A Review of "The Jesus Tomb" Film Shown on The Discovery Channel*

March 4th, 2007

Comments by R. A. Coombes

Did you watch the James Cameron film documentary last night on the
Discovery Channel entitled: "The Jesus Tomb?"

Undoubtedly, The Discovery Channel must have scored its biggest audience
ratings victory in its history after the week-long media hype and hoopla
surrounding the film. Yet, I wonder how many people in America actually
watched the 2 hour film and a follow-up 1 hour discussion hosted by none
other than former ABC-Nightline host Ted Koppel.

It's important to remember that the Discovery Channel is a cable TV
channel which doesn't reach all households across America. Because of
this factor, the film likely did not score near the ratings of the major
broadcast networks but it might have been the most watched program of
all the hundreds of cable channels beaming signals to American homes on
Sunday night.

Of course, the Discovery Channel will be re-broadcasting the film again
later in the month, although I don't know for what date. Usually
Discovery will air such programs multiple times over the course of two
or three months and this film will likely be no exception. Such
repetition means that more people will eventually see the film. It will
undoubtedly impact eventually on society and continue to stir debate in
theological and archaeological circles for years to come. Why?

Technical Film Overview

 From a technical, film maker's standpoint, the documentary was very
well produced and directed. The camera work, direction and editing
featured crisp, professionalism in terms of audio and video imaging. Not
only did the film present on-site video filming and interviews with
experts, but also provided an eyewitness glimpses into some of the
scientific test results.

In many respects, "The Jesus Tomb" broadcast was riveting television.
The broadcast was loaded with commercial breaks which the film worked
around with tantalizing questions leading into the commercials to keep
the viewer hanging on throughout the interruption. Of course, that's
just good business sense from a broadcaster's perspective because
without paid advertising, the project would never have happened.

The Film Had An Agenda

 From a news journalism standpoint "The Jesus Tomb" left much to be
desired. From an academic, archaeological and theological perspective it
was disappointing to say the least. It certainly displayed a bias
towards a particular theory, namely that Jesus died and did not bodily
resurrect nor bodily ascend to Heaven.

The filmmaker, clearly had an agenda. Director Simcha Jacobevici made no
bones about his intent. He wanted to stimulate further academic research
into the 1980 archaeological discovery of a tomb in suburban Jerusalem,
which had contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes) which the film concluded
most likely was the family tomb of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

The film itself wove into the storyline, dramatic recreations of not
only the discovery but also of actors playing the roles of the Biblical
characters including Jesus, his mother, and Mary Magdalene. The weaving
of fictional scenarios into the investigative story line had the effect
of indelibly etching into the viewers mind the possibility that Jesus
Christ's bodily remains had been discovered in this tomb and thus
disputing the scriptural claims that Jesus body rose from the dead and
later ascended bodily into heaven.

"The Jesus Tomb" hammered home the notion that the documentary
investigation was extremely scientific and state-of-the-art in its
methods of inquiry. Thus in drawing its conclusions that Jesus likely
did not resurrect bodily nor ascend bodily into heaven, the film becomes
a magnificent tool for discrediting the central, doctrinal tenets of a
key portion of the Gospel message, that Jesus Christ died, rose again
and ascended bodily into Heaven.

Director Jacobevici looks at one of the tomb's "loculi" where in a body
was laid out encased in a shroud for a year or so to allow the body to
deterioate to skeletal form, after which the bones would be placed in an
"ossuary" or "bone-box."

Is the Film a Tool For The Future Apostasia?

The film thus becomes a future tool to be utilized by the Satanic forces
to persuade humanity to accept the claims of the Antichrist as being a
second "Messiah" and eventually humanity's acceptance of the Antichrist
as God. I think the legacy of this film will be its service a key tool
in the great delusion yet to come, as predicted in the biblical prophecies.

I have no doubt that the average viewer who has little or no knowledge
of scripture or the facts will likely conclude eventually if not
immediately, that the film's claims have at least some merit, despite
all of the fallacies asserted by the film.

It should be noted that many of the experts consulted for the film have
object to the film's theoretical conclusions. In fact, all but one
consultant has objected to the conclusions drawn by the film, not
realizing at the time of filming that the film would make the claims
that is has now taken after final editing. The director conveniently
edited down expert comments to fit his agenda and its conclusions.

The Film's Gnostic Obsessions - Pure Paganism

I was particularly struck by various references and allusions to the
heretical "Gnostic" gospels and the secret mystery religion dogmas of
Freemasonry and ancient paganism. The film becomes an interesting follow
up to the book and movie, "The Da Vinci Code." The movie's website even
alludes to these connections.

