations, or smells, or tastes, for all of these are expressions of the spiritual and soul entities behind them—then you have what is called the imaginative world. It is not something for which one uses the word “imagination” in the ordinary sense of the term—as a figment of the imagination—but rather it is a real world. It is a different kind of perception than that which is based on the senses.

[ 8 ] Within this imaginative world, a person encounters everything that lies beyond the sensory world and that they do not perceive with their “sensory senses”—if we may use that expression—such as, for example, the human etheric body and the human astral body. Anyone who, as a clairvoyant person, comes to know the world through this imaginative insight, comes to know higher beings, as it were, from their outer side—just as you, in the sensory world, when you walk down the street and people pass you by, come to know them from their sensory outer side. You get to know them more closely when you have the opportunity to speak with them. Through their words, people express something different from what you see when you merely encounter them on the street and look at them. In some people—to mention just one example—you cannot tell whether there is inner pain or joy in their soul, whether grief or delight is burning through their soul. But you can experience all of this when you speak with a person. At one moment, they reveal their outer self to you through what you can see without any effort on their part; at another, they express themselves to you. It is the same with the beings of the supersensible world.

[ 9 ] A clairvoyant who comes to know the beings of the supersensible world through imaginative perception comes to know, as it were, only their spiritual-soul aspect. But he hears them speak for themselves when he ascends from imaginative perception to perception through inspiration. Then there is truly a genuine communion with these beings. There, drawing from their very essence, they reveal to him what they are and who they are. Therefore, inspiration is a higher level of knowledge than mere imagination, and one learns more about the beings of the spiritual-soul world by ascending to inspiration than one can gain through imaginative perception.

[ 10 ] An even higher level of insight is intuition—provided one does not use the word “intuition” in the ordinary sense of the term, where anything vague that comes to mind is called intuition, but rather takes the concept of intuition in its true spiritual-scientific sense. Here, intuition is a form of insight in which one can not only listen spiritually to what the beings communicate from within themselves, but in which one becomes one with these beings, immersing oneself in their very essence. This is a high level of spiritual insight. For it requires that a person first accomplish within themselves that unfolding of love toward all spiritual beings, in which they no longer make any distinction between themselves and the other spiritual beings in their spiritual environment; in which they have, so to speak, poured out their own being into the entire spiritual environment; in which they are thus truly no longer outside the spiritual beings with whom they commune spiritually, but are within these beings, standing within them. And because this can only occur in relation to a spiritual-divine world, the term “intuition”—that is, “standing in God”—is entirely justified. — Thus, these three stages of knowledge of the supersensible world appear to us initially: imagination, inspiration, and intuition.

[ 11 ] Of course, it is possible to master these three stages of supersensible knowledge. But it is also possible, for example, to advance in a given incarnation only as far as the stage of imagination; in that case, those realms of the spiritual world that can be reached only through inspiration and intuition remain hidden from the clairvoyant in question. Then the person is a “clairvoyant” individual. — In our present age, it is generally not customary to lead people up to the higher levels of supersensory knowledge without first having them pass through the level of imagination; thus, under our current circumstances, it is highly unlikely that anyone would, so to speak, skip the level of imagination and be led directly to the level of inspiration or intuition. However, what would by no means be appropriate today could nevertheless have occurred—and did occur—in certain other periods of human development.

[ 12 ] There were times in human evolution when the stages of supersensory knowledge were, so to speak, distributed among different individuals: imagination on the one hand, inspiration and intuition on the other. $o For example, there were mystery schools where people had their spiritual eyes so open that they were clairvoyant in the realm of imagination, and that symbolic world of images was accessible to them. Because these people, who were clairvoyant to such an extent, told themselves: “For this incarnation, I will refrain from attaining the higher stages of inspiration and intuition”—thereby they made themselves capable of seeing precisely and clearly within the world of the imaginative. They trained themselves, so to speak, to a very special degree to see in this world of the imaginative.

