The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History

I read Holy Blood Holy Grail years ago and re-read it later. I found it quite interesting. I have to agree with the reviewer "Pen Name". Baigent himself is now on the DaVinci Code bandwagon.

Let us not forget, Holy Blood, Holy Grail was released as a work of non-fiction, while Dan Brown wrote his as fiction (very well, I might add, it was a great book). It is ridiculous that Baigent is suing Dan Brown for "stealing" his ideas. He should also be suing all the others who wrote books on this subject. I guess he thinks Brown has more money than the others.

Personally, I feel that Baigent and his co-author fitted their unsubstaniated findings and some ideas taken from the Masons (both are Masons).

This is not to say it was not a very interesting book and an interesting theory, however it is very difficult to trace a specific idea from the present to 2000 years ago.

I read Holy Blood Holy Grail years ago and re-read it later. I found it quite interesting. I have to agree with the reviewer "Pen Name". Baigent himself is now on the DaVinci Code bandwagon.

Let us not forget, Holy Blood, Holy Grail was released as a work of non-fiction, while Dan Brown wrote his as fiction (very well, I might add, it was a great book). It is ridiculous that Baigent is suing Dan Brown for "stealing" his ideas. He should also be suing all the others who wrote books on this subject. I guess he thinks Brown has more money than the others.

Personally, I feel that Baigent and his co-author fitted their unsubstaniated findings and some ideas taken from the Masons (both are Masons).

This is not to say it was not a very interesting book and an interesting theory, however it is very difficult to trace a specific idea from the present to 2000 years ago.

I did not buy this book, and would not have this author make a penny off me. A friend lent me the book and had me read some of the arguments in it. It is outrageous, odd, and based entirely on conspiracy, paranoia, and fantasy. On NBC's Dateline, the author kept repeating that he had no evidence to back this or that in his book, and went on to say that his goal is to keep people questioning the facts. Why then is he presenting this argument as if it were a research?

There are gospels and works that are not in the canon of the New Testament, and the reason why the church never included them in the New Testament is because they are not written by EYEWITNESSES, or were written centuries after the events took place and for some dubious reasons. The books of the New Testament are there because they are believed to be the earliest books written by apostles who knew Jesus and the events of that time. That is why the Gospel of Judas (which is not new to the collection of Apocrypha) or the Gospel of Barnabas (a 16th century Muslim forgery often confused with the "Epistle of Barnabas") are not in the canon. Furthermore, when you know that the book (let's say the Gospel of Judas) was written in the 2nd or 3rd century, it should be dismissed as a direct source of information about Jesus. If you study in seminary you even read these works as part of your courses.

The Jesus Papers is based entirely on personal opinion, astonishing claims which only an author without integrity would call "research." It is nice to be open to other opinions, but if someone comes up to you and argues that the world is flat because some NASA lab is hiding papers on that, he would be unworthy of the time or effort. Such people insult your intelligence before anything else.

If you want to spend your money wisely, I'd recommend reading "New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings" by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, which is a thorough and respected scholarly work. The Jesus Papers is just another wild fictional attempt to attack the dignity and factuality of Christianity and its founders.

Devout Christians will no doubt find Michael Baigent's new book disconcerting, to say the least. Within its pages he puts forth the hypothesis that Jesus Christ survived his crucifixion, was human and not divine, was married to Mary Magdalene, and had offspring. Furthermore, this information was known to certain early Church leaders and they covered it up, deliberately creating and perpetuating a "myth" surrounding the whole Jesus matter, and forming a Church which was built upon a "lie." Pretty heady stuff, that! In spite of what I am sure will be an outpouring of hostility toward Baigent and his book, I do recommend this book particularly to Christians for the following reason: know thy intellectual enemy!

I might also add another reason why I suggest that religious believers, especially traditional Christians in this case, should read this book. All too often, a book is "condemned" or criticized for the idea(s) it promulgates by those who disagree with its contents, but who have, however, never read the book. This type of pseudo-evaluation is, in my opinion, inexcusable and is a form of the anti-intellectualism that unfortunately is all too pervasive in our culture. So, if you are going to take Baigent on -- and there is good reason to do so -- at least be considerate enough to read him first!

