Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 03-30-2006, 05:41 AM

The Canadian magazine MacLeans is the equivalent, more or less, of the American Time. Its April 3 2006 edition has on the cover a crucifix, with the caption "Did he really die on the cross?" Inside we then find a preview of Michael Baigent's new book, The Jesus Papers. The preview also contains an interview with Baigent. I want to go through a few highlights (or perhaps lowlights

) of the review/interview, and what it implies about the book.

Baigent is not a Mythicist. This is a Baigent quote from the interview: "The no-Christ position is impossible to maintain, if only because of Tacitus--a highly placed Roman historian with good access to contemporary documents--saying that Pontius Pilate crucified him." This probably refers to a one-liner in Annals 15:44, which says that Nero blamed the "Chrestians" for the fire of Rome. Tacitus then says "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius." This is a bit sparse, and it can easily be read as Tacitus reporting the beliefs of the "Chrestians" rather than documented fact. We'll assume that Baigent has some more, unreported, reasons. (I just mention this because I think it may say something about the thoroughness of Baigent's evidence in general.)

The central theme of the book seems to be that Jesus survived the cross. This is because Pilate didn't really want to crucify Jesus. Here is the reasoning, as far as I can determine it. It starts with the assumption that Jesus "was nurtured by the Zealot faction" (quote from interview, not book). The Zealots wanted to restore a king/high priest who was a descendant both of David and Aaron. Jesus also descends from both David (via Joseph) and Aaron (via Mary, see Luke). Now the Zealots hated Romans, but apparently Jesus did not: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." This ticked off the Zealots who then handed him to Pilate for crucifixion.

This then put Pilate into a tough spot. From the interview:

Quote:

"My starting point was realizing Pilate's dilemma," Baigent says, meaning Pilate's need to avoid executing a prominent Jew who was friendly to Rome, balanced by the risk of public unrest in a notoriously unruly province.

From this then follows a fake crucifixion, Jesus survives and takes off to Egypt (where else).

Now as far as I know the scholarly view of Pilate is that he was a general thug who wouldn't recognize a balance if he tripped over it, and would have happily crucified anyone available for the privilege. Also, the idea that Jesus was friendly to Rome is rather, well, unusual. As well, the whole argument ignores everything that has been said about the Gospels showing evidence about the struggle between the Jewish an Gentile Christian factions.

Here is something for the Koine experts. Baigent makes a big deal bout the fact that Greek distinguishes two words for body: "soma" which is the living body, and another one (not mentioned, experts...?) for corpse. Now Mark uses "soma," and hence refers to a living body. Does that hold up in any way?

The review ends in a most interesting way. Baigent is apparently aware that his case is rather thin (let's at least give him some credit for that). According to the interviewer Baigent's thesis is really based on personal beliefs. One of them stemming "from his 25 years of familiarity with the underground trade in Middle Eastern antiquities." Here is another quote from the review:

Quote:

At the heart of his [Baigent's] conclusions about Jesus are Aramaic papyri bearing a letter to the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, which Baigent has seen, and actually held in his hands. (Unfortunately he can't read Aramaic.) The author [Baigent, I assume, note the author of the letter; GPS] believes the letter was written by Jesus himself after his supposed death; in it Jesus denies that he had ever called himself the literal, physical son of God.

(Yes, the ironic parenthetical remark about Baigent's Aramaic abilities is actually in the article!) It is always nice if we can find, but not read, a letter that so authoritatively denies a fundamental point of orthodoxy.

So, what do you think (or do I need to ask

)? Personally I suspect we'll find another typical Baigent book, where the methodology basically is: "Let's assume that A implies B. OK, so now that we know B is true,..." This methodology does have the advantage of easily producing some exciting, and hopefully well-selling, books. And who can blame an author for that?

Gerard Stafleu

Julian · 03-30-2006, 07:07 AM

The other word is probably νεκρος (Nekros meaning corpse).

S.C.Carlson · 03-30-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Here is something for the Koine experts. Baigent makes a big deal bout the fact that Greek distinguishes two words for body: "soma" which is the living body, and another one (not mentioned, experts...?) for corpse. Now Mark uses "soma," and hence refers to a living body. Does that hold up in any way?

The other word people usually mean is πτῶμα (ptoma) as in Mark 15:45. Some MSS of Mark here have σῶμα (soma), which always meant "dead body" in Homer but later came to be applied also to living bodies. My Bauer-Danker lexicon calls σῶμα a "more dignified" way to refer to a corpse than πτῶμα.

Stephen

Toto · 03-30-2006, 09:45 AM

Jesus Papers author prays for a Da Vinci-sized payday

Quote:

Just in time for Easter comes the challenging and provocative new book, The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History (or via: amazon.co.uk), a work of history - or psuedo-history perhaps - that debunks everything from the virgin birth to the resurrection.

As far as marketing goes, the book by Michael Baigent, one of the three co-authors of the contentious Holy Blood, Holy Grail (or via: amazon.co.uk) (HBHG), the timing couldn’t be better. Expect it to be prominently displayed in your local bookstore right next to today’s paperback release of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.

There are clearly fortunes to be made in alternative history of Christ and the Church. Brown has banked an astonishing $400 million so far from the Da Vinci Code, not including the dough from the upcoming Ron Howard-directed movie starring Tom Hanks.

...