[ 13 ] But one thing was necessary for them to do this. Anyone who wishes to see only in the world of the imaginative and refrains from venturing into the world of inspiration and intuition lives, in a certain sense, in a world of uncertainty. This world of the surging “imaginative” is, so to speak, boundless, and if left to one’s own devices, one floats within it, drifting back and forth with one’s soul, without actually knowing one’s exact direction or destination. Therefore, in those times and among those peoples where certain individuals had renounced the higher levels of knowledge, it was necessary for the clairvoyant, imaginative people to devote themselves wholeheartedly to their leaders—those who possessed the spiritual capacity for inspiration and intuition. For it is only inspiration and intuition that provide certainty regarding the spiritual world, so that one knows precisely: This is where the path leads; there is a destination. — In contrast, if one lacks inspired insight, one cannot say to oneself: This is the path; I must go there to reach a destination. — If one cannot say this to oneself, then one must entrust oneself to the knowledgeable guidance of a person who can tell one this. That is why it is rightly emphasized in so many places that the one who first ascends to imaginative knowledge must intimately align oneself with the guru, the guide, who provides direction and a goal regarding what one cannot provide for oneself.

[ 14 ] On the other hand, however, it was also useful at certain times—though this is no longer done today—to allow other people to bypass imaginative insight in a certain way and lead them directly to inspired insight or, if possible, to intuitive insight. Such people refrained from looking at the imaginative images of the spiritual world around them; they devoted themselves solely to those impressions from the spiritual world that are emanations from the inner being of spiritual entities. They listened with spiritual ears to what the entities of the spiritual world speak. It is as if there were a wall between you and another person, and you could not see that person yourself; yet you hear him speaking from behind the wall. This possibility certainly exists: that people, so to speak, forgo observing the spiritual world in order to be led more quickly to spiritual listening to the utterances of spiritual beings, Regardless of whether someone sees the images of the imaginative world or not, if they are able to hear with spiritual ears what the beings in the supersensible world have to say about themselves, then we say of such a person: They are gifted with the “inner word”—in contrast to the outer word that we have in the physical world from person to person. Thus we can form the idea that there are also people who, without seeing the imaginative world, possess the inner word and can hear the utterances of spiritual beings and communicate them.

[ 15 ] There was a time in the evolution of humanity when, within the Mysteries, these two kinds of supersensible experiences of the initiates interacted. And because each of them, by refraining from imposing their own perspective on the other, was able to develop what they were capable of more precisely and clearly—since this was the case—a beautiful, a truly wonderful interplay arose at certain times within the Mysteries. There were, so to speak, imaginative clairvoyants; they had trained themselves specifically to perceive the world of images. And there were those who had moved beyond the world of the imaginative; they had trained themselves specifically to receive into their souls the inner word experienced through inspiration. And so one could share with the other what he had experienced through his particular training. This was possible in times when there was a degree of trust between people that is impossible today—simply because of the way our times have developed. Today, not a single person believes another so deeply that they would simply listen to what the other describes as images from the imaginative world, and then add what they themselves know from inspiration, in the firm belief that the other’s descriptions are correct. Today, everyone wants to see for themselves. That is the legitimate way of our time. Very few people today would be satisfied with a one-sided training of the imagination, as was common practice in certain eras. That is why it is also necessary in our time for people to be guided step by step through the three stages of higher knowledge, without skipping one or the other.

[ 16 ] At every stage of supersensible knowledge, we encounter the great mysteries connected to the event we call the Christ Event, so that imaginative knowledge, inspired knowledge, and intuitive knowledge have much—indeed, infinitely much—to say about this Christ Event.

[ 17 ] If we now, starting from this point of view, turn our attention back to the four Gospels, we may say that the Gospel of John was written from the perspective of an initiate who was deeply immersed in the mysteries of the world, even up to the level of intuition, and who thus describes the Christ event for the purpose of perceiving the supersensible world, even up to the level of intuition. But anyone who examines closely the distinctive features of the Gospel of John will—as we shall see in this very lecture series—have to conclude that everything that stands out particularly clearly to us in the Gospel of John is expressed from the standpoint of inspiration and intuition, and that, in contrast, everything derived from images of the imagination pales in comparison and is unclear. Thus, we may call the author of the Gospel of John—if we set aside what he has nonetheless drawn from the imagination—the messenger of all that, with regard to the Christ event, becomes apparent to the one who possesses the inner Word up to the level of intuition. That is why the writer of the Gospel of John essentially characterizes the mysteries of the Kingdom of Christ as being endowed with the inner Word, or the Logos. An inspired, intuitive insight underlies the Gospel of John.

[ 18 ] The situation is different with the other three Gospels. And none of the other Gospel writers has expressed what he actually has to say as clearly as the writer of the Gospel of Luke.

