The Lost Tomb of Jesus

It has taken me several days to sit and write my conclusions about the Discovery Channel documentary on The Lost Tomb of Jesus. I find it ironic how dramatic the title seems when the tomb is neither lost (they’ve found it), nor does it contain Jesus (”He is not here; He is risen…”). Kind of like those “lost books of the Bible” which are also not lost, nor are they in the Bible. Overall, this film is intriguing drama at best. It’s very entertaining and gives a glimpse into the world of modern biblical archaeology.

The makers of the film, particularly the Director Simcha Jacobovici, seem to begin with some very unfounded assumptions. In the first few minutes, the entire debate is framed by the rather strong suggestion that the disciples must have stolen the body of Jesus and relocated it to a family tomb. Not only does Matthew, an eyewitness of the risen Christ, deny this charge in his gospel, but it seems rather hard to accept in light of the military protection of the tomb during the days following Christ’s crucifixion.

Names are slowly collected from the various ossuaries excavated from the tomb in 1980. A mathemetician then determines the statistical probability of these names not belonging to the family of Jesus. He eliminates one name because of a lack of connection to Jesus’ family, rather than allowing the unexplained name to contradict the theory. He then divides his odds by four (a randomly and arbitrarily chosen number) to account for possible bias (in the “facts”??). He concludes that there is only a one in six hundred chance that the tomb does not belong to Jesus.

A genetics labratory in Canada examines DNA from the dusty remains of “Jesus” and some from the remains of “Mariamne” and determines that they were not brother and sister. Jacobovici then brazenly asserts that they must have been husband and wife. The geneticist later explained that there could have been many other possible relationships such as being paternal cousins. Jacobovici adds to the assumptions that Mariamne must have been Mary Magdalene, who must have been an early apostolic missionary. Further, they must have had a son, referenced by John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This tall tale is given no credible evidence whatsoever.

Needless to say, the film proved nothing. It was well-presented, but what it presented was loosely pieced together conspiracy and cover-up theories concerning the resurrection, supposed marriage, lineage, and burial site of Jesus. In the end, Jacobovici, with little understanding of biblical Christianity, asserts that his findings pose no threat to the theology of Easter at all. Rather, he asserts, we simply need to see the ascension as a spiritual one as opposed to a bodily one.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus has been attacked before. Thus far, no credible evidence has ever been offered that has contradicted this central tenet of Christianity. Nonetheless, what bothers me most about films such as these is that they present romanticized pictures of the obscure possibilities of “what might have been.” Armchair theologians everywhere will utilize the information in negative ways, often questioning whether there are any important issues at stake or not.

The film? Well done. The theories supported by the film? Hogwash. The effects of the film? Unpredictable given our current biblically illiterate, culturally desensitized Christianity. We are well past the time to “study up” and prepare for the lies that will be circulated more and more concerning the Lord Jesus Christ as we approach the soon coming of Jesus.