Baigent and the Crucifixion (”Jesus Papers” Response)
I promised to get back to Michael Baigent’s arguments in the Jesus Papers regarding the claim that Jesus of Nazareth survived the crucifixion. There is more to be said about his other claims within this book, but they will have to wait.
Let us look at six of his principal claims:
Argument 1: Pontius Pilate, who was responsible for ordering the death of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross, actually made a secret deal to save the Galilean’s life.
Contra: There is, however, no evidence that this arrangement took place. Baigent’s argument that there was such an agreement is predicated on his assumption that Jesus survived the crucifixion. However, even if Jesus were to have actually survived the crucifixion, there is no guarantee that this would have been at the arrangement of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the province of Judea. 
The consequence which Baigent draws from his supposition that Jesus survives is not warranted deduction. Furthermore, it is based on assumptions which our historical records, such as they are, do not back up and, even more, suggest against. No record of the crucifixion suggests any arrangement with Jesus.
Argument 2: The reason Baigent gives for this arrangement was to solve a problem Jesus and Pontius Pilate had in common. Pilate needed to appease the crowd which was clamoring for the death of Jesus. At the same time, he wanted to let Jesus live, since he argued Jews should pay their taxes to Rome.
Contra: This is the place where I think Baigent slips deepest into historical fantasy. Having postulated an arrangement between the two of them, Baigent needs to offer a convincing explanation for the genesis of this agreement.
But honestly, why would a Roman governor be making deals with a Galilean peasant? Jesus was not a citizen of Judea (but of the Galillee). He was not a Roman citizen, and so deserved no special protection from the Emperor and his servants (like Pilate). Jesus was a man of no special wealth or status, something Romans were known to respect. Furthermore, all historical research indicates that Jesus’ movement was of very small number and influence at the time of his execution.
The very idea that the two of them would have made an arrangement to prevent Jesus’ death is like the President of the United States making a covert agreement that the Pentagon should protect an individual ant in my backyard from being step on by one of my dogs. The very idea that Pilate cared more than a little about the execution of Jesus is preposterous.
Argument 3: It was possible for a person to survive crucifixion, according to Michael Baigent. He cites the writings of the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus. He speaks about a time when he asked for three of his friends to be taken off of crosses, where they had been crucified. The three were taken down, two died, and one survived.
Contra: I must concede that a person can survive crucifixion. And I will concede that Baigent could have offered more than a few more cases where people were known to have survived crucifixion, whether because of the manner in which it was done or because Roman authorities looked the other way while friends made rescue attempts.
However, the very suggestion that a person “can” survive crucifixion does not mean that a person “has” survived crucifixion. Let me put it this way: A person can survive a gun shot to the head. However, this does not mean that Ernest Hemmingway is actually alive and sipping whiskey in Cuba somewhere. That one person survived crucifixion (or even many) does not mean that this individual man (Jesus) has survived.
The Gospel accounts are suspect for defense here, since Baigent suggests that they are part of the cover up. So, lets use Josephus. That’s the guy Baigent cites to prove that a person can survive a crucifixion. Josephus, in his Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3.3, states clearly that Jesus was crucified and killed the behest of Pontius Pilate.
Argument 4: In order to keep up the charade, Jesus would have been sedated in order to appear as though he had died on the cross. Later, when he was taken down, he would have been revived. This would work, argues Baigent, if you reduce the trauma through drugs, get the person off the cross as soon as possible, and so long as the person receive medical attention quickly. Baigent claims the sponge soaked in vinegar was the means of drugging Jesus. It also induced his apparent (though not actual) death on the cross.
Contra: Again, it should be noted that there is no evidence at all that this happened. The New Testament says that Jesus was offered some oxoV (John 19:23) meaning sour wine or vinegar. However, John never says that Jesus drank and, given the account of two other gospels, it seems likely that he did not. Mark 15 says Jesus was offered “esmurnismenon oinon” (wine mixed with myrrh) , but adds that “oV de ouk elaben” (which he did not take). Matthew 27 accounts that prior to the crucifixion, Jesus was offered “oinon meta colhV memigmenon” (wine mixed with gall). However, this account also states clearly enough that “ouk hqelhsen piein” (he chose not to drink). Luke alone mentions nothing on this point.
So the best argument Baigent could make is that while there may or may not have been a plan to save Jesus from death, and while this plan may or may not have included an attempt to drug Jesus to save him from the trauma of being crucified, Jesus seems to have chosen not to take this drug at the end.
