Before you make up your mind about the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” you need to see and hear the rest of the evidence.

For a comprehensive and scholarly rebuttal of the film’s evidence please visit ExtremeTheology.com.

Read and hear the evidence for yourself.

I must confess, I didn't watch the show, but like most Discovery Channel and History Channel shows, I don't take them too seriously. The reality is, that there is DNA evidence linking the people in the tombs is really irrelevant. Finding DNA from Jesus of Nazareth, the one crucified in Jerusalem, is simply impossible. The names are interesting, but since they were common, probably also insignificant.

But you do point out the problem -- to often the networks go out and get an Al Mohler and let them spew and call that the Christian response. Now, we know what John Dominic Crossan would say, Jesus' body would have been thrown into a ditch to be devoured by the dogs. That's not an appealing alternative to the traditional story, but that's where the normal alternative scholarly perspective points. For some reason, we're intrigued by the idea that Jesus got married and had a family.

In the Last Temptation, of course, it ends up being a dream, not reality. Oh, well, speculation is the name of the game and it does sell!

I'm just waiting to see what next year will bring!

Bob, what makes finding DNA from Jesus of Nazareth simply impossible? It is the most possible and definately the most "probable" scenario. Even if you believe in the literal resurrection then isn't it still possible (maybe even "likely") that the resurrection was a spiritual one rather than a physical one?

DaNutz, to continue the conversation begun at my blog http://targum.org/blog/:

The film was certainly well made, I think there is no doubt about that from an aesthetic point of view. I have looked at your site and your review there and I would say that there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to expectations. Koppel (and mine and others) criticisms of the dramatization is that if SJ wants this to be seen as "journalism" then he needs to adhere to journalism standards which are to shed light, not to specifically portray events in such as way as to bolster one particular view. Note, as Jim did, SJ's vacillating between referring to himself as a "journalist" and a "film maker" depending upon whether he was wanting the audience to accept his piece as "just the facts" or his interpretation of matters.

Furthermore, SJ did nothing to try and represent a balanced view of scholarship regarding these ossuaries. He repeatedly says that he is not an archaeologist/scholar/scientist, etc. in order to defend against his bias, but for a journalist that is not a barrier. Far from it, a real journalist will bring in experts from across the spectrum (as Koppel's panel did). Again, Jim W. has a great review of this aspect of matters.

So back to the dramatization. If you would like to equate this piece with Heston's the 10 Commandments then fine, it is on that level. But I hope few people take Cecil B. Demille's movie as a documentary or factual investigation. I am not sure that SJ would want you to equate them (and I am fairly certain he would feel the same way about Gibson's movie!).

Finally, far from the panelists giving Christianity a black eye, I thought they showed a rare moment of collegiality. To the left of Judy Fentriss-Williams were two men whose Christian traditions would not let her be ordained. Bock, or at least Dallas Theological Seminary, rarely has affirming things to say about Catholic teachings and practices. And yet all three were not only there and engaging in a well-mannered discourse with Tabor and Jacobovici but they even agreed upon the centrality of a bodily resurrection!

In the current spiritual/political environment of US churches (Ted Haggard, Episcopal Church stuff, Catholic priests scandals) last not was a rare, and pleasant sight.

CB, the guy wasn't making a documentary about Jesus' life/death/burial. He was making a documentary about HIS discovery and analysis of archeological evidence found(rediscovered) in the last few years.

He is documenting how his own team uncovered and then worked with scientists to evaluate the evidence. The dramatizations help us grasp what the evidence might be revealing or NOT revealing. It will take decades to get more evidence and begin to make claims about what the discoveries mean. Are you suggesting that nobody can discuss this topic for several more decades? Why can't he shoot a documentary of the process of this discovery and its importance?

Mike, the point is that while SJ's pretense is to document his process of "discovery" he in fact produced a non-objective film arguing his own (and that of one scholar) viewpoint. That is fine if we are satisfied with such a biased work, just don't call it journalism.

As for waiting decades, what SJ and you seemed to have missed is that scholars have worked on this material and shown that it is NOT all that important. I am all for the public and the media paying attention to biblical studies and giving us some air time. But my complaint, and that of all other scholars that I have spoken with and read, is that with SJ's film as the vehicle it shows archaeology and biblical scholarship in the worst light. The professionals are (at best) the buffoons who couldn't see this important discovery that was right before their eyes and it takes SJ to come along and reveal it to them. (And at worst it is a Catholic conspiracy akin to the early church fathers removing women from leadership roles in the church. His anti-Catholic moments in the film were unnecessary and only further detracted from this project.)

