The Revisionist Fantasy of 'The Jesus Papers'

Is "The Jesus Papers" a joke? As an archaeologist and scholar of Christian origins, I hardly know where to begin debunking this revisionist fantasy masquerading as legitimate history.

Michael Baigent’s tortured thesis in "The Jesus Papers" is anything but simple. According to the book, Jesus was a descendent of the Davidic dynasty, groomed by the Zealot party to oppose Roman rule. To the Zealots' surprise, he renounces violence. He survives the crucifixion thanks to an intricate plot by Pilate, escapes to Egypt with his wife Mary Magdalene a.k.a. the grail, and then teaches an esoteric form of Hermetic wisdom until his death. Jesus’ initial political aspirations were later gutted and replaced, in the New Testament, with the image of a spiritual, divine, but a-political Christ. Such a Christ image was more malleable to Roman political control and misogynist Catholicism. Any evidence of the real story has been systematically eradicated by the Catholic Church, whose minions know it yet have doggedly pursued and persecuted truth-seekers ever since the emergence of the papacy of Rome.

We've all been duped. Who knew?

What evidence does Baigent offer for this historical reconstruction? He claims his thesis is supported by the Jesus papers, a set of ancient texts he saw and photographed, but they slipped through his hands and into the Vatican’s--where they were surely destroyed. Darn.

Let me expose just a few of this book's problems--ones that have to do with ancient history. Problems of logic, medieval history, and theology I’ll leave to others. The problems with first-century history are serious enough.

First, let's tackle Baigent's hypothesis that the Zealot party groomed Jesus to become a political leader. The scholarly consensus today is that there never was a Zealot party during Jesus' life. True, the term zealot existed even in the gospels, but it meant no more than to be excessively enthusiastic for any given religious or politics position. The “Zealots” as an organized party with well-defined political goals did not exist until the decade leading up to the first Jewish revolt which began in 66 CE. Can I prove that there were no Zealots at the time of Jesus? No, but all serious scholars deem it implausible.

Second, let's discuss whether Jesus survived the crucifixion. The idea that crucified victims die of asphyxiation has been bandied about for some time. In Baigent’s book, Jesus simply passes out and is later revived.

But in reality, breathing while hanging on a cross was not a problem at all; asphyxiation was not the cause of death. Instead, the combination of beating, nailing (the Romans drove nine-inch nails through the victim's hands and ankles), and exposure resulted in what medical pathologists call death through hypovolemic shock. In layman’s terms, this means death through extreme pain, excessive bleeding, severe trauma, and exhaustion.

Continued on page 2: Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion? »