Christianity as Mystical Fact
GA 8
VII. The Gospels
[ 1 ] The accounts of the life of Jesus that can be submitted to historical examination are contained in the Gospels. All that does not come from this source might, in the opinion of one of those who are considered the greatest historical authorities on the subject (Harnack), be “easily written on a quarto page.”
But what kind of documents are these Gospels? The fourth, that of St. John, differs so much from the others that those who think themselves obliged to follow the path of historical research in order to study the subject come to the conclusion: “If John possesses the genuine tradition about the life of Jesus, that of the first three Evangelists (the Synoptists) is untenable. If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must be Tejected as a historical source”.1Otto Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, (The Main Problems of Research into the Life of Jesus), p. 15. This is a statement made from the standpoint of historical research.
In the present work, in which we are dealing with the mystical contents of the Gospels, such a point of view is to be neither accepted nor rejected. But attention must certainly be drawn to such an opinion as the following: “Measured by the standard of agreement, inspiration, and completeness, these writings leave very much to be desired; and even measured by the ordinary human standard they suffer from not a few imperfections.” This is the opinion of a Christian theologian.2Harnack, Wesen des Christentums, (The Essential Nature of Christianity).
One who takes his stand on a mystical origin of the Gospels easily finds an explanation of what is apparently contradictory, and also discovers harmony between the fourth Gospel and the three others. For none of these writings are meant to be mere historical tradition in the ordinary sense of the word. They do not profess to give a historical biography (cf. p. 113 et seq.). What they intended to give had always existed as a prototype in the traditions of the Mysteries, as the typical life of a Son of God. It was these traditions which were drawn upon, not history. Now, it was only natural that these traditions should not be in complete verbal agreement in every Mystery center. Still, the agreement was so close that the Buddhists narrated the life of their God-Man almost in the same way in which the Evangelists narrated the life of Christ. But naturally there were differences. We have only to assume that the four Evangelists drew from four different Mystery traditions. It testifies to the exalted personality of Jesus that in four writers, belonging to different traditions, he awakened the belief that he was one who so perfectly corresponded with their type of an initiate that they were able to describe him as one who lived the typical life marked out in their Mysteries. For the rest they each described his life according to their own mystic traditions. And if the narratives of the first three Evangelists resemble each other, it proves nothing more than that they drew from similar Mystery traditions. The fourth Evangelist saturated his Gospel with ideas reminiscent of the religious philosopher Philo (cf. p. 68). This only proves that he was rooted in the same mystic tradition as Philo.
There are various elements in the Gospels. First: facts are related that seem to lay claim to historicity; Second: there are parables in which the narrative form is used only to symbolize a deeper truth. And third: there are teachings characteristic of the Christian conception of life. In St. John’s Gospel there is contained no actual parable. The source from which he drew was a Mystery school which considered parables unnecessary.
The part played by ostensibly historical facts and parables in the first three Gospels is clearly shown in the narrative of the cursing of the fig tree. In St. Mark XI, 11-14, we read: “and He (Jesus) entered into Jerusalem, into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon; and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And He answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforth forever.” In the corresponding passage, StLuke relates a parable (XIIIL, 6, 7): “He spake also this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the vine dresser; Behold these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why doth it also cumber the ground?” This is a parable symbolizing the uselessness of the old teaching, represented by the barren fig tree. That which is meant metaphorically, St. Mark relates as a fact appearing to be historical. We may therefore assume that no facts related in the Gospels are to be taken as historical, as if they were only to hold good in the physical world, but as mystical facts; as experiences for the recognition of which spiritual vision is necessary, and which arise from various Mystery traditions. If we admit this, the difference between the Gospel of St. John and the Synoptists ceases to exist. Historical research does not enter into mystical interpretation. Even if one or another Gospel were written a few decades earlier or later than the others, they are all of equal historical value to the mystic, St. John’s Gospel as well as the others.
[ 2 ] And the “miracles” do not present the least difficulty when interpreted mystically. They are supposed to break the laws of nature. They do this only when they are assumed to be events which have come about in such a way on the physical plane, in the perishable world, that ordinary sense perception could have seen through them without difficulty. But if they are experiences which can only be fathomed in a higher state of existence, namely the spiritual, it is obvious that they cannot be understood by means of the laws of physical nature.