Again, my complaint: Don't confuse this with scholarship, journalism, or even facts. It is all conjecture upon conjecture upon conjecture. All working towards a predetermined goal.

The secret uncovered in this film is that the previous study of this situation missed important evidence.

The point is that what he was documenting was the PROCESS of investigating this information. He wasn't tring to solve the riddle he was documenting the discovery process of new information and making a case that this information had NEVER BEEN STUDIED. Experts have NOT studied this information. Did THEY do any dna studies 20 years ago? These "experts" over the last 20 years didn't do this research and that is why this movie is valuable.

If there had been a dozen other tombs uncovered that all had this combination of names then I would agree this is not worth following. Is there even one such combination on record? If that answer is no, then this discovery is very important regardless of the movie or your criticism.

Mike,

My point is simply, from a historical perspective, it's exceedingly difficult to say you've got Jesus' DNA. The simple fact is there isn't anything to test it against. You don't have a living genetic line. It's not a matter of literal resurrection or not. It's simply that finding a tomb with a bunch of ossuaries, some with names that are the same as Jesus and his father really don't prove much. There is a Pentecostal preacher named Bob Cornwall, who has a brother named Jim -- his other brother is Judson -- but that's irrelevant to this point. As the Richard Baukham link makes clear these are extremely common name configurations. So they don't prove much of anything. Except for James Tabor no respectable biblical scholar signs off on this, as far as I know. When I see Borg and Crossan saying, that makes sense, then I'll pay attention (and I don't agree with either of them on the resurrection).

Mike,

I need to add to my analogy, because I seem to have drifted off! I also have a brother named Jim, but as far as I know that there is another Preacher named Bob Cornwall with a brother named Jim is simply coincidence. That a set of names that is even more common in the 1st century coincides is simply that coincidence. I don't think its a matter of it not being looked at, I think that it's been looked at and found wanting.

Nobody has claimed to have Jesus' DNA. This is what bothers me about this criticism. The film just highlights the real findings and how those findings can be mapped to a scenario where it is Jesus. They make no claims! They are very careful throughout the film to say "maybe this is Jesus and Mary". Their only claim is that nothing yet in their evidence proves that it isn't Jesus. So far all the evidence leads to the fact that it is. I'm skeptical too, but I don't see the need to shoot down the theory just because it goes somewhere that my childhood faith says it can't go.

This would seem to be a routine finding IF there were a long list of tombs found from this period that had this same collection of names. Have there been? This is the first I've heard about. Find 10 more tombs (or even 1) that have this collection of names and I'll agree it is unlikely.

They found Ciaphas' tomb, Peter's tomb, and others from that era. It is highly likely that they can use these inscriptions and other historical data to match a tomb to a historical figure. Why not Jesus' family? They had to be buried somewhere and it wasn't New York City.

Mike,

I'm not sure how to answer, except that while certainly possible, it doesn't seem plausible that we've found Jesus' tomb. My problem with the whole issue of DNA is that there is no way to judge who it belongs to. I would expect that they would find genetic markers that the bones belong to someone Jewish, they might find that they date from the 1st century, but not much else. I simply don't know what they've found in tombs. That two respected archaeologists -- Mike Dever and Jonathan Reed find this whole story to be ridiculous is I think pretty damning. Remember Reed isn't a flaming Fundamentalist -- he's partner with John Dominic Crossan in a major project on Paul.

Of course I could be proven wrong, but this just doesn't pass the smell test!

Bob, those are good points and I'm actually reading the Crossan/Reed book on Paul right now. The only use of DNA testing so far seems to be to compare the relationship between the people buried in this tomb. Of course you can't use the results to prove it was Jesus but you can use it to determine those relationships which further increases or decreases the likelyhood of the names matching the contents. The evidence in the film centers around the names on the inscriptions and the statistical probabiliy of those names occuring in that exact combination in the same tomb. That seems like a reasonable approach. It is really the only possible approach. What else could you do?

In the end, this is unlikely to be Jesus' tomb. I just dislike the anger and over reaction against the "hypothesis" presented in this film. If you had watched the post-film analysis with Ted Koppel you would have to admit that their was over reaction and almost a bit of jealousy by Reed and others that someone outside their little community of scholars was making the film without their help. It didn't smell right to me and that is why I said it gave Christianity a black eye.

I think it could have been a good opportunity for Christian leaders to embrace science and discovery and not react in fear they way they usually seem to react.

I wasn't impressed with Koppel's panel, but this film stunk. I have blogged on the reasons why and given links to detailed refutations.

