The Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1864

Allan Kardec

Back to the menu
2nd Article – see the May 1864 issue


This is one of those books that cannot be thoroughly refuted but through another book. It would have to be discussed article by article. That is a task what we will not undertake because it touches issues that are not in our scope and that were handled by many others. We will limit ourselves to the examination of the consequences found by the author given his stand point.



There are two distinctive parts in his book as in all historic ones: the report and the analysis of the facts. The first one is a matter of erudition and good faith; the second depends entirely on a personal opinion. Two persons may agree entirely with respect to one and totally disagree about the other. It is natural that the religious part was attacked since it is a matter of belief but the historic part does not seem to be invulnerable judging by the criticism of the theologians that not only contested the analysis but also the accuracy of certain facts.



We leave it to those that are more competent than us to come up with a decision about the last issue. However and without the pretension of becoming a judge in the debate we acknowledge that certain criticisms are evidently founded but about several important historic events Mr. Renan’s observations are perfectly fair.



Among the numerous refutations made to his book we believe to be proper to mention those from Father Gratry as one of the most logical and impartial. He points out the contradictions he found with clarity every step of the way.[1]



Let us admit, however, that Mr. Renan did not move a bit away from the historic truth. That does not imply that his analysis was fair because his work was based on his personal opinion and preconceived ideas. He studied the facts to find there proofs of his opinion and not to form an opinion. Naturally he only saw there what was according to his opinion and did not see what was against it. His opinion is his measure. As I matter of fact we learned this from him at page 5 of his introduction: “After telling Jesus’ story I would be glad to tell the story of the apostles as I see it; the status of the Christian conscience during the weeks that followed Jesus’ death; the formation of the legendary cycle of resurrection; the first acts of the Church of Jerusalem; the life of St. Paul, etc.”

There could be several ways of analyzing a fact but the fact itself is always the same irrespective of one’s opinion. Mr. Renan has his story about the apostles as he has his own about the life of Jesus. Does he show enough impartiality so that his idea may deserve credit? May he allows us to doubt it!



He acted because he was persuaded. We believe that he did so in good faith and that the material errors that he is criticized for are not the result of a premediated intention to alter the truth but from a false evaluation of things. He is in the position of a conscientious person that holds exclusive partisans ideas of the old regime that was invited to write the history of the French Revolution. His report could be highly accurate as far as the events are concerned but his judgement about people and things will be the reflex of his own ideas. He will censor what others will approve. He would uselessly cover the places where the events took place because the places will confirm the events but will not make him see things differently. That is what happened to Mr. Renan. Traveling around Judea with the Gospels in hand he found the traces of Jesus then concluding that the Christ existed but that did not change the way he saw Jesus. In places where he only saw the steps of a regular man an apostle of the orthodox faith might have seen the traces of divinity. His appreciation is the result of the stand point where placed himself. Does he deny atheism and materialism because he does not believe that matter thinks and because he admits an intelligent principle after the death of each individual? If we believe Mr. Renan’s dedication to his sister the intelligent principle does keeps its individuality and affections. But if the soul keeps its individuality and affections there is then an invisible world that is intelligent and that loves. Well, considering that such a world is intelligent it cannot remain inactive; it must play any kind of role in the universe. Lo and behold! The whole book is the very negation of that invisible world and of any active intelligence beyond the visible world. Consequently it is also the negation of any phenomenon that may result from the action of hidden intelligences and every relationship between the dead and the living ones, and hence one must conclude that his touching dedication to his sister is the work of imagination driven by a sincere grief due to the loss of his sister, expressing more his desire than his belief because if he had seriously believed in the individuality of his sister; in the persistence of her feelings towards him; in her solicitude and inspiration such a belief would have given him truer ideas about the meaning of most words of Jesus. Christ, in fact, concerned with the future of the soul, incessantly makes reference to the invisible world that he presents as something much more desirable than the material world and as supposed to constitute the objective of every human aspiration.