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/the_chevron_code.html

The Jesus Tomb begins attempting to link to Gnosticism and the pagan
mystery religions almost from the start, by noting an inverted chevron
symbol and a circle inside the inverted chevron which is affixed over
the doorway entrance to the tomb. The film suggests it might be
representative of a pyramid with the circle representing the
"all-seeing-eye" of pagan mysticism and Freesmasonry! For more on this –
Link to the movie website page on the symbols, which bring out more
comments regarding The Knight's Templar, Secret Societies and the Da
Vinci Code.

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/the_chevron.html

Later in the film, there are repeated references to the Gnostic gospels
and Mary Magdalene as being a "master" teacher and leader of
Christianity as well as being the wife of Jesus Christ and the mother of
His son, named Judah because of an ossuary (bone-box) bearing the
inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus."

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/the_tomb/yehuda_bar_yeshua.html

Above: The alleged bone box of Mary Magdalene is at the forefront while
behind it is the alleged bone box of Jesus Christ. These boxes were
exhibited in New York City on February 26th at the film maker's news
conference to announce the film's "discoveries" and promote the film's
premiere broadcast on the Discovery Channel on March 4th, 2007.

The movie itself goes to great lengths in an attempt to claim that one
of the ossuaries (bone box) is that of Mary Magdalene. On the surface,
to the unlearned viewer, it would seem the film proves the likelihood
that the name etched onto the limestone box is most likely referring to
this woman. See this Link and click on the chart for "Mariamne"- Mary
Magdalene -

Of course, the film then leaps to the conclusion that because DNA
testing of residual bone materials left behind in the "Jesus" ossuary
and the alleged "Magdalene" ossuary confirm no maternal blood
relationship, the two individuals must have been married to each other.
The film fails to suggest that this tomb could have been for a different
family as all of the names found in the cave were exceedingly common. It
also fails to mention that this particular "Mary" may have been married
to one of the other males whose ossuaries are also in the tomb. The film
also ignores the possibility that this particular "Jesus" might have
been a father to this particular "Mary."

The film also briefly diverts from its main topic to describe Mary
Magdalene as a leader of the early Christian church. In doing so, the
film sets up grounds for the mistaken notion that because Mary was
perhaps THE leader of the early church and a "minister" and "pastor"
that women should be leaders in the church today if not in charge as
priestesses. Here again, the subtle setup for adopting pagan priestesses
as found in the worship of the goddess Ishtar, chief goddess of Babylon
who was known by her followers as "The MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS."

In making such an allegation, "The Jesus Tomb" often refers to
Gnosticism and the Gnostic gospels including the Gnostic "gospel of
Phillip" and the Gnostic gospel "The Pistis of Sophia." The film fails
to mention that these writings contain not only Gnostic dogma, but are
only very late copies, 400+ years after the time of Christ. These texts
were sloppily written and poorly copied with an excessive amount of
mistakes, as well as having serious internal conflicts.

The James Ossuary

The ossuary of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

The story of The Jesus Tomb includes the fact that when the tomb was
first discovered in 1980 there were 10 ossuaries found and catalogued.
Israeli Antiquities Authority archaeologists were immediately dispatched
to the site when construction bulldozers accidentally opened the tomb
not realizing a tomb existed there. They followed Israeli law upon
discovery and immediately called authorities who rushed to the scene.
Archaeologists immediately did a hurried excavation and investigation
and transported the ossuaries to an IAA warehouse for safekeeping.

The Israel Antiquities Authority warehouses all ossuaries found in
excavations. The are kept on rows of metal shelving.

It was later discovered that one of the ossuaries turned up missing from
the warehouse or the tomb. No one knows for sure if all 10 ossuaries
were pulled from the tomb or if one turned up missing between the time
of discovery and the time of removal because of the impatience of the
construction company and their need to maintain construction schedules
of an apartment complex being built over the tomb site. It is possible
that overnight, some tomb robbers may have come in and taken the tenth
box. The archaeologist's report notes however, fail to mention an
inscription on the tenth box. See the movie website
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/the_tomb/james_ossuary.html

20 years later, an ossuary with the inscription "James, son of Joseph,
brother of Jesus" appears in the possession of an antiquities collector
who does not realize the potential value of the box and its possible
connection to Jesus Christ. The owner, an Israeli Jew, was unaware that
Jesus Christ had any siblings at all until someone pointed it out to him
after viewing his collection and noticed the box's inscription and made
the connection.

