Course for Priests of the Christian Community
GA 345
14 July 1923, Stuttgart
Lecture IV
Yes, my dear friends, I would like to supplement what I said yesterday. I wanted to offer it then already, but time was too short. This occasion gives us the opportunity to refer to our relationship we need to gradually re-establish with the Bible. The Bible, namely the New Testament, is a document which we must learn to grasp as a supersensible revelation, not in a dogmatic sense but through arriving at knowledge which indicates that religious documents originating up to about the time 4 AD were not only of human origin but were poured into the consciousness of humanity; knowledge which could not have come out of humanity. I would like to mention that you only need to bring humanity up to this point while a kind of instinctive atavistic consciousness still existed, presenting the most manifold images depicting the highest spiritual things and processes, yet these images were not conceptualised in human consciousness.
So it has come about that right at the time when intellectualism has become authoritative, religious documents are misunderstood in many areas. They are approached with intellectual thinking and basically it is quite natural that even with much goodwill, misunderstandings come to the fore. Thus it has happened that when today's presented texts are transcribed into a common language, they do not represent the original documents because a national language has an intellectual basis which is alien to the original elements in which the religious documents were embodied.
When religious documents, particularly the New Testament, are referred back to in its original language, it also becomes apparent that this original language can no longer be experienced in an adequate way in the constitution of souls of today. Actually, a kind of untruthful element enters into the understanding of ancient religious knowledge, also the New Testament. It is hopeless to think that translations done up to now can somehow be improved continually, because it must firstly involve finding the preconditions which will enable a kind of reawakening of ancient spirituality with the purpose of really understanding religious documents. This we can do, this everyone can basically do, if the trouble is taken to apply researchable spiritual scientific facts to, let's say, the New Testament.
I would like to give a small example and that from one of the most important places in the New Testament. I would like to stress from the start that representations in the New Testament are connected to a historic fact; the depiction in the New Testament can only be understood when it is very clear that the fact of the Mystery of Golgotha is placed within the rest of humanity's evolution, but as a fact which falls outside the rest of humanity's laws. The Mystery of Golgotha is a totally singular event and for its understanding should not be considered out of historical foundations but it should be grasped out of itself. Only when you take—I would like to call it super-historical fact—this cosmic fact in relationship with scientific spiritual knowledge about the development of humanity, only then can you actually start understanding the deep sense of the words and the sentence formation of the New Testament. If you don't do this, a far too strong trivial tone enters into the New Testament. We can remind ourselves of various impulses towards a possible understanding of the Bible where absolutely no preparatory understanding is regarded necessary and that it should simply be taken in a naive, primitive manner. You need to remind yourself of this fact in order to judge how strong the reluctance is to perceive the New Testament in its total profundity.
Just consider, my dear friends, that the Mystery of Golgotha, taken in its right sense, was fulfilled for the earth as a specific act of grace out of higher spiritual worlds at a specific time when a certain part of humanity was passing over from a previous state of consciousness to the next one. At the time of the Mystery of Golgotha the evolution of humanity's becoming in earthly life reached up to an inner ego reality. The “I” gradually unfolded at the same time as the Mystery of Golgotha. We may not look for the connection between these two facts, whether causal or just as a connection. We may only consider it a connection when it is compared with one seeing something happening and something is done towards it out of free will. The Mystery of Golgotha appears as a cosmic fact of free will which has come about within the development of humanity in such a way, that the ego consciousness is awakened. Now, you know the remainder of the important facts which are linked to the appearance of the ego consciousness. Something extraordinary may be added to this. It is necessary to know that with the embodiment of the ego consciousness in evolution there was a condition where people looked up at every opportunity of their conscious lives to gods, or—where monotheism existed—to that God who has remained as an image of the Father God. As long as we stand in the imagination of the Father God, the imagination is fulfilled so that we can say: ‘When a human being is aware of his ego nature then he feels that within his ego is the inner working of the Father God in his soul.’ The Father God distils in a certain way a drop of his own Being which remains connected to the entire spiritual sea of the Father God, to the beings of individuals and every person can say to himself: ‘The Father God is alive in me, the abundance of the Father God lives in me.’ However, the entire humanity is permeated with the being of the Father God. Experiencing all of this at present is to say to yourself: ‘I am!’ That is: ‘The Father God is in me.’—To live in this way in present times is becoming increasingly impossible. You must come to your own “I” via your own consciousness which makes it a product of yourself. This production of the individual “I” is in connection with the entire cosmic-spiritual world only possible when individuals identify themselves with Christ, thus with the Son of God.
What can be said about the relationship between people blessed by Christ and people who have not been enriched by Christ? Upon looking back at the consciousness of unblessed mankind, therefore the individual being of their souls, can you say: ‘I am the only one who has been blessed with an “I”?’—No, the soul could only say: ‘Within me the Father God lives and because He lives in me it enables me to say “I” to myself.’—People had not been completely individualised, the individual was a child of God, but as if the child was still connected to God by an umbilical cord. What the soul could have when it was aware of this divine capacity, it could have no more, later on. The Christ-blessed humanity acquired it in such a way that each single soul could take up their “I” out of this divine substance.
In this way the Christ-blessed people were able to take their own “I” out of the substance of their individual soul being.
Thus the Christ brought the same as what the Father God had given humanity on earth, but He brought it in a new way in order for every individual to find a connection to the ego being born within. Thus the Christ could say to humanity: ‘I bring to you what you are used to recognise out of the Logos but I bring it in a new way. I bring it to you through what the Father God has given to me, what He had given directly to you before, but for another state of consciousness. As his messenger I bring this treasure from the Father God to you, to each independent consciousness of yours, to every single individual. I don't want to just make you into some kind of member of the whole cosmos, I will by virtue of the full authority given to me by the Father God make each single one of you, if you want to come, into an “I” filled person with a divine consciousness.’
That the manner in which the divine consciousness should come to people now in a different way to what it had been in earlier times, is because of the Mystery of Golgotha. Similarly, it also applies to the Words of the Gospels taking on quite a different sense as a result of the Mystery of Golgotha. It is for instance possible to refer back to the stages of evolution of humanity from the contents of the Our Father prayer. It doesn't refer to the contents in this case but that the Our Father comes across in a different and in a newer way to the “I” filled conscious soul even though given in the same words, in the same sentences. Penetrating this event with spiritual powers makes it possible again for us to research it ourselves. This fact brings us back to the original meaning of the Gospels. This original meaning must be revealed again today. Humanity should not be allowed to be fobbed off with misunderstandings of Gospels not taken from a lofty view. One should overcome the point of understanding the matter in such a way as to ask oneself: Can you, when you are quite honest in your soul, today still, discover meaning in the words of John 17, verse 1 to 9?