[ 3 ] It is thus first of all necessary to read the Gospels correctly; then we shall know in what way they are speaking of the Founder of Christianity. Their intention is to narrate in the manner in which communications were made through the Mysteries. They narrate in the way a mystic would speak of an initiate. Only, they give the initiation as a unique peculiarity of a single, unique Being. And they make the salvation of humanity depend on man’s holding fast to the initiate of this singular order. What had come to the initiates was the “Kingdom of God.” This unique Being has brought the Kingdom to all who will cleave to Him. What was formerly the personal concern of each individual has become the common concern of all those who are willing to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord.
[ 4 ] We can understand how this came about if we admit that the wisdom of the Mysteries was imbedded in the folk-religion of the Israelites. Christianity arose out of Judaism. We need not, therefore, be surprised at finding those Mystery conceptions engrafted on Judaism with Christianity, those Mystery conceptions which we have seen to be the common possession of Greek and Egyptian spiritual life. If we examine folk-religions we find various conceptions of the spiritual; but if, in each case, we go back to the deeper wisdom of the priests, which proves to be the spiritual nucleus of them all, we find agreement everywhere. Plato knows himself to be in agreement with the priest-sages of Egypt when he is trying to set forth the core of Greek wisdom in his philosophical view of the universe. It is related of Pythagoras that he travelled to Egypt and India, and was instructed by the sages in those countries. Thinkers who lived in the earlier days of Christianity found so much agreement between the philosophical teachings of Plato and the deeper meaning of the Mosaic writings that they called Plato a Moses with Attic tongue.
[ 5 ] Thus, Mystery wisdom existed everywhere. From Judaism it acquired a form which it had to assume if it was to become a world-religion.
Judaism awaited the Messiah. It is not to be wondered at that when the personality of a unique initiate appeared, the Jews could only conceive of him as being the Messiah. Indeed, this circumstance throws light on the fact that what had been an individual matter in the Mysteries became an affair of the whole people. The Jewish religion had from the beginning been a folk religion. The Jewish people looked upon itself as a single organism. Its Jao was the God of the whole people. If the Son were to be born, He must be the redeemer of the whole people. The individual mystic was not to be saved apart from others, the whole people was to share in the redemption. One of the basic assumptions of the Jewish religion is that one shall die for all.
It is also certain that there were Mysteries in Judaism which could be brought out of the obscurity of a secret cult into the folk religion. A fully-developed mysticism existed side by side with the priestly wisdom attached to the outer formalism of the Pharisees. This Mystery wisdom is spoken of among the Jews just as it is elsewhere. Once when an initiate was proclaiming it, and his hearers sensed the secret meaning of the words, they said: “Old man, what hast thou done? Oh, that thou hadst kept silence! Thou thinkest to navigate the boundless ocean without sail or mast. That is what thou art attempting. Wilt thou rise upwards? Thou canst not. Wilt thou descend into the depths? An immeasurable abyss yawns before thee.” And the Kabbalists, from whom the above is taken, also speak of four Rabbis; and these four Rabbis sought the secret path to the Divine. The first died; the second lost his reason; the third caused monstrous evils; and only the fourth, Rabbi Akiba, entered the spiritual world in peace and left in peace.
[ 6 ] We thus see that within Judaism as elsewhere there was a soil in which a unique initiate could develop: He had only to say to himself: I will not let salvation be limited to a few chosen people. I will let all people participate in it. He was to carry out into the world at large what the elect had experienced in the temples of the Mysteries. He had willingly to assume the responsibility of representing, through the spirit of his personality, what formerly the Mystery cults meant t0 their adherents. It is true, He could not at once give to the whole community the experiences of the Mysteries, nor could He have wished to do so. But what He wanted to give to all was the certainty of what the Mysteries regarded as truth. He wished to cause the life that flowed within the Mysteries to flow through the further historical evolution of humanity, and thus to raise mankind to a higher stage of existence: “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” He wished to plant unshakably in human hearts, in the form of confidence, the certainty that the Divine really exists. One who stands outside initiation and has this confidence will surely go further than one who is without it. It must have weighed like a mountain on the mind of Jesus that there might be many standing outside who do not find the way. He wished to lessen the gulf between those to be initiated and “the people”. Christianity was to be a means by which every one might find the way. Should one or another not yet be ripe, he is, at any rate, not cut off from the possibility of sharing, more or less unconsciously, in the benefit of the spiritual current flowing through the Mysteries. “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Henceforward even those who cannot yet share in initiation may enjoy some of the fruits of the Mysteries. Henceforth the Kingdom of God was not to be dependent on outward ceremonies; “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” With Jesus the point in question was not so much how far this or that person advanced in the kingdom of the spirit as that all should be convinced that this kingdom exists. “In this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” That is, put your faith in the Divine. The time will come when you shall find it.
