It is impossible even for the seer to reconstruct the original form of the ancient message. However, the original content does reveal to the spiritual seer its authentic meaning, though not in the words of the ancient language in which the original text was written. – Spiritual seeing, which can only be attained with senses that are awake – even almost heightened in their wakefulness – demands of the seer, who is still bound by earthly appearance to the laws of this earth, such unimaginable powers in order to hold fast to his focus on the thing that can been seen, that the value of the result would bear no proportion at all to the efforts involved in attaining it, should one want to recreate, in unbroken sequence, the complete original text. Only those few who know such seeing from experience – and this seeing is only possible to those ‘Luminaries of the First Light’ active here on this earth within their earthly apparel – only they know of the power of energy expended over many years before they could, in the brightness of their own experience, see what the human spirit of long ago carried within it when seeking to give shape to its work. –
Those things seen within experience – not from some external observation – must then find a new form in the words of him who sees; in this way the true intention of the original author, expressed in his own form of words, can be shown in a manner appropriate to the people of his time. He may perfectly well use words he sees in their original form preserved in fragments of the text.
Those who see the ‘words of the Scripture’ as ‘given by God’ might suspect this to be simply an outrageous ‘corruption of the Scriptures’. Others, who know from their own research what ‘God given’ actually amounts to with these ancient, badly distorted texts, would dismiss as a fantasy at best any new rendition of them based not on external ‘proof’ for its findings, but on an admission that spiritual seeing lies at its source. –
Notwithstanding this, I shall – even if in fragmentary form – have to render some parts of the ancient text in this book. I shall do this in the way they reveal themselves in meaning to the seer. But far be it from me to offend pious faith which brings joy to the innocent believer and can bring him – if he is worthy – to the truth in the strangest manner.
It is also far from my intention, which would be foolish, to recommend what I write in this book to academic research; though I find good reasons in myself to state here that some ancient manuscripts surely exist, waiting to be discovered, which will confirm the correctness of my rendering of the text…
Let us start by showing how those zealots of the new cult, into whose hands the ancient message once fell, unscrupulously took liberties with its text.
The unknown author of this message had once written words with the following meaning:
‘IN THE BEGINNING IS THE WORD, AND THE WORD IS IN GOD, AND GOD IS THE WORD.
EVERYTHING IS ALIVE ONLY IN HIM, AND WITHOUT HIM IS NOTHING ALIVE: NOT EVEN THE SMALLEST THINGS.
IN HIM ALL THINGS HAVE LIFE AND HIS LIFE IS THE LIGHT OF MEN.
AND THE LIGHT SHINES IN DARKNESS, AND THE DARKNESS CANNOT EXTINGUISH IT.
IT IS IN THE WORLD AND THE WORLD IS MADE THROUGH HIM, BUT THE WORLD RECOGNISES IT NOT.
IT IS IN HIS OWN, BUT HIS OWN RECEIVE IT NOT.
BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVE IT TO THEM, IT GIVES POWER TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD: THOSE WHO ARE BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NEITHER OF THE WILL OF WOMAN, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT BORN OF GOD, OUT OF THE FULLNESS OF GRACE AND TRUTH.’
Once the continuity was not interrupted here by anything. It was merely the author’s intention, to give a clear indication to his followers to whom headdressed the message, of the sense by which what followed was to be understood, in words which were closely linked to the then widespread teaching of the ‘Logos’.
Only then did he begin to tell the story of the Baptist, which he had already found in the old scriptures. He evaluated it in his own way, since he not only knew himself opposed to the disciples of the Baptist, who were still around at that time, but also wanted to show his own followers that neither strict asceticism, once preached by the Baptist as an emissary of a mystic sect, nor baptism by water, as advocated by the new cult which called itself after the exalted Master, would bring salvation.
He also wanted to refute the error – found in an older legend – that the exalted Master had first been a pupil of the Baptist before he started to teach himself.
Therefore he has the Baptist’s disciples abandon him at the point when he has to confess that, although he baptises with water, Jehoshuah baptised with the spirit.
These are the original words – according to their sense:
‘THERE WAS A MAN WHOSE NAME WAS JEHOCHANAN.
AND THESE THINGS WERE DONE IN BETHANY BEYOND THE JORDAN, WHERE JEHOCHANAN WAS BAPTISING.
I BAPTISE WITH WATER, BUT IN THE MIDST OF YOU STANDS ONE WHOM YE KNOW NOT: HE WILL BAPTISE WITH THE SPIRIT!
I AM NOT WORTHY TO UNLOOSE THE LATCHET OF HIS SHOE.
AGAIN ON THE MORROW JEHOCHANAN WAS STANDING AND TWO OF HIS DISCIPLES.
AND HE LOOKED UPON JEHOSHUAH AS HE WALKED AND SAID: THIS IS THE MAN!
I KNEW HIM NOT, BUT HE WHO CAUSED ME TO BAPTISE WITH WATER, SAID UNTO ME:
WHEN YOU SEE A MAN ON WHOM THE SPIRIT DESCENDS AND REMAINS IN HIM: HE IS THE ONE WHO WILL COME TO BAPTISE WITH THE SPIRIT.
AND JEHOCHANAN BARE WITNESS SAYING:
I SAW THE SPIRIT DESCENDING ON HIM LIKE A DOVE AND ABIDING ON HIM, AND THE SPIRIT REMAINED IN HIM.
AND THE TWO DISCIPLES HEARD HIM SPEAK, AND THEY FOLLOWED JEHOSHUAH.’
If the original text were now to lie before a translator, he might perhaps render the form of the sentences in a different way but without arriving at any other meaning.
The author of the ancient message had no intention for the form in which he narrated events, to correspond with the accounts which sought to use his text to confirm the belief, that the Baptist had recognised and proclaimed the Master as ‘Messiah’.
Much is missing here that is found in the same place in that version of the text passed on to us.
But those things missing are additions in the text passed down to us made by the same minds who altered the original text, so that the mention of the Baptist already appears in the words that are introductory to the complete message.
With many alterations they sought to bring the original text into line with the earlier accounts they regarded as sacred.
What in the early days of the new cult was called a ‘copy’ was nothing other than a paraphrase. Every scribe who undertook to make a new copy thought it completely right and proper to alter the text so that his own religious faith found support in it.
Thus was the text of the complete message often reshaped until that text emerged which takes on the basis of all recorded versions.
One can regret that the original text has not been preserved, but one must not – controlled by desire – try to salvage the current text wherever possible. We need to be clear that far more of it consists of alterations and additions than of preserved parts with original features. – –
Only those who have taken into themselves the teaching which the exalted Master once imparted to his disciples, a teaching which was still alive in the small circle to which the original text was once issued, only they will feel with all certainty what bears the stamp of originality and what is pious falsification.
Until well preserved ancient texts are found which are closer to the original than the one handed down by tradition, this is to be the only way of gaining clarity in these matters.