On a whole, the film’s logic is extremely difficult to follow.  Interviews jump from subject to subject, seemingly without connection.  The arguments don’t even advance the thesis.  No evidence is ever presented that really backs up Brown’s alleged “secret”—save ancient gossip.  No one even states when Jesus supposedly had this child; how or where the child was raised; or any other basic facts that one would ask about such a claim.  Director Jonathan Stack is content to merely state Brown’s thesis, over and over, without presenting any facts.  And even though he interviews a host of historians who repeat this allegation, none give any information whatsoever that might be even remotely construed as credible evidence. 

The theory hinges on two alleged sources: the Gnostic gospels and claims made by the Knights Templar, who were all slaughtered when they defied the king.  As to the first, Stack offers various interviews with religious historians who discuss the existence of the Gnostic gospels, yet never read any passage from them that might back up their claim.  Worse, they all conveniently overlook the fact that most of the Gnostic gospels were written three and four hundred years after Jesus died.  These accounts were rejected by the church fathers not because they contained information that needed to be suppressed, but because they had no credibility whatsoever—either historical or religious.  To claim that something they might contain is truth is therefore tantamount to reading history through the lens of tabloid magazines.

As for the second source, it is absurd to think that those who defied the government and who were killed for their rebellion are a reliable source of information—especially since they have left no record.  Might someone someday say the same of David Koresh and his followers?

Stack throws in a few token interviews with evangelicals.  Typically, these scholars are edited so as to comment only on issues which do not pose any real argument.  Meanwhile, the liberal academics advance their fantastical, heretical and completely unsubstantiated claims.

Even if you can somehow follow this film’s twisted reasoning, its presentation of information is so completely scatterbrained that most people will find it incredibly boring.  So even if you are inclined to believe this bunk, you’ll still have to stay awake to hear it.

AUDIENCE:  Adults and older teens


  • Audio commentary by historians
  • Interviews


  • Drugs/Alcohol: People drink wine at a formal dinner party in France.
  • Language/Profanity: Rabbi takes the Lord’s name in vain.
  • Sexual Content/Nudity: Various references to female genitalia, with depictions of same in nature and artwork; various artwork showing nursing mother; rabbi discusses lovemaking; professor caresses rock and proclaims that experience is “erotic.”
  • Violence: None.