Die Evangelien
[ 1 ] Was über das «Leben Jesu» einer geschichtlichen Betrachtung unterzogen werden soll, ist in den Evangelien enthalten. Alles, was darüber nicht aus dieser Quelle stammt, läßt sich nach dem Urteile eines derjenigen, die als die größten geschichtlichen Kenner der Sache gelten, Harnack, «bequem auf eine Quartseite schreiben». Aber was für Urkunden sind diese Evangelien? Das vierte, das «Johannes-Evangelium», weicht von den anderen so sehr ab, daß diejenigen, welche auf diesem Gebiete den Weg geschichtlicher Untersuchung glauben wandeln zu müssen, zu dem Urteile kommen: «Wenn Johannes die echte Überlieferung über das Leben Jesu hat, dann ist die der drei ersten Evangelien (der Synoptiker) unhaltbar; haben die Synoptiker recht, dann ist der vierte Evangelist als Quelle abzulehnen» (Otto Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben Jesu-Forschung Seite 15). Das ist eine vom Standpunkte des Geschichtsforschers ausgesprochene Behauptung. Hier, wo es sich um den mystischen Gehalt der Evangelien handelt, ist dieser Gesichtspunkt weder anzuerkennen noch abzulehnen. Wohl aber muß hingedeutet werden auf solches Urteil: «Gemessen mit dem Maßstabe der Übereinstimmung, Inspiration und Vollständigkeit, lassen diese Schriften sehr viel zu wünschen übrig, und auch nach menschlichem Maßstab gemessen, leiden sie an nicht wenigen Unvollkommenheiten.« So urteilt ein christlicher Theologe (Harnack in «Wesen des Christentums»). Wer auf dem Standpunkte eines mystischen Ursprungs der Evangelien steht, für den erklären sich ohne Zwang die nicht übereinstimmenden Dinge; für den gibt es auch eine Harmonie zwischen dem vierten Evangelium und den drei ersten. Denn alle diese Schriften können gar nicht bloße geschichtliche Überlieferungen im gewöhnlichen Wortsinne sein wollen. Sie wollten ja (vergleiche Seite 101 f) keine geschichtliche Biographie geben. Was sie geben wollten, lag immer schon als typisches Leben des Gottessohnes in den Mysterientraditionen vorgebildet. Man schöpfte nicht aus der Geschichte, sondern aus den Mysterientraditionen. Nun waren natürlich in den verschiedenen Mysterienkultstätten diese Traditionen nicht bis zu wörtlicher Übereinstimmung gleichgestaltet. Immerhin gab es eine so große Übereinstimmung, daß die Buddhisten das Leben ihres Gottmenschen schon fast genau ebenso erzählten wie die Evangelisten des Christentums das des ihrigen. Aber Verschiedenheiten gab es natürlich doch. Man braucht nun nur anzunehmen, daß die vier Evangelisten aus vier verschiedenen Mysterientraditionen schöpften. Es spricht für die hochragende Persönlichkeit Jesu, daß er in vier, verschiedenen Traditionen angehörigen Schriftgelehrten den Glauben erweckt: er sei derjenige, der ihrem Typus eines Eingeweihten in so vollkommenem Grade entspricht, daß sie sich zu ihm wie zu einer Persönlichkeit verhalten können, die den typischen Lebenslauf lebt, der in ihren Mysterien vorgezeichnet ist. Dann haben sie im übrigen sein Leben nach Maßgabe ihrer Mysterientraditionen beschrieben. Und wenn die drei ersten Evangelisten (die Synoptiker) ähnlich erzählen, so beweist das nicht mehr, als daß sie aus ähnlichen Mysterientraditionen geschöpft haben. Der vierte Evangelist hat seine Schrift durchtränkt mit Ideen, die an den Religionsphilosophen Philo erinnern. Das beweist wieder nichts anderes, als daß er aus derselben