My dear friends, much can be said and repeated about this if you want to disregard the facts that a clear understanding can't really be found. In an artificial way (of the commentator) no meaning can be linked to these words. Only through belief can meaning be connected to them because nothing actual is touched when you have one these sentences (of some or other terrible translation) in front of you. By contrast when you make an attempt to empathise with the (original) texts in a word-for-word translation into your mother tongue (original text says “German”—translator note), then a deeper meaning comes into it. You should not allow, if you are honest with yourself, to say these words would be simplified and be comprehensible to every ordinary human mind, through artificial comments. Actually you realise the deeper meaning in the original and this fact must be your starting point.
Humanity today would prefer not to have to search for such deep meaning in the Gospels. One can't escape the fact that there is deeper meaning which we need to discover. We can't deny it. It would be a subjective fantasy to say: ‘Don't interpret anything in the Gospels, simply remain with the contents.’ That as such is the interpretation. When we go back to the meaning which is there on quite a mundane level then we could translate it in the following way:
After Jesus saved him, he lifted his eyes to heaven and said: Father, the hour has come, let your son be revealed so that he may reveal you, as You have given him power over all who have flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to them. This now is everlasting life, that You are recognised as the only true God and Jesus Christ as your emissary. I have revealed Your being on earth, to fulfil the work You have given to me. And now reveal me, Father, with the light of revelation which came through You to me before the world began. I have brought You into manifestation to humanity which You assigned to me out of the world. They were Yours and You gave them to me and they have remained fulfilled with Your Word. Thus they can see that everything which You have given me comes from You. For the power of thought which You have given me, I have brought to them. You have linked yourself to them and seen how I come from You and that You have given them to me. I pray for each single individual, not for humanity in general, but for those you have given me, for they are yours, created by you.
As I have said to you before, this entire version is nothing other, my dear friends, than the facts of humanity's evolution depicted within the Gospels. The precise truth in the Gospels can be found when you enter into the spiritual facts within them. With this, the kind of awareness develops, I might say, for the right light to be thrown on the words. Is it not true, it is certainly not my intention to utter some idle criticism when I say it is not possible to say the words: “Father, the hour has come for You to reveal your son, so that Your son can reveal you.” If you are honest, you will admit: this doesn't really say anything, even by trying to make it comprehensible through the human heart. In contrast the truth becomes obvious by taking the Greek Text which says: “Father, the hour has come, reveal your son ...” which asks the Father to reveal the Son. The δοξα is no statement, the δοξα is to reveal, to announce, to-bring-to-recognition, and thus it is meant: “... so that your son is revealed out of You.” The mediation of the Father-contents through the power of the Son are expressed directly in these words in a naive idea. Earlier, humanity had the substance of the Father God within them, as described. Now the Father God has brought the Son to becoming the mediator for humanity. This is really written here and is no lie: “... as You have given him power over all who have flesh ...” The expression “flesh” (Fleisch) is difficult to translate here because it can be misunderstood in ordinary speech. In fact, it should say: “... as You have given him power over all human physical bodies so that he can give everlasting life for those given to him.”—When one contemplates these facts, that the human body originally had the consciousness of being filled with God and thus earned everlasting life, you realise that while this power no longer fills the consciousness, the bodies can no longer reflect back the gift of everlasting life. This is why the Christ had to be sent to humanity. ‘This now is everlasting life, that You are recognised as the only true God and Jesus Christ your emissary. I have revealed Your Being on earth, to fulfil the work You have given to me. And now reveal me, Father, with the light of revelation which came through You to me before the world began. I have brought You into manifestation for humanity which you assigned me out of the world. They were Yours and You gave them to me and they have remained fulfilled with Your Word.’
Christ Jesus has made it possible to stop the Word from dying and for the contents of the Father substance to remain in humanity. If the Mystery of Golgotha had not taken place, humanity would have forgotten about this content. The Father God would have been forgotten if the Son had not perpetuated the Fatherly content. Thus they have seen that everything which You have given me comes from You. For the power of thought which You have given me, I have brought to them. You have linked yourself to them and seen how I come from You and that You have given them to me. I pray for each single individual, not for humanity in general, but for those you have given me, for they are yours, created by you.
I add here ‘for humanity in general’ instead of ‘for the World’. This is no longer understood. This spiritual connectivity experience has just been referred to which at the time was an acceptable image: For them as individuals, not only for humanity in general.
In truth, the New Testament does not become less beautiful, magnificent and sublime through our understanding of its contents. This concerns your correct positioning in the present, in the spiritual life of the present, in a religious movement of the present to once again return to the reality contained in the Gospels. How often the request surfaces for the necessity to return again to original Christendom! It fails because nothing can be achieved by an attempt to grasp the Logos in its ancient meaning and then one repeatedly comforts oneself conveniently that the Gospels should be taken up as simple content. However, simple content would not fail if one would actually enter into what is written there. We may not forget, my dear friends, that words do essentially change in their feeling-value in the course of time. It is not possible simply to translate a word out of the ancient language lexicographically. Already today when one translates something lexicographically, the results are entirely different. This applies even more when translating historical events. It does not come down to directly taking the sentimental value attached to words of the present and applying this to ancient wording, but the task is to go back to the feeling within the contents of the ancient working. We can find examples of these facts everywhere in the New Testament where the Gospels were expressed in a time when revelation was given through grace from the spiritual cosmos to mankind which had not yet moved from the partially developed ego consciousness into the fully developed ego consciousness. All other facts need to be judged according to this basic fact. We may not remain fixed in an opinion and say that the earlier, the simple people emerging from the lowest levels could not understand the meaning in it. If the meaning of the Gospels is so simple to understand, we must reveal the other side of this wonderful fact: How were these simple people capable of relating such a profound meaning in the Gospels?—It is far more spiritual to say these simple people born from the folk could not have understood the meaning. Such a conclusion depends on another opinion.
I don't know if any of you—perhaps those of us who are older—have had this kind of experience of going with a loving heart among the country folk. You go there as an educated person feeling tremendously clever and you speak to the folk of what you've learnt. They don't understand you. Yet if you go along with them, you discover an unbelievable deep wisdom among these simple people which outshines anything you can offer out of yourself. The wisdom of naive people is actually deeper than that of educated people. The theory of simplicity among primitive people is an intellectual theory of educated people. For example, the meaning in some of Jakob Bohme's sentences could have been learnt from a herb gatherer forty years ago rather than in a university. This can't be denied. However faithfully an old text can be translated is something from which Professor Beckh can create a song for you, concerning Sanskrit in oriental texts. One will not be going too far by saying Indian philosophy becomes unrecognizable in translation, which for example was done by Professor Deußen (after the visit of Swami Viviknanda to Germany in 1896-translator note). If one wants to examine the original human contents of Deußen's translation, simply the straight forward word combination, you experience it as empty words in which no sense can be found at all. These things are of the utmost importance and are related to the deepest questions of our time. As a result, I do not want to hesitate to decide our future meeting in relation with this consideration, because I believe that it is necessary precisely at this time.
