Why did Nicolas Notovitch perpetrate the 'Life of Saint Issa' Hoax?

Following on from my recent article 'Nicolas Notovitch and the 'Life of Saint Issa''; (1) I felt the need to write a companion article on part of the subject matter that I deliberately omitted in my previous piece. I am specifically referring to why Notovitch wrote the text that he claimed came from a Pali manuscript in the Hemis Buddhist monastery in northern India.

As I have argued in my previous article; there can be no other reasonable conclusion based on the extant evidence other than that Notovitch perpetrated a hoax or was the naïve victim of a cruel monastic joke. The latter is distinctly unlikely because – among other things – the chief lama and his monastery were put in the spotlight of public scrutiny for well over a year and then subjected to semi-continual harassment to see the manuscript from those duped by Notovitch's hoax.

Hardly the sort of thing that the chief lama would have tolerated if one of his monks had duped Notovitch when it could have all been cleared up by openly admitting as such and punishing the monk(s) concerned!

It follows therefore that there must have been some kind of motive(s) behind Notovitch's 'Life of Saint Issa' hoax.

It could just be that he wished to become a celebrity as well as possibly so banal a reason as to earn some money through book sales and lecture tours. There is evidence to support this idea given that Notovitch was an incorrigible name-dropper of people he allegedly knew well and who believed in his discovery.

Examples of such claimed friendships and endorsements are those of Monsignor Platon (the Metropolitan of Kiev), (2) Cardinal Rotelli, (3) Jules Simon, (4) Ernest Renan, (5) the Marquis of Mores (6) and the Vicomte de Breteul. (7)

Notovitch's reference to his own 'discovery' as being of the 'utmost importance' (8) is also suggestive of such a motive. As is his response to academic criticism: to propose the formation of an expedition to the Hemis monastery led by Notovitch as opposed say asking an on-the-spot expert - like Professor James Archibald Douglas - to acquire a copy from the monastery.

Notovitch presumably made a significant amount of money from the publication of 'The Unknown Life of Jesus' given that it was immediately translated into several languages (including English and German) and went through at least four French editions in 1894 alone.

As such then it is reasonable to suppose that the lure of celebrity and financial gain was one of Notovitch's motivations for the 'Life of Saint Issa' hoax. However I think there is something a little less obvious lurking behind this rather obvious motivation.

We know that Notovitch was jewish having been born in Kerch in 1858 as Shulim Aleksandrovich Notovich and that at some point he seems to have converted to Orthodox Christianity. (9)

However when we read some of his 'interpretations' of the story of Jesus in 'The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ'. We begin to notice a certain consistent interpretative bias.

For example Notovitch writes as follows regarding the nativity story:

'It is evident that Herod was informed of this occurrence. He feared that this infant, once grown to manhood, might avail himself of his prospective popularity to re-conquer the throne of his ancestors. He sent out his men to seize the child, which the Israelites endeavored to hide from the wrath of the king, who then ordered the abominable massacre of the children, hoping that Jesus would perish in this vast human hecatomb.' (10)

Notice that rather than having Joseph be given warning of the impending paedocide by an angel and then flee (i.e., the version in the gospels). Notovitch has the 'Israelites' ('Israelite' = 'Jew' = 'Born to Jewish Parents' [irrespective of their professed religion] in Judaism) protect Jesus by warning him.

This identification of 'Israelite' with contemporary jews is made clear by Notovitch later when he states:

'The royal lineage of Jesus, his rare intelligence and his learning, caused him to be looked upon as an excellent match, and the wealthiest and most respected Hebrews would fain have had him for a son-in-law, just as even nowadays the Israelites are very desirous of the honor of marrying their daughters to the sons of Rabbis or scholars.' (11)

In other words Notovitch is styling the jews as the 'friends' and 'protectors' of - with the necessary implication that they are intellectually and spiritually superior to - Christians as opposed to their enemies.

This becomes both intensely obvious, as well as extremely odious, when Notovitch comes to the subject of the trial of Jesus.

To wit:

'Pilate, the governor of the country, however, did not look upon the matter in the same light. Eager agents notified him that Jesus announced the near coming of a new kingdom, the re-establishment of the throne of Israel, and that he suffered himself to he called the Son of God, sent to bring back courage in Israel, for he, the King of Judea, would soon ascend the throne of his ancestors.