Now, I used the word "hypothesis" above in referring to the main idea which Baigent wants to present and justify. I do this advisedly. His assertion that Christ survived the crucifixion and was married, etc., is not a "fact"; if it were a fact, there would hardly be a controversy. His assertion does not rise to the level of a "theory." A theory requires a coherent explanation based on objective evidence. What Baigent presents, rather, is a "hypothesis." And a hypothesis per se is simply a "proposal," a "what if," a conjecture, a speculation, and, many times, simply a "guess."

While Baigent does present a plethora of historical "facts," none of these facts constitutes direct evident to support his hypothesis. In reality, all of the historical "facts" he presents are "circumstantial" and can be interpreted in various ways. He often accuses early church leaders of "spinning" facts to support their specific teachings, but Baigent, it seems to me, is guilty of the same thing. In other words, Baigent is not approaching his subject (or his hypothesis) dispassionately or scholarly; he has a bias which becomes clear as the book progresses -- "bring the Vatican to its knees" and destroy the foundation of the Christian religion. I hope I am not being unfair here to the author, but if Christ did not die and the resurrection was a "hoax," then Christianity is truly doomed as this is the basic rock upon which Christian belief rests and is justified.

There are three questions posed on the back of the dust-jacket and these, I think, are significant. They are obviously being used to promote or "hype" the book to the potential reader but, in a way, they draw us to the essence of what Baigent is saying.

Question 1: What if everything we have been told about the origins of Christianity is a lie? Now, that's pretty strong stuff. "Everything"? Does he mean that for over 2,000 years intelligent scholars and others have been duped into believing something that is a "total lie"? Does this mean that no one, until Baigent came along, had any of the "truth"? Have I, after taking Professor Bart Ehrman's courses in "Lost Christianities" and "The New Testament," and read books on this subject by this outstanding religious scholar, been victimized?

Question 2: What if a small group had always known the truth and had kept it hidden...until now? OK, this is, I suppose, possible. But it seems hardly probable what with all the groups out there opposed to traditional Christianity and doing their best to destroy it. So far, for over two millennia, the Church has survived, even prospered, and I find it hard to believe that a "small group" could contain such power for that long a time. Nevertheless, it's possible, maybe.

Question 3: What if there is incontrovertible proof that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion? "Incontrovertible"? OK, we're on to something here. Incontrovertible means "undeniable" or "can't be disputed." Case closed. Hypothesis proved. End of story. But...but, search as I might through the entire 286 pages of the text in Baigent's book, I cannot find a single "proof," much less any "evidence," which would support an assertion that Christ survived his crucifixion. It's just not there!

Now, what we are asked to "believe," that is, to have "faith" in, is that Baigent saw a document -- what he refers to as "The Jesus Papers" -- which he "alleges" exists, but in private hands and unavailable, and which "proves" that Jesus was alive in A.D. 45, thereby surviving the crucifixion. I have said "believe" and used the word "faith" because Baigent can produce no such document for objective, public examination. We are, therefore, asked to accept his assertion on his "authority." Just as we are asked to accept Christ's death and resurrection on the "authority" of the Bible and Church officials. Take your choice, simply stand aside, or call it a draw.

Since this controversy involves neither formal philosophy nor empirical science, I personally have no dog in this fight. The outcome of this controversy -- if there is ever to be one -- has no real bearing on my thought or life. All I can say for sure at this point is that Baigent's claim that "'The Jesus Papers' reveal the truth about Jesus' life and crucifixion" is not supported by what he presents in his book. Given that, however, I still recommend that those interested in the question, and especially those interested in debating the question, read Baigent's book before proceeding into the intellectual arena where a battle is sure to be waged.

Weren't HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL and THE MESSIANIC LEGACY enough for Michael Baigent?

We get it Mike...
You and Dan Brown and that crazy Starbird woman believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were an item and they had a kid.

It is ironic that Michael Baigent, who as I write has just lost his court fight against Dan Brown over alleged plagiarism in "The Da Vinci Code"' should have produced this book at this time. The Jesus Papers contains much material from Mr. Baigent's previous works, clumsily cobbled together.

The Jesus Papers to which Mr. Baigent refers supposedly reveal a long lost secret: Jesus survived the Crucifixion and lived out his life in Egypt and then possibly France, leaving descendants by his wife Mary Magdalene. Supposedly the Catholic Church has been fighting to hide this truth for centuries, but bits and pieces of historical evidence (the "papers") keep leaking out to Mr. Baigent.