I hope you can experience it as the truth—what I mentioned yesterday—that for the Religious Movement the Act of Consecration becomes the deepest and most everlasting fact which is not merely rich in imagery but that it must become alive and remain capable of becoming ever new and more rich. I hope that we can continue with our working together in this lively unfolding way with which we have started with so much hope.
Werner Klein expressed in closing the wish of the good will remaining so powerfully in the work that in a year's time another meeting will be held where they could ask Dr Steiner's advice.
Rudolf Steiner: We wish for this as well and will hold this in our hearts.
Vierter Vortrag
Ja, meine lieben Freunde, ich möchte zur Ergänzung des Gestrigen nur noch etwas sagen, was ich eigentlich schon gestern habe vorbringen wollen, aber die Zeit war zu kurz. Es handelt sich darum, gerade bei dieser Gelegenheit einmal hinzuweisen auf das Verhältnis, das wir allmählich zur Bibel gewinnen müssen. Die Bibel, namentlich das Neue Testament, ist ja ein Dokument, das wir wieder lernen müssen als eine Art übersinnlicher Offenbarung aufzufassen, nicht im dogmatischen Sinne, sondern indem man sich zu der Erkenntnis durchringt, daß die religiösen Dokumente, wenn sie aus der Zeit bis etwa in das vierte nachchristliche Jahrhundert hinein stammen, nicht allein menschlichen Ursprungs sind, sondern durchaus hineinergossen wurden in ein Menschheitsbewußtsein, das von sich aus noch nicht hätte die betreffenden Erkenntnisse haben können. Ich möchte sagen, Sie brauchen die Sache nur bis zu diesem Punkte zu nehmen, daß die Menschheit eben ausgeht von einer Art atavistischen, instinktiven Bewußtseins, in das Bilder der mannigfaltigsten Art über die höchsten geistigen Dinge und Vorgänge hineinfallen konnten; aber das, was diese Bilder trägt, ist nicht etwas, was aus dem menschlichen Bewußtsein selbst konzipiert, gestaltet sein konnte.
Und so ist es gekommen, daß gerade in der Zeit, als der Intellektualismus maßgebend wurde, die religiösen Dokumente in vieler Beziehung ja mißverstanden worden sind. Es wurde an sie herangegangen mit dem intellektualistischen Denken, und es war im Grunde genommen ganz natürlich, daß bei allem guten Willen da zunächst Mißverständnisse eintreten mußten. So ist es gekommen, daß die gegenwärtig vorliegenden Texte, wenn sie in den heute üblichen Landessprachen geschrieben sind, ja nicht die ursprünglichen Dokumente wiedergeben, weil die Landessprachen aus einer Intellektualität heraus gearbeitet haben, die dem ganzen ursprünglichen Elemente, das in den religiösen Dokumenten enthalten war, etwas Fremdes ist.
Wenn zurückgegangen wird auf die Grundsprache der religiösen Dokumente, insbesondere auf das Neue Testament, so liegt auch das vor, daß diese Grundsprache mit der heutigen Seelenverfassung nicht mehr in der rechten Weise empfunden wird. Und so ist wirklich eine Art Unwahrhaftigkeitselement in die Auffassung der religiösen Urkunden, auch des Neuen Testamentes, hineingekommen. Man darf gar nicht hoffen, daß ein Fortsetzen von Übersetzungen in dem Sinne, wie sie bisher gepflogen worden sind, zu etwas Besserem führen kann, sondern es muß sich darum handeln, erst die Vorbedingungen zu finden, um in einer Art Wiederauferweckung der alten Geistigkeit den Sinn der religiösen Dokumente wirklich zu erfassen. Das können wir, das kann im Grunde jeder, der sich die nötige Mühe gibt, die heute erforschbaren geisteswissenschaftlichen Tatsachen, sagen wir zunächst auf das Neue Testament anzuwenden.
Davon möchte ich nur eine kleine Probe geben, und zwar von einer der wichtigsten Stellen des Neuen Testamentes. Ich möchte vorher nur betonen, daß ja die Darstellungen des Neuen Testamentes sich beziehen auf eine historische Tatsache, daß die Darstellungen des Neuen Testamentes sich nur verstehen lassen, wenn man sich darüber klar ist, daß die Tatsache des Mysteriums von Golgatha sich ganz hineinstellte in die übrige geschichtliche Entwickelung der Menschheit, aber als eine solche Tatsache, die herausfällt aus den übrigen Gesetzen der Menschheit. Das Mysterium von Golgatha ist eine ganz singuläre Tatsache, die nicht aus den historischen Untergründen heraus zu verstehen gesucht werden soll, sondern die an sich und für sich begriffen werden soll. Dann, wenn man diese, ich möchte sagen überhistorische Tatsache, diese kosmische Tatsache nun in Zusammenhang bringt mit demjenigen, was man geisteswissenschaftlich über die Entwickelung der Menschheit kennenlernen kann, dann beginnt man eigentlich erst den tiefen Sinn der Worte, der Satzprägung des Neuen Testamentes zu erfassen. Wenn man das nicht tut, kommt ein zu starker Ton
des Trivialen in das Neue Testament hinein. Wir brauchen uns nur an mancherlei zu erinnern, was aus dem Bestreben hervorgegangen ist, die Bibel möglichst so aufzufassen, daß man überhaupt zu ihrer Erfassung keiner Vorbereitung bedarf und sagt, man fasse sie einfältig, primitiv auf. Man braucht sich nur dieser Tatsache zu erinnern, um zu ermessen, wie stark die Abneigung war, das Neue Testament in seiner vollen Tiefe zu erkennen.
