The Lost Tomb of Jesus (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

A Documentary with Merit but Needs More Scholarship

[classicalsteve · 7/10 · 7 March 2007]

As pointed out by the academicians in the ensuing discussion hosted by Ted Koppel, a heavy hitter when it comes to journalism, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is in desperate need of more scholarship. That said, I found it a compelling and interesting documentary, slightly better than the Discovery Channel's average delving into historical and archaeological topics. I do also disagree with one of the guest academicians who said that the documentary was "archaeological porn", almost hinting that since he was not involved in the project that it had no merit. The documentary I think certainly has merit. They did use a Harvard professor to translate inscriptions on the ossuaries and a statistician from the University of Toronto to speculate on the likelihood of the tomb being that of the family of Jesus of Nazareth.

The documentary's obvious weakness is in its lack of scholarly commentary. The few academicians used in the documentary were not involved in any kind of analysis of the archaeological finds. They were primarily used more for the expertise in their respective fields. So the question is what scholarly commentary was lacking? A good comparison is the Frontline documentary "From Jesus to Christ". In "Jesus to Christ" about ten scholars representing renowned research institutions from around the country were used to tell the story of what is regarded as factual about the life of Jesus and his early followers. In "Tomb" the filmmakers were essentially their own commentators. Another difference between the two documentaries was the amount of time devoted to scholarship. "Jesus to Christ" was a 4-hour documentary in 3 parts with 60% or more of its screen time devoted to scholarly commentary. "Tomb" was probably closer to 1 1/2 hours when consideration is given to commercial breaks with very little scholarly analysis. A lot of "Tomb"'s time was devoted to re-enactment scenes and scenes devoted to the logistics of getting under a 25-year-old apartment complex. These two elements I found less interesting.

The film almost begs for a sequel. Scholars and other academicians who understand the implications of archaeological finds need to analyze and critique the artifacts of the documentary. Not all scholars will ever agree about the implications. The filmmakers last point in the ensuing discussion was probably the most important: that he hoped that the film would lead to more discussion and scholarship.

Compelling archeology

[sergelamarche · 7/10 · 27 August 2018]

It's the tomb of Jesus and family no doubt because they are named on the ossuary boxes. Is it the Jesus family of the bible? The odds are certainly for it. More research of ancient documents, more archeology is needed to uncover the real story. The real story and how it evolved into a powerful church is very important and would be very useful historically. It could also right many wrongs.

Biblical archaeological and historical evidence of Jesus

[earl_v1 · 10/10 · 5 March 2007]

This is (of course) a very controversial film. I am, however, very disappointed in the Christian scholars and lay persons alike. They are too quick to accept passages and quote them as fact and proof of a historical Jesus, even if scholars and the Catholic Church admitted it to be spurious, such as a passage found in later copies of the works of the historian Josephus.

Or other archaeological finds, that have been used to prove a historical Jesus, such as a burial box that is assumed to be that of the High Priest Caiaphas (who, according to the New Testament tried Jesus, circa 30 AD.) Caiaphas' burial box only mentioned the name Caiaphas, with no reference to him being a priest much less associated with Jesus. But the Christian community quickly and willingly accepted this as proof that Jesus lived and was tried by Caiaphas.

Christians are too quick to accept weak evidence while promoting the evidence as conclusive proof, if they feel it supports there view and belief. But will disregard and even bash science and archeology if it contradicts or disagrees with their religious belief.

I am amazed how many people I have spoken with about this documentary that instantly stated it was fabricated evidence to simply attack the Christian faith, and they did not even watch the program.

Ultimately, the bottom line will be for you to decide. Either the evidence is real or it is not. And if it is real, you still may not have anything to fear concerning your faith. As Paul said in I Corinthians,

I Corinthians 15:50, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;"

If flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then the bones of Jesus and his burial box is very possibly still here on earth. So think about this, if this is real, this is the most conclusive proof ever discovered that the Jesus of the New Testament actually lived.

This is a must see documentary.

Indiana Jones for biblical scholars in all the wrong ways

[oneloveall · 4/10 · 23 April 2007]

This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.

More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.

In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.

Very good documentary.

[raypaquin · 8/10 · 24 March 2007]

Simcha Jacobovici, the reporter of 'The Naked Archaeologist' fame, has produced an excellent documentary here. However, I agree with the gist of the two previous comments that it is in dire need of a sequel and of more scholarly comments. That said, it says all that can be said in a 103 minute long documentary (not counting the publicity breaks). I disagree with one of the previous two comments about the time that has allegedly been 'wasted' showing us the difficulties of archaeological research in Israel today, an activity that has become heavily politicized. In my opinion, Jacobovici has come closer than anyone else that I know of to the truth of the matter. In fact, in this documentary, he has come achingly close to it. What he, his detractors and everyone else have missed is one central truth that I think I have discovered and that I intend to publish shortly after more than twenty years of research. The truth is amazingly simple and it explains the many so-called contradictions found in the Bible. The truth and Jacobovici's documentary are mutually-compatible but that truth, had it been known to Jacobovici, would have changed some of the documentary's implied conclusions, but not the raw facts that it contains. Highly recommended. I recommend that the readers watch the documentary and try to guess what that missed truth is.

