The Christmas Plot and the Passover Plot

November 13, 1966
Plainfield

The Christmas Plot and the Passover Plot

Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield’s book, THE PASSOVER PLOT, is creating some interest and discussion because his interpretation of the life of Jesus is somewhat shocking to many Christian scholars, not to speak of the average Christian believer. We may be able to widen our appreciation for Dr. Schonfield’s proposals if we remember that the prevailing Christian belief about Jesus is also a plot. With some stores already displaying Christmas trees and gadgets, it is not untimely to speak of the “Christmas Plot,” even though Thanksgiving has not yet arrived.

The author has devoted forty years of his life to a scholarly attempt to discover “the man Jesus Christ actually was.” This has been a goal for many scholars through the centuries of the Christian era. Unfortunately because the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” begins with inferences from uncertain traditions rather than from documented facts, any interpretation of Jesus’ life and death will be elaborated within one’s theological pre-suppositions. If one is a believing trinitarian Christian who is convinced that Jesus was a God/man, the “Passover Plot” will be dismissed as thoroughly unbelievable, if not offensive. If one assumes, as most Unitarians and Universalists do, that Jesus was human, no more divine than any other outstanding prophetic reformer, then the conclusions at which Dr. Schonfield arrives provide an interesting contrast to the naïve image many Unitarians and Universalists have of Jesus as a modern, liberal reformer, unaccountably 1900 years ahead of his time.

Because some reviewers seem impatient or resentful that Dr. Schonfield has given the title of “The Passover Plot” to his interpretation of the motives of Jesus and events of his life, it is in point to observe that the prevailing Christian interpretations of Jesus can also be called a plot – a theological plot – but a plot nevertheless.

Today I call it the “Christmas” plot, because of the nearness of that season, but “Good Friday” plot or “Easter” plot would be equally descriptive, because these three celebrations are necessary theological propositions in the old Christian scheme of salvation.

The “Christmas Plot” is that man can not save himself from the burden of sin which all men inevitably inherit because of Adam’s original failure. Death comes to all persons because Adam sinned.

But God wanted to give men the opportunity to be saved. As sinning man could not accomplish his own salvation, God supernaturally caused Mary to conceive, but she remained a virgin. Later, theological consistency made it necessary to assume that Mary too was born free of original sin and taken up into heaven without experiencing death.

Because Jesus, son of God and son of a virgin mother was born free of man’s universal congenital disease of sin, he alone by his sacrifice on the cross could atone for the sins of all mankind. In addition, because of his sinless condition, Jesus could conquer death and come alive after being dead in the tomb, thus enabling all persons who are saved by Christian salvation to overcome death and be resurrected to an infinite heavenly life.

To phrase the “Christmas Plot” another way, in a once and forever event, God broke into history as a God/man to save man. This is the old story of salvation which can be readily seen in the doctrinal emphases of most Christmas carols, when one considers the meaning of the lilting verses one is singing.

There are numerous theological elaborations and extensions, but such is the basic plot of orthodox Christianity.

To illustrate what I believe to be the mechanical nature of this fore-ordained salvation system, it is difficult to understand why Judas has had to carry the burden of being labeled the worst of traitors. For in the working-out of the Christmas salvation plot, Judas was a necessary instrument in the events of redemption. If Jesus saved the world by his death and resurrection, the one who made his death occur on schedule should have been praised, not condemned. Without betrayal, no atoning death. Without an atoning death, no salvation for the believing Christians. Or so it seems to me.

What about THE PASSOVER PLOT? The credibility of Dr. Schonfield’s thesis has appeal for Unitarians because he provides an explanation for the gospel stories and traditions about Jesus that assumes a natural, human sequence of events rather than the creaking machinery of a rather clumsy supernatural plot. One of the assumptions of reasonable learning is that when two differing explanations fit the experience, the simpler explanation usually possesses more credibility than the more complex. Dr. Schonfield’s explanation is the simpler and fits the scanty sources equally well.

Dr. Schonfield believes that an understanding of the religious and political forces of the times in which Jesus lived, [relying upon a] study of Roman and Jewish sources as well as Christian, lead to the conclusion that Jesus lived, believed himself to be the Messiah, planned to be seized and crucified. The “Passover Plot” consisted in the painstaking planning and careful timing by Jesus to make sure that he would survive the crucifixion, emerge alive from the tomb, thereby be recognized as the Messiah by all his countrymen and bring to fulfillment all the scriptural predictions of the arrival of the Messianic Age.

First of all, the author believes that Christian theology has always underrated the conflicts and expectations of the Messianic Age in which Jesus lived. It is not always easy to remember that “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name, but the title placed upon him by his followers. “Christ” is the Greek translation of “Messiah,” the Hebrew title for “the anointed one.” The fundamental belief and teaching of the first followers of Jesus was that he was the Messiah and had arrived in fulfillment of prophecy. The world, perhaps because of the emotive associations with the Greek word, “Christ,” rather than the Hebrew word, “Messiah,” has largely neglected the reality of Jesus’ time that it was never presumed that God [would] come to earth as man. Such a proposal would have been blasphemy in the view of the image-hating people of the Covenant. Not until decades later was the “paganized doctrine of the Godhead” to replace the original Messianic belief.

