What do you think?
Rate this book
After the Cross
A book about what happened to Jesus after his resurrection. Was this a miracle or is there a natural explanation?
117 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1981
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 29, 2024
AN EXTENSION AND CLARIFICATION OF HIS “PASSOVER PLOT” THEORIES
Hugh Joseph Schonfield (1901-1988; AKA "Schonfeld") was a British Bible scholar of Jewish heritage, who was once a "Messianic Jew"; his earlier books [e.g., ‘The History of Jewish Christianity’] reflect this. In 1937 he was expelled from the International Hebrew Christian Alliance, which left him disillusioned. He wrote other books such as ‘The Passover Plot,’ ‘Those Incredible Christians,’ ‘The Jesus Party,’ etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1981 book, “For Paul, the truth of everything else he taught hinged on [the Resurrection]. Faith in the atoning death of Jesus was vain if Jesus remained dead… Thus, for Christianity to have justification as a religion in this modern age, it must still hold on to the tenet of the resurrection, even if it has to be diluted and qualified to an extent that is a virtual rejection of its validity… The most favored position taken is to limit acceptable testimony to the truth and nature of the Resurrection as reflected in [1 Cor 15]… These encounters with Jesus were apparitions of sighting and did not demand that Jesus was PHYSICALLY alive again… What is tied in with the PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus, such as the empty tomb, is thankfully sacrificed. Surely this is going much too far… there remain significant pointers to the preservation of valuable items of evidence that put us on the track of what became of Jesus’ body. [This book] does not necessarily call for a miraculous answer, and our task is to explore all other alternatives.” (Pg. viii-ix)
He outlines, “Examining these varying [gospel] accounts, it could well be a reliable fact that several women of Jesus’ company went to the tomb early on Sunday morning, and found it open and empty. It is possible… that they saw a stranger there who spoke to them… what the women reported was that the body of Jesus was gone. Persons had been to the tomb previously and removed it. Indeed, if a message had been given that Jesus had risen from the dead, it would have been totally unnecessary to speak of any removal of his body… The thesis of the Resurrection thus becomes not primary but secondary. Priority has to be given to the probability that those who moved the stone also took away the body.” (Pg. 20-21)
He asserts, “resurrection… would apply to Jesus only it his physical body… was restored after his grievous wounds … to active functional life… The records, notably John, to a substantial extent seek to convey that this is what happened; but in doing so they have to assert that a stupendous and special miracle took place, which included the subsequent bodily ascent of Jesus to heaven. Factors… weigh strongly against the reality of the resurrection and we must therefore discard it as a hypothesis, and give our consideration to more naturalistic alternatives.” (Pg. 37)
He suggests, “It was essential that Jesus would have to present the appearance of being already dead. It is reported that just before he ‘died’ he was given a drink from a sponge filled with vinegar. This could have been suitably drugged… In addition, Jesus had to be saved from being summarily interred with his fellow-sufferers, which would have rendered his recovery impossible and even prevented access to his body. Here we have Joseph’s intervention with Pilate to gain possession of the body. Now it became a question, despite the unexpected spear-thrust of a Roman soldier, of preserving life in Jesus… The success of such a rescue operation would depend on speedy medical help. Therefore, Jesus had to be brought out of the tomb at the earliest possible moment… The open tomb, the removed and folded linen bandages, and the disappearance of the body… would all have a natural explanation if it was intended to restore Jesus to health and activity…” (Pg. 62)
He summarizes, “We reach an initial conclusion, then, that there was nothing miraculous about the tomb being empty on the Sunday morning. The explanation of resurrection came as an inspiration of John the Priest when he visited the tomb with Peter… The manner of the operation had been devised in advance without the cognizance of the Galilean apostles… Had the plan not been kept very secret, there was also the risk that one of Jesus’ not-very-bright followers would have learned of it and given it away in some thoughtless manner.” (Pg. 64-65)
He says of his ‘Passover Plot’ book, “a sensation was created which has had enduring consequences. Insight was so much in line with evidential indications that for multitudes Jesus for the first time became real. And though thousands of … fundamentalists, were shocked, they had no ammunition to counter my thesis except that of vilification and misrepresentation… The critics wished to make it appear that I had presented Jesus as a deceiver who had faked his death on the cross… to delude his disciples into believing that he had risen from the dead. Needless to say, I had not stated or suggested anything of the kind. What I had set out to demonstrate was that Jesus believed he would have to suffer but not unto death, and consequently would triumph over his enemies without any requirement of resurrection. Because of the empty tomb, it was the Dear Disciple’s inspired guess that Jesus had risen from the dead. Since the followers of Jesus… had not been expecting their Master’s resurrection, he could not have had any intention to deceive them.” (Pg. 68)
He argues, “The position taken by the early Church is understandable, because if Jesus was not the Messiah … and even more the Son of God, then Christianity was without justification. The Church could not be satisfied with being just another mystery religion with a mythological basis. The contention was that all the circumstances related to Jesus had happened historically, in real life, and had been anticipated and certified in detail by ancient authoritative holy books.” (Pg. 87)
He summarizes, “As soon as practicable after dark on Saturday night, the next task in the plan of operation would be to reopen the tomb, carefully remove the bandages from Jesus, and convey him from the tomb on a litter covered with blankets. Essene doctors would be in attendance to give their expert medical attention as soon as a safe place was reached. After the revival of Jesus, the Essenes would arrange for his convalescence in secret, perhaps at Qumran, and then, as he wished, he would be moved to Galilee where he would be reunited with his disciples. After this, God would disclose His will to His faithful servant.” (Pg. 112)
This book will be of great interest to those who liked Schonfield’s ‘Passover Plot’ book, or who like similarly speculative theories about the death of Jesus