mystischen Tradition hervorgegangen ist, der auch Philo nahegestanden hat. — Man hat es in den Evangelien mit verschiedenen Bestandteilen zu tun. Erstens mit Tatsachenmitteilungen, die so auftreten, daß sie zunächst den Anspruch zu erheben scheinen, als ob sie historische Tatsachen sein sollten. Zweitens mit Gleichnisreden, die sich der Tatsachenerzählung nur bedienen, um eine tiefere Wahrheit zu versinnbildlichen. Und drittens mit Lehren, die als Gehalt der christlichen Weltansicht gemeint sein sollen. Im Johannes-Evangelium steht kein eigentliches Gleichnis. Es schöpfte eben aus einer mystischen Schule, in der man der Gleichnisse nicht zu bedürfen glaubte. — Wie aber sich geschichtlich gebende Taten und Gleichnisse in den ersten Evangelien verhalten, darauf wirft ein helles Licht die Erzählung von der Verfluchung des Feigenbaumes. Bei Markus 11, 11 ff lesen wir: «Und der Herr ging ein zu Jerusalem in den Tempel, und er besah alles; und am Abend ging er hinaus gen Bethanien mit den Zwölfen. Und des andern Tages, da sie von Bethanien gingen, hungerte ihn. Und sah einen Feigenbaum von ferne, der Blätter hatte; da trat er hinzu, ob er etwas drauf fände. Und da er hinzu kam, fand er nichts denn nur Blätter; denn es war noch nicht Zeit, daß Feigen sein sollten. Und Jesus antwortete und sprach zu ihm: Nun esse von dir niemand keine Frucht ewiglich.» Lukas erzählt an derselben Stelle ein Gleichnis (13,6 f.): «Er sagte ihnen aber dies Gleichnis: Es hatte einer einen Feigenbaum, der war gepflanzt in seinem Weinberge; und kam und suchte Frucht darauf und fand keine. Da sprach er zu dem Weingärtner: Siehe, ich bin drei Jahre lang alle Jahre gekommen und habe Frucht gesucht auf diesem Feigenbaum und finde keine. Haue ihn ab. Was hindert er das Land.» Es ist das ein Gleichnis, das die Wertlosigkeit der alten Lehre symbolisieren soll, die in dem unfruchtbaren Feigenbaume dargestellt wird. Was bildlich gemeint ist, erzählt Markus wie eine Tatsache, die sich geschichtlich zu geben scheint. Man darf annehmen, daß Tatsachen in den Evangelien deshalb überhaupt nicht als geschichtlich genommen werden wollen, so als ob sie nur als Tatsachen der Sinneswelt zu gelten hätten, sondern als mystisch; als Erlebnisse, zu deren Wahrnehmung die geistige Anschauung notwendig ist, und die aus verschiedenen mystischen Traditionen stammen. Dann aber hört auf ein Unterschied zu sein zwischen dem Johannes-Evangelium und den Synoptikern. Für die mystische Auslegung kommt eben die geschichtliche Untersuchung gar nicht in Betracht. Mag das eine oder das andere Evangelium ein paar Jahrzehnte früher oder später entstanden sein: für den Mystiker sind alle von gleichem historischen Wert; das Johannes-Evangelium genau so wie die anderen.
[ 2 ] Und die «Wunder»: sie bieten der mystischen Erklärung nicht die geringsten Schwierigkeiten. Sie sollen die physische Gesetzmäßigkeit der Welt durchbrechen. Das tun sie nur so lange, als man sie für Vorgänge hält, die sich im Physischen, im Vergänglichen so zugetragen haben sollen, daß sie die gewöhnliche Sinneswahrnehmung hätte ohne weiteres durchschauen können. Sind sie aber Erlebnisse, die nur auf einer höheren, auf der geistigen Daseinsstufe durchschaut werden können, dann ist es von ihnen selbstverständlich, daß sie nicht aus den Gesetzen der physischen Naturordnung begriffen werden können.