Jesus lived in a time of intense expectancy because it had been computed that the time for Messiah was at hand. The book of Daniel predicted that the Messiah would come seventy weeks from the date Cyrus had commanded the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The seers came to believe that this represented seventy weeks of years – 490 years – which would bring the expected time to about 46 BC. Thus those living in the years immediately following would look with great expectancy for the Messiah.

Jesus was from Galilee. Dr. Schonfield emphasizes certain differences of culture and attitude that prevailed between that provincial area and the more cosmopolitan/urban atmosphere in Jerusalem: “In Galilee those who were of Hebrew stock could be called Jews in that they served the God of Israel but they differed in many ways from the Judeans. Their Aramaic speech was hard to follow ... and their customs and religious observances were distinguished in a number of ways from the Southerners. The Galileans were proud, independent and somewhat puritanical, more resentful of alien domination and infringements of their liberty. They were to be found in the forefront of the resistance movement to the Romans and the Jewish authorities subservient to them. When the imperial capitation tax was levied on the Jews in A.D. 6-7, it was the rebel Judas of Galilee who raised again the battle-cry, ‘No ruler but God.’ It was with these stubborn, hardy, and intensely patriotic folk that Jesus, himself a Galilean, had to deal.” (p. 38)

Dr. Schonfield asserts that Jesus must have been entirely sincere in proclaiming himself the Messiah. One of the tantalizing mysteries of religious tradition is the sudden appearance of Jesus as a mature man with messianic and ethical conviction. The subsequent course of events was brief in the time but long in influence.

According to the author’s thesis, Jesus, born of Galilean parents of the line of David, may have been encouraged to think on his possible messiahship. Such expectancies would not have been unusual. In our day, how many boys day-dream of being President of the U.S.; how many of their mothers have let that vision cross their minds? Galilee was tense with hatred of Roman occupiers and their collaborators. The patriots hoped fiercely that the Messiah would no longer tarry.

Schonfield attaches considerable importance to the disclosures of the Dead Sea Scrolls as an indication not only of how strong the Messianic hopes of the people were but also of the probability that Jesus was influenced by the Essenes. Jesus “accepted some of their tenets ... but he also repudiated much that they represented, their asceticism, secretiveness, rigidity of discipline, harsh judgments and uncompromising attitudes.” (p. 63)

No other scholar I have read makes such careful note that Jesus must have planned the whole course of events from his baptism by John to the crucifixion. Schonfield carefully records the movements, the sharp calculations, and the precise timing of Jesus in planning to influence the events.

The happenings of the crucifixion represent Dr. Schonfield’s most startling proposals. It is not a new theory that Jesus did not die on the cross, but survived long enough to be seen alive a couple of days later. This has always seemed to me to be the most probable of explanations for the so-called “resurrection.” [CJW note: “Roland E. Wolfe”] But what is novel is Dr. Schonfield’s insistence that from the Triumphant Entry to the Resurrection the events represented an intricate plot, fully known only to Jesus, which succeeded only partially because of the unexpected.

Carefully planning that his stay on the cross would be only three or four hours, arranging to be drugged (the sop of vinegar) so that death would be assumed, the plot would have succeeded but for the Roman soldier who stabbed Jesus in the side with a lance. This would prove ultimately fatal, although Jesus was revived and made appearances which later were the basis of Christian dogma [of] the resurrection from the dead.

Dr. Schonfield’s plot will not be persuasive unless one has an affinity for this way of arranging traditions, legends, and myths to support a pre-determined conclusion. Whether or not the “Passover Plot” has credibility, there is a basic insight to be gained from considering it. Precisely the same observation can be made about the trinitarian, evangelical scheme of Christian salvation....

Those who might want to read more widely for contrasting points of view will find Morton Enslin’s THE PROPHET FROM NAZARETH illuminating from a liberal stance and Gunther Bornkam’s JESUS OF NAZARETH will provide a conservative alternative.

Quite apart from which plot one prefers in interpreting the life of Jesus, most helpful are the author’s chapters describing the Messianic movements of that time and the formation of the gospel records. The gospels did not assume anything like the present written form until sometime after 70 A.D. It is not only that the simple passage of time can create all sorts of legends about historical events, but the basic facts become more confused and controversial. A case in point is the eruption of books and speculation which question the findings of the Warren Commission only three years after the Kennedy assassination.

More than that, the period after Jesus died was disturbed by wars with Rome; most of the original records were destroyed. Just as important, the early execution in revolutionary struggles of most, if not all of those who would have had first-hand knowledge deprived all history of their record of what Jesus said and what he did; how he lived and how he died. Unless some discovery more startling than the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls is made, we may never have more solid grounds on which to construct the life of Jesus.

But one can be sure that the search for the historical Jesus will continue because he is a magnet for the dreaming of great drama and the hoping of great hopes.

