"The Lost Tomb of Jesus"

The documentary revolves around the discovery, in the 1980s, of a tomb that contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes) that date to circa 2,000 years ago. The site was surveyed by archaeologist Shimon Gibson who also drew the layout plan. "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries" was published by L.Y. Rahmani in which the ossuaries where described. The ossuaries were found in the Talpiot region of Jerusalem, the "Talpiot Tomb," or "Tomb of Ten Ossuaries," included the following inscriptions:

Ossuary 80/500 - Mariamene e Mara
Ossuary 80/501 - Yehuda bar Yeshua
Ossuary 80/502 - Matia
Ossuary 80/503 - Yeshua bar Yosef
Ossuary 80/504 - Yose/Yosa
Ossuary 80/505 - Maria
Ossuaries 80/506-508 bore no inscription
Ossuary 80/509 "disappeared."

Cameron stated, "It doesn't get bigger than this. We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin."

How does the documentary begin? By making this statement,
"Leading scientists and theologians have not reached agreement on the meaning of this archeological discovery and questions remain. We invite viewers to apply their own judgments and interpretive skills."
Interesting, I thought that we were constantly told that making judgments and interpretations were bad things-but alas.

On his website Jacobovici states that "there is absolutely no academic dispute concerning the provenance of any of the inscriptions. Nor is there any question as to how they should be read."

DSC makes that following claim, "All leading epigraphers agree about the inscriptions. All archaeologists confirm the nature of the find."

Well, this is just a taste of the certainty with which the documentary's claims are being asserted. However, take note of what is actually being said. It is not that this is, in fact, the family tomb of Jesus the Messiah. They are saying that the all of the academics/epigraphers agree with the reading of the inscriptions. Of course, there are further issues to mention: "all" does not mean "all"-perhaps "all" of the academics/epigraphers that were consulted, and allowed, on the documentary agree but, as we shall see below, "all" academics/epigraphers do not agree with the documentary's reading/interpretation (including the original scholars who studies the site and whose notes appear on DSC's source list). Moreover, from very generic names the documentary makes great leaps of interpretation and story telling.

DSC states, "The documentary includes dramatic recreations, based on the latest historical evidence, illustrating accurate images of Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his followers, his ministry, his crucifixion and his entombment."
It is granted, given the lowly state of The Da Vinci Culture, that the latest half-baked theory backed by the least amount of evidence is exalted beyond the incredible amount of evidence supporting the New Testament's reliability. Thus, this documentary depicts, in living color, Jesus and His family, something which is, as we shall see below, simply unfounded. In this case, the latest historical evidence is the fanciful imaginations of the documentary's storytellers. This is where a documentary goes from simply showing us what was found, to weaving stories based on personal interpretation of evidence.

Jacobovici states, "An incredible archaeological discovery in Israel changes history and shocks the world. Tombs with the names The Virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene and Judah, their son, are found and an investigation begins."
The problem with this claim is that it is a good old fashioned overstatement. This is not surprising since the quote came from Jacobovici's homepage. Apparently it is supposed to peak your interest. However, accuracy is always important. Let us consider the claim, "changes history," how so? "shocks the world," shocks with accurate revelation or with shock at weak evidence and imaginative storytelling?

We are then told that the tombs are inscribed with the names "The Virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene and Judah, their son." But the fact is: no on the first claim, no on the second, no on the third and no on the fourth.

"The Virgin Mary" was not found but rather, "Maria," with no indication of who she was nor whether or not she was a virgin.

"Jesus of Nazareth" was not found but rather, "Yeshua bar Yosef" (it may be Jesus of Talpiot, Jesus of Jerusalem, Jesus of Fresno, etc.).

"Mary Magdalene" was not found but rather, "Mariamne" ("Magdalene" denotes her being from Magdala, but again, this could be Mary from elsewhere). One reason that Mariamne is interpreted to be Mary Magdalene is that "Mariamne e Mara" is said to mean "Mary the Master." At least it is said to mean that within the confined of the documentary. However, the original scholars who work on the site, and who are sited as sources on DSC's website, are of a different opinion.

