About “The Genesis case”

image_pdfimage_print

Translations, from Portuguese, are automatic. If you notice any errors in the text, help us identify them, clicking here.

Subscribe to our Newsletters and receive our articles directly in your email.

image_pdfimage_print

This article was inspired by the article “The Genesis case“, presented in the Portal Luz Espírita. In this very extensive article, several details are presented, step by step, which finally lead the author, Ery Lopes, and his collaborators — Adair Ribeiro, Adriano Calsone, Carlos Luiz, Carlos Seth Bastos, Jorge Hessen and Wanderlei dos Santos — to assume that, no, the Genesis was not tampered with and that we can be completely confident that the 5th edition, according to them edited and printed in 1869, was indeed a printed version by Allan Kardec.

I must recognize that the article has the merit of having tried to remain impartial, including the works of Simoni Privato, in The Legacy of Allan Kardec, where he presents a huge collection of evidence and evidence of adulterations.

At what point, then, does the paper go on to assume that such tampering does not exist and that all the evidence is wrong? Mainly from item 37 — “The tracks of the Rational Catalog — which I reproduce below:

In this context, some clues are presented, obtained through the analysis of the work Catálogo Racional, which would have had its first edition distributed on April 1, 1869, the day after the death of Allan Kardec:

  1. There is a quote from the work La clef de la vie (The key to life), by Michel de Figagnères, on which Kardec would have made a comment referring to items 4 to 7 of chapter VIII of A Genesis. Item 7, however, The Soul of the Earth, only came into existence from the 5th edition of this work.
  2. Next, there is evidence that the work the four gospels, by Roustaing, would have already been cited by Professor Rivail himself in this first edition of the Catalog, unlike what some people would have said, supposing that such a citation would only have been due to adulteration. 

There is, however, a very important piece of information that was left out at this point: Kardec's reference to items 64 to 68 of chapter XV of A Genesis. It turns out that item 68 only existed until the 4th edition of this work, transformed into item 67 from the 5th edition, when the original item 67 was withdrawn. This item was very important, because it dealt with the question that the disappearance of the body of Jesus, until then, would be an unsolvable issue, due to the absence, until then, of the sanction of the double control of confirmation by rigorous logic and by the general teaching of the Spirits, and its withdrawal seems very strategic, if we consider that the contrary ideas, coming from Roustaing, could not be sustained, due to the absence of this double control.

Now, why this contradiction in Kardec's references? Why would he have simultaneously referred, at one point, to an item that would still be inserted in A Genesis, in the 5th edition, while, at another, he referred to an item that would be removed from it, in the same edition?

Logic takes me down the following path:

  • Kardec had already prepared the printing of the Rational Catalogue, but he was still in the process of finishing the printing of A Genesis, which was still, apparently, in the final stages of reprinting for corrections and editions.
  • In the Catalog, Kardec refers to an item that did not yet exist in The Genesis (Chap. VIII, item 7) and another that, from the 5th known edition, ceased to exist (item 68). This may demonstrate that Kardec, in the Catalog, would refer to an item from the new edition of A Gênese, and that would keep the reference to item 68, cited above. A would-be adulterer, determined to remove the all-important principle of double-checking sanction, missed the problem.
  • The Catalog had already been ordered and printed with Kardec's knowledge, but that does not mean that it would be readily distributed. Most likely, by the logic of the facts, he would expect the printing of the new version of The Genesis.

I also suppose, by the logic of the facts, that the 5th edition of A Genesis, known to us, was based on changes to Allan Kardec's own clichés, since, in this edition, item 7 of chapter VIII presents content in accordance with with his own style and thinking (in my opinion). Thus, the alterations that we know, I suppose, are not all tampering, but the tampering hypothesis is very evident by all the evidence and evidence already presented, until today, and by the simple analysis of some altered or suppressed points, which are out of line with the thought, of Kardec's style and purposes and, above all, of the teaching of the Spirits during the entire first phase of Spiritism.

I add that I see no reason why Kardec has not cited Roustaing's work in his Catalogue, since he himself suggests, just below the recommendation, that the reader seek better clarifications in A Genesis, in the items mentioned. In fact, in the 5th edition of A Gênese, there is a reference to the Spiritist Magazine of September 1868, p. 261, which refers to the same theme contained in item 7 of the first work: A Alma do Mundo.

One more piece of evidence that shows that the alterations in the 5th edition of A Genesis are not totally the result of tampering, although, even on this item, I cannot say whether it would have been, in addition to being introduced, also tampered with, since the passage that in the 5th edition of A Genesis ends item 7 of chap. VIII, continues, in the Spiritist Magazine, in a very important way: “Spiritism would, with good reason, be ridiculed by its opponents if it made the editor responsible for utopias that do not stand up to scrutiny. If the ridiculous didn't kill you, it's because it only kills what is ridiculous."

Regarding the very common statement that some letters confirm the printing of the 5th edition of the work by Kardec himself, I have already addressed the case in the article “The adulterations in Kardec's works and the "CSI of Spiritism” (click here to read).

What I want to say with all this is that, yes, it is a very deep and complex subject, with a lot of cross information to be analyzed under a very rational, logical and truly impartial methodology. Unfortunately, it seems that many people desperately try to cling to any evidence that the tampering did not occur, and in doing so, fail to analyze the facts with all the care the matter deserves.

I always repeat: the content presented in the works “O Legado de Allan Kardec” and “Neither heaven, nor hell” is too complete and profound to be taken as if it were just any error, based on incomplete or false information. Even so, if there is room for doubt, let the other information be analyzed with the maximum of scientific criteria, as Kardec himself taught us and, while they cannot be remedied, let us remain in the safety of the works undoubtedly printed by his own hand and pocket.

Finally, I want to highlight the following: one of the most used proofs to affirm that the 5th edition was entirely authored by Kardec himself, the 5th edition of 1869, presents on its cover, as printing address, the new address of the headquarters from the Parisian Spiritist Society: “Librairie Spirite et des Sciences Psychologiques”, at “7, rue de Lille”.

We know that Kardec died before of the Company's establishment at the new address, which proves that this edition was only printed after your death. Read more by clicking on here.

image_pdfimage_print

Reading Recommendations (Books)

Written by 

2 thoughts on “Sobre “o caso A Gênese”

  1. I am happy to see that we can count on “neutral” people using critical sense and logic doing in-depth analysis based on facts. Congratulations and thanks for your article.

    1. Thank you, Katia. I'm not exempt from making mistakes, but I'm trying, as much as possible, to base myself on just that: facts and irreproachable logic. If I make a mistake, I'll go back.

Leave a message

Your email address will not be published. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *

Esse site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Aprenda como seus dados de comentários são processados.