[ 19 ] A brief, curious preface precedes the Gospel of Luke—a preface that states, in essence, that various people had already set out before the author of the Gospel of Luke collect and present all sorts of accounts that were in circulation concerning the events in Palestine, and that, in order to make this more accurate and orderly, the author of the Gospel of Luke now undertakes to present what—and here come the significant words—those who from the very beginning—as is usually translated— “were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word” (Luke 1:1–2). Thus, the author of the Gospel of Luke wishes to convey what those have to say who were eyewitnesses—we would be better off using the term “self-seers”—and servants of the Word. In the sense of the Gospel of Luke, “self-seers” are people who possess imaginative insight, who can penetrate the world of images and perceive the Christ event there—people who are specially trained to see through such imaginations, self-seers who see precisely and clearly—the writer of the Gospel of Luke bases his account on their accounts—and who were at the same time “servants of the Word.” A significant term! He does not say “owners” of the Word, for those would be people who possess full inspired insight, but rather “servants” of the Word—that is, servants of those who do not have access to these imaginative visions to the same extent as they do through their own inner vision, but who do have access to manifestations of the inspired world. To them, the servants, is communicated what the inspired person perceives; they can proclaim it because their inspired teachers have told them so. They are servants, not owners, of the Word.

[ 20 ] Thus, the Gospel of Luke is based on the accounts of those who are self-seers and self-experiencers in the imaginative worlds—those who have learned to express what they see in the imaginative world using the means available to the inspired person, and who have thus made themselves servants of the Word.

[ 21 ] Here again we have an example of how precisely the Gospels are written and how we must understand the words exactly as they are written. Everything is precise and exact in such documents, which were composed on the basis of spiritual science, and modern people often have no idea of the precision and exactness with which the words in these documents were chosen.

[ 22 ] But now—as we must do every time we engage in such reflections from an anthroposophical perspective—we must also recall that, for spiritual science, the Gospels are not sources of knowledge in the strict sense. The mere fact that something is written in the Gospels does not make it a truth for those who stand firmly on the ground of spiritual science. The spiritual scientist does not draw upon written documents, but rather draws upon what spiritual scientific research itself yields in his or her own time. What the beings of the spiritual world have to say to the initiate and the clairvoyant in our time—these are the sources for true spiritual science, for the initiates and for the clairvoyants. And in a certain sense, these sources are the same in our time as they were in those times I have just described to you. Therefore, even today, one can call those who have insight into the world of imagination “clairvoyants,” and one can only call those who are able to rise to the level of inspiration and intuition “initiates.” Thus, in our time, the term “clairvoyant” need not coincide with that of “initiate.”

[ 23 ] What we encounter in the Gospel of John could only be based on the research of an initiate who was able to ascend to inspired and intuitive knowledge. What we find in the other Gospels could be based on accounts from imaginative, clairvoyant people who were thus not yet able to ascend themselves into the world of inspiration and intuition. Thus, if we strictly adhere to the distinction made today, the Gospel of John is based on initiation; the three other Gospels—particularly the Gospel of Luke, even according to the writer’s own statement—are based on clairvoyance. And because it is based specifically on clairvoyance—because it draws upon everything that even the most highly trained clairvoyant is capable of perceiving—it offers us a precise picture of what can only be presented to us in faded images in the Gospel of John. To highlight the difference even more clearly, I would like to say the following:

[ 24 ] Suppose—though this is hardly the case today—that a person were initiated, so that the world of inspiration and intuition were open to him, but that he were not clairvoyant, and thus unable to perceive the imaginative world. Suppose such a person were to meet another person who might not be initiated at all, but to whom, due to certain circumstances, the world of the imagination is open, so that he can perceive the entire realm of imaginations. A person of the latter type could tell the former a great deal about what the former cannot see—things that the former might be able to explain only through inspiration, but which he cannot see for himself because he lacks clairvoyance. People who are clairvoyant without being initiated are very numerous today; the reverse is hardly ever the case. Nevertheless, it could be that an initiated person, while possessing the gift of clairvoyance, is for some reason unable to perceive the imaginations in a particular instance. In that case, a clairvoyant person could tell them many things that are still unknown to them.

[ 25 ] It must always be strongly emphasized that anthroposophy, or spiritual science, is based on nothing other than the sources of the initiates; thus, neither the Gospel of John nor the other Gospels are sources of its knowledge. What can be explored today without a historical document is the source of anthroposophical knowledge. But then we turn to the historical documents and seek to compare what spiritual research can discover today with what those documents reveal. What spiritual research can discover today about the Christ event—what it can discover at any moment—is reflected in the most magnificent way in the Gospel of John. And that is why it is such a valuable text, because it shows us that back then, when it was written, there was someone who wrote in the same way that someone initiated into the spiritual world can write today. So to speak, the same voice that can be perceived today comes to us from the depths of the centuries.