[ 3 ] Man muß also die Evangelien erst richtig lesen, dann wird man wissen, inwiefern sie von dem Stifter des Christentums erzählen wollen. Sie wollen im Stile von Mysterienmitteilungen erzählen. Sie erzählen, wie ein Myste von einem Eingeweihten erzählt. Nur überliefern sie die Einweihung als eine einzigartige Eigentümlichkeit eines Einzigen. Und sie machen das Heil der Menschheit davon abhängig, daß sich die Menschen an diesen eigenartig Eingeweihten halten. Was zu den Eingeweihten gekommen war, das war das «Reich Gottes». Der Einzigartige hat dieses Reich allen denen gebracht, die zu ihm halten wollen. Aus einer persönlichen Angelegenheit des Einzelnen ist eine Gemeindeangelegenheit derjenigen geworden, die Jesus als ihren Herren anerkennen wollen.
[ 4 ] Man kann begreifen, daß das so geworden ist, wenn man annimmt, daß die Mysterienweisheit in die israelitische Volksreligion eingebettet worden ist. Aus dem Judentum ist das Christentum hervorgegangen. Daß wir mit demselben dem Judentum Mysterienanschauungen, die als ein gemeinsames Gut des griechischen, des ägyptischen Geisteslebens sich gezeigt haben, gleichsam aufgepfropft finden: darüber brauchen wir nicht erstaunt zu sein. Wenn man die Volksreligionen untersucht, findet man verschiedene Vorstellungen über das Geistige. Geht man überall auf die tiefere Priesterweisheit zurück, die als der geistige Kern der verschiedenen Volksreligionen sich ergibt, so findet man überall Übereinstimmung. Plato weiß sich in Übereinstimmung mit den ägyptischen Priesterweisen, indem er in seiner philosophischen Weltanschauung den Kern der griechischen Weisheit darlegen will. Von Pythagoras wird erzählt, daß er Reisen nach Ägypten, nach Indien gemacht habe; und daß er bei den Weisen dieser Länder in die Schule gegangen sei. Zwischen den philosophischen Lehren des Plato und dem tieferen Sinn der mosaischen Schriften fanden Persönlichkeiten, die ungefähr um die Zeit der Entstehung des Christentums lebten, so viel Übereinstimmung, daß sie Plato einen attisch redenden Moses nannten.
[ 5 ] Mysterienweisheit war also überall vorhanden. Aus dem Judentum heraus nahm sie eine Form an, die sie annehmen mußte, wenn sie Weltreligion werden wollte. — Das Judentum erwartete den Messias. Kein Wunder, daß die Persönlichkeit eines einzigartigen Initiierten von den Juden nur so aufgefaßt werden konnte, daß dieser Einzige der Messias sein müsse. Ja, von hier aus fällt sogar ein besonderes Licht auf die Tatsache, daß Volksangelegenheit wurde, was vorher in den Mysterien nur Einzelangelegenheit war. Die jüdische Religion war von jeher Volksreligion. Das Volk sah sich als Ganzes an. Sein Jao war der Gott des ganzen Volkes. Sollte der Sohn geboren werden, so konnte er nur wieder der Volksheiland werden. Nicht der einzelne Myste durfte für sich erlöst werden; dem ganzen Volke mußte diese Erlösung zuteil werden. Innerhalb der Grundgedanken der jüdischen Religion ist es also begründet, daß einer für alle stirbt. — Und daß es auch innerhalb des Judentums Mysterien gab, die aus dem Dunkel des geheimen Kultus in die Volksreligion getragen werden konnten, das ist gewiß. Eine ausgebildete Mystik bestand neben der an den äußeren Formeln des Pharisäertums hängenden Priesterweisheit. Wie anderswo wird diese geheimnisvolle Mysterienweisheit auch hier beschrieben. Als einst ein Eingeweihter solche Weisheit vortrug und seine Hörer den geheimen Sinn ahnten, da sprachen sie: «0 Greis, was hast du getan? O daß du geschwiegen hättest! Du glaubst auf dem unermeßlichen Meere ohne Segel und Mast fahren zu können. Was unternimmst du? Willst du in die Höhe steigen? Das vermagst du nicht. Willst du dich in die Tiefe versenken? Da gähnt dir ein unermeßlicher Abgrund entgegen.» Und von vier Rabbinen erzählen die Kabbalisten, denen auch das obige entstammt. Vier Rabbinen haben die geheimen Pfade zum Göttlichen gesucht. Der erste starb; der zweite verlor den Verstand; der dritte richtete ungeheure Verwüstungen an; und nur der vierte, der Rabbi Akiba, ging in Frieden hinein und wieder heraus.