Baignent and a coauthor are currently suing Don Brown in London for plagarizing Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

gstafleu · 03-30-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Baignent and a coauthor are currently suing Don Brown in London for plagarizing Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Isn't that great? As a scholar you cannot sue someone for using your ideas, that is the whole purpose of scholarship! But as an author of fiction you can of course sue. So Baigent et al are in fact admitting that Holy Blood Holy Grail is fiction!

Toto · 03-30-2006, 12:10 PM

That's London, UK, libel and copyright violation capitol of the world.

Quote:

The nation's copyright law likewise allows cases to be heard that would have been thrown out of court elsewhere, particularly in the U.S. Which is precisely why the trial of the American novelist's publisher -- technically it's Random House, not Brown, which is accused of violating copyright -- is unfolding in a London High Court. It's no garden-variety plagiarism claim, where the defendant is accused of lifting someone else's copyright-protected material -- whether a plot line or an entire book -- and passing it off as his own. Instead, the trial will turn on ownership of a linked set of ideas. In brief they are: Jesus Christ, far from dying on the cross, married Mary Magdalen and fled to Provence; their descendants later became kings of France. For centuries a shadowy secret society has guarded Jesus's bloodline from a vengeful Roman Catholic Church. Meanwhile, for those who can grasp the real meaning of the Holy Grail stories, the truth has always been out there in Western culture.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three co-authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, claim that Brown took all that from their 1982 book, a theft that adds up to "the whole architecture" of their alternative history of Christianity.

. . .

Brown and Random House -- which resents its inevitable image in the case as an amoral cash box raking it in with both hands -- are not relying on an innocence-by-coincidence ruling. Their lawyers have indicated they will argue it's immaterial whether Brown read Holy Blood: the ideas it shares with the Code have been floating freely about on the fringes of traditional Christianity for centuries, and are no more capable of being protected by copyright than the Gospel accounts themselves. No one owns ideas, only their form of expression. Anyone with a stake in free speech -- all of us, in short -- would have to agree.

So I don't think they are actually admitting that it is fiction. It is their protected historical reconstruction. Or something like that.

Toto · 03-30-2006, 12:29 PM

I have been reading Robert M. Price's The Da Vinci Fraud: Why the Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction (or via: amazon.co.uk). It is enjoyable, just a bit too brief and lacking in footnotes, but a good introduction to the themes in the Da Vinci Code. Price originally wrote it at the request of the head of the Jesus Seminar, but they backed away from publishing it, so he turned to Prometheus. The Amazon reviews seem to be almost uniformly 4 stars.

Otherwise there has been a mad rush on the part of various Christian groups to "debunk" the Da Vinci Code in timing with the release of the movie. Josh McDowell has a book coming out, and Campus Crusade for Christ is raising money to send copies to everyone (you may get it in the mail!).

It will be interesting to see if this has any more effect on Christianity than Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which ended up being just another media sensation.

Clivedurdle · 03-30-2006, 11:29 PM

I think it is only one of the author's suing Brown - looks to me like a set up to get publicity for all their books - now I suppose the judge could chuck both sides in Jail for contempt of court!

Toto · 04-02-2006, 10:36 PM

LA Times book review

Quote:

Baigent doesn't deliver what he promises. The title and opening pages refer to a tantalizing document "containing incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was alive in the year A.D. 45." Such a document, verified by carbon dating and subjected to the scrutiny of the world's top archeological experts, would deliver a devastating blow to the core belief of Christianity: that Jesus rose from the dead.

. . .

Pretty soon, the reader realizes that there probably won't be any "Jesus documents" — that this book is really a private credo, an intimate declaration of belief dressed up to be the religious bombshell of the millennium. But then the long-anticipated appearance of the documents comes (or does it?) near the end. Baigent meets with an unidentified antiquities dealer who shows him two pieces of parchment:

"Each was about eighteen inches long and nine inches high…. These were … the letters from Jesus to the Sanhedrin. They existed. I was silent as I fully enjoyed the moment."

Then he adds, "I wished above all that I might have a familiarity with ancient languages. . . . It's like holding a treasure chest but not having the key to open it."

Earlier in the book, Baigent described himself as a devoted student of ancient history for many years, but here he can't even pick out Jesus' name nor does he have the dealer, who is elusive and disappears from the story, show him what it says. It is deeply insulting.

I caught a glimpse of Baigent on MSNBC Dateline. There is an excerpt of his book here on their website, and a transcript here. It is disappointing to see such a flimsy theory getting all this airplay.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2006, 07:07 AM	#2
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	The other word is probably νεκρος (Nekros meaning corpse).

03-30-2006, 12:29 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I have been reading Robert M. Price's The Da Vinci Fraud: Why the Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction (or via: amazon.co.uk). It is enjoyable, just a bit too brief and lacking in footnotes, but a good introduction to the themes in the Da Vinci Code. Price originally wrote it at the request of the head of the Jesus Seminar, but they backed away from publishing it, so he turned to Prometheus. The Amazon reviews seem to be almost uniformly 4 stars. Otherwise there has been a mad rush on the part of various Christian groups to "debunk" the Da Vinci Code in timing with the release of the movie. Josh McDowell has a book coming out, and Campus Crusade for Christ is raising money to send copies to everyone (you may get it in the mail!). It will be interesting to see if this has any more effect on Christianity than Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which ended up being just another media sensation.

03-30-2006, 11:29 PM	#8
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I think it is only one of the author's suing Brown - looks to me like a set up to get publicity for all their books - now I suppose the judge could chuck both sides in Jail for contempt of court!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.