Bedenken Sie, meine lieben Freunde, daß das Mysterium von Golgatha, im richtigen Sinne genommen, als ein für die Erde bestimmter Gnadenakt aus höheren geistigen Welten sich vollzogen hat in einer bestimmten Zeit, in der ein gewisser Teil der Menschheit übergegangen ist von einem vorher entwickelten Bewußtseinszustand in einen nachherigen. Die Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha fällt ganz damit zusammen, daß die Menschheit als sich fortentwickelnde Wesenschaft aufsteigt zu dem Erleben der inneren Ich-Tatsache. Das Ich kommt allmählich in der Menschheit herauf in der Zeit, in die das Mysterium von Golgatha fällt. Nicht dürfen wir einen Zusammenhang zwischen diesen beiden Tatsachen suchen, sei es einen kausalen oder einen sonstigen Zusammenhang. Wir können nur einen solchen Zusammenhang sehen, wie es etwa derjenige ist, wenn irgend jemand sieht, wie etwas sich abspielt, und dazu etwas aus völlig freiem Willen tut. Das Mysterium von Golgatha kommt als eine Tatsache kosmischer Freiheit zu dem hinzu, was sich innerhalb der Menschheitsentwickelung so ergeben hat, daß das Ichbewußtsein auftaucht. Nun, Sie kennen ja die übrigen wichtigen Tatsachen, die mit diesem Heraufkommen des Ichbewußtseins verknüpft sind. Aber nun kommt etwas Besonderes hinzu. Es ist notwendig zu wissen, daß diesem Sicheingliedern des Ichbewußtseins in die sich entwickelnde Menschheit vorangegangen ist ein Zustand, wo der Mensch bei jeder Gelegenheit seines Erlebens im Bewußtsein heraufgeschaut hat zu den Göttern, oder, wo Monotheismus war, zu demjenigen Gott, der uns dann geblieben ist in der Vorstellung des Vatergottes. Solange wir in der Vorstellung des Vatergottes stehen, ist diese Vorstellung damit zu erfüllen, daß wir sagen: Wenn der Mensch auf der Erde sich als Ich-Wesenheit bewußt ist, so fühlt er das, was in seinem Ich liegt, als das Hereinwirken des Vatergottes in seine Seele. Der Vatergott träufelt gewissermaßen einen Tropfen seines eigenen Wesens, der aber im Zusammenhang bleibt mit dem ganzen Meere der Geistigkeit des Vatergottes, in die Wesenheit des einzelnen Menschen, und der einzelne Mensch kann sich dann sagen: Es lebt in mir der Vatergott, es lebt die ganze Fülle des Vatergottes in mir. Aber es lebt die ganze Menschheit in dem Durchdrungensein mit der Wesenheit des Vatergottes. Dies als ein Gegenwärtiges zu erleben, das heißt, sich zu sagen: Ich bin!, das ist: Der Vatergott ist in mir. - Dies als Gegenwärtiges zu erleben, wurde der Menschheit allmählich unmöglich. Sie mußte zu einem eigenen Ich kommen, das aus dem eigenen Bewußtsein heraus der Form nach produktiv ist. Und dieses Produktive des eigenen Ichs war im Zusammenhange mit der ganzen kosmisch-geistigen Welt nur möglich, wenn sich der einzelne Mensch mit dem Christus identifizierte, also mit dem Sohnesgott.
Was kann man also sagen über das Verhältnis der Christusbegnadeten Menschheit zu der noch nicht mit Christus begnadeten Menschheit? Wenn die noch nicht mit dem Christus begnadete Menschheit zurücksah auf das Bewußtsein, also auf die eigene Wesenheit der Seele, konnte sie dann sagen: Ich bin als einzelner mit dem Ich begabt? - Nein, die Seele konnte sich nur sagen: In mir lebt der Vatergott, und daß er in mir lebt, das bewirkt, daß ich zu mir Ich sagen kann. - Der einzelne war noch nicht vollkommen individualisiert, der einzelne war ein Kind des Vatergottes, aber so, daß das Kind gewissermaßen noch durch eine Art Nabelschnur zusammenhing mit dem Vater. Das aber, was die Seele haben konnte, wenn sie sich dieses ihres göttlichen Inhaltes bewußt wurde, konnte sie nachher nicht mehr haben. Und die Christus-begnadete Menschheit bekam das so, daß jeder aus seinem einzelnen Seelenwesen heraus in sein Ich diese Substanz aufnehmen konnte.
So brachte der Christus den Menschen auf Erden dasselbe, was der Menschheit auf Erden der Vatergott gegeben hat, aber er brachte es auf eine neue Weise, so daß jeder es nun mit seinem aus sich selbst herausquellenden Ich verbinden konnte. Und so konnte der Christus der Menschheit sagen: Ich bringe euch, was ihr gewohnt seid, aus dem Logos zu erkennen, aber ich bringe es euch auf eine neue Weise. Ich bringe es euch so, daß der Vatergott mir das übergeben hat, was er euch vorher direkt gegeben hat, aber für einen anderen Bewußtseinszustand. Als sein Gesandter bringe ich euch den Schatz des Vaters, für jedes einzelne Bewußtsein von euch, für jede einzelne Individualität von euch. Ich will euch nicht mehr nur zu Menschen machen, die gewissermaßen ein Glied im ganzen Kosmos sind, ich will vermöge der Vollmacht, die mir der Vatergott gegeben hat, jeden einzelnen von euch, wenn er kommen will, zu einem gotterfüllten Menschen machen. Diejenigen, die so der Vatergott mir übergibt als einzelne, die erfülle ich mit dem Gottes-Bewußtsein.
Daß also die Art, wie das Gottes-Bewußtsein zu den Menschen kommen sollte, eine andere ist als sie früher war, das ist das Wesentliche des Mysteriums von Golgatha. Daher ist es auch so, daß die Worte des Evangeliums durch das Mysterium von Golgatha einen ganz anderen Sinn bekommen. Es ist zum Beispiel durchaus möglich, von dem Inhalt des Vaterunsers einzelne Teile in früheren Entwickelungsstadien der Menschheit nachzuweisen. Aber auf den Inhalt kommt es in diesem Fall nicht an, sondern darauf, daß in anderer, in neuer Weise der mit dem Ichbewußtsein erfüllten Seele das Vaterunser mit denselben Worten, mit denselben Sätzen gegeben wird. Dieses Hineindringen in die geistigen Kräfte der Geschichte wird uns wiederum möglich, wenn wir selbst geistig forschen können. Das ist es, was uns zurückbringt zu dem ursprünglichen Sinn der Evangelien. Dieser ursprüngliche Sinn muß heute herauskommen. Die Menschheit darf nicht weiter mit mißverstandenen, das heißt mit nicht hoch genug genommenen Evangelien[übersetzungen] abgespeist werden. Man muß sich schon überwinden, die Sache so aufzufassen, daß man sich einmal fragt: Kann man, wenn man ganz chrlich ist in seiner Seele, heute noch einen Sinn empfinden bei den Worten in Johannes 17, Vers 1 bis 92 Nun, meine lieben Freunde, darüber kann allerlei gesagt und nachgesagt werden, wenn man über die Tatsache hinweggehen will, daß damit nicht wirklich in deutlicher Weise ein Sinn getroffen wird. Auf künstliche Art [des Kommentierens] läßt sich mit dieser Rede kein Sinn verbinden. Eigentlich nur durch den Glauben läßt sich damit ein Sinn verbinden. Denn auf etwas Reales stößt man nicht, wenn man diese Sätze [in einer der üblichen Übersetzungen] vor sich hat. Dagegen wenn man den Versuch macht, mit Empfindung des [ursprünglichen] Textes ganz wörtlich den Text in deutscher Sprache wiederzugeben, so kommt ein tieferer Sinn hinein, und man darf nicht, man kann gar nicht sagen, wenn man ehrlich ist mit sich selbst, es wäre dadurch der einfältige Sinn dieser Rede, der für jedes gewöhnliche menschliche Gemüt verständlich sei, künstlich kommentiert worden. Man kommt nämlich darauf, daß dieser vertieftere Sinn wirklich der ursprüngliche ist, und von dieser Tatsache muß man ausgehen.
