Before saying anything else, I must say that this book has absolutely nothing to do with the inane ideas that Jesus survived his crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, moved to France, and had children whose descendants are alive even today. There is nothing in this book remotely similar to the ideas in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code or in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The implications of the title notwithstanding, The Jesus Dynasty is a serious work of scholarship by James Tabor, who is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The dynasty referenced in the title refers to the leadership of Jesus's messianic movement being passed from Jesus to his brothers.
Tabor offers a unique perspective on Jesus. Whereas most of the recent historical Jesus work tends to see Jesus as some sort of social and/or religious reformer or revolutionary (Crossan, Borg) or as an apocalyptic prophet (Schweizter, Sanders, and, to a degree, Wright), Tabor paints a portrait of Jesus as primarily a political rebel: according to Tabor (who, unlike most New Testament scholars, sees the genealogies in Matthew and Luke as being somewhat accurate), Jesus was a descendant of David, and thus a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel, who saw himself as one of two Messiahs (Tabor argues that Jesus shared the beliefs of the Qumran community that there would be two Messiahs: a priestly Messiah, whom Jesus identified as John the Baptist, and a royal Messiah, Jesus himself)) who would lead Israel in its overthrow of Roman rule and usher in the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God was not some spiritual notion for Jesus; rather, according to Tabor, it was an actual kingdom on earth that would be ruled by God's Messiah, Jesus, in accord with the law (Torah) of God.
While Tabor's thesis is fascinating, the evidence to support his view is lacking. He makes some rather Carl Lewis-esque leaps to his conclusions. He begins with few solid historical facts and then extrapolates about what might have or could have been the case. This is not terribly good history, but it is great historical speculation. Now, this is not to say that Tabor is wrong in his conclusions but just that he does not have sufficient evidence to prove his case.
What I liked best about this book was Tabor's strong presentation of the case for James, the brother of Jesus, being the most important figure in the early Jesus movement, at least until Paul. Clearly, from Paul's letter to the Galations and even in Luke's account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Christians, even more important than Peter.
I also found fascinating Tabor's argument that James and several other brothers of Jesus (Simon, Joseph/Joses, and Judas) were all among Jesus's twelve disciples, but other than the similarity of names of some the disciples and Jesus's brothers, there is no real evidence to support this speculation, and yet it seems to me that this would have been quite probable.
Tabor also makes a very strong case for Paul basically inventing orthodox Christianity, which is largely a mainstream idea in contemporary New Testament scholarship. Paul never knew Jesus personally and based his theology almost exclusively on his personal visions and revelations. Paul's Christianity, which focused on the Jesus himself and Jesus's death, differed markedly from the Jewish Christianity of James, which focused on the message and mission of Jesus. The Jewish Christians, even after the death of Jesus, tried to carry on Jesus's work, which was the overthrow of the Roman Empire: they were an apocalyptic congregation preparing for the rapidly approaching end of the current age of Roman rule; they anticipated the coming of the kingdom of God when Israel would no longer be subject to foreign masters, and God's justice would rule the world. Obviously, such a temporal, political Christianity is radically different from Paul's otherworldly Christianity where Jesus, rather than being a political revolutionary, serves as an atoning sacrifice who reconciled God and humanity. With the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the eventual complete defeat of the Jewish rebels following the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 CE coupled with the amazing success of Paul's missionary efforts, Paul's Christianity became orthodox Christianity, supplanting Jewish Christianity and the mission that Jesus himself had begun. Tabor argues, and here I agree with him, that the Ebionites, a sect of Jewish Christianity condemned as heretical by the orthodox church historian Eusebius, were the true heirs of the Jesus movement.
Besides the evidentiary problems, there is one other major short-coming with this book: Tabor really does not address the resurrection. If we grant that his thesis is true, what role did the resurrection play in the Christianity of the Jewish Christians, and how did they come to believe that Jesus had been resurrected? I imagine that Tabor would argue that the belief in the resurrection (whatever the cause of this belief) came to symbolize God's justification of Jesus's life and mission, and the resurrection served as a sign that God had not, despite Jesus's devastating crucifixion and death, abandoned the Jewish people but would still intervene in history to bring about the kingdom of God.
All in all, despite not presenting strong evidence for his thesis, I found Tabor's arguments still plausible. Tabor presents a Jesus radically different from most of the reconstructions of the historical Jesus that New Testament scholars have presented over the last quarter of a century. This was a thought-provoking read and was also highly entertaining.