The Jesus Tomb film then attempts to link the James ossuary to that of
the Jesus family tomb. The film makers had tests run on the residue of
the James ossuary and that of the other ossuaries found in the tomb.
Test results indicate that the James' box "patina" residue closely
matches that of the patina of the tomb boxes. This gives rise to the
possibility that the James ossuary actually came from the Jesus Tomb. Of
course, that raises the question as to how the Israeli owner of the box
came into possession of it. He claims he bought it secretly from an
anonymous "dealer." If so, how did the James ossuary get diverted from
the tomb and into private possession?

This issue of the James ossuary becomes important because it would be
the seventh of the ten ossuaries which bears a name. All together we
know of 6 boxes for sure from the tomb that had names.

Jesus, son of Joseph written in Hebrew – "Yeshua bar Yosef"

The ossuary alleged to be of Jesus Christ found in "The Jesus Tomb"

Inscription on side of box: "Yeshua bar Yosef"

Another view of the Jesus box inscription. Experts note that the
inscription appears to be hastily written, almost graffiti-like, and
poorly done.

Yet another look at the inscription on the "Jesus" box.

Mary (thought to be the mother of Jesus) written in Hebrew with a
latinized form "Maria."

Another Mary - "Mariamene e Mara" (claimed by the film to be Mary
Magdalene) written in Greek.

mariamne-mary-magdalene-ins

Above: The inscription on the box allegedly of Mary Magdalene. It is
written in Greek and again hastily scrawled.

Judah, son of Jesus, written in Hebrew

Joseph, or Jose – a brother, written in Hebrew

Matthew or Matia

Playing the Numbers Game

The film decides that because 4 of the 6 names are blood-related for
sure (which is again a large assumption) and are of the same names as
Jesus Christ's family, this must likely be the Jesus' family tomb. The
film then fails to explain the Matthew ossuary. Burials were usually
kept within family. There is no mention of a Matthew in Jesus' family.
There is also no mention of a "Mariamene" in the family. However, the
film makers assume and assert that Mariamene was the wife of Jesus
instead of the wife of the other males. This is a HUGE assumption and
leap of faith on the part of the film makers.

The film then proceeds to devote a segment to tying Mary Magdalene to
the name "Mariamene e Mara." Granted the inscription is unique because
it is not only written in Greek but expresses the idea that "mara" can
mean more than a spelling variant for Mary, which it is a variant. The
film claims "mara" can mean "Master" as in a "teacher" or "leader." The
film makers then ASSUME again that this is a reference to Mary Magdalene
by citing the Gnostic gospel of Phillip of which we only have a
Latinized copy dating to around 400 A.D. nearly 360 years after the
alleged "gospel" was written. Most scholars believe that Gnostic gospels
were originally written no earlier than the 2nd Century A.D. and are
attempts by Greek pagans to paganize Christianity.

The film goes through wild gyrations and assumptions to link the
Mariamene ossuary with Mary Magdalene, citing Harvard University's Frank
Moore Cross as if he agrees with the film's assumptions. He does not,
but they edited his comments to make it appear as though he does. The
film also cites Dr. Fancois Bovan, also of Harvard, who also has
objected to the way the film presented his findings.

The film puts these5 names together and ignores the Matthew name and
submits these names to a statistician to compute the statistical
probabilities that all these names might be that of Jesus family instead
of some other family. The film then consults with respected statistician
Dr. Andrey Feuerverger of the Department of Statistics at the University
of Toronto.

Based solely on the names, Dr. Feuerverger cites the statistical
likelihood as being 599 of 600 chances that this cluster of names would
be only that of the family of Jesus Christ. However, before the film
airs, Dr. Feuerverger issues a protest claiming that he was misled by
the film maker and his comments were taken out of context. He protests
in writing that the film distorts his conclusions. This was made known
in the follow up after the show during a one-hour discussion forum
hosted by Ted Koppel who presented an e-mail from the professor received
just days prior to the broadcast and after the Film maker's news
conference on Monday, February 25th.

The film also drew fire from other experts who were consulted. The DNA
lab and also the Suffolk County New York Crime Lab both objected to the
way their results were characterized in conclusions.

The bottom line is that almost every authority cited in the film has
come forward objecting to the way their comments were distorted by the
film makers. All of the objections revolve around how the film leaps to
conclusions that the experts refuse to follow, but the film edits make
it appear that these authorities agree with the film's conclusions that
the tomb is indeed that of Jesus Christ and His family.