Es mag ja dem heutigen Menschen lieber sein, daß man einen solchen Sinn im Evangelium nicht zu suchen habe. Aber man kommt nicht über die Tatsache hinweg, daß dieser tiefere Sinn eben doch darinnen ist und wir ihn eben herausholen müssen. Wir können nicht anders. Es wäre eine subjektive Phantasie, wenn wir sagen wollten: Interpretiert nichts in das Evangelium hinein, wir wollen bei seinem einfältigen Inhalt bleiben. - Das ist eben das Interpretieren. Wenn wir einfach zu dem Sinn zurückgehen, der in ganz nüchterner Weise da ist, so kann ich nicht anders, als ihn etwa in der folgenden Weise wiedergeben:
Nachdem Jesus dieses geredet hatte, erhob er seine Augen zum Himmel und sagte: Vater, die Stunde ist gekommen, offenbare es Deinem Sohne, auf daß Dein Sohn es von Dir offenbare, wie Du ihm Macht über alles Fleisch gegeben hast, damit er den ihm zu eigen Gegebenen das dauernde Leben gebe. Das aber ist das dauernde Leben, daß sie Dich als den einzig wahren Gott erkennen und Jesus Christus als den Abgesandten. Ich habe Dich auf Erden geoffenbaret, um zum Ziele zu bringen das Werk, das Du mir zu tun auferlegt hast. Und nun offenbare mich, Vater, mit der Offenbarung, die mir durch Dich ward, ehe die Welt bestand. Ich habe [Dich] zur Erscheinung gebracht für die Menschen, welche Du mir aus der Welt zugeteilt hast. Dein waren sie und Du gabst sie mir, und sie sind von Deinem Worte erfüllt geblieben.
So haben sie erkannt, wie alles, was Du mir gegeben hast, aus Dir ist. Denn die Gedankenkräfte, die Du mir gegeben hast, habe ich zu ihnen gebracht. Sie haben sich mit ihnen verbunden und durchschaut, daß ich von Dir komme und eingesehen, daß Du mich ihnen gegeben hast. Für sie als einzelne Menschen, nicht für die Menschen im Allgemeinen, bitte ich bei Dir, nur für die Menschen, die Du mir gegeben hast, weil sie durch Dich sind.
Nun liegt in der ganzen Darstellung dasjenige, was ich Ihnen vorher gesagt habe, und es ist nichts anderes, meine lieben Freunde, als daß die geistigen Entwickelungstatsachen der Menschheit in den Evangelien wiedergegeben sind. Man kann die Evangelien eben gerade in ihrer Richtigkeit finden, wenn man auf die geistigen Tatsachen darin gekommen ist. Und damit entsteht eben das Bewußtsein, das, ich möchte sagen, das richtige Licht zu werfen vermag auf die Worte. Nicht wahr, es ist ganz gewiß von mir nicht die Sucht, eine eitle Kritik zu üben, wenn ich sage, es ist nicht möglich, das Wort zu sagen: «Vater, die Stunde ist hie, daß Du Deinen Sohn verklärest, auf daß Dich Dein Sohn auch verkläre.» - Wenn man ehrlich ist, muß man sagen: Damit ist eigentlich gar nichts gesagt, wenigstens nicht von der Art, daß man einen mit dem menschlichen Herzen ergreifbaren Sinn darinnen haben könnte. Dagegen kommt selbstverständlich ein richtiger Sinn heraus, wenn man nach dem griechischen Texte sagt: «Vater, die Stunde ist gekommen, offenbare es Deinem Sohne ...» - also die Bitte an den Vater, er solle dem Sohne offenbaren. Die 80&0. ist keine Verklärung, die 5080 ist ein Offenbaren, ein Bekanntgeben, ein Zur-Erkenntnis-Bringen, und so ist es hier gemeint: «... auf daß Dein Sohn es von Dir offenbare.» Die Vermittlung des Vater-Inhaltes durch die Kraft des Sohnes kommt da in den Worten unmittelbar zum Ausdruck in naiver Anschauung. Vorher hatten die Menschen auf die geschilderte Art die Substanz des Vatergottes in sich. Nun hat der Vatergott den Sohn dazu gebracht, daß der Sohn den Inhalt an die Menschheit vermittelt. Das steht wirklich da und es ist gar nicht zu leugnen, daß es da steht: «... wie Du ihm Macht über alles Fleisch gegeben hast ...» - der Ausdruck «Fleisch» ist schwer zu übersetzen, da er falsch verstanden wird durch die gewöhnliche Sprache. Eigentlich müßte man sagen: «... wie Du ihm Macht über alle Menschenleiber gegeben hast, damit er den ihm zu eigen Gegebenen das dauernde Leben verleihe.» - Wenn man bedenkt, daß ja die Tatsache vorliegt, daß früher die menschlichen Leiber so waren, daß sie von der ursprünglichen Bewußtheit erfaßt wurden, die noch gotterfüllt war und damit das dauernde Leben bekamen, so sieht man ein, daß, weil jetzt nicht mehr das Bewußtsein von der Kraft erfüllt ist, die Leiber in die Seele nichts zurückreflektieren können, was dauerndes Leben verleiht. Darum ist der Christus der Menschheit gesandt worden. «Das aber ist das dauernde Leben, daß sie Dich als den einzig wahren Gott erkennen und Jesus Christus als den Abgesandten. Ich habe Dich auf Erden geoffenbaret, um zum Ziele zu bringen das Werk, das Du mir zu tun auferlegt hast. Und nun offenbare mich, Vater, mit der Offenbarung, die mir durch Dich ward, ehe die Welt bestand. Ich habe [Dich] zur Erscheinung gebracht für die Menschen, welche Du mir aus der Welt zugeteilt hast. Dein waren sie und Du gabst sie mir, und sie sind von Deinem Worte erfüllt geblieben.»
Christus Jesus hat bewirkt, daß das Wort nicht erstorben ist in den Menschen, daß der väterliche Substanzinhalt den Menschen geblieben ist. Wenn das Mysterium von Golgatha nicht gewesen wäre, so hätten die Menschen ihren Inhalt vergessen. Der Vater wäre vergessen worden, wenn der Sohn nicht die Gegenwart des Vaters aufrechterhalten hätte. «So haben sie erkannt, wie alles, was Du mir gegeben hast, aus Dir ist. Denn die Gedankenkräfte, die Du mir gegeben hast, habe ich zu ihnen gebracht. Sie haben sich mit ihnen verbunden und durchschaut, daß ich von Dir komme und eingesehen, daß Du mich ihnen gegeben hast. Für sie als einzelne Menschen, nicht für die Menschen im Allgemeinen, bitte ich bei Dir, nur für die Menschen, die Du mir gegeben hast, weil sie durch Dich sind.» - Ich setze hierher «für die Menschen im Allgemeinen» statt «für die Welt». - Das wird nicht mehr verstanden. Es ist eben auf dieses geistige Verbundensein hingewiesen, was damals gangbare Vorstellung war: Für sie als einzelne Menschen, nicht nur für die Menschen im allgemeinen.
