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

by Michael Baigent

Book Overview

What if everything we have been told about the origins of Christianity is a lie?What if a small group had always known the truth and had kept it hidden . . . until now?What if there is evidence that... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0060827130
• ISBN13: 9780060827137
• Release Date: March 2006
• Publisher: HarperOne
• Length: 336 Pages
• Weight: 0.25 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

tripe

where are the papers just a history review not worth the paper on which it was written

What a bunch of hogwash

Hershel Shanks, reviewing The Jesus Papers for Biblical Archaeology Review, commented on the "foolishness of its central thesis", noting how Baigent had seen papyri written in Aramaic, a language that he did not understand, yet was able to say that what he saw dated from "about A.D. 34" - Shanks noted that archaeological finds cannot be dated so precisely, adding that the two previous famous archaeologists who had allegedly seen this papyri were now conveniently dead. Kevin McClure, reviewing the book for Fortean Times commented how the author was unable to obtain photographs of the said papyri, adding that "Baigent records no further effort to investigate these supposedly amazing documents, and appears not to have approached any academic body or community for help". The Biblical historian Craig Evans has described the book as "one of the worst examples of pseudo-scholarship ever published". There are criticisms that the release of the book was timed with the release of The Da Vinci Code film version in an attempt to cash in on the marketing hype. Baigent's response is on p. 355 of the book, where he points out that the publication schedule had been set by Harper Collins long before. Around the same time of the book's release, Baigent was also involved in a plagiarism lawsuit against author Dan Brown, which he acknowledges in the postscript. The lawsuit claims that Brown improperly used information from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (which Baigent co-wrote) for Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. This too has drawn speculation that the lawsuit and trial were merely a publicity vehicle for Baigent's new book, although the £3 million costs that remain under appeal will likely negate any gain proceeds from the sale of the book. On 7 April 2006, High Court judge Peter Smith rejected the copyright infringement claim by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, and Dan Brown won the court case.

just excellent!

This book is just excellent. Michael B is correcting history as we know it (as told by the Roman tyrrants). Exciting and very enlightening at the same time. Quite good to have the Oxford dict. on the Kindle since many words can be difficult for non-english citizens. I Loved it! The Book can be considered a sequal to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" . Give us more Micheal ! Don't you ever stop your research!

An interesting read

It's interesting how many reviewers claim that there is "abundant evidence" provided by historical personages for the existence of Jesus. Let's look at these: Josephus: wrote a passage that mentions Christ, but scholars now agree that this passage is either a later interpolation or that it has been corrupted. Agapius of Manbij quotes this passage, but he quotes from an earlier version of it which is evident by the fact that it is far more conservative than the extant version of the Josephus passage. Pliny the Younger: wrote to Trajan in about 112 AD about how to deal with Christians who refused to worship the emperor. Just because he mentions "Christus" does not mean he validated the existence of Christ or the beliefs of his followers. Tacitus: wrote about a class of people, called Christians, who were "hated for their abominations." He mentions Christus, from whom their name is derived, and who suffered the "extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius" at the hand of Pilate. What this passage actually proves is still under debate by scholars. Suetonius: mentions that the Jews had been creating disturbances at the instigation of "Chrestus" and so Claudius expelled them from Rome. The problem is that this expulsion happened about 20 years after the death of Christ, so for this reason he could be referring to Christians and not to Christ himself. Thus, the passage offers very little information about Christ. Thallus: Julius Africanus writing in the 3rd century AD refers to Thallus who, according to Eusebius, wrote a history that spanned a period of time from the Trojan War to 109 BC. No actual writings of Thallus survives. Lucian: was a 2nd century Romano-Syrian satirist who made fun of Christians. Celsus: mentions Christ, indeed he calls Christ "a mere man." There is also a document called "The Acts of Pontius Pilate" which is spurious at best. This leaves us with mainly the documents that came out of the catholic church that we now called the New Testament, and because it came out of the church it could be controlled by the church. I'm not saying that this book contains the absolute truth about Jesus, but it certainly opens the door to further research and an opportunity to look at what facts we have from a different perspective.

Will the "real" Jesus stand up?

This book uses information from many documented sources from the ancient world to give the reader an understanding of the political, philosophical, sociological and demographic forces present in the Roman world not only at the time of Jesus, but for several centuries afterwards. The author's thesis is that the confluence of these varios forces, events, and peoples, metamorphosized Christianity into what it is today, making it radically different from what even Jesus would have imagined. The controversies over the divinity of Jesus, his virgin birth, and whether he experienced bodily resurection have been around for millenia. But more recent controversies include whether he survived the crucifixion, whether Jesus received some training in Egypt and India, and whether he was married and produced offspring. These are tentalizing questions, and the author presents intriguing possibilities to attempt to answer at least some of these questions. The value of the book is that makes the reader entertain posssibilities, perhaps never explored and gives a firm historical foundation.