[ 6 ] Man sieht, daß es auch im Judentum den Boden gab, auf dem sich ein einzigartiger Initiierter entwickeln konnte. Ein solcher brauchte sich nur zu sagen: ich will nicht, daß das Heil die Sache weniger Auserwählter bleibe. Ich will alles Volk an diesem Heil teilnehmen lassen. Er mußte hinaustragen in alle Welt, was die Auserlesenen in den Tempeln der Mysterien erlebt hatten. Er mußte es auf sich nehmen wollen, durch seine Persönlichkeit im Geiste das seiner Gemeinde zu sein, was der Mysterienkult früher denen war, die an ihm teilgenommen hatten. Gewiß: die Erlebnisse der Mysterien konnte er dieser seiner Gemeinde nicht ohne weiteres geben. Das konnte er auch nicht wollen. Aber die Gewißheit wollte er allen geben von dem, was in den Mysterien als Wahrheit angeschaut wurde. Das Leben, das in den Mysterien strömte, wollte er durch die fernere geschichtliche Entwicklung der Menschheit strömen lassen. So wollte er sie auf eine höhere Stufe des Daseins heben. «Selig sind, die da glauben und nicht schauen.» Die Gewißheit, daß es ein Göttliches gibt, wollte er in der Form des Vertrauens unerschütterlich in die Herzen pflanzen. Wer außen steht und dieses Vertrauen hat, der kommt gewiß weiter, als wer ohne dieses Vertrauen dasteht. Wie ein Alp mußte es auf Jesu Gemüt gelastet haben, daß unter den Außenstehenden doch viele sein können, die den Weg nicht finden. Die Kluft zwischen Einzuweihenden und «Volk» sollte weniger groß sein. Das Christentum sollte ein Mittel sein, durch das jeder den Weg finden konnte. Ist er nicht reif dazu, so ist ihm wenigstens nicht die Möglichkeit abgeschnitten, daß er in einer gewissen Unbewußtheit der Mysterienströmung teilhaftig werde. «Der Menschensohn ist gekommen, zu suchen und selig zu machen, was verloren ist.» Etwas genießen können von den Früchten der Mysterien sollten auch fortan diejenigen, welche nicht an der Einweihung noch teilnehmen können. Nicht von den «äußerlichen Gebärden» sollte fortan das Reich Gottes ganz und gar abhängig sein, nein, «es ist nicht hier oder dort; es ist inwendig in euch». Ihm handelte es sich weniger darum, wie weit dieser oder jener im Reiche des Geistes kommt; ihm kam es darauf an, daß alle die Überzeugung haben: es gebe ein solches geistiges Reich. «Freuet euch nicht, daß euch die Geister untertan sind; freuet euch aber, daß eure Namen im Himmel angeschrieben sind.» Das heißt, habet Vertrauen zum Göttlichen: es wird die Zeit kommen, da ihr es findet.
