Customer Reviews

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I consider myself quite open-minded when it comes to these type of religious historical documentaries. In fact, I am usually thrilled at the idea that someone discovered archaeological evidence of a religious person. Thus, it's strange for this documentary to really turn me off.

I'm mainly annoyed by the narration and structure of the documentary. I think if it wasn't for that, I might have liked it more. Two things bothered me in particular: one was the way the documentary presented its arguments and the other was the omnipresence of the director, Simcha Jacobovici.

The documentary does a very misleading thing. Whenever it encounters a potential piece of evidence that doesn't fit into their argument, they find a way of suggesting that it could potentially fit, and then thereafter refer to it as if they've proven their point. For example, they bring up the problem of "Mariamne" - who could she be? Her mention in the Acts of Philip in reference to Mary Magdalene was cited as evidence that this could mean the real Mary Magdalene (never for once questioning the historical validity of the Acts of Philip). Then they show you a dramatic reconstruction of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus, and from that point on, the documentary acts as if they've proven without a doubt that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene. They continue doing that with all the pieces of evidence that don't quite fit, without nothing that these evidence are all linked, so if even one of them is false, then the rest of their case falls apart.

Consider this line of thinking: You want to find out who stole your bicycle. You see a footprint that belongs to a shoe that maybe Billy wore, and maybe he was in your neighborhood even though he lives an hour away, and maybe his bicycle broke down which is why he needed yours, and maybe he liked your bicycle among all the others in the neighborhood. Well, if any one of these "maybe's" are false, your case falls apart.

I know they try to do the statistical argument, but what does 1 in 60,000 mean? It sounds like a huge possibility but they never to bother elaborating on that.

The other thing, and perhaps the most annoying thing, about the documentary is Simcha Jacobovici, who comes across as biased as Michael Moore (whom, incidentally, I actually like). His bias is so obvious that it puts into question the entire construction of the project, including how the film was edited, who and what did they leave out, and so on.

As I said, I would really like to believe the arguments in this documentary, and some of it is quite convincing, but the flawed line of thinking and the bias of the director makes it very suspect. There was some good production values, but other than that, it was a poorly conceived project on a potentially fascinating find.

Critics of this documentary, as to it's observations and conclusions, make essentially the following arguments:

1. That the Jesus family would be buried in Nazareth, not Talpiot;
2. That the Jesus family couldn't have afforded a tomb like the Talpiot tomb;
3. That the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary is not inscribed "Yeshua" (Jesus) at all;
4. That the "Mariamne" ossuary didn't contain the remains of Mary Magdalene, but of two other women.

I believe the first three of these allegations against the documentary's premise don't carry much water. The fourth argument actually supports the conclusion that this is the real thing. My comments on these points:

1. Talpiot is the right place for Jesus' family tomb- Per Luke, 2:3-4, the family's LEGAL residence was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The fact that Joseph and the pregnant Mary could not take the census in Nazareth but had to take it in Bethlehem indicates that Bethlehem was their DOMICILIUM under Roman Law. That basically means that they had no intention to reside in Nazareth permanently. Therefore it would have made little sense for them to have a family tomb in Nazareth, that they wouldn't be able to frequently visit at a later stage in their lives. They would have wanted a family tomb close to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, easily accessible also to future generations of the family. The fact is indeed that Mary and her children moved to Jerusalem around 30 AD.

The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is "Yeshu Hanotzri." This appellation stemms from "Netzer" (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messianship. Not to indicate the place he comes from ( to indicate that Jesus supposedly originates from Nazareth, he would have been called "Yeshua Minatzeret." But he wasn't called so.) In any event Jesus was born in Bethlehem, even though he grew up in Nazareth. Even when a person was called by a place in Herbew/Aramaic at that time, that appellation would refer to his place of birth, not to where he happens to live at a certain moment in his life. Thus if Jesus were to be called by a place, he would logically be called "Jesus of Bethlehem."

There's actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called "Nazareth" even existed in or before the first century. I'm not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus "of Nazareth." Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called "Jesus the Branch" (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic. It sounds almost the same as "Jesus of Nazareth" when pronounced in Hebrew/Aramaic, and therefore would easily confuse any person whose mother tongue isn't Hebrew/Aramaic. But it shouldn't confuse native Hebrew/Aramaic speakers.



The line of argumentation detracting this discovery around the supposed Nazareth origin of Jesus' family may therefore be based on a very shaky foundation.