Went way down

[shadfewl · 1/10 · 18 May 2007]

The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).

So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus/Mary Magdalene connection as "science fiction" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.

Good documentary, but lots left out.

[kmcalpine-2 · 8/10 · 7 September 2008]

This film is very interesting, but loads of big questions are not addressed, and I agree more work should be done. 1) Why was so little effort made to investigate this find fully? 2) Why were dna tests not done on the 'James' ossuary, the 'Mary' ossuary, the ' Joses ' ossuary, and the 'Judah' ossuary? Surely these would have been hugely relevant? 3) Thestatistical analysis of the cluster of names was nearly non-existent, just a couple of comments really. This is unforgivable, as the names are the essence of the story. Any school student could present a better analysis. Did the filmmaker 'dumb it down' for the American market? Just the combination 'Jesus son of Joseph' together with 'Mary' are hugely significant, even without the questionable 'Mary Magdalene' inscription. You have to bear in mind the small size of the population at that time, and the lack of transport for human bodies, and the laws regarding quick burial. If the mdna had linked Jesus and Mary, this combination of related names would have been extremely rare and significant. If the James mdna was the same, this combination would be statistically extremely convincing. Another point completely missed is that, even if you accept the second interpretation of the 'Mary Magdelene' inscription, ( ie two women, Mariamene and Mara in the same box), these names are significant, as , buried in the same box, they are highly likely to be mother and daughter, and a Mariamene with a daughter Mara points very strongly to Mary Magdalene, because she was known as Mariamene, who is Mara, and these were rarely used names. Like many religious documentaries, this film is both interesting and frustrating at the same time.====== ====== ======= ======= ======== ======== ========= ======= Having had a second look at this, I think I can answer one of my questions. I was originally amazed at how little priority was given to this investigation at the time. ( Bearing in mind that more than 2000 million people base their religious beliefs on this man ) . But in retrospect, you have to ask, who would want this find to be confirmed as the real remains of Jesus and family? Not the Israeli government, it would have the potential to stir up hatred in the Christian world. And not the Christian establishment, they would be facing having their position and faith undermined. So the best thing for both parties would be to keep it fairly quiet, and that is what seems to have happened.

I Don't Know the Truth But....

[Michael_Elliott · 14 January 2012]

Lost Tomb of Jesus, The (2007)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

This controversial documentary claims that a buried family tomb that was discovered in Jerusalem is in fact the tomb of Jesus and his relatives. That's pretty much all you have to say to start up a heated debate among people who either don't want to believe this is the tomb fearing that it could cause people to question their faith or the other side wanting to use it as proof that there entire faith is false. Look, I grew up in a church as my grandfather was a preacher and I've heard from countless different religions in my lifetime. At the same time I tend to look at myself as rather open-minded so I can accept science, technology and new findings. I'm not going to sit here and take a side in this heated debate because I'm not an expert on any of the subjects covered here. I'm also not one that's going to get offended by anyone's point of view even if it goes against mine. What I can say about THE LOST TOMB OF Jesus is that it's a very entertaining documentary that kept me glued to my seat as the story was unfolding up to its conclusion. I think the film works well as a "film" because they tell the story in such a way that you really feel as if you're watching some mystery or adventure film unfold. The movie manages to contain some nice drama and especially towards the end when the main goal is trying to figure out where the lost tombs are and to see if they can dig up any more evidence. Again, depending on your point of view you might not like what they discover or you might even agree with it but feel that there weren't enough experts giving the testimony. Whatever way you see it, the film at least manages to be very entertaining, which was the most important thing for me.

An Honesty Review

[generationofswine · 10/10 · 9 August 2020]

Interesting how some people, generally the ones that treat Atheism as a religion, tend to claim that anything is 100% false if it's mentioned in the Bible... Right down to the existence of the Babylonians.

And you see some of that attitude in some of the other reviews.

And you also see the Gospel is 100% true in some of the reviews.

All I'm going to say is that there is a lot of slight of hand when it comes to names in this and that is not at all how history should be conducted. Jesus with a mother named Mary and a father named Joseph...

... it kind of reminds me of my grandfather who, whenever visiting a place like Little Italy, the Ukrainian Village, yadda, yadda, yadda, culturally ethnic, would yell out one of the most common names just to see how many heads would turn.

... here it's slight of hand using the most common names to make it seem rare.

So, this is 100% balderdash.

However, it is entertaining conspiracy theory ala Ancient Aliens balderdash. And that is what matters, the fun conjuncture, the "What if" that is just enough to make you go "hmmmm"

And that makes for an enjoyable watch. And that is the point, to be entertaining.