All this talk about proving this and proving that and yet not a one can prove God even exists. Not a single one. Prove. It's like arguing, albeit oh so scholarly about why the wind is caused by the trees and grass waving. The Cameron movie isn't about anything more than an idea. Dogma, faith, and yes opinions are like heavy chains--mostly locked onto those you hope to control, but on yourself too. Ideas are like wings. The idea that we (they)found Jesus' tomb is an intriguing idea. Why not? Just as plausible as literal Genesis, eh?

There is no "secret" in this film. The ossuary was discovered in 1980 and no one made any shocking discoveries--because there was nothing that responsible archeologists would discover. Joshua, Joseph, and Miriam are extremely common names in 1st C. Palestine. (If you found a Latino family today whose members included a Jose, a Jesus, and a Maria, you would not conclude that they were decended from the Holy Family!!)
Jesus' family from Galilee would not likely have a Jerusalem tomb which only the rich could afford. Even those Jesus scholars like John Dominic Crossan who do not believe in a bodily resurrection believe that Jesus' body was likely tossed into a vast common grave and eaten by dogs--common Roman practice for those crucified. (I have argued against Crossan, but his view has more historical validity than this tripe.)

Again, I'm not arguing for this being true. I have no idea but if the reason to write it off is because the names are common, then that would mean there should be dozens of other tombs with these same name? Where are they? Find a few more tombs with these names (and only these names) and then I'll say it is a common occurance. I may be wrong, but no other tombs like this have been found. That makes it worth a look.

Michael, did the film "stink" or did you just not like the theory? I thought it was well made and did a great job of making the loose facts interesting. If there isn't a case to be made, then that makes the film even better because it succeeded in creating a stir where none existed. It is a film NOT a news report.

The film documents the rediscovery and tracing of artifacts. It doesn't document Jesus. It would be a bad documentary if it's subject was Jesus, but that isn't the subject of the documentary. It does a great job of documenting this particular investigation. The critics are looking at the trees and missing the forest.

You do realize that this film is being made by not an archeologist, not a historian, not a scholar of any kind, but by some movie maker trying to make money off of people who are madly seeking a way of denying the divinity of Jesus.

Concerning your assertion that the Resurection could possibly be 'spiritual' rather than 'physical.' The Bible leaves no possibiltity that Jesus' resurection was only a 'spiritual' one. First of all, why would a sinless man need to be resurected spirityally? Lastly, read John 20:24-29. Thomas, refusing to believe in Jesus' resurection except on physical grounds, eventually came to belief in it.

Jeremiah, yes I do and I also realize the assumptions by the film are unlikely to be true. But the reason it is untrue isn't because "Jesus was raised physically from the dead". The reason is becuase the facts just don't line up with good historical study.

"Concerning your assertion that the Resurection could possibly be 'spiritual' rather than 'physical.' "

I didn't make that assertion, the movie did. My assertion is that NO resurrection happend and the stories about resurrection are symbolic parables about how Jesus still impacted the lives of his followers after his death. That includes us today.

In either case, you can't totally write off the assertion in the film of a spiritual resurrection. There is much theological support of that theory throughout the history of Christian theology. How else do you explain the problems that people had recognizing Jesus after the resurrection. Either he was now in a differnt "form" or had a different body or as I say, the stories mean to tell us that these people began to see Jesus all around them in the lives and hearts of his followers. After his death he became more than a man and became a way of life.

I suppose my attempt didn't adress why Jesus was recognized and obviously yours does. I would explain, and I think that the Bible affirms me, that post-resurected people appear differently. Obviously, this would have to discount people like the guy who fell on Elisha's bones, Lazarus, and I think Talitha. However, Jesus did talk about a difference in our post-resurected 'forms' in Mathew 12:25. Plus, Jesus already seems to temporarily have some kind of apprearance altering transformation in Mathew 17, specifically in verse 2.
But with all that said, Thomas' renewal of faith, after accepting Jesus on physical grounds, convinces me that Jesus had to have been physically resurected.

What are some examples of post-resurrection differences? Weight-loss? Facial hair? I'm curious how that might work. Since you are convinced that there is only way for it to work then you must have some ideas in your head about how the same body would survive but something is changed. How might that look? Is it just the bones with new flesh or the same atomic elements but reconfigured?

I was simply responding to your comment about the trouble that people had with recognizing Jesus. In Mark (not Matthew like I missed up)12:25 it says that people will be "like the angels." Furthermore, the very fact that the Bible says that Jesus was hard to recognize and also affirms his physical resurrection gives evidence to the fact that there was some appearance alteration.