If these papers really exist and really contain what Mr. Baigent claims they do they are obviously as explosive as he claims they are. But always something seems to come up to prevent their general release to the public: Mr. Baigent loans out the photos he has taken of them to some ostensibly honest scholar who then loses them; or Mr. Baigent visits an antiquities dealer who happens to mention that he owns some of the papers, and even shows them to Mr. Baigent, but unfortunately Mr. Baigent can't read them; or Mr. Baigent is offered a chance to arrange the purchase of some of the papers, but the mysterious dealer/owner disappears because he doesn't want the Israelis to come into their possession; or a retired Anglican priest writes to Mr. Baigent to relate a fifty year old conversation with an eminent cleric who, fifty years or so before that saw some papers which revealed that Jesus was alive in A.D. 45, etc., etc. Mr. Baigent is either the luckiest or the unluckiest or the clumsiest researcher in the world!

Intersperced with the skullduggery is some interesting material on the Dead Sea Scrolls (much of which can be found in more detail in Mr. Baigent's earlier work The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception) and their connections with early Christianity (or lack thereof). Mr. Baigent also touches on Zealotry in Roman Judaea and Jesus' possible involvement with that movement, but adds little or no new information there.

Among the most interesting sections of The Jesus Papers are Mr. Baigent's description of his exploration of a system of tunnels near Baiae in Italy, which were the headquarters of a mystery cult during Roman times. This was truly intriguing (if a bit unnerving for a claustrophobe to read about), and I wish Mr. Baigent had concentrated on those segments instead of throwing so much retread material into the pot.

Ove the last twenty years I've enjoyed Mr. Baigent's works and found that, although they often require more than a little suspension of one's critical faculties, they are diverting and sometimes thought provoking. Its unfortunately very apparent that in The Jesus Papers he has scraped the bottom of the barrel. Any future books will have to focus on some entirely new subject if Mr. Baigent is to avoid the charge of plagiarizing himself. (Then again, perhaps Mr. Baigent will bump into another of those antiquities dealers somewhere in the Middle East, and perhaps that dealer will have some interesting parchments, and this time Mr. Baigent will make TWO copies of the photos he takes of them, and the scholars he shows them to won't lose them and THEN . . . )

at it's smelliest. The review above says "....As a religious historian and a leading expert in the field of arcane knowledge, Baigent has unequaled access to hidden archives, secret societies, Masonic records, and the private collections of antiquities traders and their moneyed clients." Does anyone really believe this? What an insult to our intelligence!

I saw this clown on TV, completely staged for filming, with his dark glasses, leather (or imitation)jacket, long hair, and chain smoking cigarettes, and his pompous attitude. I almost fell out of my chair laughing, but gagging at the same time. He reminded me of a teenage motorcyle punk trying to be intelligent.

I admit, I did NOT entirely read this book; I was tired of being sickened. If you pride yourself on your intelligence, do not read this book, or at least don't pay for it (I didn't). On the other hand, if you are a hate-mongering, anti-Christian, or atheist, have at it, it's right up your alley....

To all of those who dispute the validity of the claims in the book, I offer you this challenge: Show me indisputable proof that Jesus wasn't married, or had kids, or even existed.

Although this book provides some interesting information about archeology and the workings of the black market in dealing with ancient artifacts, there is absolutely nothing new revealed in this book.

At the very most, after teasing readers throughout the book with the revelations to come, in the last few pages Baigent claims he saw a document, which he could not translate, but that supposedly exposes history's greatest coverup. Huh? What am I missing here? Don't you have to be able to read and understand a document to know what message it reveals?

I would advise you that if you're really interested in the type of information this book purports to reveal, read any of Elaine Pagel's books. This one is a waste of time and money.

It has come to my attention that, although this book obviously has very few objective truths, or anything beyond conjecture really, it continues to attract readers. While I can understand wanting to read an intellectual work before judging it, in this case, that is unneccessary. There is very little representative of intellect in these arguments, and by purchasing it merely to disprove it, one would only fuel this man's lies. By putting cash in his pocket for spouting out mistruths, we are perpetuating and, indeed, encouraging this sort of book. Save yourself some money and say "no" to misguided works like this that broker upon their controversiality to make an easy profit.