tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post407104547455252928..comments2024-03-12T17:34:02.225-04:00Comments on NT Blog: The Statistical Case for the Identity of the "Jesus Family Tomb"Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-70061680987965299992007-03-02T06:59:00.000-05:002007-03-02T06:59:00.000-05:00Also, regarding the football stadium claim, Jesus ...Also, regarding the football stadium claim, Jesus was not part of the year-round population of Jerusalem, but a visitor, for instance during the pilgrimage festival Passover, when the population perhaps doubled. How likely would it be for the US to have two George Bush presidents and two John Adams and two Roosevelts? Names are not randomly distributed, for various reasons. If there had been a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem, why then would they use that offered by Joseph of Arimathea?<BR/><BR/>Stephen Goranson<BR/>http://www.duke.edu/~goransonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-53475047201380963612007-03-02T05:53:00.000-05:002007-03-02T05:53:00.000-05:00A more accurate "Beatles analogy" would be a tomb ...A more accurate "Beatles analogy" would be a tomb found not in Liverpool, but Hamburg.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12728003865068686913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-73476803652847150262007-03-02T02:46:00.000-05:002007-03-02T02:46:00.000-05:00Eric Rowe has hit upon the same analysis I did. It...Eric Rowe has hit upon the same analysis I did. It's worse than he says, however, since the real question is: what are the odds that a tomb with ten ossuaries is going to contain a half dozen names that might be construed as significant in an NT context? In other words, if they had found Joseph, Joses, James, Andrew, and Peter, it would have been just as suggestive. So would Mary, Barabbas, Cleophas, John, and Saul. Or James, Andrew,.... there must be tens of thousands of such combinations -- especially, as Mark points out, if you get to cherry pick your data set.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-69110176178121758642007-03-01T14:02:00.000-05:002007-03-01T14:02:00.000-05:00Well argued Mark! There's now a fine guest post by...Well argued Mark! There's now a fine guest post by Richard Bauckham on Chris Tilling's blog which utilises Bauckham's knowledge of names and tombs to drive a proverbial bus through the arguments of the TV show. See http://www.christilling.de/blog/ctblog.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-85798090673199285072007-03-01T12:43:00.000-05:002007-03-01T12:43:00.000-05:00Hi Mark, two quick comments. (Not sure why this di...Hi Mark, two quick comments. (Not sure why this didn't post first time)<BR/><BR/>Firstly I'm not sure you are quite right about the statistics, your comments have more to do with the way those statisitcs are taken and interpreted. (I should add I'm no expert either although there was some stats in my degree course - Chemical Engineering)<BR/><BR/>The probability of a certain cluster occuring (Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Joses, James) within a group of 10 is not affected by other names that may or may not also be present. What the filmmakers are trying to say is that this combination alone is so unlikely that this must be the tomb of THE Jesus. The rest really is trying to explain the unusual data within that given frame.<BR/><BR/>In other words P(Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Joses, James) = P(Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Joses, James & Jude son of Jesus) + P(Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Joses, James & NOT Jude son of Jesus).<BR/><BR/>So, in a sense, they are arguing that this five way combination is so unlikley that everything else is irrelevant.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The problem is, however, that <BR/><BR/>a - probability, is only probability it does not equate to a hard fact. Bauckham's tomb names are indicative, but they are not like having a census. (There may have been temporary surges in cetain names, or pockets missed by people who couldn't afford tombs. or just unlikely coincidences). So whilst the proposed model can state it is unlikely that this combination existed in more than one family, it can't state it as fact. If I have 4 Kings in a hand of poker, it is highly, highly unlikely that someone has a better hand, but that doesn't mean that my opponent at that point doesn't.<BR/><BR/>This is best illustrated by running Tabor's stadium analogy backwards. The maths turns out the same, but it highlights the difference between probability and reality. Before you ask the last question ("stay standing if you are called Jesus") you are left with 20-30 men standing. Now probability would dictate that there would either be one man in that group who was called Jesus, or none. The thing is that we know this isn't how things work out in reality. For example I was in a group on Saturday, and out of 8 men, four of us were called Matt. Statistically unlikey, but that was how it happened. And the thing is that in real life we wouldn't know how his ould have turned out. Its only a probabilty model.<BR/><BR/>b - The the association of the last two names is more tenuous and radically alters the possibilities. Firstly the evidence seems to be against the name "James" being present. Secondly the chances of there being another Joses is above the background level due to their being another Joseph in the family already (see my post at <A HREF="http://www.rejesus.co.uk/blog/?p=60" REL="nofollow">rejesus</A>)<BR/><BR/>c - The names probability doesn't reflect clustering within sub-groups in a society. As with the famous "Birthday Paradox" sub-clustering increases the probabilities of particular combinations, whilst decreasing others. For example in Ireland in the last century, the likelihood of finding a cluster of Seumas, Mary and Patrick would be greater than the product of their individual probabilities because they are all Catholic names. In fairness this might be fairly trivial in this case.<BR/><BR/>d - as you say they can't really pick and choose how they apply the historical record. You can't say we'll accept the historical record on Joseph, but not on Jesus having a son. This doesn't alter the statistical likeliness of those 5 names clustering, but it calls into question the basis of those five names in the first place.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Secondly, what no-one seems to have pointed out with "The Beatles" analogy is that is more analogous than the filmmakers have realised. If in 2000 years time we did find such a tomb, whilst people would be excited by the cluster and the probability of it happening, someone would (hopefully sooner or later) say, but wasn't John Lennon killed in New York (and wasn't he cremated not buried). As with Jesus, you may have an unusual cluster of names, but you've still got some ecxplaining to do as to how they all ended up in the same place, particuarly given the historical accounts.<BR/><BR/>Hmm, might turn that into a blog post myself.Matt Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-50826754612884066292007-03-01T10:19:00.000-05:002007-03-01T10:19:00.000-05:00I have been thinking along the same lines. To make...I have been thinking along the same lines. To make a valid statistical argument, you shouldn't start with the names in the tomb you have already , observe that some of them resemble names from the NT, and then conclude, based on statistics, that this exact combination of names is very unlikely and must be the very same individuals. Instead, you need to start with the whole basket of names that we have for Jesus's family (of which Mary Magdalene is not one). This list includes: Jesus, Joseph Sr., Mary, Zacharias, Elizabeth, John, James, Joseph Jr., and Simon. This is 9 individuals. And if you really want to speculate about non-relatives (like Mary Magdalene) named in the Bible who might under some circumstance have been buried in a tomb with them, the list would only lengthen considerably, because objectivity would demand that Mary #2 not be the only name considered. Then it would have to be calculated statistically, based on the known frequency of names and known number of family tombs that would have existed at the time (not merely those we have found), just how many such tombs would have collocations of each permutation of these names. I must believe that a tomb with 10 ossuaries that only contained 3 out of the initial 9 names--3 very common names--along with one outside the 9, cannot be that unlikely.<BR/><BR/>Their whole argument as it is reminds me of people I have spoken to who, on statistical grounds, are completely convinced that Shakespeare MUST have been involved in translating Ps 46 in the KJV, since the 46th word from the beginning is "shake" and the 46th word from the end is "spear."Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-13640038453308981222007-03-01T08:31:00.000-05:002007-03-01T08:31:00.000-05:00For a non-statistician, you pose a cogent argument...For a non-statistician, you pose a cogent argument in that a perfectly valid statistical analysis of a biased sample will produce a biased result. <BR/>It's a real challenge you face when analyzing data provided by someone else particularly when the data concerns as arcane (to the statistician) an area as the distribution of personal names in first century Judea, the circumstances of the excavation, common burial practices, etc.<BR/>Sometimes all the statistician can do is perform a valid technical analysis while publicly disclosing the underlying data so that it can be critiqued by the subject matter experts.<BR/>I think I personally would have declined to perform this analysis because there's just too much risk of the results of the analysis being interpreted/used beyond the reasonable limits of its validity but I don't think the statistician involved violated any standards of professional integrity.<BR/>-- IshmaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-12762921406935407892007-03-01T07:42:00.000-05:002007-03-01T07:42:00.000-05:00There do appear to be problems with the show's sta...There do appear to be problems with the show's statistics and DNA claims. Since burial niches were ordinarily reused and ossuaries often held more than one set<BR/>of remains, and since, apparently, the tomb was disturbed in ancient and in modern times, there is no secure link between a DNA sample and a particular inscription.<BR/><BR/>Though various sets of statistics have been presented, the assumptions on which they are based are questionable. For one example, it biases the results to<BR/>emphasize that the Talpiot ossuary with Jesus son of Joseph (if that's the correct reading) is from a controlled dig while the earlier found ossuary with Jesus son of Joseph was not (though the earlier one was in a museum and apparently involved no money-making or hoaxing and is quite likely genuine and<BR/>likely from Jerusalem) while, simultaneously, claiming that the "James" ossuary came from Talpiot, an ossuary whose inscription and provenance are, to say the least, questioned.<BR/><BR/>Stephen GoransonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com