One ting more: In our age, so distant from that troubled land of ancient Israel and Judah there may be help and insight to be gained in trying to understand a Messiah. There is an ageless truth which the Messianic stories represent. If good is to be hammered out of wrong, then forthright actions, courage, and strategic planning are necessary. Someone, some group must turn face toward Jerusalem and walk to it, even though it be the place where foreign tyrants rule and prophets are killed.

In nature there is a pattern of productive waiting – the leaves fall, the frost chills, the snow falls, the snow melts, the ground warms, the seed germinates, the bud unfolds, the fruit ripens. But in the affairs of man, while there may be a time in the affairs of men when one must take advantage of the tide, inactive waiting for wrong to become right, for evil to vanish or ignorance to become knowledge, will not do.

Many of the Messianic hopes depended on supernatural intervention to crush the occupying tyrants and restore Israel, but the world we confront in 1966 demands the uncommon effort of the will and the strength of persons. Our woes and problems seethe in the bubbling kettles of human conflict, pride, greed, ignorance and inequality. The effort to set things right must come from human cooperation, humility, generosity, knowledge and opportunities for equality.

The goals can be understood in the structure of ancient Messianic expectations. Dr. Ezra Spicehandler of Hebrew Union Seminary analyzed some of the differing hopes in the numerous Messianic dreams.

First, some Messianic hopes were dreams of political independence from Syria and Rome. Political independence, particularly of developing nations and nations in conflict, is one of the massive, substantial, and thorny issues of our times. yet I would suggest to you a principle of political independence, which if carried out more fully would be the fulfillment of a grand hope. Millions now living not in oppressed nations, but free ones, can acquire political independence by studying and talking to become better informed. With the elections only a few days gone, surely we ought to be conscious of the trivial and demeaning level at which much political persuasion is pitched. A person in a free country who does not search for convictions found on available facts about the great political issues is hardly more emancipated than the person who, in a totalitarian situation, is prevented from the search for truth. Like reports that Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem (20 41/42), “would that even today you knew the things which make for peace.” Few of us would either admit our inertia in the search for what is true and what is not true in public affairs, or admit our tendency to accept those points of view which support our unexamined pre-judgments. But failure to face our political ignorance ensures our dependency. To strive for political independence through knowledge is to meet a real need and advance an authentic hope for peace and freedom.

Second, some Messianic hopes were dreams of a day when material prosperity would be the consequence of the coming of the Messiah or the arrival of the Kingdom. Perhaps this reflects one strain of ancient belief that the acquisition of material abundance was evidence that God had rewarded a virtuous life. If you will, this notion can be dismissed as materialistic and crass, not representative of high religious motives. But this goal was not like unto the greed of Midas or the acquisitive passions of those with great possessions who continuously grabbed for more. This was the dream of poor people who had not much more than subsistence, many times not that, who suffered when there was a drought, famine, or a grain tax. Nor should this be overlooked today. We know, or should know, that when a person does not have enough to live on, the chances are he will not be easily persuaded that there are great, democratic principles to live by. As observers of the scene have pointed out again and again, in Latin America, in the Islands of the Caribbean, in Southeast Asia or anywhere else that hunger walks, the seeds of communism or any other ideology do not grow because peasants have the leisure and energy to study and discuss Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung. The troubles breed because the hungry man with hungry wife and hungry children looks for food before he has any time or interest to study the Gettysburg Address.

Not to recognize this modern hope for a good time coming, a Messianic hope if you will, when poverty will be lessened and misery lightened is to be insensitive to the facts and meanings of our time. Food is the dream of the hungry; warmth the dream of the cold; health the dream of the ill.

Furthermore, a principle of immense relevance to us was the ancient insistence that when the Kingdom was finally realized, there would be peace among men. When God’s reign arrived, there would be peace, the swords would be beaten into plowshares and no one should learn war any more. What a superb transformation of human existence would come about if no more than 51% of the people in our nation should come to terms with what a great and lasting peace demands.

There is a double-action hinge which swings into our time in the ancient Messianic dream of peace on earth. Second Isaiah is the most positive prophet in proclaiming that the minority people of Israel would lead all mankind to universal peace. Isaiah reasoned that if there was only one God of all, then the entirety of creation was within the bounds of his care. But the covenant people, tiny minority though they were, had the burden and the privilege of creating universal and lasting peace. Isaiah’s words are for the ages (51-12ff):
‘
“For ye shall go out with joy and be led
forth with peace: the mountains and hills
shall break forth before you into singing; instead
of the thorn shall come up the fir-tree and
instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree....”

No longer are our hopes for peace charted on a grand Messianic map. There will be no angelic police force or supernatural arbitration board. But there is that which is both realistic and idealistic in our world – peace must be universal or it is not peace. The way to peace may have to be lighted by minorities who can see its glory which will one day guide us past all the obstacles of ignorance, fear, hostility, and self-interest.

Those persons of all times who have been anointed with the oils of great goals and who bravely live by such dedication are sharers in human leadership, for they have led us a step or two, sometimes great distances, toward the day when within our midst there will be what Jesus called the Kingdom of God, what some of us dream as the Commonwealth of the Human Family.