2. Talpiot is located about 2.5 miles North of Bethlehem. Jesus' family, of Davidic descent according to the New Testament, could have held the burial cave there even before it moved to Nazareth. Davidic birth was absolutely the most exalted in Judaism, always. The suggestion that any person of Davidic descent could be of the lowest social echelon, that couldn't fund or get funding for a burial cave, doesn't make much sense, if any. There's substantial evidence to the contrary, e.g. 1. Jesus had some very wealthy active supporters like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus (known as Nakdimon ben Gorion in post biblical Jewish sources-one of the richest Jews in Judea); 2. Josephus A.J.,XX, 9:1. Note the prominence of James brother of Jesus.

3. The inscription on the Jesus ossuary does say "Yeshua bar Yehosef" ("Jesus son of Joseph")to my eye. All letters but one are quite clearly there. The only letter which is somewhat more difficult to discern at first blush is the second letter- "Shin". That's because it's written in a somewhat irregular form (in a regular Shin there are three teeth in the fork, pointing upwards. Here there are two teeth, pointing sideways to the right.) But that particular irregularity appears also on other ossuaries- notably numbers 9 (this one has two "Shin"- one with three teeth pointing to the right, and one with TWO teeth pointing to the right. Exactly like the subject inscription) and 121 in the Rahmani catalogue, which both feature also a "Yeshua." All this is NOT difficult for a Hebrew speaking person to identify.

4. Mr. Huston on 3/13/07 made the following comment to my post regarding Jacobovici's book:

"The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame,'' was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara,'' meaning "and Mara.'' Mara is a different form of the name Martha.

According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher,'' but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha.'"

Here's my answer to him:

"If the Mariamne ossuary indeed housed the bones of Mary and Martha, these are two sisters of NT fame. Another hit. One of them could have been married to "Jesus son of Joseph." -Whether or not she was Mary Magdalene (Maybe the Mary who ointed Jesus feet and then dried them with her hair- very intimate scene.) The other sister would than also automatically belong in the family. It still fits. Actually it increases the statistical odds that this is the real thing quite substantially."

This is a very intriguing possibility indeed, fitting perfectly with John 12:3. Some posters on an internet group where I participate actually suggested once that similar anointing was part of pre-wedding ritual of a Davidic King, per certain passages in the Song of Songs. Reminds me of the reaction to this find of a BBC reporter in 1996- It seems like all pieces of a puzzle coming together.


Two other matters raised by the documentaray relate to the meaning of the inscription "Mara" on one of the ossuaries, and to a proposition that the "James brother of Jesus" ossuary originated from the same Talpiot tomb. My comments:

5. Any Jew in the first century would probably know instinctively that "Mara" is a very exalted appellation indeed. The Dead Sea Scrolls in at least two places that I saw have the expression "Mara Alma"- the exact equivalent of "Adon Olam" in Hebrew ("Master of the World".) That is one of the most common substitute names for "Yahwe", the ineffable name of God, in Judaism, to this day. Jews repeat this substitute name many times every day, in prayers.

6. Oded Golan is on trial in Israel at this time for alleged forgery of the "James brother of Jesus" ossuary. If Mr. Golan believes or knows that the James ossuary is authentic, his defense lawyer should and could get a court order for comparative DNA tests of the James remains with the Jesus remains. The court will most probably grant such an order, because it's material to his defense in a felony case. If this test shows these are siblings, that would constitute sufficient "reasonable doubt" to acquit Golan. (And of course enhance the statistical odds that the Talpiot tomb is the real thing.) If it doesn't show they're siblings, the result would be inadmissible as evidence. Therefore there's only an upside on this for Defense.

Incidentally, I believe that the Documentary's story about the "Jesus" and other bones having supposedly been buried together in a common grave has to be taken with a grain of salt. It appears to contradict certain burial rules under Jewish Law. In a different context, a poster elsewhere on the net pointed out to me a second century ruling regarding common burials. Seems to me that common burials of unrelated adults are prohibited, where the bones are found separately. Therefore the remains in the ossuaries would be buried separately.

BOTTOM LINE- Ask yourself inversely a hypothetical question- If the Talpiot tomb hadn't yet been found, how would Jesus' family tomb have looked , which ossuaries would it have contained, to when would it have been dated and where would it have been located. Even if, like me, you're not formally educated specifically in any field related to this subject, anyone with general education and common sense who's curious enough could educate himself to form a perfectly valid opinion. I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we're discussing. It fits perfectly with what I'd have expected Jesus' family tomb to be. Right place, right period, right names. (Even some important evidence supporting the same expectation that this documentary omits.)