In his "Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries," L.Y. Rahmani translates "Mariamne e Mara" as "of Mariamne, who is (also called) Mara." He also notes that "Mara" is "a contraction of the name Martha." And that "e" is "used in cases of double names."
Likewise, in his "A Tomb With Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem," Amos Kloner translates "Mariamne e Mara" as "of Mariamene, [also called] Mara." And likewise states, "Mara, a contraction of the name Martha, is used here as a second name."
Richard Bauckham makes the following statement,
"'Mara' in this context does not mean Master. It is an abbreviated form of Martha. probably the ossuary contained two women called Mary and Martha (Mariamne and Mara)."

"Judah, their son" was not found but rather, "Yehuda bar Yeshua" or "Judah the son of Jesus" (there is absolutely no indication that it was the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, or even this Jesus and this Mariamne).

But, the documentary's narrator asks, "Why didn't anyone take notice of these names?" Considering that they tomb was found two decades ago.
They did, and they found them to be generic and inconclusive. This is actually something that the documentary goes on to firmly establish by citing various scholars.

And what are we to make of "Matia," (Matthew)? Who is he to the family? It is inferred that since there are Matthew-like names in the genealogy in Luke (which according to Tabor "people don't notice it much," see below). It may be advantageous at this point to mention that it appears that the way that the documentary explains various discrepancies in the evidence is by plugging them into their preconceive notions. In other words instead of the evidence informing the theory, it appears that the theory is informing the evidence. If we say, "Well, certainly there is a New Testament character, in fact the author of a Gospel, that is named Matthew. This must be him." Please do keep in mind that as appealing, even as correct as this may be, we are simply inventing 2,000 year old history right off of the tops of our 21st century heads merely in order to force a piece of evidence to fit our preconceived theory.

Clearly, what Jacobovici presented us on his website is a perfect example of mixing the evidence with a personal interpretation which is then retold as if it was what the inscriptions actually stated.

Cameron stated, "We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin."

However, the producer and director also take a Dan Brownesque retreat from the debate as they state:

Cameron, "I'm not a theologist [sic.]. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary film maker."

Jacobovici, "I am not a theologian. I didn't want to take anyone on."

He also said, "We're just reporting the news. We're not statisticians. We're not theologians."

You may recall how Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, claimed that he had done the historical research and now he would leave it up to the historians to debate the facts. He quickly took his millions of dollars and disappeared from public view (in order to work on his next book about Freemasonry). There is something important to point out here, something about how the fact/fiction of Brown and Cameron/Jacobovici function. Brown has stated, "How historically accurate is history itself?" Think about it: if history is not historically accurate, how can Brown begin his novel with the word "FACT" and claim that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"? Just how does he know that the history upon which he is relying is accurate? Let us not make the claim of pure subjectivism in history in order to construct a self-fulfilling prophecy by dealing loosely with the facts-on purpose.

Now Cameron and Jacobovici are making a charge at a theological, historical, archeological subject while at the same time retreating virtually before the debate begins. At least Jacobovici appeared on a debate forum after the documentary. Here he wanted to point out the "Don't ask me, that's not my field" preemptions.

It appears that some of the unfounded claims of the documentary are supposed to be excused due to reliance on "science." DNA research is a science but the documentary's conclusions are not. Here is one such claim made by DSC,
"The film also documents DNA extraction from human residue found in two of the ossuaries and reveals new evidence that throws light on Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene."