I do not purpose attributing to Jesus the role of a revolutionary, but it seems to me very probable that Jesus wrought up the people with a view to re-establish the throne to which he had a just claim. Divinely inspired, and, at the same time, convinced of the legitimacy of his pretentions, Jesus preached the spiritual union of the people in order that a political union might result.

Pilate, who felt alarmed over these rumors, called together the priests and the elders of the people and ordered them to interdict Jesus from preaching in public, and even to condemn him in the temple under the charge of apostasy. This was the best means for Pilate to rid himself of a dangerous man, whose royal origin he knew and whose popularity was constantly increasing.

It must be said in this connection that the Israelites, far from persecuting Jesus, recognized in him the descendant of the illustrious dynasty of David, and made him the object of their secret hopes, a fact which is evident from the very Gospels which tell that Jesus preached freely in the temple, in the presence of the elders, who could have interdicted him not only the entrance to the temple, but also his preachings.

Upon the order of Pilate the Sanhedrim met and cited Jesus to appear before its tribunal. As the result of the inquiry, the members of the Sanhedrim informed Pilate that his suspicions were without any foundation whatever; that Jesus preached a religious, and not a political, propaganda; that he was expounding the Divine word, and that he claimed to have come not to overthrow, but to re-establish the laws of Moses. The Buddhistic record does but confirm this sympathy, which unquestionably existed between the young preacher, Jesus, and the elders of the people of Israel; hence their answer: "We do not judge a just one."

Pilate felt not at all assured, and continued seeking an occasion to hale Jesus before a new tribunal, as regular as the former. To this end he caused him to be followed by spies, and finally ordered his arrest.' (12)

In other words: Pilate and not the jews/Sanhedrin are responsible for the death of Jesus. Notovitch goes even further and claims that the jews/Sanhedrin believed in Jesus' status as the messiah, but were forced into going along with Pilate's judgement for the greater good of the jewish people.

Notovitch is basically claiming that the jews are as much the victims of the trial of Jesus as the man himself and that the real villains are Pilate and the Roman Empire.

He makes this clear in another passage when he states:

'The conquerors of Judea could not long tolerate the presence of a man who announced to the people a speedy deliverance from their yoke. The popularity of Jesus having commenced to disturb Pilate's mind, it is to be supposed that he sent after the young preacher spies, with the order to take note of all his words and acts. Moreover, the servants of the Roman governor, as true "agents provocateurs," endeavored by means of artful questions put to Jesus, to draw from him some imprudent words under color of which Pilate might proceed against him. If the preachings of Jesus had been offensive to the Hebrew priests and scribes, all they needed to do was simply to command the people not to hear and follow him, and to forbid him entrance into the temple. But the Evangelists tell us that Jesus enjoyed great popularity among the Israelites and full liberty in the temples, where Pharisees and scribes discussed with him.' (13)

According to Notovitch then; the jews are never to blame. It can be hardly be held to be a coincidence that Notovitch was himself jewish by birth. However the Russian Empire at the time he published was deeply anti-jewish - although not anti-Semitic despite common claims to the contrary (i.e., jews could escape the so-called 'persecution' by converting to Christianity a-la Notovitch) - and this was based primarily on fervent faith in the truth of Orthodox Christianity. The resultant belief of this was the jewish responsibility for the crime of deicide and the pernicious anti-Christian nature of Judaism itself.

This anti-jewish belief systems was anchored on the text of the four gospels - particularly that of John - and should Notovitch undermine this with the 'Life of Saint Issa'. Then it could very well have provided the impetus to change Orthodox Christianity's anti-jewish viewpoint into a pro-jewish one.

I am aware what I am suggesting here is speculation, but on the basis of the foregoing discussion. It is difficult to see Notovitch's 'Life of Saint Issa' hoax in anything but as both as the means to material advancement and an attempt to fundamentally change Orthodox Christianity's attitude to the jews by introducing a new gospel of sorts.

It does make you wonder though: doesn't it?

References

(1) https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/nicolas-notovitch-and-the-life-of

(2) Nicolas Notovitch, n.d. [1894/1895?], 'The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ', 1st Edition, R. F. Fenno: New York, p. 11

(3) Ibid., p. 12

(4) Ibid., pp. 13-15

(5) Ibid., p. 13

(6) Ibid., p. 153

(7) Ibid.

(8) Ibid., p. 11

(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Notovitch

(10) Notovitch, Op. Cit., p. 241

(11) Ibid., p. 243

(12) Ibid., pp. 263-266

(13) Ibid., pp. 267-268