The Gospels
[ 1 ] What is to be subjected to historical consideration about the "life of Jesus" is contained in the Gospels. According to Harnack, one of those considered to be the greatest historical experts on the subject, everything that does not come from this source can be "conveniently written on a quarto page". But what kind of documents are these gospels? The fourth, the "Gospel of John", differs so much from the others that those who believe they have to take the path of historical investigation in this field come to the conclusion: "If John has the genuine tradition about the life of Jesus, then that of the first three Gospels (the Synoptics) is untenable; if the Synoptics are right, then the fourth Evangelist is to be rejected as a source" (Otto Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben Jesu-Forschung page 15). This is an assertion made from the point of view of the historian. Here, where the mystical content of the Gospels is concerned, this point of view can neither be accepted nor rejected. However, the following judgment must be pointed out: "Measured by the standard of conformity, inspiration and completeness, these writings leave much to be desired, and even measured by human standards, they suffer from not a few imperfections." This is the judgment of a Christian theologian (Harnack in "Wesen des Christentums"). For those who believe in the mystical origin of the Gospels, the inconsistencies are easily explained; for them there is also a harmony between the fourth Gospel and the first three. For all these writings cannot want to be mere historical traditions in the usual sense of the word. They did not (see page 101 f) want to give a historical biography. What they wanted to give was always already prefigured as the typical life of the Son of God in the mystery traditions. They did not draw from history, but from the mystery traditions. Of course, in the various mystery cult sites, these traditions were not identical to the point of literal agreement. After all, there was so much agreement that the Buddhists told the life of their god-man in almost exactly the same way as the evangelists of Christianity told theirs. But of course there were differences. One need only assume that the four evangelists drew from four different mystery traditions. It speaks for the outstanding personality of Jesus that he arouses the belief in four scribes belonging to different traditions that he is the one who corresponds to their type of initiate to such a perfect degree that they can relate to him as to a personality who lives the typical course of life outlined in their mysteries. Then, by the way, they described his life according to their mystery traditions. And if the first three evangelists (the Synoptics) tell similar stories, this does not prove more than that they drew from similar mystery traditions. The fourth evangelist imbued his writing with ideas reminiscent of the religious philosopher Philo. This again proves nothing other than that he emerged from the same mystical tradition that Philo was close to. - In the Gospels we are dealing with various elements. Firstly, with statements of fact which appear in such a way that they initially seem to claim to be historical facts. Secondly, with parables that only use the narrative of facts to symbolize a deeper truth. And thirdly, with teachings that are supposed to be the content of the Christian world view. There is no actual parable in the Gospel of John. It was drawn from a mystical school in which parables were not believed to be necessary. - However, the story of the cursing of the fig tree sheds a bright light on how historical deeds and parables behave in the first gospels. In Mark 11:11 ff we read: "And the Lord entered the temple at Jerusalem, and saw everything; and in the evening he went out to Bethany with the twelve. And the next day, as they were leaving Bethany, he was hungry. And he saw a fig tree afar off with leaves on it, so he went to see if he could find anything on it. And when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not yet time for figs. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Now therefore eat no fruit of thee for ever." Luke tells a parable in the same passage (13:6 f.): "And he told them this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then he said to the vinedresser, 'Look, I have come every year for three years looking for fruit on this fig tree and have found none. Cut it down. Why does it hinder the land?" It is a parable that symbolizes the worthlessness of the old teaching, which is represented in the unfruitful fig tree. Mark relates what is meant figuratively as a fact that appears to be historical. It may be assumed that facts in the Gospels are therefore not to be taken as historical at all, as if they were to be regarded only as facts of the sensory world, but as mystical; as experiences for the perception of which spiritual perception is necessary, and which come from various mystical traditions. But then there ceases to be a difference between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics. For the mystical interpretation, the historical investigation is not even considered. One or the other Gospel may have been written a few decades earlier or later: for the mystic they are all of equal historical value; the Gospel of John just as much as the others.
[ 2 ] And the "miracles": they do not offer the slightest difficulty to the mystical explanation. They are supposed to break through the physical laws of the world. They only do this as long as they are taken for events that are supposed to have taken place in the physical, in the transient, in such a way that ordinary sensory perception could have easily seen through them. But if they are experiences that can only be understood on a higher, spiritual level of existence, then it is self-evident that they cannot be understood from the laws of the physical order of nature.
[ 3 ] So first you have to read the Gospels properly, then you will know to what extent they want to tell us about the founder of Christianity. They want to tell in the style of mystery messages. They tell how a mystic tells of an initiate. Only they pass on the initiation as a unique peculiarity of a single individual. And they make the salvation of mankind dependent on people adhering to this peculiar initiate. What had come to the initiates was the "Kingdom of God". The Unique One has brought this kingdom to all those who wish to adhere to him. A personal matter for the individual has become a church matter for those who want to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord.