If you found my DNA how could you prove that it was mine? You would have to extract DNA from me and match it up. Finding DNA in an ossuary that says Yeshua does not tell us who this Yeshua was.
Note this interesting comment by Jacobovici regarding "Ossuary 80/503 'Yeshua bar Yosef' - 'Jesus, Son of Joseph'":
"there is a large cross mark right next to the name 'Jesus.' A cross, deliberately carved. The archaeologists, however, immediately and ever since, dismissed this as a mason's mark. Besides, they say, Christians didn't use crosses until the time of Constantine in the 4th century. This 'Jesus, Son of Joseph' ossuary couldn't belong to that Jesus, son of Joseph. Back in 1926, another 'Jesus, son of Joseph' ossuary was discovered%u2026[it] is on display at the Israel Museum. It is in no way connected with Jesus of Nazareth but instead is on display to send a message: don't get excited if you find archaeological mention of any 'Jesus.' The name is common."
[He emphasized the word "that" in stating "couldn't belong to that Jesus"]

Simply stated, since there is no independent DNA control sample the storytelling in the documentary about Jesus, His wife and His child are simply unfounded and merely disguised as science. We are told that since the DNA in the Yeshua and the Mariamne ossuary does not match, the best explanation, considering that they are in a family tomb and yet not genealogically related, is that they were husband and wife. But how do we know this? Because it fits the theory. In fact Yose may have been married to Mariamne and Yeshua could have been their son. Then Yeshua could have been married to Maria and had a son named Yehuda.

For proof that Jesus was married the documentary relies heavily on The Acts of Philip. They particularly rely on the most complete version of the text ever found. In 1974 a 700 year old manuscript of the 4th century text of The Acts of Philip that contained "an early description of Mary Magdalene, unmarked by later Christian tradition." Think about it, some three centuries after the time of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a text was written. We then find a manuscript that dates to circa fourteenth century which is considered the most reliable version. At this point we may state that the skeptics will instantly embrace, accept, exalt and proclaim the absolute truth of any text that contradicts the New Testament. They do this by establishing different standards for that which will back up what they already believe--if it contradicts the New Testament it must be true. Therefore, they consider The Acts of Philip to be, pardon the pun, gospel truth. In reality The Acts of Philip does not mention "Mary Magdalene" but it does include some interesting stories about the conversion of a talking leopard and goat.

Of course, we have no historical evidence that Jesus was married or that He had a child. Ah, but there is no evidence because it was kept secret-lack of proof is not proof, we cannot say that we know that it is true because there is no proof.

We again find personal interpretations of evidence being passed off as science. Statistical probability is a mathematical discipline but it is only as accurate as the numbers that are being used.
Let us begin with Cameron's sensationalistic claims. On NBC's "Today," he claimed that statisticians favored the documentary's conclusions about the ossuaries "in the range of a couple of million to one."

Also, note that DSC claims that "A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters%u2026concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."

Moreover, "Cameron and Jacobovici said statisticians who have looked at markings on the bone boxes estimate that the probability that the remains uncovered in 1980 are not those of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, a son of Jesus and other relatives are more than 100 to 1."

On the Larry King Show Jacobovici claimed that the stats were "2,000,000 to 1" in favor.

"a couple of million to one," "600 to 1," "100 to 1," "2,000,000 to one," This poses quite a statistical discrepancy.

Moreover, the calculation are based "on a few assumptions: that the Maria on one of the ossuaries is the mother of the Jesus found on another box, that Mariamne is his wife and that Joseph (inscribed as the nickname Jose) is his brother."

Darrell Bock (author of "Breaking the Da Vinci Code"),
"Joseph is the second most common male name in the period. Jesus is the sixth. Matthew's the ninth," "Mary is the most popular female name - 21 percent of the female names of the period. So, you're dealing with a lot of familiar names."

Also note that Bar Ilan University's Amos Kloner "is adamant there is no evidence to support claims that it was the burial site of Jesus...'I'm a scholar. I do scholarly work which has nothing to do with documentary film-making' he told AFP in a telephone interview...'Who says that 'Maria' is Magdalena and 'Judah' is the son of Jesus? It cannot be proved. These are very popular and common names from the 1st century BC,' said the academic at Israel's Bar Ilan University. Kloner said that of 900 burial caves found within four kilometres (two and a half miles) of Jerusalem's Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshu was found 71 times, and that 'Jesus son of Joseph' had also been found."

