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.

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.

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.

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.