While James Tabor wants to give the impression that his book is based on historical evidence, it becomes clear from his interview that even he doesn't believe that. It is based instead on his personal bias and prejudices. And these two elements are the reason that history is described as the most inexact of sciences. With these two factors in place speculation is the rule of the author. Subjectivity does not make for accurate history. In this interview it is significant that Tabor uses the terms "I think" or "I don't think" and several "I" type statements over a dozen times. Yes, Tabor is sharing his "good history" with the world.
For instance, when the interviewer quotes from Tabor's book that his research "challenges many sacred dogmas of Christian orthodoxy," Tabor responds with what he believes about the missing body of Jesus. His theory is that "the family took the body and reburied it." If someone then says that they believe that "God raised him from the dead," Tabor's reply is simply, "I don't think that." Is Tabor's belief based on historical research? If it is, then he has found evidence no doubt, that absolutely refutes the resurrection. However, "I think" does not qualify as indisputable evidence. And it is not very convincing.
Toward the end of the interview Tabor makes an incredible claim. He intimates that he "qualifies" as a Christian. After denying the resurrection, Tabor says, "Someone could say, well then, you're not a Christian. By somebody's definition, I might not be." And sadly enough, he is right; some will call him a Christian. It seems that regardless of what people believe, they and others will describe them as Christian. What is really disturbing about the case of James Tabor is that he has already proven himself to be deceived by the "spirit of antichrist" and yet still other "professing" Christians will consider him a Christian as well. He is not the first antichrist to be called a Christian.