THE GOSPELS
The accounts of the life of Jesus which 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 rejected as a historical source" (Otto Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben Jesu Forschung, p. 15). This is a statement made from the standpoint of the historical investigator.
In the present work, in which we are dealing with the mystical
contents of the Gospels, such a point of view is neither to be
accepted nor rejected. But attention must certainly be drawn to such
an opinion as the following: "Measured by the standard of consistency, 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 (Harnack, Wesen des Christentums).
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. 140 et seq.). What they intended to
give was already shadowed forth 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 centre. Still, the agreement was so close that the Buddhists narrated the life of their divine 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 extraordinary 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. 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 which are, in many respects, reminiscent of the religious philosopher, Philo (cf. p. 82). This only proves that he was rooted in the same mystic tradition as Philo.
There are various elements in the Gospels. Firstly, facts are related, which seem to lay claim to being historical. Secondly, there are parables, in which the narrative form is only used to symbolise a deeper truth. And, thirdly, there are teachings characteristic of the Christian conception of life. In St. John's Gospel there is no real parable. The source from which he drew was a mystical school which considered parables unnecessary.