Fascinating. The author brings independent facts to support his arguments.

This is a very well written easy to read fascinating history of Jesus life. Based on Baigent's research, Jesus was not a blond Northern European, but instead a dark skinned Palestinian. He was married to Mary Magdalene who was not a woman of the street but instead a wealthy, well respected woman called Mary of Bethany. The latter is the woman who anoints him. He was not a god, and was not divine. He admitted so in letters he wrote being held today by a private collector. He had no intent of starting a religion as he was an active Jewish messiah among many others. However, Judaism was highly factionalized. Jesus belonged to the Egyptian Therapeutae Jews who had different beliefs than the Zealot Jews of Judea. When he recommend that the Zealots accept Roman taxation, the Zealots turn on him and ask Pilate for his crucifixion. The Jewish Sadducee priesthood also asks for Jesus death, as his charismatic leadership threatened their authority. The author provides several independent sources suggesting he survived crucifixion. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark in original Greek. It is also mentioned in the Koran. And, it is vividly described by a couple of Renaissance paintings. The most interesting aspect of the book is the author's study of Jesus' mysticism. Instead of starting Christianity, Jesus taught mysticism he learned from the Egyptian Therapeutae Jews. The latter studied Egyptian mysticism including "The Book of the Dead" and the "Far World." For the Egyptian, the dead represent a world that is just as alive but in a more etheral form not subject to linear time. One can travel to the World of the Dead and come back after training in mysticism. This includes the technique of incubation, meditating in silence in the dark in special designated chambers underground within pyramid or elsewhere. The meditation leads to mystical experiences uncovering the Far World. The Therapeutae adopted Egyptian mysticism and renamed the Far World the "Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus wanted to teach all others on how to reach this Kingdom that is within us. The Therapeutae believed in a simple life with no artifacts, temples, and religious hierarchies. They also believed that men and women were equal in their potential for reaching mystical experiences. Jesus could have also learned this mysticism from other sources. One of them is the Books of Hermes written by Egyptian priests in Greek who wanted to transfer their knowledge beyond Egypt. Another source includes the presocratic Greek philosophers (Parmenides) who had also imported similar beliefs from Egypt regarding the dead. Even Homer in The Odyssey mentions Odysseus traveling to the world of the dead when he sails to the "city of perpetual mist." Unbeknown to Jesus, Christianity will take a different path from his mystical teachings. This religion will become obsessed with male chastity, female virginity, the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary and ultimately with misogyny as

Context Brings Understading

I enjoyed this book. Before I get into the review, I want to make some general comments. On some of the hoopla surrounding this book There is an enormous gap between Catholicism and Christianity, if you base Christianity on the Gospels or anything else in the New Testament. That's not "an opinion." Just start reading and comparing. It's also helpful to remember that Martin Luther--a Doctor of Divinity and Biblical scholar--sought to reform the Catholic Church to principles of Christianity back in the 1500s. The two religions are fundamentally and diametrically opposed. Luther exposed the Catholic Church for the fraud it was, over half a millennia ago. And yet it's still going strong today. So, no book is a threat to Catholicism. This book isn't a threat to Judaism, which is more a hereditary religion than one based on conversion. Nor is this book a threat to "Literal Bible Christianity." Yes, it sheds credible doubt on many of the key Biblical concepts--such as the resurrection. However, it has long been beyond doubt that the Bible was concocted many decades after the Apostles died--and is thus full of errors (or, as many scholars hold, fraud). So, the "Literal Bible" folks already live with delusions. They aren't going to be swayed by even more evidence piled on what is already before them. Would this book be a threat to other Christians? Probably not. Most Christian groups have officially come to terms with the errors, inconsistencies, and deficiencies of the Bible. That's why they don't take it literally. They take from the Bible and from tradition the core concepts on which they build their religious system. They have a faith that sustains them and through which they help make the world a better place. They don't pretend that their faith is based on knowledge, they know it's based on faith. So, they aren't threatened by research that provides even more evidence of fraud in the Bible. If Jesus had survived the crucifixion, rather than having died and being resurrected, would these people live any differently? My guess is most Christians are far more inspired by the central message Jesus gave rather than the messages imputed to him long after his ministry concluded. Conclusion: This book will not change the face of religions that claim to be Christian in nature. On the Dan Brown controversy Brown lied to the readers. That's what a novelist does. Brown's book, while entertaining and a source of millions of dollars of income for the author, isn't history. It's fiction. The fact that Brown pretended to present fact does rankle many people, and it certainly rankled Baigent and other scholarly types. The dispute between Brown and Baigent has nothing to do with this book. That dispute has to do with an earlier Baigent work. And the decision in that dispute basically says Brown is a novelist (fiction, by definition) and Baigent is a researcher (fact, by definition). Plagiarism is not an issue because the works are inherently so different.