[ 26 ] Something similar holds true for the other Gospels and also for the Gospel of Luke. It is not the images described to us by the author of the Gospel of Luke that serve as our sources of knowledge about the higher worlds, but rather the very experience of being lifted into the supersensible world itself. And when we speak of the Christ event, the source for us is also that great tableau of images and imaginations that arises within us when we turn our gaze to what stands at the beginning of our calendar. And what presents itself to us, we compare with the images and imaginations described to us in the Gospel of Luke. This series of lectures is intended to show us how the imaginative images that modern people perceive compare with the descriptions we encounter in the Gospel of Luke.

[ 27 ] It is true that for spiritual research, when it extends to the events of the past, there is only one source. This source does not lie in external documents. Not stones that we dig up from the earth, not documents preserved in archives, not what historians have written—whether inspired or not—are the source of spiritual science. What we are able to read in the imperishable chronicle, the Akashic Records, is the source of spiritual research for us. It is possible to recognize what has taken place without external documentation.

[ 28 ] Thus, people today can choose between two paths to learn about the past. They can consult external documents if they wish to learn about external events—historical records—or, if they wish to learn about spiritual conditions, religious texts. Or they can ask: What do those people have to say who have opened their inner eye to that imperishable chronicle we call the Akashic Records—that great tableau in which everything that has ever happened in the development of the world, the Earth, and humanity is recorded in imperishable writing?

[ 29 ] The person who ascends into the supersensible worlds gradually learns to read this chronicle. It is no ordinary text. Imagine the course of events as they actually unfolded, presented before your inner eye. Imagine Emperor Augustus, with all his deeds, standing before your eyes as if in a misty vision. Everything that took place back then stands there before your inner eye. This is how it appears to the spiritual researcher, and he can experience it anew every hour. He needs no external evidence; he need only direct his gaze to a specific point in world or human history, and the events that took place will present themselves to him in a spiritual image. In this way, the spiritual gaze can roam through the ages of the past. What he beholds there is recorded as the result of spiritual research.

[ 30 ] What happened back then, in the times from which our calendar begins? What happened then is perceived through spiritual vision and can be compared to what, for example, the Gospel of Luke tells us. Then the spiritual researcher recognizes that there were indeed such spiritually perceptive individuals back then who likewise saw what was in the past; and we can compare how what they can convey to us as their present relates to what a retrospective view into the Akashic Records can reveal about that time.

[ 31 ] We must constantly keep this before our minds: that we do not draw from the documents, but rather draw from spiritual research itself, and that we then seek out in the documents what has been drawn from spiritual research. In this way, the records take on greater value, and we can determine the truth of what they contain through our own research. As a result, they grow before us as an expression of truth, because we can recognize the truth ourselves. One must not speak of such a matter as has just been described without also pointing out that reading the Akashic Records is not as easy as, say, observing events in the physical world. I would like to use a specific example to illustrate where, for instance, certain difficulties lie in reading the Akashic Records. I would like to illustrate this using the human being himself.

[ 32 ] We know from elementary anthroposophy that human beings consist of the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body, and the “I.” The moment one ceases to observe human beings merely on the physical plane and ascends into the spiritual world, that is when the difficulties begin. When you have a human being physically before you, you have a unified whole before you; you have their physical body, their etheric body, their astral body, and their “I.” When you observe a human being while they are awake during the day, you have all of this before you as a unified whole. The moment one no longer observes a person during waking hours, but must ascend into the higher worlds in order to observe them—when this ascent becomes a necessity—that is when the difficulties immediately begin. If, for example, at night, when we want to see the whole human being, we ascend into the world of the imagination—to see, for instance, the astral body, since it is outside the physical body—then we have divided the human being into two separate parts.

[ 33 ] What I am about to describe will, admittedly, occur only in the rarest of cases, because observing human beings is still relatively easy; but you can get an idea of the difficulties involved. Imagine someone entering a room where a number of people are sleeping. If he possesses the ability of clairvoyance, he will see the physical bodies and the etheric bodies lying in the beds; then, if he rises into the clairvoyant state, he will see the astral bodies. But this astral world is a world of interpenetration. Up there in the astral world, the astral bodies intermingle. And even though it is not easy for a trained clairvoyant, it could still happen that, when looking at a whole group of people sleeping there, he might easily confuse which astral body belongs to which physical body down below. I said that this does not happen easily because this kind of vision belongs to the lower levels, and because the person who attains it is well prepared in how to distinguish between them in such cases. But when, in the higher worlds, one observes not human beings but other spiritual beings, the difficulties begin to become quite great. Indeed, they are already quite great for human beings when one views them not as present-day human beings but in their entirety as they pass through their incarnations.