At the end of the essay "Archeological Identity Theft" the author makes short work of the statistical calculations (see link).

As we have seen, Cameron stated, "I'm not a theologist [sic.]," and Jacobovici stated, "I am not a theologian." Yet, it is easy to see how theological issues are raised by their assertions. It would also be easy to accuse them of besmirching Christianity. Certainly, they filmed the documentary two decades after the tomb was found, after the success of The Da Vinci Code, and just before Easter. Personally, I will be disappointed with them if they do not continue corroborating and continue making documentaries that call into question each of the world's religions. But, and it may be due to the fact that they are not theologians, they appear to be taking a fairly non-confrontational approach. That is to say, let us be fair about what they are actually claiming. Although let us keep in mind that they tend to take a grain of sand's worth of evidence and turn it into an edifice of, pun intended, biblical proportions.

Regarding the resurrection, Jacobovici, in a paraphrase of DSC, states:
"'The Lost Tomb Of Jesus' does not challenge the Resurrection. It asks viewers to consider the possibility that the Resurrection occurred from a second tomb%u2026Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and that are documented in the Gospels."
Granted, they do not prove that Jesus, at least Jesus the Messiah, was in the Talpiot tomb. But they are at least offering the possibility that Jesus the Messiah did resurrect.

Regarding the ascension, Jacobovici states (paraphrase of DSC):
"There is much debate among Christians as to whether this was a spiritual or a physical ascent. Did he leave his body behind or did he take it with him? If Jesus' mortal remains have indeed been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension. However, it says nothing against the possibility of a spiritual ascension."
Be that as it may, it appears that if you can believe in something as magical (see Tabor's comment below) as a resurrection and ascension, you might as well believe that they were spiritual and not physical (whatever that may mean). We have written two essays on the issue of the resurrection and while they a particularly geared towards the Bahá'í faith, they cover the subject extensively (see link list below).

When we are presented with fanciful interpretations of evidence we inevitably run across strange comments on all sorts of issues.

Here are two examples:
"Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada%u2026 'Judah,' whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the 'lad' described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper."
One could only wonder from where the word "lad" was being quoted or where it is stated that anyone fell asleep in Jesus' lap.

What we know about the event is the following:
"But there was one of His disciples leaning upon Jesus' bosom, the one whom Jesus loved. Peter therefore signaled to him to ask whom it might be of whom He spoke. And lying on Jesus' breast, he said to him, Lord, who is it?" (John 13:23-25).

"Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following (the one who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he who betrays You?) Seeing him, Peter said to Jesus, Lord, and what of this one?" (John 21:20-21).

The "lad" was John who constantly describes himself as being the one whom Jesus loved. Moreover, we are told that it was a "disciple" and not a son. Although, the documentary claims, without proof, that the beloved disciple was John's way of secretly referring to Jesus' son.
Furthermore, John did not lay down in Jesus' lap in the way we would describe laying down. The way that they ate communal meals at that time was not to sit around a table (as in the Last Supper painting). Rather, they lay on their sides, on the floor, with their heads towards the meal, and their legs away from it. In order to "lay on" Jesus' John would merely have to lean back slightly: "they reclined and ate" (Mark 14:18), "He and the twelve apostles with Him reclined" (Luke 22:14).

Jacobovici states (paraphrase of DSC):
"The writer of the Gospel of Matthew (28:12-15) addresses a rumor that was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, a rumor that we suggest can be taken for the truth. The rumor was that the disciples came by night to remove Jesus' body from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. They would have done this to safeguard his remains from desecrators. His followers then would have taken the body of Jesus to a permanent tomb."
The documentary's narrator stated,
"But according to the Gospel of Matthew there was another story circulating after Jesus' death. And though the Gospel called it a lie, it was rumored that Jesus' disciples secretly too their mater's body. Presumably to give Him a permanent burial."
Simply stated, there is absolutely no historical/archeological evidence, not even in the documentary, that the disciples ever did any such thing. This is purely imaginative storytelling that will, sadly, be taken by some to be more reliable than, among other things, the 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, the rumor was not that they wanted to give His a permanent burial but that they sought to deceive people into thinking that Jesus had physically resurrected (this would have made them purposeful deceivers who later were martyred for the lie that they invented).