[ 4 ] One can understand that this has become so if one assumes that the mystery wisdom has been embedded in the Israelite popular religion. Christianity emerged from Judaism. We need not be astonished that we find, as it were, grafted on to Judaism the mystery beliefs that were common to Greek and Egyptian spiritual life. If one examines the popular religions, one finds different ideas about the spiritual. If one goes back everywhere to the deeper priestly wisdom, which emerges as the spiritual core of the various folk religions, one finds agreement everywhere. Plato knows himself to be in agreement with the Egyptian priestly wisdom in that he wants to explain the core of Greek wisdom in his philosophical world view. It is said of Pythagoras that he traveled to Egypt and India and that he studied with the sages of these countries. Personalities who lived around the time of the emergence of Christianity found so much agreement between the philosophical teachings of Plato and the deeper meaning of the Mosaic scriptures that they called Plato an Attic-speaking Moses.
[ 5 ] Mystery wisdom was therefore present everywhere. From Judaism it took on a form that it had to assume if it wanted to become a world religion. - Judaism awaited the Messiah. No wonder that the personality of a unique initiate could only be understood by the Jews in such a way that this one and only must be the Messiah. Indeed, from here even a special light falls on the fact that what had previously only been an individual matter in the mysteries became a matter for the people. The Jewish religion has always been a popular religion. The people saw themselves as a whole. Their Jao was the God of the whole people. If the Son was to be born, he could only become the Savior of the people again. Not the individual Myste could be redeemed for himself; the whole people had to be granted this redemption. Within the basic ideas of the Jewish religion it is therefore justified that one dies for all. - And it is certain that there were also mysteries within Judaism which could be carried from the darkness of the secret cult into the religion of the people. A developed mysticism existed alongside the priestly wisdom that clung to the external formulas of Pharisaism. As elsewhere, this mysterious mystical wisdom is also described here. When an initiate once recited such wisdom and his listeners suspected the secret meaning, they said: "O old man, what have you done? O that you had kept silent! You think you can sail the immense sea without sail or mast. What are you doing? Do you want to go up? You can't do that. Do you want to sink into the depths? There yawns before thee an immeasurable abyss." And the Kabbalists, from whom the above also comes, tell of four rabbis. Four rabbis sought the secret paths to the divine. The first died; the second lost his mind; the third wreaked tremendous havoc; and only the fourth, Rabbi Akiba, went in and out in peace.
[ 6 ] You can see that even in Judaism there was ground on which a unique initiate could develop. Such a person only had to say to himself: I do not want salvation to remain the preserve of a select few. I want all people to participate in this salvation. He had to carry out into all the world what the chosen ones had experienced in the temples of the Mysteries. He had to want to take it upon himself to be in the spirit of his community through his personality what the mystery cult used to be for those who had taken part in it. Certainly, he could not easily give the experiences of the Mysteries to his congregation. Nor could he want to. But he wanted to give everyone the certainty of what was seen as truth in the Mysteries. He wanted the life that flowed in the Mysteries to flow through the further historical development of humanity. In this way, he wanted to raise them to a higher level of existence. "Blessed are those who believe and do not see." He wanted to plant the certainty that there is a divine in the form of trust unshakeably in the hearts. He who stands on the outside and has this trust will certainly get further than he who stands without it. It must have weighed like a nightmare on Jesus' mind that among the outsiders there can be many who do not find the way. The gap between the initiates and the "people" should be less wide. Christianity should be a means by which everyone could find the way. If he is not ripe for it, he is at least not cut off from the possibility of participating in the mystery current in a certain unconsciousness. "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." Those who are not yet able to participate in the initiation should also be able to enjoy some of the fruits of the Mysteries from now on. From then on, the kingdom of God was not to be entirely dependent on "outward appearances", no, "it is not here or there; it is within you". He was less concerned with how far this or that person would get in the realm of the spirit; what mattered to him was that everyone had the conviction that there was such a spiritual realm. "Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." In other words, have faith in the divine: the time will come when you will find it.