[ 34 ] So if you look at a person who is alive today and ask yourself, “Where was this person’s ‘I’ in their previous incarnation?” you must pass through the Devachanic world to reach their previous incarnation. You must be able to determine which “I” belonged to the previous incarnations of that particular person. To do so, you must be able to reconcile, in a complex way, the continuous “I” with the various stages here on Earth. It is very easy to make a mistake here, and it is very easy to err when seeking the sojourn of a Self in its earlier bodies. So when one ascends to the higher worlds, it is not so easy to reconcile everything that belongs to a person—to a personality—with what is recorded in the Akashic Records as their previous incarnations.

[ 35 ] Suppose someone set himself the following task. He would have a person in front of him—let’s say Hans Müller. As a clairvoyant or initiated person, he asks: Who are the physical ancestors of this Hans Müller? Let’s assume that all external physical records have been lost, and one could rely only on the Akashic Records. He would therefore have to search for the physical ancestors there; he would have to try to identify the father, mother, grandfather, and so on from the Akashic Records to see how the physical body has developed along the physical line of descent. But then another question might arise: What were this person’s earlier incarnations? Here he must take a completely different path than the one he follows to trace a person’s physical ancestors. He may have to trace back many, many lifetimes if he wants to reach the earlier incarnations of the “I.” Here you already have two distinct lines of inquiry. Neither is the physical body, as it stands before us, an entirely new creation—for it descends from the ancestors in the physical lineage—nor is the “I” an entirely new creation, for it is linked to the earlier incarnations.

[ 36 ] But what applies to the physical body and to the “I” also applies to the intermediate bodies: the etheric body and the astral body. Most of you will know that the etheric body, too, is not an entirely new entity, but that it, too, may have passed through a variety of forms. I have told you how the etheric body of Zarathustra reappeared in the etheric body of Moses—it is the same etheric body. If one were to investigate the physical ancestors of Moses, one would find one line. If one were to investigate the ancestors of Moses’ etheric body, one would find another line: there one would ascend to the etheric body of Zarathustra and to other etheric bodies.

[ 37 ] Just as one must follow entirely different currents for the physical body than for the etheric body, so it is with the astral body. From every aspect of human nature, we can enter into the most diverse currents. Thus we can say: The etheric body is the etheric reincarnation of an etheric body that belonged to a completely different individuality—by no means the same one in which the “I” was previously incarnated. And we can say the same about the astral body.

[ 38 ] When we ascend into the higher worlds to examine a human being with regard to their past incarnations, the individual currents all diverge there. One leads us in one direction, another in another, and we encounter very complex processes in the spiritual world. If, then, someone wishes to fully understand a human being from the perspective of spiritual research, they must not merely describe him as a descendant of his ancestors, nor merely state that his etheric body derives from this or that being, or his astral body from this or that being; rather, they must fully describe how all four of these constitutive parts have made their way until they have now united within this being. This cannot be done all at once. One can, for example, trace the path the etheric body has taken and thereby arrive at important insights. Another person can then trace the path of the astral body. One person may place greater emphasis on the etheric body, another on the astral body, and compose their descriptions accordingly. For someone who does not observe what clairvoyant people say about a being, it will make no difference whether one person says this or another says that; to them, it will seem as if the same thing is always being described. To such a person, the one who describes only the physical personality will say the same thing as the one who describes the etheric body; he will always believe that he is describing the essence of Hans Müller.

[ 39 ] All of this, however, can now give you an idea of the sheer complexity of the circumstances we face when we seek to describe, from the perspective of clairvoyant and initiatory research, the nature of any phenomenon in the world—be it a human being or any other entity. I had to say what I have just said; for you can see from this that only the most comprehensive research into the Akashic Records—extending in all directions—can bring any being clearly before our spiritual eye.

