Rating: 
Summary: What is the difference between history and fiction?
Review: This book is funny in the way it takes fiction, analyzes the guts out of it, deconstructs its plot and characters, then furnishes its own new plot twist. In the present publishing market, it is clever to market fiction as nonfiction, because the latter usually sells better. That said, I give it 3 stars. My take on the whole Jesus thing is that it was always pure fiction. As George Moore points out in his 1916 novel The Brook Kerith, 3 hours on the cross isn't enough to kill a man, the usual time it took being 3 days. (Marketed as fiction, his book flopped commercially). As Earl Doherty points out in The Jesus Puzzle, the earliest Christians, including Paul and Peter seem to have never heard of a real person called Jesus of Nazareth, or his elaborate story. Instead, they seem to have all personally "seen" a "Jesus Christ" in their visions, and find him backed up in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, which is all they had. Paul's mission was self-appointed, and he seems to think he's the first one to really preach a Jesus Christ. The first time Mary and Joseph are mentioned is by Ignatius at the end of the first century. The gospels in the form we have them were written after the destruction of Israel by the Romans, when there were no witnesses left, Paul included. It would be easy at that late date to back-fit a story to the combined work of the previous Christ-preachers. Maybe John Allegro is right in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, when he says that many if not most of the underground religious movements in the Middle East back then were really amanita muscaria-eating psychedelic mushroom cults, the dropout hippies of their day. Being totally zonked, the suffering of death in the arena wouldn't have been all that hard. In any case Christianity was originally the religion of the slaves and other outcasts in a world seemingly to be run by Rome forever. The Christianity we know today is the result of centuries of evolution and political power struggles. The simple-simon founding myth of a barefoot hero in a lost world is unknowable by real history.
Rating: 
Summary: Once It Was a Bombshell
Review: When _The Passover Plot_ first came out back around 1965, it hit like a bombshell. Right away Schonfield tells his readers that the book is "the outcome of an endeavor which has extended over 40 years to discover who the 'man' (quotes mine) really was. However, rather than publishing this in a scholarly book, Schonfield aims his writing toward the general public in a commercial enterprise. What this means is that the author gets to make unsubstantiated assertions and does not have to field points of view contrary to his own. So for Schonfield, Jesus became a Galilean who was caught up by his times. There was a great deal of messianic expectancy in Galilee and the Scriptures were reinterpreted to pertain to current events. One can find this same technique in the Dead Sea Scroll pesharim. For the pious in Israel, Rome was the archenemy,
the Fourth Kingdom foretold by Daniel 7. Jesus came to believe that he was the Messiah endowed with the spirit of wisdom. According to the Scriptures, he would die on the cross and then be resurrected. This would save Israel from the Romans. With meticulous detail Jesus plans his own execution and resurrection. Yes, there would be torture, but that was predicted by Scripture. But crucifixion was not always fatal. Josephus records an interesting story about some who were saved after being crucified. Jesus planned to stay on the cross for only a few hours. He would try to appear dead. The vinegar on the sponge was supposed to be a drug. Then he would try to get into the hands of some close, trusted friends who would resuscitate him. The plan would have worked had not Jesus been thrust in the side with a lance. For a short period of time on Saturday night Jesus regained consciousness and then succumbed. I have a few objections to Schonfield's book. For the moment I will grant that he was writing as a historian and not as a theologian. Among other things, this allows him to not consider anything which might be known as miraculous. My first objection is that Schonfield has to account for the formation of the early church. He does this by quickly sketching in a few post-resurrectional stories. The angel at the tomb is really the young man who gave Jesus the vinegar at the cross. The man encountered by Mary in the garden is a Jesus imperson-ator as are the man encountered by the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. All of this was supposed to have been planned by Jesus at least some of which was planned on Saturday night when Jesus regained consciousness for a short period of time. Proposing these posthumous manipulation of events stretches credulity. Moreover the whole theory proposes that there were the Twelve Disciples and then there was an inner circle closer to Jesus. One would think that later traditions would know something more about them than an obscure comment. My second objection is that Schonfield writes that the Romans were the enemy of the pious of Israel. But on page 143 Jesus manipulates the situation so that the Chief Priests were forced to move against him. Then on page 145 the Chief Priests have bring "strong pressure" on Pilate so they pack his courtyard with their own henchmen. This sounds like Jesus had another opponent than Rome. Now I will get back to the idea that Schonfield was writing as a historian rather than a theologian. Schonfield is a Jewish Nazorean. He starts out his book with a question that he asked of his "Christian friends" if it would not be enough if they believed in One God and believed in Jesus as his messianic messenger. On page 141 he points out that early Nazoreans knew nothing of Trinitarianism. He concludes Part 1 of his book with a short homily about "the young Jew, there was the Man." So on the contrary, Schonfield permeates his book with his theology. This book should never have made the explosion that it did.
