The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity

There is much to gain from Dr. Tabor's book, The Jesus Dynasty. He mixes archeology and history well, although some might question his conclusions as going far beyond the evidence at hand. He has a thorough understanding of the life and times of First Century Israel, and an excellent ability to read the nuances in the Gospels to reveal underlying dynamics. His topic, the Jesus dynasty, deserves the type of attention he directs toward it, although I suspect that there has been much more written about Jesus' family between the time he started his book and the time it was published. His discussions of John the Baptist and Paul are excellent, and rise about similar discussions in competing books. In addition, I admire his theory-building attempt and the way he marshalls various bits of evidence to support his hypotheses. One also has to be impresssed with the depth and breadth of his knowledge.That's the good news. Unfortunately, there is also some bad news. The bad news consists of numerous errors of fact, unsupported assumptions, spurious methodological theory building, and inconsistency. Let's look at some of these issues:- "Herod had a Jewish mother but an Idumean father." (p. 39). Idumea was a country, not a religion. In fact, Herod's father Antipater, although originally an Edomite, had been converted to Judaism. As recent coverts, who had been forced to accept Judaism, they were considered "inferior" to the Judean Jews, but they were nonetheless Jewish.- "Nazareth...about a three day journey [from Jerusalem]." (p. 44). Almost every author I know estimates the journey took a week (e.g., Craveri, 1967; Duquesne, 1994).- "In a fit of rage Herod later murdered her [Mariamne, his Hasmonean wife] and their two sons..." (p. 39). To the best of my knowledge, Herod had his wife killed for adultery about 29 or 30 BCE, and later (7 or 8 BCE) had the two sons strangled for a plot to overthrow him. Dr. Tabor implies that he killed all 3 of them at the same time and in a fit of rage. Not true.- "In the Dead Sea Scrolls, written before Jesus' lifetime..." (p. 55). Dr, Tabor is an emminent DSS scholar, so it's amazing that he makes this error, but the fact is that some scrolls are dated to the First Century AD and therefore are written contemporaneously with and even after Jesus' lifetime.- "When Mary [mother of Jesus] was born, around the year 18 BC..." To the best of my knowledge, no one knows when Mary was born. It could have been about 18 BCE, but I think Dr. Tabor should give us the basis for his speculation rather than simply assert it. Later in the book he says that "Mary might have been as young as 15 or 16 when she had Jesus (p. 291)." Combine that assumption with his idea that Jesus was born in 5 BC (p. 319) and we get impossible math - She's born in 18 BC, and 15 or 16 years later in 3 or 2 BC she gives birth to Jesus whom he says is born in 5 BC. We're missing 2 or 3 years!- "...she [Mary] got pregnant before the marriage and Joseph was not the father." (p. 41). Quite a leap, and not substantiated to my satisfaction. Worse still, Dr. Tabor completely ignores the Essene hypothesis which I personally believe to have more credence than his and which I believe accounts for more data (Mary got pregnant following their "first" marriage but prior to the sanctified time for having sex, in December). Later, Dr. Tabor says: "One thing we know for certain: he was not the father of the unborn child." (p. 44). Biblical research, especially the paternity of Jesus, shouldn't accept anything as certain. Dr. Tabor himself says: "Our view of the past...is never a clear one." (p. 316). Apparently page 44 was written before he wrote page 316.- "There Mary stayed for three months with close relatives, an older couple, Elizabeth and Zechariah..." (p. 44). Here, and very many times throughout, Dr. Tabor relies on Luke's gospel which is notoriously inaccurate and often consists of copied sections from other works (Acharya, 1999; Carrier, 2005; Craveri, 1967; Holding, 2005; Mason, 2003; Massey, 1985). Dr. Tabor himself, later in his book, refers to Luke as creating a "scarcely veiled spin" and says that "Luke was not writing history..." Yet he uses Luke's gospel many many times to build his theory. This would be forgivable if he added the caveat that this is based on Luke who is known to be inaccurate (as he does later in Part Five), but he leaves this caveat out and describes the events as if they were universally attested. This same problem flows throughout the book. Dr. Tabor picks and chooses from whichever gospel fits his theory, without attribution or caveat, as if the events he speaks about are generally agreed upon. They are not. He should acknowledge that fact in his work.- "The name Nazareth, the town where Mary lived, comes from the Hebrew word netzer..." (p. 55). This is Dr. Tabor's theory. It's not a fact. There are other theories about the origins of the words Nazareth vs. Nazorene vs. Nazorite etc. Dr Tabor's central hypothesis that Jesus and his family lived in Nazareth goes against the archeological evidence that no First Century synagogue has ever been found at Nazareth and at the time of Jesus (Bagatti, 1955; Finegan, 1969; Ellegard, 1999; Holley, 1994; Keller, 1980; Wilson, 1999).- "When you read the account of Mary's unsuspected pregnancy, what is particularly notable in both texts is an underlying tone of realism that runs through the narratives." (p. 60). ??? If the angels, and the holy spirit, and the guy who says "yeah, sure, that's ok" reflect "realism", then I'd like to be invited to one of Dr. Tabor's parties.- "The notion of illegitimacy is a consistent element in all four New Testament gospels. Each seems to agree - Joseph was not the father of Jesus." (p. 62) Dr. Tabor mistakes the issue of an abnormal or impure or irregular birth with illegitimate. The gospels hint that Jesus' birth was irregular. Bruce Chilton has discussed the "mamzer" issue and I think Chilton appears much closer to the truth that Tabor is here.I'm only up to page 65 and already I have a small essay here, so I'm going to stop. Suffice it to say that I think there are lots of problems with Dr. Tabor's book, some of which are minor, but others of which go to the heart of his theory.That being said, if you're a scholar with a reasonable fund of knowledge, Dr. Tabor's book can be invaluable for the reasons outlined in the first paragraph. But without the ability to know when he is off track, I think an unsuspecting beginner will be led astray by many of Dr. Tabor's assertions.

Dr. Tabor is an extraordinary scholar because he dares to question historical sources. He may not always be right in his possible conjectures, but he tries to research them and see if other information is available. As he sorts out that information about Jesus and his family, we will never know if his guesses are correct. But they were definitely of interest as I wrote "Jesus, His Brother, and Paul." For those of us who search for the historical Jesus, we must use facts and there is some lack of facts in this book. But what is wrong with someone researching and making guesses and trying to explore more. This book encourages researchers to dig a little deeper and perhaps discover other people who played an important part in the birth of Christianity. Dr. Tabor also makes himself available for interviews, which are most interesting.Dr. Diane Holloway Cheney

This book was a most interesting read. Whether one agrees with the arguments advanced or not, the book is very entertaining, anecdotally educational, and somewhat thought provoking.From a hard scientist's viewpoint, there are two worthwhile aspects to the content conveyed by the book. First, Tabor is evidently familiar with the historical and religious period covered, conveying a reasoned sense of the times and customs during which Jesus of Nazareth was active. He provides interesting context for the messianic movement during Jesus' time, including insights into Jewish customs that most who are not Jewish (one suspects even many who are) will not know. Because the information provided is in snippets, aimed at supporting the advanced storyline of a historical Jesus, they are necessarily incomplete. Other scholars with relevant historical expertise must examine the arguments to check for factual correctness and consistency.Second, Tabor directs attention to readers of the New Testament to less emphasized material that may have historical relevance, some supported by auxiliary evidence from historians and Biblical scholars in 1-4 century A.D. As these are textual material from the New Testament itself -- not philosophical discussions based on non-canonical gospels such as Thomas and the recently decoded Judas (overhyped by National Geographic, in my opinion, given the material conveyed by the translation) -- attention to their on-the-surface ambiguities and inconsistencies, never mind their full meaning, may be welcomed by (some) readers of the Bible.The speculative component concerns the weaving of all the cited information into a bold conjecture that is stated unabashedly: that Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinary human being who fought against Roman occupation and corruption by a minority of Jews, the beneficiaries/facilitators of Roman rule; at the core, nothing more and nothing less; that all the religious interpretations were added by Paul, a religous fanatic who hijacked the historical Jesus for his own vision of a new "monotheistic" religion, centered on a mythical Jesus, targeted at a non-Jewish audience, in particular, Romans.The verdict is not in. But the claim, supported by circumstantial evidence, has been laid out for the general public to see. It is an easy-to-understand and, on the surface, plausible claim. It will require years of hard work by a new generation of scholars to establish the merits of the case.A personal remark. If, what Tabor claims is in broad strokes correct, then Christianity as practiced today is in trouble. Tabor (uncharacteristically?) hedges a little bit in the conclusion chapter by rosary feel-good language that uncovering the historical Jesus (in the image of Tabor's version) will benefit Christians, Jews, and Muslims through better understanding. It will benefit Jews and Muslims. Not Christians though.Basically, if Tabor's version is correct, then Christianity, as practiced today, is in trouble because it is founded on an essential lie. It is not that Paul's version of a monotheistic religion derived from Judaism is not brilliant/impressive. It is. The focus of Paul on the afterlife, as opposed to the more pragmatic heaven-on-earth espoused by Jesus et al., is perhaps theologically more satisfying and sustainable. Certainly, the ultra-practical messianic movement of which Jesus seems to have been part has faltered miserably. The God espoused by Jews has not intervened, throwing the Romans out, and changing the corrupt Jewish leadership in Jerusalem as was expected. In contrast, Paul's afterlife-centric monotheistic version of Judaism is more resistant to real-world events (it has survived, after all, Roman persecution and prospered thereafter for nearly 2000 years). Nonetheless, Paul's central tenet is that Jesus was God-incarnate-on-earth. Resurrection (or its belief) has been key for authenticating (through its belief, i.e., trust that is has happened) the Jesus-centric tenet. If Jesus was a regular person (albeit an extraordinary revolutionary), then Paul ends up being a cheat. It doesn't matter so much that his monotheistic religion is pretty darn impressive. The problem is: he didn't earn it square-and-fair. He didn't go out and propose a new Judaism that escapes the narrow confines of tribalism, advancing a new interpretation of God focused on the afterlife, winning the discussion on its own merits. No, if Tabor is right, he cheated. Paul hijacked the historical Jesus by injecting a story about resurrection with claims of eye witness accounts, that, if trusted, helped authenticate that Jesus was indeed God-incarnate. He basically said (paraphrased): Pay attention to what I say because it comes from God-incarnate. How do I know? Because (reliable) eye witness accounts prove that Jesus was resurrected which can only be possible if he was God (or Satan but Jesus' message obviously was contradictory to that of Satan). Paul wants to have the cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he deemphasizes the physical realm in favor of the spiritual; but his starting point is the physical realm, the resurrected Jesus, not metaphorically but physically. Somewhat reminiscent of recent nonfictional writers who play fast-and-lose with the facts, while still wishing to claim nonfiction status.

This whole “stunning new evidence” blurb comes over as a sensationalist, yet hold that doubt and read further. After you trawl past the claim that the author has “never doubted that Jesus […] existed” this is still worth a read. The reader should question Tabor’s objectivity first yet there is much here to fascinate anyone who is interested in exactly what was going on in Palestine 2000 years ago. Tabor’s conclusions are plentiful and deeply challenging to everything we have taken for granted. What if this “Jesus” wasn’t divine? It took the Christian Church over four hundred years to establish the virgin birth as orthodoxy yet the Bible tells us Jesus had brothers and sisters. He had an extended family who went on to run the new Church after their Messiah was crucified. Much of what we have come to think was orthodox and central to the core beliefs of the Church is actually derived from Paul and not Jesus. Jesus practiced Judaism and the church his brother James ran was a Jewish one. Modern Christianity, as distinct from Judaism, was an invention of Paul. This may well have been to key to its success. If it wasn’t for the mass appeal of Paul’s teachings then the story of Jesus would have ended as just another footnote in history. (And not even that actually!) A Jewish Messianic cult that ended bloodily. Paul never even met Jesus yet his beliefs tainted the entire New Testament. Take, for example, the Eucharist. Tabor speculates that Jesus is unlikely to have come up with that ritual. It was closer to the rituals of unorthodox Jewish mystery cults. The original church of Jesus lived on after his death to become the Ebionites. Ironically the Ebionites were destroyed by the orthodox church for their alleged “heresy”. Imagine that. By the 3rd century CE, the role of John the Baptist and the family of Jesus had all but been airbrushed out of Christianity.Thus if we are to peel away the layers of later Pauline embellishment we can detect the original teachings of Jesus. He was an apocalyptic revolutionary who fell under the spell of John the Baptist and believed that he could fulfil Old Testament prophecy in order to bring down the Romans. His Kingdom of God was very much an earthly one. It was Paul who brought us the idea that it was a Kingdom in Heaven (which was convenient). Jesus’s revolution on Earth failed in spectacular fashion in the same way that all such messianic cults fail. This story was no different to those of the beliefs of wacky UFO-cults of our own day. When the aliens fail to arrive, the believers don’t question their beliefs – they just decide that they had the wrong day. The Bible is not a history book. It is a churned-up jumble of the combined beliefs, expectations and mistakes of hundreds of separate authors & translators spread over hundreds of years. In it you can conjure up whatever belief system you wish to read into its words. Tabor has penetrated as best he can through this mess to read the original “Q” document to understand exactly what the family of Jesus may have been taught by Christ himself. It was the spark and the inspiration for all that came later hence it is vital that we strip away its layers if we are to find exactly what is authoritatively given from the lips of this religion’s founder & principal character. In Tabor’s words “other sources have survived that allow us to reach back through these layers of dogma and recover a lost perspective.” Yes, but what is dogma and what is real? It is a hall of mirrors. A mystery into which Tabor has projected himself so we will never know what is truly real. Is Tabor’s reconstruction plausible? Tabor believes, not unreasonably, that Jesus was human, not divine and he truly died and was buried. His bones may yet still be found if they have not already. Yet, often in the retelling of the events leading up to the crucifixion Tabor mentions that Jesus did miracles. How so? He was either magical or he was not. Tabors says nothing of this discrepancy.If this was the only book you read about Bible history then you would be impressed. Yet read a few more and you quickly find that the same evidence is taken to mean a whole variety of different things. Read around before reaching a conclusion. Yet Tabor’s work remains challenging and fascinating. The idea that Christianity was a religion tinkered into existence long, long after the crucifixion by men who never knew Jesus or what he taught, has gained a lot of currency these days. It is highly credible and through appreciating these simple facts we can weigh up this religion with some measure of objectivity. Incredibly important if you wish to understand this world and why men are the way men are.

This is the book I have been waiting for! I have ready many historical accounts of early Christianity from a range of different perspectives. However, this book is something special. Tabor combines a lot. He has a very detailed knowledge of the Hebrew and new testament scriptures alongside lots of contemporary material (the other "gnostic" gospels, the dead sea scrolls etc), which is what you would expect from an academic in his position. However, he also has a lot of archaeological experience and knowledge. He puts it together into this great book. Even better, he can write for the common man. I am an academic, so I miss some of the usual footnotes etc. However, he writes in a simple and clear way that makes this a real page turner. Most importantly for me, he has made the new testament (particularly his speciality, the letters of Paul) into real documents that come alive. You start to understand what is written and why it was written. The Christian Church was built on a doctrines that had little to do with the new testament (the perpetual virginity of Mary, the trinity etc.). Tabor just looks at the new testament from a purely historical perspective, without the subsequent ideology of the Church. It is really quite an amazing read. The interpretation he puts on the gospels and Jesus' life may not all be correct. However, whilst they may be wrong, they are certainly consistent with the wide evidence from which he draws.

This is an investigation into the life of the historical Jesus - what do we know about him and how do we know it?. The author having visited the Holy Land 'wanted to walk where Jesus walked.' Late at night Tabor takes a walk into the Garden of Gethsemane and he is overcome by the need to know. He mounts an investigation, albeit a controversial one. Who was Jesus' mother? - how could she be a virgin?. What about Joseph? What did people say when he became betrothed to a pregnant woman?. Why is Joseph mentioned so rarely in the Bible? Did Jesus have siblings? What part did they play in the flowering and advancement of this new religion which stressed the spiritual side of life and spoke about a loving, forgiving God? Tabor tells us it is almost impossible to write a biography of Jesus' life. The four Gospels are supposed to tell us all about this mesmeric, holy man but touch only lightly on his childhood and the years prior to his ministry at the age of 33 years.He fills us in with the Roman occupation occupation, of king Herod, of the political unrest from the Jews. The Romans would not tolerate usurping of their power - hence Herod's behaviour at even the thought of another 'king' of the Jews. The question is sometimes posed about who killedJesus? The Romans? Pontious Pilate, the Jews?The author examines the part St Paul played in spreading this religion - and it is a huge part. He seems to do it almost single handedly.. He investigates Jesus' brother James and narrates the part he played - but it is Paul who gives the religion its theology.There's another mystery - what happened to the body?This is a riveting book about a charismatic holy man who changed the course of history. The question of the body remains unanswered. Jesus' body has never been foundThis is an exciting and absorbing book which makes the reader want to learn more. Read it..The author also considers the part Paul played in masterminding the spread of the new religion, later called 'Christinaity' - he examines James the Just, the brother of Jesus and informs us of the part he played. We note that James is not mentioned much in the New Testament. But of course it was Paul who opened the door to the Gentiles and so to all of humanity.This is a riveting account of a charismatic individual who was brutally murdered and whose body has never been found. .

At first sight, the front cover suggests that this is another 'pot boiler' - what Wagner, in the operatic context, might have dismissed as 'effects without causes'. James Tabor's scholarship is, however, very impressive. The main body of the book is contained within the framework of an account of the discovery of the 'Jesus Family Tomb'. Current research seems to indicate that this is more of a 'cul-de-sac' than a road leading to fascinating places. On the other hand, the bulk of the book presents a persuasive and highly readable picture of Jesus an an apocalyptic prophet expecting, right to the very end, the overwhelming arrival of the Kingdom of God. It also explores the fortunes of the continuing 'Jesus Movement' in Jerusalem, led by his family members, and its ultimate eclipse by the rival 'Christian Movement' brought into being by Paul of Tarsus. If you've an open mind, and enjoy a lively and well written book, I can recommend this one. I found it a constant 'page turner' all the way to the last one.

Two thousand years on and the truth about Jesus is still struggling to surface. Great in depth study and evidence for the truth in this book. The established church should hang it's head in shame as to how they have prostituted his message. It took them until the 20th Century to even admit to the lies about his wife Mary. Shame on them Perhaps the churches would be fuller without the cover up and lies about the true message.