That doesn't mean that the Talpiot tomb is the real thing beyond reasonable doubt, only that if you had a jury of completely unbiased people, either way, and that jury were presented with all material evidence, pro and con, it could quite logically have found that this is the real thing by preponderance of the evidence.

Itamar Bernstein
The Bone Box

Let me start this review with a recap of what we know from the DVD. We found the tomb of a person named Jesus who had a father named Joseph. We have a Maria, a Miriamne, a Jose and a Matthew. So, having stated that, have we found the tomb of the Historical Jesus? We feel we know what happened to the Biblical Jesus based on the Gospels. Based on this, is it possible to find a Jesus tomb? Granted, it does not say "Jesus, son of Joesph, from Nazereth" on the ossuary. As one of the experts comments in the show (paraphrased) "...If we find the bones of Jesus of Nazereth, does that destroy faith in Christianity? It does not destroy MY faith. I leave what happens to bodies after they die to God." That is also my take on this. If we can prove that this is the Historical Jesus' body, it does not ruin my faith. It just offers a little more faith that this person who has numerous texts actually set foot on earth and said all these wonderful things. As far as those who may say, "well if there is a body then he could not have resurrected", why not? We all go under the assumption he physically rose from the dead and went human body and all to heaven. He could have done that, why not? He's the Son of God after all. It could also have been a strictly spiritual resurrection. Again, he's the Son of God, if his spirit body went to heaven and He wanted to show himself to his disciples to prove he "resurrected", he could do that as well and even let the disciples touch him.
Of course it is also possible that Jesus lived and died, said and did most of these wonderful things the Gospels attribute to him, then when they committed story to paper, they embellished it to make him a God-like being.
In the end, I don't know whether this is the tomb of the Historical Jesus or not. And this is not totally set out to prove one way or the other. What Simcha is trying to do, from my opinion, is set the evidence in front of the viewer and let the viewer decide if we found the tomb of Jesus of Nazereth or if we just found the biggest coincidence in recorded history. Either way, it is a great show.

I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to watch an advance copy of this film, and finding it to be nothing short of fantastic, I had to post this review...

This Directors Cut version of the Discovery Channel Special is one of the finest documentaries I have ever had the chance to watch. Not only does it perform as a content-laden doc, but from a production stand-point, in my opinion, it is a spectacular watch from start to finish, for it feels like a feature film during the viewing, a mystery of the highest caliber as the story develops and unfolds. I sat riveted during the entire experience.

At the root of the story-line is the 1980 uncovering of an underground tomb, found during a construction project in Jerusalem following the bulldozing of an area by developers planning the building of an apartment complex. Two children entered through an entrance-way emblazoned with a ancient chevron and found the extensive, built-out site that contained 10 limestone ossuaries (coffins). Of the ten, 6 had hand-written inscriptions.

The discovery of the tomb in and of itself was not that uncommon. Others had been discovered, so the Israeli authorities were contacted as would be expected. The contents of the tomb were cataloged and brought to a storage facility.

What took place 25 years later lays the groundwork for the film, for upon further inspection of the inscriptions, it came to light that the 6 readable names all related to members of Jesus' family, something that originally was not put together.

As the Director lets the story unfold, the claims themselves are presented as a mystery. Recreations are mixed with expert interviews and scientific corroboration i.e. DNA testing of scrapings from the ossuaries. The filmmaking itself makes use of current technology on numerous fronts including the use of robotic cameras to first enter the tombs (which had been resealed after the contents had been removed).

Adding to all of this is Director Simcha Jocabovici's persona, one that can be compared to an archaeologist on a phenomenal hunt and journey. His personal excitement really adds an incredible dimension to the production. I am not convinced that another Director could have pulled this off with such verve.

Forgetting for a moment the religious ramifications that this film poses, the viewing experience alone is of incredible value on a human-interest level. Adding in the film's claims that have not only a religious bend to them, but also a major historical discovery angle for all people, the film becomes one that certainly leads to, if nothing else, a debate of the highest order. Jocabovici, an expert filmmaker for sure, has produced a program that is riveting to watch, enlightening to experience and historical to digest.

I recommend this film for all to see.

Devout Christians who consider the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus to be a necessary and integral part of their beliefs would probably do well to not watch "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". However, those who can accept the Resurrection as having spiritual meaning instead or who can approach the subject in a nonreligious context will find this documentary an enthralling presentation about an archaeological discovery made near Jerusalem in 1980: the tomb and physical remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family, or at the very least that is what the film-makers believe (and they make a persuasive case for their views). This DVD is the "director's cut" version of a documentary originally shown in the US on The Discovery Channel; additional interviews concerning several topics have been added.

