Wikipedia says it's a conspiracy theory, but cites a weak source. I'm looking for good criticism of this theory. I'm guessing whoever can answer is already familiar with the documentary and wouldn't have to spend the hour+ watching it.
I have not seen the documentary, but there is no real evidence to support Jesus surviving crucifixion. Now whether you believe he rose again from the dead is predicated on your personal belief system, so that has no real bearing here.
We'll look at this logically, and logically, if we are accepting the crucifixion, we will also accept the broad strokes of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' punishment, crucifixion, and burial.
In short, we are looking at a man who is physically exhausted from being awake and about for over a full day.
This beating, whether it was as severe as what is described in the Gospels or not, would have taken a hefty physical toll on Jesus.
This is the crux of any argument against the theories that Jesus did not truly die on the cross. Crucifixion was not a process that allowed survivors. This article outlines medical theories on cause of death in crucifixion.
Now whatever way the crucifixion may have gone down, it was a grueling, beyond painful and torturous process. Being nailed to beams of wood and raised up to a point where you are exposed to the elements, possibly scavenging birds, and struggling to keep yourself upright in order to breathe and dealing with blood loss and shock will kill most people, albeit slowly.
Now the main critique of any theory that claims Jesus didn't die on the cross comes from the fact that the Jewish Sabbath began at around 6pm on that day, so the Jewish leaders did not want Jesus and other criminals on the cross over the Sabbath. According to the Gospels, Jesus died before this, giving up his spirit to God. Whether he gave up his spirit, died of natural causes (such as shock) or a combination of the two again comes back to your personal beliefs. Either way, the legs of the other two criminals were described as being broken, lending some credence to the idea that broken legs would lead to faster death by asphyxiation. When they came to Jesus, he was already dead (or as "swoon theory" people believe, simply unconscious) and they ensured he was dead by stabbing him with the spear, causing a gush of blood and water. This site isn't the greatest, but it outlines the basic idea behind the blood and water and the spear wound.
Now, critiquing the swoon theory and other ideas that Jesus didn't die on the cross directly:
• Jesus went through an extremely trying two days on a physical and mental level. A man who is meditating or unconscious and is then locked in a stone tomb with no medical care is not going to just recover from those kinds of wounds.
• You don't survive a spear wound to the side after such a trying experience. To have a spear thrust into your side to ensure you are dead is going to kill you if you aren't already dead.
• One could argue that the entire burial story is made up, and he was never placed in a tomb, or was placed in a tomb and then rescued immediately by his disciples. Either way, the physical toll taken by crucifixion, scourging, stabbing would have killed him immediately on the cross.
• The entire issue comes down to one of physical toll. Could one survive the process of punishment and crucifixion described in the Gospels? Modern medicine would say no.
• Roman soldiers don't screw around. Their job was to watch the criminals on the cross, then make sure they were dead. I would doubt that a professional military force wouldn't ensure that someone is dead before the body is released by Pilate to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.
I hope this helps, if there are any follow up questions let me know.