[ 40 ] The being who stands before us—even in the sense in which the Gospel of John describes her—who stands before us with the “I”—whether before or after the baptism by John, whether we address her as Jesus of Nazareth before the baptism or as the Christ after the baptism by John— stands before us with an “I,” with an astral body, with an etheric body, and with a physical body. We can describe this being fully only from the standpoint of the Akashic Records by tracing the paths that these four members of the Christ Jesus being of that time have traversed in the course of human evolution. Only then can we truly understand him. This involves a complete understanding of the accounts of the Christ event from the standpoint of modern spiritual research, where light must be shed on what appears to be contradictory in the four Gospels.

[ 41 ] I have often pointed out why today’s purely materialistic research cannot recognize the high value—the truth value—of the Gospel of John: because it cannot understand that a higher initiate sees differently, more deeply, than others. Those who are not satisfied with the Gospel of John attempt to establish a kind of harmony among the other three Gospels—the Synoptic Gospels. But establishing such harmony will be difficult to sustain if one bases it solely on the external, material events. For what will be of particular importance to us in tomorrow’s lecture—considering the life of Jesus of Nazareth before his baptism by John—is described to us by two evangelists: the author of the Gospel of Matthew and the author of the Gospel of Luke; and from an external, materialistic perspective, there are discrepancies here that are in no way inferior to the differences that must be acknowledged between the other three Gospels and the Gospel of John. Let us consider the facts. The author of the Gospel of Matthew describes how the birth of the founder of Christianity is foretold, how this birth takes place, how Magi come from the East who have seen the star, and how the star has guided them to the place where the Savior is born. He further describes how Herod is alerted by this and how, to escape Herod’s decree—the massacre of the infants in Bethlehem—the Savior’s parents flee to Egypt with the child. When Herod dies, Joseph, the father of Jesus, is informed that he may return; yet, out of fear of Herod’s successor, he does not return to Bethlehem but goes to Nazareth. — I will refrain today from discussing the announcement concerning John the Baptist. However, I would like to point out that when we compare the Gospel of Luke with the Gospel of Matthew, the foretelling of Jesus of Nazareth occurs quite differently in the two Gospels: in one case it is revealed to Joseph, in the other to Mary. We then see from the Gospel of Luke how the parents of Jesus of Nazareth originally lived in Nazareth and then went to Bethlehem on one occasion, namely for the census. While they are there, Jesus is born. Then, eight days later, the circumcision takes place—there is no mention of a flight to Egypt—and some time later, not long after that, the child is presented in the temple. We see that the customary sacrifice is offered, and that afterward the parents return with the child to Nazareth and live there. And then we are told of a remarkable episode: the story of how the twelve-year-old Jesus is left behind in the temple during a visit his parents made to Jerusalem, how they search for him, how they then find him again in the temple among those who interpret the Scriptures, how he stands before them there as one well-versed in the interpretation of Scripture, and how he appears intelligent and wise among the scribes. Then the story continues, describing how they take the child home again and how he grows up; and we hear nothing more of note about him until the baptism by John.

[ 42 ] Here we have two stories about Jesus of Nazareth prior to his incarnation as the Christ. Anyone who wishes to reconcile them must first and foremost ask how to reconcile the account that, immediately after Jesus’ birth, his parents, Joseph and Mary, were compelled to flee to Egypt with the child and then return—how can this be reconciled, according to the usual materialistic view, with the presentation in the temple as described in Luke?

[ 43 ] There we will see that what appears to us, from a physical perspective, to be a complete contradiction will, in the light of spiritual research, reveal itself to us as truth. Both are true, even though they are presented as an apparent contradiction in the physical world. It is precisely the three Synoptic Gospels—the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—that are intended to compel people to adopt a spiritual understanding of the facts of human history. For people should realize that nothing is achieved if, when faced with such documents, one does not reflect on apparent contradictions or if one speaks of “fictions” where one cannot make sense of the realities.

[ 44 ] This time, in particular, we will have the opportunity to discuss what the Gospel of John did not provide an occasion to discuss in depth—namely, the events that took place before John’s baptism, before the Christ-essence entered the three bodies of Jesus of Nazareth. And many an important mystery concerning the nature of Christianity will be solved for us precisely because—through research drawn from the Akashic Records—we will hear what the nature of Jesus of Nazareth was like before the Christ took up his three bodies.

[ 45 ] Tomorrow we will begin by examining the nature and life of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Akashic Records, and then ask ourselves: How does what we can learn from this source about the true nature of Jesus of Nazareth compare to what is described to us in the Gospel of Luke as coming from those who were, at that time, “seers” or “servants of the Word,” the Logos?