Charles Guignebert

Charles Guignebert (1867 - 1939) was a professor of Church history at the Sorbonne. He wrote the book "Jesus" in 1935, which was eventually translated into English in 1956. He believed in the “historicity of Jesus,” men like Paul-Louis Couchoud, Benjamin Smith, John Mackinnon Robertson, Peter C. Jensen, Albert Kalthoff and Arthur Drews.

None of these scholars had the advantage of Nag Hammadi material, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the extensive advances in archaeology. Some of Guignebert’s arguments may not be as valid today but that would not mean he would agree with the mythicists.

Guignebert believed his approach was more scientific rather than confessional concerning Christian history. But his "scientific " perspective was limited to his persona point of view. He actually concluded with his narrow scholastic view that "We know nothing at all of the personality of Jesus, scarcely anything of the facts of his life, little as to his teaching, and can only speculate as to his career."

He viewed “The gospels" were "texts of propaganda, calculated to organize and authenticate the legend represented in the sacred drama of the sect by making that legend believable, and to conform it to the mythology of the era.”

That may be partially true with Matthew who clearly tried to write to the skeptics of Hebrew communities. But the gospels were both a record and repository of the basic history but more important the doctrines or teachings of Jesus. While there are differences in the reporting of the gospel they are certainly as accurate as modern media reporting today if not more so.

Guignebert makes numerous outlandish assumptions and conclusions based on testimony which by its nature is incomplete. Concerning the events at Gethsemane, he writes, "That the incident was dramatized after the event, and was even, in the main, entirely imaginary, there can be no doubt, for who could have seen, heard, and reported it, when the only ones who might have witnessed the scene were asleep?"

There is no way to know the details of the events. They are not reported. We know people were awake and fell asleep but there was no detail reporting or cross examination in the account for us to know what was seen between falling asleep and being awakened again. These types of conclusions are certainly not scientific.

A major problem that arises in understanding these documents of antiquity is understanding the politics, laws and psychology of the participants within the text. There were factions at the altar of God and like politics or religion of today fact do not always matter.

Without a thorough understanding of the sciences of politics, laws and psychology Guignebert concluded the "the Jesus of John seems quite a different person from the one implied by the Synoptic tradition. He is in every way different---his character, his behavior, his consistently harsh attitude towards the Jews, and the tone of his discourses, which are solemn and lofty exhortations never understood by his hearers, and full of profound meditations on the eternal Christ instead of the familiar teachings about the coming Kingdom and the conditions of entrance to it."

The Gospel of John is uniquely different than those of the first three Gospels. But this has almost entirely to do with the perspective of the source of those Johannine Scripts. If someone does not understand the message of the first three they can easily be confused by the fourth Gospel to say nothing of Paul's epistles to those Christians who were already doing what Christ said and had stopped doing what the Pharisees said was okay that was making the word of God to none effect.

Modern Christians cannot see the covetous practices have made them merchandise as predicted by Peter. They do not see that the voice of the people have rejected God and Jesus as the Christ so how can they understand the simplicity of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Because of their lack of knowledge they appropriate the Divine and fashion Him in their own image and call their faith in that image belief in God and Jesus.  Even the definition of religion had changed for Guignebert a hundred years before so he wrote, "In all probability the Gospel writer was only concerned with the religious aspect of this sequence of events in time. Bearing this in mind, it is easy to explain the insuperable divergence which appears between the Synoptic chronological scheme of the events of the Passion and the Johannine scheme, while admitting that the former is lacking in clearness and coherence."

John never even mentioned the word religion but once it is understood to be in accord with James' version of Pure Religion both the Johannine Scriptures and the Epistles of John begin to come together with a deeper meaning along with the Kingdom of God and His righteousness which we are told to seek.

If you need help:

Or want to help others:

Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links