This is not some wooly New Age or supernatural-leaning show, heavy on ill-supported speculation and short on hard evidence, but rather a careful documentary laying out the case that the tomb of Jesus (and family) has indeed been found. I think this to be one of the most fascinating historical television documentaries I have ever seen.

Anyone favorably impressed by this documentary would do well to read "The Jesus Family tomb" by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pelligrino for additional details and evidence.

While not all the facts are in, this film gives pause for thought, deep thought. In addition to the archaeological facts surrounding the find, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" gives us a good idea of what life was like in 1st Century Israel. The film is well done, convincing, and may very well prove to be the actual tomb of Jesus Himself. You decide.

I took it for granted that there was something fundamentally flawed and overblown to the story of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." But, actually, this film is a compelling piece of detective work. The filmmakers consult experts and piece together an intriguing thesis. And their admirable tracking down of the original tomb (buried under an apartment complex), makes for compelling filming. The film's thesis is very far from "airtight," but it is, nevertheless, quite interesting.

Usually, if a scientific thesis bypasses the scientific community, and scientific journals, and is laid out before the general public in the form of a popular film or book, you can bet that it probably has very little real evidence to support it. But in this case, it seems that the investigators have succeeded, by making a popular film about the Talpiot tomb, in renewing a debate among Biblical scholars, statisticians, and archaeologists about the nature of the Talpiot tomb.

On the downside, there are elements of sensationalism to the film, and there is no real attempt to cast serious doubt on the filmmakers' thesis. After watching the film, if one wants to follow current academic discussions of the Talpiot tomb, James Tabor's blog is a place to go (Tabor is one of the experts who appears in the film, and he seems inclined to favor the film's thesis). Just Google "James Tabor" and "Jesus Dynasty" and that should get you to his website.

Very good production value. Seemingly solid evidence, but highly debated conclusions. Also, several of the 'key evidences' provided by the experts in this documentary were recanted by the very experts who made them. Most significantly the mathematical probability for this being THE tomb of the biblical Jesus was watered down significantly following the airing of this production (see rebuttal to this in the comments section by one of the experts).

Also, having now watched several episodes of 'The Naked Archaeologist' which follow the archaeological exploits of Simcha Jacobovici (same individual who leads the expedition on the Talpoit tomb), I must say that I am not at all impressed by his 'fly by the seat of his pants' methods for diliniating archaeological data. He appears to have very little respect for the location of the digs and sites he visits -- a bit like a bull in a china shop.

I think this video is pretty interesting and it is quite odd the grouping of all these names. It's also odd how the people in the warehouse brush it off like there's no chance it could possibly be Jesus. Also odd how the book of Phillip isn't included in the bible..

****************!!!!SPOILER!!!!*************************
But, for them to say that the one woman's remains in there HAD to be married to the Jesus in the tomb is kind of absurd. The woman could have been married to any of the men whose remains were in that tomb and it could also POSSIBLY be Jesus' wife. You know how you solve that? Do DNA tests on the child's bone box found! Why was that not done? or not covered in the movie?
*********End Spoiler********************

Favorite line in the movie: "1,000,000% certainty, that's ALL we needed"

A blind woman was THAT certain that was the location of the tomb they were looking for. Yes, a blind woman. Was she right? Guess you'll have to watch...

The work of an archeologist is to uncover the past.The work of a forensic investigator is to establish identity and causes of death when earthly remains are present..Given a name and a place and scientific testing and the results establish facts that cannot be altered.Science is truthful and religions,myths and legends can decieve.
A cluster of names matching the New Testament family of Jesus(Yeshua---Hebrew Form of his name)in a tomb containing ten ossuaries with six names etched on them including the name of Jesus-son of Joseph dating two thousand years ago and the right location for an extended family tomb containing family members from several generations would conclude and prove this find.
I enjoyed the movie as much as I enjoyed reading the book.I recommend the film viewing to anyone who is interested in Bible Archeology. But beware that it can change your view point about the origins of the Christian religion and the fact that there was no physical ressurection--just a spiritual one.Sad but true.I give the movie a five star rating for education,presentation and enlghtenment.Thank you for this great production.The book THE JESUS FAMILY TOMB is an eye-opening read enjoy both.I'm proud to include the book and the movie in my library collection.I'll be able to enjoy them for years to come.