Wahrhaftig, das Neue Testament wird dadurch, daß man seinen Inhalt ergreift, nicht weniger schön, groß und erhaben. Das gehört auch zum richtigen Sichhineinstellen in die Gegenwart, in das geistige Leben der Gegenwart, in eine religiöse Bewegung der Gegenwart, daß man einfach wieder zurückgeht zu der Wirklichkeit im Evangelium. Wie oft ist die Forderung aufgetaucht, man müßte wieder zu dem ursprünglichen Christentum zurückkehren. Das scheiterte eben daran, daß man nicht erreichen konnte darauf auszugehen, den Logos in seiner Urbedeutung zu ergreifen und sich wieder und wieder mit der menschlichen Bequemlichkeit tröstete, daß man die Evangelien eben mehr in dem einfältigen Inhalte hinnehmen müsse. Aber der einfache Inhalt würde ja nicht mehr verwischt werden, wenn man einfach auf das eingeht, was dasteht. Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, meine lieben Freunde, daß die Worte ja im Laufe der Zeit ihre Gefühlswerte wesentlich ändern. Es ist nicht möglich, einfach lexikographisch ein Wort aus einer alten Sprache herüberzunehmen. Schon wenn man jetzt in der Gegenwart etwas einfach lexikographisch übersetzt, bekommt man ganz andere Inhalte heraus. Das ist noch mehr der Fall, wenn man Dinge der Vergangenheit übersetzt. Es kommt ja nicht darauf an, den Gefühlswert, der in der Gegenwart bei einem Worte da ist, unmittelbar an das anzulehnen, was im Wortlaute des alten Wortes liegt, sondern die Aufgabe ist die, zurückzugehen zu dem Gefühlsinhalte des alten Wortlautes. Da können wir überall im Neuen Testament die Tatsache finden, daß die Evangelien gesprochen sind zu einer Zeit, als die Offenbarung desjenigen, was vom geistigen Kosmos aus Gnade für die Menschheit geschehen ist, aus dem noch nicht voll entwickelten Ichbewußtsein in das vollentwickelte Bewußtsein der Ichheit übergegangen ist. Alle übrigen Tatsachen müssen nach dieser Grundtatsache beurteilt werden. Man darf nicht bei Vorurteilen stehenbleiben und sagen, die Jünger, die als einfache Menschen aus den niedersten Ständen hervorgegangen sind, konnten einen solchen Sinn nicht erfassen. - Wenn der Sinn der Evangelien einfach aufzufassen ist, so müssen wir andererseits die wunderbare Tatsache enthüllen: Wie sind diese einfachen Menschen dazu gekommen, den Evangelien diesen tiefen Sinn zu geben? - Das ist viel geistiger, als wenn man sagt, diese einfachen, aus dem Volke hervorgegangenen Menschen hätten einen solchen Sinn gar nicht erfassen können. Eine solche Auffassung beruht auf einem anderen Vorurteil.
Ich weiß nicht, ob Sie es erlebt haben - vielleicht die Älteren unter Ihnen. Wenn Sie vor vierzig Jahren mit einem liebenden Herzen unter das Landvolk gegangen sind, dann konnte man die folgende Erfahrung machen. Man ging als Gebildeter hinaus, als ungeheuer gescheit sich Fühlender, und sprach mit den Leuten über das, was man gelernt hatte. Da konnten sie nicht mit. Aber ging man mit ihnen mit, so entdeckte man unter diesen einfachen Leuten eine ungeheuer tiefe Weisheit, die das überstrahlte, was man selbst mitgebracht hatte. Die Weisheit der naiven Leute ist nämlich eine tiefere als die der Gebildeten. Die Theorie von der Einfältigkeit des primitiven Menschen ist eben eine Theorie der intellektualistisch Gebildeten. Was zum Beispiel Jakob Böhme gemeint hat mit manchen seiner Sätze, das konnte man vor vierzig Jahren noch eher von manchem Kräutersammler lernen als heute im Universitätskolleg. Das ist nicht zu leugnen. Und wie treu manchmal alte Texte wiedergegeben werden, davon wird Ihnen Herr Professor Beckh ein Lied singen können in bezug auf Sanskrit und andere orientalische Texte. Man wird nicht zu weit gehen, wenn man sagt: Was in der indischen Philosophie enthalten ist, das ist nicht wiederzuerkennen in den Übersetzungen, die zum Beispiel Deußen gemacht hat, weil man, wenn man auf den ursprünglichen menschlichen Inhalt der Sache gehen will, das, was in Deußens Übersetzungen steht, einfach wie bloße Wortzusammensetzungen, wie bloße Worthülsen empfindet, in die man überhaupt keinen Sinn mehr hineinbringt. Diese Dinge sind ungeheuer ernst und hängen mit tiefernsten Fragen unserer Zeit zusammen. Deshalb wollte ich wirklich nicht versäumen, unsere Zusammenkunft noch mit dieser Betrachtung zu beschließen, weil ich glaube, daß sie Sie hinweisen kann auf etwas, was gerade im gegenwärtigen Augenblicke notwendig ist.
Ich hoffe, daß sich das erfüllen kann, wovon ich gestern sprach, daß für die religiöse Bewegung die Menschenweihehandlung die tiefste und fortdauernde Tatsache sein wird, daß sie nicht bloß bildhaft ist, sondern ein Lebendiges werden muß, das sich fortentwickelt, wie das Leben sich fortentwickelt, und das fähig bleibt, immer neu und reicher zu werden. Und ich hoffe, daß wir zusammenarbeiten können an dieser lebendigen Fortentwickelung desjenigen, was wir ja so hoffnungsvoll begonnen haben.
Werner Klein spricht im Schlußwort den Wunsch aus, daß der gute Wille zur Arbeit so stark bleiben wird, daß man übers Jahr sich wieder versammeln kann und den Rat Dr. Steiners erbitten darf.
Rudolf Steiner: Wir wollen es hoffen und in unseren Herzen so halten.
Fourth Lecture
Yes, my dear friends, I would just like to add something to yesterday's lecture that I actually wanted to say yesterday, but time was too short. I would like to take this opportunity to point out the relationship that we must gradually develop with the Bible. The Bible, especially the New Testament, is a document that we must learn to understand again as a kind of supersensible revelation, not in the dogmatic sense, but by coming to the realization that the religious documents, if they originate from the time up to about the fourth century after Christ, are not of human origin alone, but were poured into a human consciousness that could not yet have had the relevant knowledge on its own. I would like to say that you need only take the matter up to this point, that humanity starts from a kind of atavistic, instinctive consciousness into which images of the most varied kind about the highest spiritual things and processes could fall; but that which carries these images is not something that could have been conceived, formed from human consciousness itself.