Incidentally, there are also some other simply odd details shown in the reenactments: the woman caught in adultery is actually shown being stoned and Jesus literally jumps into the middle of flying stones. The woman who washed Jesus' feet and dried them with her hair actually cuts her hair and then uses the handful that she cut to dry them.

We present some of the academics who are not considered in Jacobovici and DSC's "all."

Bar Ilan University's Amos Kloner was "the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television. 'They just want to get money for it'%u2026Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. 'The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."
Kloner also stated, "It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever."

"Shimon Gibson, one of three archaeologists who first discovered the tomb in 1980, said Monday of the film's claims: 'I'm skeptical, but that's the way I am. I'm willing to accept the possibility."

"Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight. Pfann is even unsure that the name 'Jesus' on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name 'Hanun.' Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher."

"William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years. 'The fact that it's been ignored tells you something,' said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. 'It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people.'"

Ben Witherington, author of "What Have they Done With Jesus?" wrote the following about Jacobovici. Witherington was involved in DSC's special on the James ossuary that was produced by Jacobovici:
"He is a good film maker, and he knows a good sensational story when he sees one. This is such a story. Unfortunately it is a story full of holes, conjectures, and problems. It will make good TV and involves a bad critical reading of history. Basically this is old news with a new interpretation. We have known about this tomb since it was discovered in 1980. There are all sorts of reasons to see this as much ado about nothing much."
Witherington then enumerates various problems with the documentary's various assertions (please see his website, and book on the links below).

John Dominic Crossan is the co-founder and former co-chair of "The Jesus Seminar." He makes his obligatory appearance in the documentary in order to make one statement:
"If the bones of Jesus were to be found in an ossuary in Jerusalem tomorrow. Without doubt, let's say they are definitely agreed to be the bones of Jesus. Would that destroy Christian faith? It certainly would not destroy my Christian faith. I leave what happens to bodies up to God."
[He emphasized the word "my"]

Note that on June 26, 2000 ABC aired "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Search for Jesus" in which Crossan stated that crucifixion was feared because it "was not simply that it made you suffer a lot. It meant that you didn't get buried. That's what made it one of the supreme Roman penalties-lack of burial." Crossan believes that Jesus' body was simply thrown in the city dump and was eaten by wild dogs.

Firstly, let us note that the problem with this statement is lack of evidence. Moreover, the evidence we do have on this subject proves him wrong and proves the Bible right. In 1968 the remains of a crucified man named Yhohnn Yehohanan were found in an ossuary at Giv'at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem. This find proved many details of the biblical account including a large nail imbedded through the heel bone and still embedded into a piece the wood, broken shin bones and burial in a family grave.

In 2000 Crossan's expertise informed us that crucifixion victims did not get buried. In 2007 Crossan's expertise informed us that Jesus may have been buried and may be found. It would appear that the only thing that could challenge Crossan's faith would be if the New Testament were to be taken in a literal, traditional, orthodox manner.

Another expert who seems to be up for anything is James Tabor of whom Ben Witherington comments thusly:
"What should we make of James Tabor's being co-opted into this project? You will remember his book which came out last year The Jesus Dynasty. In that book he had quite a good deal to say about the Talpiot Tomb, and about Panthera being the father of Jesus, and about Jesus being buried in Galilee, and of course nothing about a ossuary which claims that Joseph is the father of Jesus."

