Petitfils also, pursued a career as a historian and writer. After several essays and books on history and political science (''La Droite en France, L'Extrême-Droite en France, Le Gaullisme, Les Socialismes utopiques
) and biographies of Grand Siècle figures (Le Véritable
d'Artagnan, Le Régent,
Lauzun,
Nicolas Fouquet,
Madame de Montespan,
Louise de La Vallière''), Jean wrote a comprehensive work on
Louis XIV, the fruit of twenty-five years work (1995). The latter work combines political science of the
Ancien Régime and classical biography, with particular emphasis on the mechanisms of loyalties, clans and clienteles, essential in a political system in the process of being nationalized. The book was a great success (55,000 copies). In the same vein, he continued with biographies of
Louis XVI (70,000 copies
Man in the Iron Mask, the
Affair of the Poisons, and
assassination of Henry IVfr]. He is, or has been, a contributor to the newspapers and magazines: ''
Historia,
L'Histoire,
Marianne, Le Figaro littéraire
fr],
Le Figaro Magazine, Le Figaro - Histoire,
and Le Point.'' He was nominated for
René Girard's seat at the
Académie française on March 23, 2017.
Reception On works relating to the Ancien Régime Historian
Fabrice d'Almeida considers Jean-Christian Petitfils, a former banker, to be representative of a recent tendency of certain non-historian writers to appropriate the style of professional history, thus blurring the boundaries between “amateur history” and academic history: “Through the dissemination of historical culture and historiographical techniques, actors working outside the field of professional academic history have appropriated the codes of grand history to stage a re-enchantment”. In the case of Petitfils in particular, it is the sheer volume of documents used that serves as a “selling point” These writing qualities are also praised by the journal
Hérodote. For far-right activist
Dominique Venner in
''La Nouvelle Revue d'histoire'', Petitfils is the “author of talented and authoritative studies, notably a Louis XIV and a very enlightening Louis XVI.” A similar assessment comes from legal historian
Jacques de Saint Victorfr], who considers that “for more than thirty years, he has written tirelessly and, through perseverance, has built up a colossal body of work that many professional academics can legitimately envy.” His work on the Regent is presented by Claude Lebédel as “a true history of the Regency.” His Louis XVI (2005) was praised by historian
Emmanuel de Waresquielfr], who described it as “an intelligent and lucid portrait of the decapitated king” and, in his opinion, Petitfils' best biography. For Marc Riglet of L'Express, Jean-Christian Petitfils has written a remarkable biography that is “far from conventional wisdom”. On the other hand, the book received a very mixed reception from some historians close to the Marxist conception of the Revolution, in the workshop of the Centre de recherches historiques: for Aurore Chéry, "supposed to be an innovative study, Petitfils' biography is more accurately a version of Girault de Coursac's work, improved by time and a trip across the Channel. The major difference, however, is that Petitfils, like Hardman, takes a much less virulent tone and treats Marie Antoinette with greater indulgence." The book is in line with the historical analyses of
François Furet, of whom Jean-Christian Petitfils is a disciple. Nathalie Brémand, in her
Introduction: “Utopian socialists,” the misnamed criticizes Petitfils' book on utopian communities in the 19th century, a 2011 reissue of a work first published in 1982. According to her, "there are many negative prejudices associated with the concept of
utopian socialism. A selection of these can be found in Jean-Christian Petitfils' book. "The book conveys “a completely outdated image” of “utopian socialism.”
On his book Jesus Petitfils writings on Jesus, while well received, received much criticism for a variety of reasons: • For Jesuit
exegete Marc Rastoinfr], “Petitfils delivers the fruit of serious research (nearly 150 pages of notes). One could say that this is a French version of
John Paul Meier's investigation in a single volume, but “at times he attaches too much certainty to hypotheses that are more or less probable”, his textual analysis of the Gospel pericopes is “too literalist, and his concern to support the historicity in the documentary sense of all the Gospel episodes (with a strong preference for John) weakens his conclusions.” Other critics accuse him of “conservatism” because he distances himself from the historical-critical method. French historian and exegete
André Paul believes that while his Jesus may appeal for its clarity and ease, it is “unprecedentedly conservative”. He criticizes several of his hypotheses. • Abbot Denis Puga, of the
Society of Saint Pius X, accuses him of “modernism”, particularly because “he constantly casts doubt on the reality of the events recounted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke”. • Conversely, for Jean Mercier, deputy editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine La Vie, “this book offers a change from exegetes who are sometimes so refined that they lose us in a fog of doubt. It should be read bearing in mind that the historian limits himself to hypotheses, without claiming to have grasped the truth about Christ”. • For Father Laurent-Marie Pocquet of Haut-Jussé, “Jean-Christian Petitfils's masterpiece is an impressive testimony to an understanding of historical truth that enlightens believers and all people of good will”. • For essayist Gérard Leclerc, “Jean-Christian Petitfils' book on Jesus seems absolutely indispensable. Reading his voluminous work shows that he had all the qualities necessary for such an undertaking, for it is truly exceptional, especially when compared to all the essays of the same kind published in recent decades. What sets it apart is not only the breadth of its exploration and the precision of its approach to the most thorny subjects, but also the certainty of its judgments, which, after lengthy deliberation, are based on informed judgment”. • For the
Bulletin des Lettres, “Jean-Christian Petitfils is a historian and a rigorous one at that. (...) This alliance, faith and intellect, gives a force of coherence and conviction to this work, which does a lot of good after so many spiteful readings”.
John the Evangelist and John the Apostle Jean-Christian Petitfils takes up the historian's hypothesis that denies the apostle
John, son of Zebedee, authorship of the fourth gospel. Following many other authors (
Oscar Cullmann, François Le Quéré, Joseph A. Grassi, James H. Charlesworth,
Xavier Léon-Dufour, among others), he supports the theory of another “John.” According to Jean-Christian Petitfils, John belonged to the priestly aristocracy of the
Temple of Jerusalem. In this work, these historical facts are attributed not to the apostle John, son of Zebedee, but to another John, a “priest” of the Temple priesthood (a function that disappeared in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple and the capture of Jerusalem by the Roman armies of
Titus).
Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis at the beginning of the second century, spoke of two Johns:
John the Apostle and
John the Presbyter, disciple of the Lord. Benedict XVI writes in his
Jesus of Nazareth that he can “adhere with conviction” to the conclusions of biblical scholars
Peter Stuhlmacher, Eugen Ruckstuhl, and Peter Dschullnig, for whom John the Presbyter recorded in his gospel the memories of John, son of Zebedee. This priest would be considered his representative and spokesperson. For Jean-Christian Petitfils, the confusion between the two Johns dates back to the 3rd century. He considers it unlikely that a humble fisherman's son like John, son of Zebedee, could have had the intellectual capacity to write the Apocalypse and the fourth gospel. Jean-Christian Petitfils notes that the fourth gospel is largely focused on Jerusalem. John knows the Temple and its staff perfectly. Finally, and most importantly, the fourth gospel makes no mention of one of the major events that John of Zebedee is said to have witnessed with his brother James: the
Transfiguration. == Awards and honours ==