And so it happened that precisely at the time when intellectualism became dominant, the religious documents were misunderstood in many respects. They were approached with intellectualist thinking, and it was basically quite natural that, despite all good will, misunderstandings were bound to occur at first. Thus it came about that the present texts, if they are written in today's common national languages, do not reflect the original documents, because the national languages have worked out of an intellectuality that is something alien to the whole original element contained in the religious documents.
If we go back to the basic language of the religious documents, especially to the New Testament, then it is also the case that this basic language is no longer perceived in the right way with today's state of mind. And so a kind of element of untruthfulness has really entered into the understanding of religious documents, including the New Testament. We must not hope that a continuation of translations in the sense in which they have been practiced up to now can lead to something better, but it must be a matter of first finding the preconditions in order to really grasp the meaning of the religious documents in a kind of revival of the old spirituality. We can do this, basically anyone who makes the necessary effort to apply the facts of spiritual science that can be researched today, let's say first of all to the New Testament.
I would like to give you just a small sample of this, namely from one of the most important passages of the New Testament. I would just like to emphasize beforehand that the descriptions of the New Testament refer to a historical fact, that the descriptions of the New Testament can only be understood if one is clear about the fact that the fact of the Mystery of Golgotha was completely integrated into the rest of the historical development of mankind, but as such a fact that falls out of the rest of the laws of mankind. The Mystery of Golgotha is a completely singular fact that should not be sought to be understood from the historical background, but should be understood in and of itself. Then, when this, I would say, supra-historical fact, this cosmic fact, is brought into connection with what we can learn from spiritual science about the development of humanity, then we really only begin to grasp the deep meaning of the words, the phrases of the New Testament. If one does not do this, a too strong tone
of the trivial into the New Testament. We need only recall some of the things that have emerged from the endeavor to understand the Bible in such a way that one needs no preparation at all to grasp it and say that one understands it in a simple, primitive way. One need only remember this fact to appreciate how strong the reluctance was to recognize the New Testament in its full depth.
Remember, my dear friends, that the Mystery of Golgotha, taken in its proper sense, was an act of grace from higher spiritual worlds destined for the earth, which took place at a certain time when a certain part of humanity passed from a previously developed state of consciousness to a later one. The time of the Mystery of Golgotha coincides entirely with the fact that humanity, as an evolving entity, ascends to the experience of the inner I-fact. The I gradually comes up in humanity at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha. We must not look for a connection between these two facts, be it a causal or any other connection. We can only see a connection such as that which exists when someone sees something take place and does something of his own free will. The Mystery of Golgotha is added as a fact of cosmic freedom to that which has arisen within the development of mankind in such a way that the I-consciousness emerges. Well, you know the other important facts that are connected with this emergence of ego-consciousness. But now something special is added. It is necessary to know that this integration of the ego-consciousness into the developing humanity was preceded by a state in which man, on every occasion of his experience, looked up in consciousness to the gods, or, where there was monotheism, to that God who then remained with us in the mental image of the Father God. As long as we stand in the conception of the Father God, this conception is to be fulfilled by saying: When man on earth is conscious of himself as an ego-being, he feels that which lies in his ego as the working of the Father God into his soul. In a way, God the Father pours a drop of his own essence, which, however, remains in connection with the whole sea of the spirituality of God the Father, into the being of the individual human being, and the individual human being can then say to himself: God the Father lives in me, the whole fullness of God the Father lives in me. But the whole of humanity lives in being imbued with the essence of God the Father. To experience this as a presence means to say to oneself: I am, that is: God the Father is in me. - Experiencing this as a presence gradually became impossible for humanity. It had to arrive at its own ego, which is productive in form out of its own consciousness. And this productive ego was only possible in connection with the entire cosmic-spiritual world if the individual human being identified with the Christ, that is, with the Son of God.
So what can we say about the relationship between humanity that has been graced with Christ and humanity that has not yet been graced with Christ? If humanity not yet gifted with Christ looked back at consciousness, i.e. at the soul's own essence, could it then say: I as an individual am gifted with the I? - No, the soul could only say to itself: God the Father lives in me, and the fact that he lives in me means that I can say I to myself. - The individual was not yet completely individualized, the individual was a child of God the Father, but in such a way that the child was still connected to the Father by a kind of umbilical cord. But what the soul could have when it became aware of its divine content, it could no longer have afterwards. And Christ-graced humanity received this in such a way that everyone was able to absorb this substance into their ego from their individual soul being.
So the Christ brought the same to men on earth what God the Father had given to mankind on earth, but he brought it in a new way, so that everyone could now connect it with his I springing out of himself. And so the Christ could say to humanity: I bring you what you are used to recognizing from the Logos, but I bring it to you in a new way. I bring it to you in such a way that God the Father has given me what he gave you directly before, but for a different state of consciousness. As his messenger I bring you the treasure of the Father, for every single consciousness of yours, for every single individuality of yours. I no longer want to make you merely human beings who are, so to speak, a member of the whole cosmos, I want, by means of the authority which God the Father has given me, to make every single one of you, if he wants to come, a God-filled human being. Those whom God the Father hands over to me as individuals, I fill with the God-consciousness.
This is the essence of the Mystery of Golgotha: that the way in which God-consciousness should come to people is different from the way it used to be. That is why the words of the Gospel take on a completely different meaning through the Mystery of Golgotha. It is quite possible, for example, to trace individual parts of the content of the Lord's Prayer back to earlier stages in the development of humanity. But in this case it is not the content that matters, but the fact that the Lord's Prayer is given to the soul filled with ego-consciousness in a different, new way, with the same words, with the same sentences. This penetration into the spiritual forces of history becomes possible for us again when we ourselves are able to research spiritually. This is what brings us back to the original meaning of the Gospels. This original meaning must emerge today. Humanity must not continue to be fobbed off with misunderstood Gospels, that is, with Gospel translations that are not taken seriously enough. One must overcome oneself to understand the matter in such a way that one asks oneself: Can one, if one is completely Christian in one's soul, still feel a meaning today in the words in John 17, verses 1 to 92 Well, my dear friends, all sorts of things can be said and said about this, if one wants to ignore the fact that a meaning is not really made in a clear way. In an artificial way [of commenting] no meaning can be attached to this speech. In fact, it is only through faith that a meaning can be attached to it. For one does not come across anything real when one has these sentences [in one of the usual translations] before one. On the other hand, if one makes the attempt to reproduce the text in German quite literally with a feeling for the [original] text, a deeper meaning comes into it, and one must not, one cannot, if one is honest with oneself, say that the simple meaning of this speech, which is understandable to every ordinary human mind, has been artificially commented on. For one comes to the conclusion that this deeper meaning is really the original one, and one must proceed from this fact.