Rating:
Summary: Once It Was a Bombshell
Review: When _The Passover Plot_ first came out back around 1965, it hit like a bombshell. Right away Schonfield tells his readers that the book is "the outcome of an endeavor which has extended over 40 years to discover who the 'man' (quotes mine) really was. However, rather than publishing this in a scholarly book, Schonfield aims his writing toward the general public in a commercial enterprise. What this means is that the author gets to make unsubstantiated assertions and does not have to field points of view contrary to his own. So for Schonfield, Jesus became a Galilean who was caught up by his times. There was a great deal of messianic expectancy in Galilee and the Scriptures were reinterpreted to pertain to current events. One can find this same technique in the Dead Sea Scroll pesharim. For the pious in Israel, Rome was the archenemy,
the Fourth Kingdom foretold by Daniel 7. Jesus came to believe that he was the Messiah endowed with the spirit of wisdom. According to the Scriptures, he would die on the cross and then be resurrected. This would save Israel from the Romans. With meticulous detail Jesus plans his own execution and resurrection. Yes, there would be torture, but that was predicted by Scripture. But crucifixion was not always fatal. Josephus records an interesting story about some who were saved after being crucified. Jesus planned to stay on the cross for only a few hours. He would try to appear dead. The vinegar on the sponge was supposed to be a drug. Then he would try to get into the hands of some close, trusted friends who would resuscitate him. The plan would have worked had not Jesus been thrust in the side with a lance. For a short period of time on Saturday night Jesus regained consciousness and then succumbed. I have a few objections to Schonfield's book. For the moment I will grant that he was writing as a historian and not as a theologian. Among other things, this allows him to not consider anything which might be known as miraculous. My first objection is that Schonfield has to account for the formation of the early church. He does this by quickly sketching in a few post-resurrectional stories. The angel at the tomb is really the young man who gave Jesus the vinegar at the cross. The man encountered by Mary in the garden is a Jesus imperson-ator as are the man encountered by the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. All of this was supposed to have been planned by Jesus at least some of which was planned on Saturday night when Jesus regained consciousness for a short period of time. Proposing these posthumous manipulation of events stretches credulity. Moreover the whole theory proposes that there were the Twelve Disciples and then there was an inner circle closer to Jesus. One would think that later traditions would know something more about them than an obscure comment. My second objection is that Schonfield writes that the Romans were the enemy of the pious of Israel. But on page 143 Jesus manipulates the situation so that the Chief Priests were forced to move against him. Then on page 145 the Chief Priests have bring "strong pressure" on Pilate so they pack his courtyard with their own henchmen. This sounds like Jesus had another opponent than Rome. Now I will get back to the idea that Schonfield was writing as a historian rather than a theologian. Schonfield is a Jewish Nazorean. He starts out his book with a question that he asked of his "Christian friends" if it would not be enough if they believed in One God and believed in Jesus as his messianic messenger. On page 141 he points out that early Nazoreans knew nothing of Trinitarianism. He concludes Part 1 of his book with a short homily about "the young Jew, there was the Man." So on the contrary, Schonfield permeates his book with his theology. This book should never have made the explosion that it did.
Rating: 
Summary: 4 stars because it took some real testicular fortitude to
Review: write this book in 1965, and to try and provide the thesis with scholarly support. Schonfield does exactly that. I'm not sure I can buy into all of what he is saying, but there certainly exists an aura of plausibility. Indeed, if one reads the Koran and some of the Indian texts that exist, Schonfield's book isn't so revolutionary. Specifically, Indians to this day claim that Jesus is buried in their country. Is it true? who knows, but we do know that contemporaneous writings from immediately after the crucifixtion refer to Jesus in India. Who knows, maybe it is all bunk. I think one thing is for certain--that Gospels as published today, don't match up with their original Greek manuscripts. I suspect that perhaps the truth is somewhere in between the Gospels and Schonfield's view.
Rating:
Summary: 4 stars because it took some real testicular fortitude to
Review: write this book in 1965, and to try and provide the thesis with scholarly support. Schonfield does exactly that. I'm not sure I can buy into all of what he is saying, but there certainly exists an aura of plausibility. Indeed, if one reads the Koran and some of the Indian texts that exist, Schonfield's book isn't so revolutionary. Specifically, Indians to this day claim that Jesus is buried in there country. Is it true? who knows, but we do know that contemporaneous writings from immediately after the crucifixtion refer to Jesus in India. Who knows, maybe it is all bunk. I think one thing is for certain--that Gospels as published today, don't match up with their original Greek manuscripts. I suspect that perhaps the truth is somewhere in between the Gospels and Schonfield's view.
| 