The entry into the Jesus Tomb. It looks like a gabled roof above the
doorway which is in the lower center of the picture, just slightly right
of center. Above the doorway is etched a circle. There is no "roof"
instead we have an upside down "V" or a Chevron and the circle is
apparently a "dot" of some sort. The film speculates that this is some
sort of "mystery" emblem connected to gnosticism with roots to pagan
mysticism of Egypt or most likely Babylon. This makes the discovery all
that much harder to believe this was the family tomb of Jesus.

What Happened to the Bones?

The Jesus Tomb film does note that there were bones found in the tomb's
bone boxes at the time of discovery in 1980. The film indicates that
these bones were then reburied in the ground at a cemetery somewhere in
Israel as required by Jewish ultra-orthodox rules. The film does not
elaborate on the location or the possibility of recovery of such bones.
More than likely, even if the location could be determined, the bones
would have deteriorated to dust. It is also indicated that the bones
were all lumped together into a single pile, mingled together so that
even if recovery were possible, their mixing would make it impossible to
use for follow up research. Why did this happen?

Keep in mind, that at the time, no one involved in the discovery had any
clue as to the possible importance of the discovery. It was simply
another routine excavation of what was thought to be an unimportant and
unassuming tomb. Most Jews, like most Christians even, are unaware of
Jesus Christ having siblings. Thus no one contemplated the possibility
of a future controversy.

Where is this Tomb?

Another element in the story of the discovery is that time was of the
essence. The tomb was in an area of a major housing construction project
of immense size and scope. It was located in a Jerusalem suburb in a
development called Talpiot. As the old saying goes "time is money," and
contractors were impatient to resume construction work. Researchers were
under severe pressure to hurriedly survey the site, document it and
remove the human remains so that the construction could resume.

The cement slab you see is covering a vertical shaft, much like a
manhole only wider. The shaft drops down perhaps 20 feet to the tomb
entry. Note that the slab is located in a garden terrace of a large
apartment complex. It is located perhaps 30 feet or so from an
apartment. The entire area is surrounded by large apartment buildings.

Close up of the top of the shaft that gains entrance to the tomb. Notice
cement steps in front of the shaft's side wall. The entire tomb hillside
has been encompassed by several large apartment buildings that were part
of a complex built into the side of the hill. The entire area has
essentiall landscaped and fill in the open areas to the tomb, which had
been a cave. A cement slab was placed over the opening several years
ago, to keep children from playing in the tomb.

After The Show - The Debate Began

After the 2 hour premiere broadcast, The Discovery Channel presented a
hastily organized 1 hour "round-table" discussion with fomer ABC-News
anchor and Nightline TV show host, Ted Koppel serving as moderator.

The follow up discussion featured the film's director Simcha Jacobevici
plus film consultant, Dr. James Tabor – professor of Theology at the
University of North Carolina, plus

Professor William Dever, a retired professor of Archaeology from the
University of Arizona. (and a professing, non-Christian.

Professor Jonathon Reed, who's credentials I was unable to obtain during
the broadcast.

Father David O'Connell, President of The Catholic University of America

Darrell Bock, professor of theology at Dallas Theological Seminary

Judy Fentress-Williams, President of Virginia Theological Seminary.

With the exception of Dr. Tabor, all other participants were opposed to
the conclusions of the film that this was indeed likely the tomb of
Jesus Christ and His family. However, their criticisms were all very
lukewarm and they seemed to fail in their efforts to debunk the film's
conclusions, particularly that the tomb contained the mortal remains of
Jesus Christ.

The typical viewer of the film and the follow up discussion was left
with the impression that the film's conclusions may well be a
possibility and indeed may be valid.

The repercussions of this film, as stated earlier, are enormous. This
film and the follow-up debate that will now ensue within the world of
academia will likely be a foundation stone for the world to swallow the
claims of divinity by the Antichrist.
If you watched the broadcast, I think it likely that you were witnessing
a vital element beginning to unfold for use as a tool in future
prophetic fulfillment.

Media Coverage After The Premiere?

Surprisingly, there has been scant media attention given to the film,
yet the issue has become hotly debated in the aftermath of the movie's
premiere. Discussion forums around the internet will continue to the
debate. As the experts last night noted, this is an issue that won't go
away. Because of the immense publicity, this subject will remain a hot
issue for debate within the academic and theological worlds for some
time to come.

.