Today's man may prefer not to look for such a meaning in the Gospel. But there is no getting away from the fact that this deeper meaning is there after all and that we have to extract it. We cannot do otherwise. It would be a subjective fantasy if we wanted to say: Don't interpret anything into the Gospel, we want to stick to its simple content. - That is what interpretation is. If we simply go back to the meaning, which is there in a very sober way, I cannot help but render it in the following way:
After Jesus had spoken these things, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come, reveal it to your Son, that your Son may reveal it from you, as you have given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to those who have been given to him as his own. And this is eternal life, that they may recognize You as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the one sent. I have revealed You on earth in order to bring to completion the work You have given me to do. And now reveal me, Father, with the revelation that came to me through You before the world existed. I have made [You] manifest to the people whom You assigned to me from the world. They were Yours and You gave them to me, and they have remained filled with Your Word.
So they have recognized how everything You have given me is from You. For the powers of thought that You have given me I have brought to them. They have joined with them and have seen through that I come from You and have realized that You have given me to them. For them as individuals, not for people in general, I pray to You, only for the people You have given me, because they are through You.
Now in the whole presentation lies that which I have told you before, and it is nothing else, my dear friends, than that the spiritual development facts of mankind are reproduced in the Gospels. The Gospels can be found to be correct precisely when one has arrived at the spiritual facts in them. And this gives rise to the consciousness which, I would like to say, is able to throw the right light on the words. Not true, it is certainly not my desire to make a vain criticism when I say that it is not possible to say the words: “Father, the hour is here for you to transfigure your Son, so that your Son may also transfigure you.” - If one is honest, one must say that nothing is actually said in this way, at least not of such a kind that one could have a meaning in it that could be grasped by the human heart. On the other hand, a correct meaning naturally emerges when one says according to the Greek text: “Father, the hour has come, reveal it to your Son ...” - i.e. the request to the Father to reveal to the Son. The 80&0. is not a transfiguration, the 5080. is a revealing, a making known, a bringing to knowledge, and this is what is meant here: “... so that your Son may reveal it from you.” The mediation of the Father's content through the power of the Son is expressed directly in the words in a naive way. Previously, people had the substance of God the Father within them in the way described. Now God the Father has brought the Son to impart the substance to humanity. This is really there and it cannot be denied that it is there: “... as you have given him power over all flesh ...” - the expression “flesh” is difficult to translate because it is misunderstood by ordinary language. It should actually say: “... as Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to those who are his own.” - If we consider the fact that in the past human bodies were such that they were seized by the original consciousness, which was still filled with God and thus received eternal life, we realize that because the consciousness is no longer filled with power, the bodies can no longer reflect anything back into the soul that gives eternal life. That is why Christ was sent to mankind. "But this is eternal life, that they recognize You as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the one sent. I have revealed You on earth to bring to fulfillment the work You have given me to do. And now reveal me, Father, with the revelation that came to me through You before the world existed. I have made [You] manifest to the people whom You assigned to me from the world. They were yours and you gave them to me, and they have remained filled with your word."
Christ Jesus has ensured that the Word has not died in people, that the fatherly substance has remained in people. If it had not been for the Mystery of Golgotha, people would have forgotten its content. The Father would have been forgotten if the Son had not maintained the Father's presence. "Thus they have recognized how everything You have given me is from You. For the powers of thought that You have given me I have brought to them. They joined with them and saw through that I came from You and realized that You had given me to them. For them as individuals, not for people in general, I pray to You, only for the people You have given me, because they are through You." - I put here “for people in general” instead of “for the world”. - This is no longer understood. It's just pointing to this spiritual connectedness, which was a viable mental image at the time: for them as individuals, not just for people in general.
Truly, the New Testament does not become less beautiful, great and sublime by the fact that one grasps its content. It is also part of the right way of placing oneself in the present, in the spiritual life of the present, in a religious movement of the present, that one simply goes back to the reality of the Gospel. How often has the demand arisen that we should return to the original Christianity. This failed precisely because it was not possible to begin to grasp the Logos in its original meaning and to console oneself again and again with the human convenience that one must accept the Gospels more in their simple content. But the simple content would no longer be blurred if we simply accepted what it says. We must not forget, my dear friends, that words change their sentimental value considerably over the course of time. It is not possible to simply lexicographically take a word from an old language. Even if you simply translate something lexicographically in the present, you get completely different content. This is even more the case when you translate things from the past. It is not a question of directly linking the emotional value of a word in the present to what lies in the wording of the old word, but rather of going back to the emotional content of the old wording. Everywhere in the New Testament we can find the fact that the Gospels were spoken at a time when the revelation of what had happened for humanity from the spiritual cosmos out of grace had passed from the not yet fully developed ego-consciousness into the fully developed consciousness of the ego. All other facts must be judged according to this basic fact. We must not stop at prejudices and say that the disciples, who emerged as simple men from the lowest classes, could not grasp such a meaning. - If the meaning of the Gospels is to be understood simply, we must, on the other hand, reveal the marvelous fact: How did these simple people come to give the Gospels this profound meaning? - This is much more spiritual than saying that these simple people, who emerged from the people, could not have grasped such a meaning. Such a view is based on a different prejudice.
I don't know if you have experienced it - perhaps the older ones among you have. Forty years ago, if you went out among the country folk with a loving heart, you could experience the following. You went out as an educated person, as someone who felt incredibly clever, and talked to the people about what you had learned. They couldn't join in. But if you went with them, you discovered a tremendously deep wisdom among these simple people that outshone what you had brought with you. The wisdom of naive people is deeper than that of educated people. The theory of the simple-mindedness of primitive man is a theory of the intellectually educated. What Jakob Böhme meant with some of his sentences, for example, was something you could learn from some herbalists forty years ago rather than in a university college today. That cannot be denied. And Professor Beckh will be able to tell you a thing or two about how faithfully old texts are sometimes reproduced when it comes to Sanskrit and other oriental texts. It is not going too far to say that what is contained in Indian philosophy cannot be recognized in the translations made by Deußen, for example, because if you want to go to the original human content of the matter, what is contained in Deußen's translations is simply perceived as mere word combinations, as mere empty phrases into which you can no longer make any sense at all. These things are extremely serious and are connected with the most profound questions of our time. That is why I really did not want to fail to conclude our meeting with this reflection, because I believe that it can point you to something that is necessary at this very moment.
I hope that what I spoke of yesterday can be fulfilled, that for the religious movement the consecration of man will be the most profound and enduring fact, that it is not merely figurative, but must become a living thing that continues to develop as life continues to develop, and that remains capable of becoming ever new and richer. And I hope that we can work together on this living development of that which we have begun so hopefully.
Werner Klein expresses the wish in his closing words that the good will to work will remain so strong that we can meet again throughout the year and ask for Dr. Steiner's advice.
Rudolf Steiner: Let us hope and keep it that way in our hearts.