While it is certainly difficult to discern a person's mood, and unacceptable to determine the motive of their heart, Tabor appeared to be almost capricious or belittling at times:
"When He's first buried it's in a temporary tomb. And later, unless He somehow magically disappears and goes to heaven, which is a position of Christian faith, but if you're gonna be historical and realistic, uh, He, He was put in a, would be put in a permanent place."
The very cornerstone of the Christian faith is referred to as magical, well, we have been told worse. Notice his preconceived notion-"historical" and "realistic" does not allow the magical. You may say "Rightly so," but do keep in mind that he is presenting us with an a priori commitment to naturalism/materialism. Unless it has been proven that naturalism/materialism is absolute we cannot simply dismiss the magical.

He also states,
"Tell you something very interesting, there're two genealogies of Jesus. Everybody reads the formal genealogy of Joseph...but the other genealogy is imbedded in Luke, people don't notice it much, it's Luke chapter three, you gotta turn a few pages."
Who would have thunk it? Apparently, in two thousand years, only Tabor and a handful of people have noticed the genealogy in Luke. This reminds me of the author who wrote, "in a little-known passage of the Bible, the credit for killing Goliath is actually given to somebody completely different - David's champion Elhanan" (see link list below).

The "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus," ossuary is mentioned in the documentary:
"Forensic testing of the patina on the Jesus ossuary and that of James conclude that they came from the same tomb seemingly proving the authenticity of the often-questioned James ossuary and further increasing the likelihood that it is the tomb of the holy family. But there is one wrinkle that is not examined in the documentary, one that emerged in a Jerusalem courtroom just weeks ago at the fraud trial of James ossuary owner Oded Golan, charged with forging part of the inscription on the box. Former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. The trial resumes tomorrow. Jacobovici conceded in an interview that if the ossuary was photographed in the 1970s, it could not then have been found in a tomb in 1980. But while he does not address the conundrum in the documentary, he said in an interview that it's possible Golan's photo was printed on old paper in the 1980s."

Moreover,
"Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary - the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel - might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box. 'I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave,' said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. 'If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus.'"

Furthermore,
"The antiquities dealer (Oded Golan) from which the James ossuary was procured, attests that it came from Silwan, not Talpiot, and had dirt in it matching the soil from that location in Jerusalem, whereas the ossuaries from Talpiot came out of a rock cave from a different place, without such soil in it. 'To theorize that there was a Jesus family tomb, and yet the one member of Jesus' family who we know was buried in Jerusalem for a long time did not come out of the ground from that locale contradicts this theory. Furthermore, Eusebius reports that the tomb marker for James' burial was close to where James was martyred near the temple mount, indeed near the famous tombs in the Kidron valley such as the so-called tomb of Absalom. Talpiot is nowhere near this locale."

The Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) have declared that the inscription on the James Ossuary is a forgery. They also state, "the 'letters patina' of 'James Ossuary' reveals that the patina could not have formed under natural climatic conditions (temperature and water composition) that prevailed in the Judea Mountains during the last 2000 years."

Most noteworthy is the fact that Kloner was specifically asked,
"What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the 'James' ossuary?"
He responds thusly,
"Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum)."

It appears that the documentary is accurate in its depictions of actual findings:
A tomb was in fact found.
Ossuaries were in fact found.
Legible inscriptions were in fact found.
Very common names were in fact found.

Perhaps it was a family tomb.
Perhaps someone name Yeshua was married to Mariamne or Mara or Maria.
Perhaps Yehuda was their son.
Perhaps this was even the family tomb of Jesus the Messiah.
Perhaps.

The "facts" are part of the documentary and the "perhaps" is another. It is the perhaps portions that threaten to discredit an otherwise interesting documentary about ancient history and modern archaeology. The dramatic recreations, being based on perhaps, are unfounded personal interpretations that are only an accurate representation of the filmmaker's active imaginations.

We find the filmmaker's irresponsible hype in his claims to have found the ossuaries of "The Virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene and Judah, their son," when, in fact, no such thing was found.

The scientific fact of DNA is less than conclusive. The statistics are questionable, at best. We are left with many unanswered and unasked questions.