Hugh Joseph Schonfield (1901-1988; AKA "Schonfeld") was a British Bible scholar of Jewish heritage, who was once a "Messianic Jew"; his earlier books [e.g., ‘The History of Jewish Christianity’] reflect this. In 1937 he was expelled from the International Hebrew Christian Alliance, which left him disillusioned. He wrote other books such as ‘The Passover Plot,’ ‘Those Incredible Christians,’ ‘The Jesus Party,’ etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1981 book, “For Paul, the truth of everything else he taught hinged on [the Resurrection]. Faith in the atoning death of Jesus was vain if Jesus remained dead… Thus, for Christianity to have justification as a religion in this modern age, it must still hold on to the tenet of the resurrection, even if it has to be diluted and qualified to an extent that is a virtual rejection of its validity… The most favored position taken is to limit acceptable testimony to the truth and nature of the Resurrection as reflected in [1 Cor 15]… These encounters with Jesus were apparitions of sighting and did not demand that Jesus was PHYSICALLY alive again… What is tied in with the PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus, such as the empty tomb, is thankfully sacrificed. Surely this is going much too far… there remain significant pointers to the preservation of valuable items of evidence that put us on the track of what became of Jesus’ body. [This book] does not necessarily call for a miraculous answer, and our task is to explore all other alternatives.” (Pg. viii-ix)
He outlines, “Examining these varying [gospel] accounts, it could well be a reliable fact that several women of Jesus’ company went to the tomb early on Sunday morning, and found it open and empty. It is possible… that they saw a stranger there who spoke to them… what the women reported was that the body of Jesus was gone. Persons had been to the tomb previously and removed it. Indeed, if a message had been given that Jesus had risen from the dead, it would have been totally unnecessary to speak of any removal of his body… The thesis of the Resurrection thus becomes not primary but secondary. Priority has to be given to the probability that those who moved the stone also took away the body.” (Pg. 20-21)
He asserts, “resurrection… would apply to Jesus only it his physical body… was restored after his grievous wounds … to active functional life… The records, notably John, to a substantial extent seek to convey that this is what happened; but in doing so they have to assert that a stupendous and special miracle took place, which included the subsequent bodily ascent of Jesus to heaven. Factors… weigh strongly against the reality of the resurrection and we must therefore discard it as a hypothesis, and give our consideration to more naturalistic alternatives.” (Pg. 37)
He suggests, “It was essential that Jesus would have to present the appearance of being already dead. It is reported that just before he ‘died’ he was given a drink from a sponge filled with vinegar. This could have been suitably drugged… In addition, Jesus had to be saved from being summarily interred with his fellow-sufferers, which would have rendered his recovery impossible and even prevented access to his body. Here we have Joseph’s intervention with Pilate to gain possession of the body. Now it became a question, despite the unexpected spear-thrust of a Roman soldier, of preserving life in Jesus… The success of such a rescue operation would depend on speedy medical help. Therefore, Jesus had to be brought out of the tomb at the earliest possible moment… The open tomb, the removed and folded linen bandages, and the disappearance of the body… would all have a natural explanation if it was intended to restore Jesus to health and activity…” (Pg. 62)
He summarizes, “We reach an initial conclusion, then, that there was nothing miraculous about the tomb being empty on the Sunday morning. The explanation of resurrection came as an inspiration of John the Priest when he visited the tomb with Peter… The manner of the operation had been devised in advance without the cognizance of the Galilean apostles… Had the plan not been kept very secret, there was also the risk that one of Jesus’ not-very-bright followers would have learned of it and given it away in some thoughtless manner.” (Pg. 64-65)
He says of his ‘Passover Plot’ book, “a sensation was created which has had enduring consequences. Insight was so much in line with evidential indications that for multitudes Jesus for the first time became real. And though thousands of … fundamentalists, were shocked, they had no ammunition to counter my thesis except that of vilification and misrepresentation… The critics wished to make it appear that I had presented Jesus as a deceiver who had faked his death on the cross… to delude his disciples into believing that he had risen from the dead. Needless to say, I had not stated or suggested anything of the kind. What I had set out to demonstrate was that Jesus believed he would have to suffer but not unto death, and consequently would triumph over his enemies without any requirement of resurrection. Because of the empty tomb, it was the Dear Disciple’s inspired guess that Jesus had risen from the dead. Since the followers of Jesus… had not been expecting their Master’s resurrection, he could not have had any intention to deceive them.” (Pg. 68)
He argues, “The position taken by the early Church is understandable, because if Jesus was not the Messiah … and even more the Son of God, then Christianity was without justification. The Church could not be satisfied with being just another mystery religion with a mythological basis. The contention was that all the circumstances related to Jesus had happened historically, in real life, and had been anticipated and certified in detail by ancient authoritative holy books.” (Pg. 87)
He summarizes, “As soon as practicable after dark on Saturday night, the next task in the plan of operation would be to reopen the tomb, carefully remove the bandages from Jesus, and convey him from the tomb on a litter covered with blankets. Essene doctors would be in attendance to give their expert medical attention as soon as a safe place was reached. After the revival of Jesus, the Essenes would arrange for his convalescence in secret, perhaps at Qumran, and then, as he wished, he would be moved to Galilee where he would be reunited with his disciples. After this, God would disclose His will to His faithful servant.” (Pg. 112)
This book will be of great interest to those who liked Schonfield’s ‘Passover Plot’ book, or who like similarly speculative theories about the death of Jesus
September 10, 2024
A dubious but plausible explanation for the empty tomb.
September 6, 2014
This was one of the first skeptical books against Christianity that I had ever read when a young Christian. Although his ideas are interesting I doubt anyone doing historical Jesus studies would agree much with his conclusions.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews