232 of 257 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not the Da Vinci Code, April 5, 2006
In response to the person who accused this book of being `flash over substance' and basically a Da Vinci Code rip off, I would say that they probably didn't read the book (Actually, I know that they didn't since the review is dated about a month before the book's release). The Jesus Dynasty is completely unrelated to Dan Brown's book, advocating an entirely different thesis. Tabor states this plainly in his preface and goes on to say of the Da Vinci Code, "while gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence." The theories that Tabor proposes in The Jesus Dynasty are based entirely on an historical-critical examination of the surviving evidence of Jesus, his family, and early followers and what Tabor sees as the most likely interpretation of that evidence. Tabor brings to this endeavor 40 years of study on the topic at hand and is more than qualified to write this book. One reviewer asserted that `If not for "Da Vinci Code," this tripe would never have even been written.', but I can say as someone who has known Dr. Tabor personally for 8 years that the ideas presented in this book long predate and are not at all dependent on the Da Vinci Code or the pseudo-history of Baigent et al.
The Jesus Dynasty is Tabor's attempt at reconstructing the life of Jesus and his family. In many ways his attempt is quite daring and his ideas unique. The book will no doubt offend many who will not judge the book on its scholarship but will dogmatically reject what it says based on the beliefs which they bring to the book. On the whole, Tabor's attempt is believable, putting Jesus and his followers squarely in the historical context of first century Judaism. Some of the book's claims will certainly be a surprise to many readers. Just one example brought to light in the book is that many Jews of the time were expecting two messiahs. This idea is well attested in the records from the time and yet unknown to most people today. This idea can be found in the Hebrew Bible itself, in the book of Zechariah, as well as pseudopigraphic works from the Second Temple period. The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly expected this (see for example in the Community Rule). Later Rabbinic sources speak of two messiahs as well (see b. Sukkah 52a in the Talmud, Midrash Tanhuma (ed. Buber) Vayiggash 3, Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 14:1, Midrash Tehillim 60.3, Targum to Song of Songs 4:5 and 7:4, and Targum Psuedo-Jonathan to Exodus 40:11 to name a few). Tabor takes this widespread belief into account in assessing the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist.
There is a certain amount of speculation in the work (and Tabor does say when he is engaging in speculation), but that will always be true of something for which the evidence is so fragmentary and dating later than the events they describe. Tabor provides evidence to back up his theories but he also points out several times that about some things we may never be certain as the evidence is just too limited. One aspect in which I was somewhat disappointed was that he does not go into detail about some of the evidence he has (having studied many of these topics with Tabor himself and having been on some of the archaeological digs which he mentions in the book with him, I know that he has more evidence regarding these things and can go into more detail about them). My guess is that to keep the book at a less intimidating size (as it is it is over 300 pages) he refrains from going into more detail about the evidence he has. This would be my one criticism; I would like to see a fuller treatment of the evidence in some of these places (one example that stands out in my mind is Tabor's reconstruction of the chronology of the week leading up to Jesus' crucifixion, namely on which days everything took place).
Perhaps the most compelling part of the book for me was the history of the Jesus movement following his crucifixion, namely the story of James his brother. I found the evidence put forth regarding James (his leadership of the movement which was later lost/ covered up by a largely Pauline influenced church) to be quite convincing. That James was the leading figure, taking up the mantle of Jesus himself is clear when one looks at the evidence. Moreover, the New Testament's reticence on the subject is very suspicious.
Overall this is a very worthwhile read, giving a portrait of Jesus that, while important, is unfamiliar to most people in the world today.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
60 of 67 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
From an Ebionite, April 11, 2006
Dr. Tabor asked me to let him know what I thought of the book when I responded to an announcement he sent, so here we go. This is an excellent book with a few "maybe" spots. It presents a good historical background, in some ways reminiscent to Crossan and Reed _Excavating Jesus_, and very easy to read for most people. I will recommend the book, although I am not convinced fully about several of his arguments.
He does support some of my own ideas and teachings and so I am biased. One is that Yeshua was a real claimant for the Davidic throne. He makes it clear that Christianity has misrepresented the actual historical events and intentions of Yeshua, and follows a mythologized religion developed by Paul of Tarsus who never knew Yeshua in the flesh (or otherwise, IMO). The idea that Yeshua's movement was supported by a dynasty is not a secret to anyone familiar with the term desposyni (and I am not talking about "Grail" "DaVinci Code" "stuff"). There are many points to explore and consider in the book but I will mention only a few.
For me the most interesting argument is a double Davidic lineage, from Yosef and MIRYAM! I have been quick to point to the obvious failure of tracing a legitimate Davidic line through Yosef and God. Jeconiah (Y'konyah) disqualifies Yosef's entire branch of the family. I figured that the Lukan geneaology was another crap shoot attempt. In spite of my willingness to accept that Yeshua claimed legitimacy as a Davidic king, I could not remedy two bad geneaologies. But Dr. Tabor offers a solution to the problem via a good explanation of descent through Miryam.
He makes an extremely interesting case for Pantera (mentioned by Celsus and Toldot Yeshu) as the possible father of Yeshua. Since I did not get an autographed copy and had to buy the book ;-) I have to say that these two arguments alone, with the appropriate historical introductions to the life setting of Yeshua, were worth the price of the book.
But I have some problems accepting the argument concerning who was actually the father of Yeshua and his siblings. Dr. Tabor's argument and my concerns might be represented in the following:
1) a. Yosef hardly mentioned after birth narratives. b.Yosef dies and has no heir; by yibbum Clophas (Y's brother) becomes husband of Miryam to give Yeshua's brothers and sisters.
- a. Dr. Tabor mentions Christian ascetic dualism related to gnostic ideas about physical and spiritual (sarkic and pneumatic) incompatibilities. In other words (mine) Miryam, as a sacred virgin needed to shed possible hints that Yosef required sex from her as her husband. He is just a device to alay criticism that Miryam had a son illegitimately. He doesn't have to be dead. Admitting in some direct way that he was was the father of Yeshua's siblings, even though it was evidently too hard to suppress that he did have siblings, undermined the perpetual virgin myth. The gentiles were faced with a situation in which actual blood relatives of Yeshua did exist (the desposyni), yet there was a mother with a divine son but without a human father or human sexual intercourse. Thus we have the "cousin" and "step children" explanation from Christians. Yosef is hardly spoken of because Christian writers did not want more work to suppress connection to a father other than God.
b. Let us say Yosef dies. Yibbum is a means of allowing the dead father's family DNA (seed) to pass on with his name. That's all. The practice of yibbum was not popular, and the could be refused (Khalitza). I am not convinced that Clophas repeatedly impregnated Miryam on behalf of a dead Yosef. The halakha given in Mishna Yevamot is fairly complicated and I don't pretend expertise. They may have been adhered to in the days of Yeshua, perhaps not. But this also overlooks the fact that if Yosef was not the father of Yeshua, it is reasonable that his brother would know this or suspect this from street gossip (as Dr. Tabor says is typical in a small village elsewhere), then both would be further complicating things in taking a promiscuous woman (zona).
Dr. Tabor mentions that the name "Clophas" came from the root of the Hebrew word for "replacement" like the word caliph, a dynastic successor. While Dr. Tabor says it could refer to Clophas via nickname as Yosef's successor in Miryam, it could also be just his name or refer to his family also as a source of dynastic Yeshuine successors.
The simplest explanation is that Yosef was the father of Yeshua as well as the other Children. Yosef as the father would strengthen the succession of Nasi Ya`aqov by Shimon ben Kh'lofa. This would expand the dynasty as there were also many relatives in that dynasty. It might also explain why this dynasty was undermined and suppressed by the Christians, and replaced by Pauline type eunuchs, and finally moved control away from Palestine and Yeshuine Jews who knew better.
2) I also have reservations about the argument concerning two messiahs and Dr. Tabor's candidates, however well argued.
Dr. Tabor repeatedly makes the point that we cannot know many of these things for certain, and so he honestly (and respectfully) proposes some astounding solutions (rather than sensationalist claims) instead of declarations.
A conservative fundamentalist will perhaps like this book as much as they would like ebionite.org. You've been warned. But for those more open-minded among them others, the book is well worth reading whether they agree or not. At any rate, they will be challenged to meet the arguments presented in the book with better solutions to the confusion of the gospels in light of reality. The four stars are a hair away from five.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
60 of 68 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A beautiful book, April 5, 2006
I received my copy of the Jesus Dynasty yesterday. I can not put it down. It is a beautiful book, in both content and appearance. From cover to cover it is elegant, with color end plates, over 100 drawings, maps, and illustrations, extensive footnotes with all the sources clearly given, and most important, it is written in the most beautiful prose that flows along. The final chapter is the best and I found it very moving. I realize it might anger many Christian fundamentalists but it seems to me that an historical approach to Jesus, such as Dr. Tabor proposes, is really more loyal to Jesus as he likely was than the dogmatic theology that developed in his name over time to which he surely would never have subscribed. It makes one wonder who is liberal and who is conservative. Maybe those closest to Jesus as he was are the real conservatives. Whatever one's view of Jesus this is the clearest and best book on the market dealing with Jesus from an academic perspective. I love this book and highly recommend it. It is so far far superior to anything in the DaVinci Code genre that the very comparison thereof is a misnomer.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