The only gospel that allows Baigent to suggest that Jesus actually drank, John, concludes his crucifixion narrative with Jesus being harpooned with a spear (19:34). So, even hear, had Jesus survived by taking some sort of drug, he would certainly have been killed at that moment.
Argument 5: Baigent claims that this charade was further aided by the disciples of Jesus who were given custody of the body within a relatively short time. After a few hours, Jesus was handed over to Joseph of Arimathea and the other disciples. Baigent claims that Jesus was revived shortly after.
Baigent find support for this is the Gospels. When Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus, he uses the work “soma”, or living body. When Pilate grant Joseph’s request, he gives Joseph Jesus’ “ptoma”, or dead corpse. Clearly, Joseph of Arimathea knows that Jesus is still alive.
Contra: Let me do something risky and offer anecdotal evidence of this one. But I am willing to guess that everyone here will side with me on this one. I’ve done many funerals and I have been at many death beds with family members in my capacity as a minister. I have never once heard a family member or friend refer to the remains of their loved one as “their corpse”. I have heard doctors and funeral workers refer to “the corpse” from time to time. The word most often used for the remains of their loved one is “their body”, the same term that was applied to the living instrument of their living souls.
Why? Because death is hard and this is a minute form of denial. Because it is disrespectful. Because even a dead person is alive forever (whether in heaven or just in our hearts and memories). It does not take a nuclear physicist to see why Joseph would not refer to “the corpse” of his beloved friend. I would not either, even if it would be technically more correct.
Pontius Pilate, however, would not care one way or another. As for as he was concerned, all the remains of the dead on crosses were technically corpses. As a bureaucrat it would have been second nature for him to use technical terms for a persons’ physical remains.
Argument 6: Jesus is brought down from the cross quickly (three hours), and as quickly as possible into the tomb where under the cover of darkness, the disciples return with drugs to treat his bleeding and to try to revive him. This is verified by the Gospels which state that Joseph and Nicodemus visited his tomb during the night and brought with them herbs and spices such as aloe and myrrh. Aloe and myrrh are more proper for a living person being healed than a dead person.
Contra: It is only in one Gospel that we hear about the specific ointments which were included in the burial of Jesus. Aloe and myrrh are mentioned in John 19:39-40, where it is specifically stated that they are wrapped into the burial shroud of Jesus. Of course, this begs the question as to why Baigent accepts one fact but not the other. Why does he get to have aloe and myrrh being for healing and the saving of Jesus’ life, but not the dead body that these spices are wrapped into? Why the spices but not the dead body? This is “pick and choose” history to say the least.
But this all ignores the far more obvious reason such spices would have been present at the burial of Jesus. Dead bodies smell strong and they smell bad. Aloe and myrrh smell strong and they smell good. Almost every known culture of the ancient world put spices on the dead to cover up the smell of decomposition. Aloe and myrrh were among the most common in the Middle East for this practice. And John, the Gospel author, even explains this in the texts (19:40). Again, I wonder by Baigent gets to have the spices and the anointing, but he gets to dismiss John’s own explanation of why they were there and the fact that they were placed on a dead body. This is still more “pick and choose” history.
Argument Conclusion: Given all his supposed evidence, Baigent believes that it is clear Jesus must have survived the crucifixion.
Contra Conclusion: With all his arguments, there is one last thing which Baigent is at pains to explain. See, all of the accounts of the death of Jesus are in agreement that he actually died.
If Jesus had not died, why would the early Christians have covered this up? It would have been extraordinarily good news for his followers. They would have been shouting it from the roof tops. They would have claimed that God had delivered Jesus and this showed the triumph of God’s will.
Baigent’s argument would only make sense if the early disciples had already decided that they were going to make Jesus into a God, and build a huge international organization around his myth centered on the Vatican, a pope and all that. But that is putting the cart before the horse to say the least.
They would have had every reason to show that God had saved Jesus from death. And that is in fact the reason for the disciples’ joyful proclamation of Easter. They are so happy exactly because God has saved Jesus from the grave and because God nullified the crucifixion. Why would they make up something as improbably as a resurrection (for which there was not specific Jewish precedent at the time), when they would have had a far clearer and easier to grasp explanation for the survival of Jesus at hand?
Baigent’s arguments are ludicrous to say the least.
or her dying son. See, it was a common practice back then, that when someone was seen to be shedding tears for a person dying on a crucifix, that they would be dragged from the crowd and nailed to the next cross going up. The Romans believed that no one should shed a tear for enemies of the Caesar. 
