In his book “The Jesus Dynasty” James Tabor lays out as case for a Jesus who is much different from the Jesus you may have heard about in Church.  This man was born of a human father and mother.  He was moved, and chose to team up with his cousin John who started the whole Messianic Movement in ancient Palestine.  He was killed on a Roman cross, but he stayed dead.  He was succeeded by his brother James, whom Tabor says was an actual disciple, and not the skeptic the church has claimed.  He would later be followed by other brothers in a Dynastic succession from whence Tabor gets the name of his book.

            I found this book to be a great read.  Tabor is very clear in how he writes.  He supplies good visuals to bring alive some of the details (if you have never seen an ossuary this can be a nice treat).  He supplies ample historical backing to his work.  In all the man has done his homework on the details. 

There is on quote that stands out.  It speaks volumes about where Tabor is coming from and possibly why he gets where he is going.  On page 233 he states that, “Historians are bound by their discipline to work within the parameters of a scientific view of reality.”  This one quote speaks legion to his world view.  From the start he dismisses the idea of the resurrection.  It could never have happened.  His Naturalistic view of the world begs the question with regards to the resurrection.  If you assume Naturalism you will find Naturalism. 

He ignores the claims that Jesus made to being divine such as “… so that you will know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins….” Only God had that right in the eyes of second temple Jews.  He throws out any part of the Gospels which makes a case for Jesus Divinity.  He also assumes a later dating of the Gospels then I believe to be accurate.  For example he gives a dating of Acts to be around 90 AD.  Yet that narrative ends with events that take place in 62AD.  Luke mentions a prophecy of the destruction of the temple.  This occurs in AD 70.  Why is this not mentioned in the Gospel?  Luke mentions of other fulfilled prophecy in Acts regarding a famine. Yet, he doesn’t mention a prophecy out of the mouth of Jesus?

            Tabor takes issue with the endings of the Gospels.  For example, he says that Mary Magdalene is said to be alone without others in John, yet in Mark she is one of many.  Yet, there is nothing contradictory.  John never says she went alone. He doesn’t mention anyone else, but that is not the same as saying she went alone.  In both cases she was there.  This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is not fair to put words in the writer’s mouths. 

Lastly, Tabor brushes past a creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15.  It is highly regarded by most critical biblical scholars (many if not most are not Christians).  This creed has its origins back to around AD 37 at the latest.  Most scholars will date it earlier.  It mentions Jesus Death, Burial, and resurrection.  This creed, due to its Semitic origins was most likely not conceived of by Paul.  It is the early beliefs of the Church.  It should not be so lightly brushed aside, especially when it does not reconcile well with Tabor’s thesis. 

In all, I thought the book was very readable.  It is accessible, but challenging.  I would simply ask the reader to ask some tough questions of any author who writes in such controversial areas.