For those that see nothing beyond humanity these words: “My kingdom is not of this world; My Father’s house has many rooms;do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth where rust destroy and thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heavens; Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” and so many others must only have a fantastical meaning. That is how Mr. Renan considers them when he says: The part of truth in Jesus’s thought dragged him to the fantasticalthat obscured him. Nonetheless we must not neglect that fantastical thing that was the gross skin of the sacred fruit from which we live. That fantastical heaven, that never ending search for the city of God that has always concerned Christianism in its long career was the principle of the great instinct about the future that has driven all reformers, determined disciples of the Apocalypse from Joachim de Fiore to the sectary protestant of our days. (Chapter XVIII, page 285, 1st edition).[2]



All Jesus’ work was spiritual. Since Mr. Renan does not believe in the spiritualization of the being or in a spiritual world he should naturally take the opposite of Jesus’ words and judge him from an exclusively material point of view. A materialist or pantheist person judging a spiritual piece of work is like a deaf person judging a piece of music. When Mr. Renan judged Jesus from his stand point he must have been mistaken with respect to Jesus’ intentions and character. The most positive proof of that is found in this passage of his book (Chap. VII, page 128): “Jesus is not a spiritualist because everything that he produces is tangible work. He does not bring any notion of a soul separated from the body but he is a complete idealist since for him matter is not but the manifestation of thought and reality is a vivid expression of what cannot be seen.”



Is it possible to conceive Jesus Christ, the founder of the spiritualist Doctrine by excellence, not believing in the individuality of the soul, without any notion of that and consequently not believing in a future life? If he is not spiritualist then he is materialist and consequently Mr. Renan is more spiritualist than Jesus. Those words are not for discussion. They are good enough to show the latitude of his book demonstrating that the author read the Gospels either lightheartedly or with a preconceived mind for he did not see what is ordinarily seen by everyone. One can admit his good faith but certainly not his fair view.



His whole analysis stems from the idea that Jesus only target terrestrial things. According to him Jesus was an essentially good man, of kind gestures and education limited to the study of the sacred texts, of a naturally superior intelligence and that borrowed the idea of founding a doctrine from the religious disputes of the Jews. For that he was favored by the circumstances that he exploited skillfully. Without a plan or a preconceived idea and seeing that he would not succeed with the rich he then sought the support of the working class that were naturally revolted against the rich. He could make friends by flattering them. If he said that the kingdom of heavens belonged to the children that was to please their mothers by touching her weak points and then turning them into followers. Therefore the recently born religion was a movement of women and children. In one word Jesus was all about calculation and combinations and he succeeded helped by people’s attraction to marvelous things. As a matter of fact he was not much austere because he loved Magdalene who loved him back. His needs were provided by many rich women. Jesus and the apostles were work-shy people that did not refuse a good table. Here what he says:



Three or four dedicated Galilee ladies followed the young master competing and taking turns in the pleasure of hearing him and taking care of him. They brought to the new sect an element of enthusiasm and marvelous whose importance is already learnt. One of them, Mary Magdalene that turn the name of her poor village into celebrity was apparently a very uneasy person. According to the language of the time she seemed to have been possessed by seven demons that is to say that she suffered of nervous and apparently inexplicable diseases. Jesus appeased that disturbed organization for her pure and kind beauty. Magdalene was faithful to him up until the Golgotha and the day after his death she played a leading role since she was the main instrument in the establishment of faith in the resurrection as we will see later. Joanna the wife of Chuzas, Herod’s steward from Antipas, Susanna and others that remained unknown followed and served him tirelessly. Some were rich and given their fortune they allowed the young prophet to live without working in the profession that had until then being his bread winning activity.” (Chap. IX, page 151).


Jesus understood very soon that the official world of his time was not absolutely into his kingdom. He was very daring with respect to his preaching. He left aside that people of dry heart and narrow prejudices and look to the simple ones. The kingdom of God is for the children and their similar; for the forgotten of the world victimized by the social arrogance that repeals the simple but good person… The pure Ebionism meaning that only the poor are saved; that the kingdom of the poor is coming was therefore the doctrine of Jesus.” (Chap. XI, page 178).



He did not appreciate the states of the soul but in proportion to the love that was aggregated. Women full of tears in their hearts and prepared for the feelings of humility due to their faults were closer to the kingdom than those of mediocre nature that frequently have no merit for not having failed. On another hand those kind souls conceivably found an easy way of rehabilitation in their conversion to the sect hence dedicated to that with passion.”



Far from seeking the attenuation of their groans raised by their disdain to the social susceptibilities of the time he seemed to take pleasure in exciting them. Such a disdain towards the world had never been so much confessed before, a condition to the great things and the great originalities. He only forgave the rich when the rich was badly judged by society for some kind of prejudice. He openly preferred the people of doubtful life giving little importance to the orthodox notable. He told them: Publicans and courtesans will come before you in the kingdom of God. John says: ‘Publicans and courtesans believe in him and despite that you have not converted.’ One can understand that the criticism for not having followed the good example given by the daughters of pleasure must have been terrible to people that were serious and of a rigid conduct.”



He was not given to exterior signs or austerity. He did not run away from joy since he would willingly go to wedding parties. One of his miracles was carried out to animate a wedding party in a village. In the Orient weddings take place at night. Each guest carries a lamp; the swinging lights form a very pleasant effect. Jesus liked that aspect that was joyful and lively and he took his parables from that.” (Chap. XI, page 187).



The Pharisees and the doctors screamed at the scandal: Look at the people with whom he eats! Jesus then had fine answers that irritated the hypocrites: It is not the healthy ones that need doctor.” (Chap. XI, page 185).



Mr. Renan took care of indicating the passages of the Gospels that he mentioned in footnotes to demonstrate that he was supported by the texts. It is not the truth of the citations that are contested but the interpretations that he gives to them. That is how the profound maxim of the last paragraph is deformed by a witty comment. Everything materializes in Mr. Renan’s thoughts; he only sees material things in all of Jesus words because he himself sees nothing beyond material life. After an idyllic description of Galilea with its delicious climate and luxuriant fertility, of the hospitable and kind character of its inhabitants that creates the true shepherds of the Arcade, he then finds the source of Christianity in the soul of the people that should result from that.


That joyful and easily satisfied life would not lead to the materialism of our peasant; to the great happiness of a generous dwelling; to the heavy joy of the flamingos. It spiritualized in ethereal dreams, in a kind of poetic mysticism, confounding heavens and Earth… Joy will be part of the kingdom of God. Isn’t that the daughter of the humble hearts, of the people of good will?



The whole history of Christianity then became a delicious pastoral. A Messiah in a wedding feast; the courtesan and the good Zacchaeus invited to the parties; the founders of the kingdom of God like in an entourage of paranymphs: that is what Galilea dared and had accepted.” (Chap. IV, page 67).



Jesus was dominated by a remarkable feeling of profundity in all that as well as the band of joyful boys that followed him and that made him the true creator of peace to soul in eternity, the great consoler of life.” (Chap. X, page 172).



Utopias of blessed life founded on the fraternity of mankind and on the pure cult of a true God concerned the enlightened souls and produced daring and sincere reactions from all sides but with not much future. (Chap. X, page 172).



In the East when a house receives a foreigner it immediately becomes a public place. The whole village gathers there. Children invade the place and the servants keep them away but they always come back. Jesus would not accept that the naïve listeners would be mistreat; he would bring them over and embrace them. The mothers encouraged by such a reception would bring him the babies to that he would touch them… Women and children then loved him… The just born religion was therefore a movement of women and children. The latter surrounded him like a young guard would do to the inauguration of an innocent realty, cheering him up and calling him the son of David, singing Hosanna and clapping around him, and all that made him happy. Jesus, like Savonarola, perhaps used them as instruments in charitable missions. He felt relaxed with those young apostles that did not compromised him, putting them in front and conferring them with titles that he dared not take for himself.” (Chap. XI, page 190).



Jesus is then presented as a vulgar ambitious person, of petty passions, sneaking and that has no courage to expose himself. In the absence of an effective realty he is content with the most innocent and least dangerous that is conferred by the children. The following passage makes him an egotist:



But all that did not result in the Church of Jerusalem or a group of Jerusalemite disciples. The charming doctor that forgave everybody as long as he was loved could not find much echo in that sanctuary of vain disputes and chronic sacrifices. It seems that his family did not love him and sometimes we see him tough on them. Like all those men exclusively worried about an idea Jesus got to the point of giving little importance to family links… Later on in his daring revolt against nature he would go even further and step onto everything that was related to people: blood, love, motherland and not preserving from the heart and soul but the idea that he presented as the absolute form of good and true.” (Chap. III, page 42, 43).


That is what Mr. Renan entitles the Origins of Christianity. Who would have ever believed that and band of mockers, a multitude of women, courtesans and children, led by an idealist that had no notion about the soul could change the face of the political, social and religious world, helped by an utopia, an illusion of a celestial kingdom?



In another article we will examine the way he sees the miracles and the nature of the person Jesus.




[1] Brochure 18-in, price 1 franc. Plon, Rue Guanancière, 8


[2] All the citations are taken from the 1st edition


Related articles

Show related items