tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post3135866997743635568..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: The Lost Tomb of Jesus Documentary: Live BlogMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-86861033539043995852007-07-08T04:48:00.000-04:002007-07-08T04:48:00.000-04:00Try the following experiment: Google "john smith",...Try the following experiment: Google "john smith", then add "paul smith", then add "anne smith" etc... Even with such common names by the time you have six people's names all with the same surname, the number of hits will be less that 100.<BR/> Reguardless of anything else the statistical argument is an amazing fluke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-8867193168257960542007-04-24T08:06:00.000-04:002007-04-24T08:06:00.000-04:00In my previous blog, I did not make a point that I...In my previous blog, I did not make a point that I feel I need to make.I apologize for my lack of capability in statistics.<BR/><BR/>The authors of the lost tomb state that the chances of finding the tomb (with the names of Jesus's family)by random chance are so small that the lost tomb is really the "real tomb" of Jesus. Let's call these tombs the "random tomb" (found by random chance)and the "real tomb" (with bones of Jesus and family).<BR/><BR/>The chances of finding the "real tomb" are important because we might say that the discovered lost tomb is probably the "random tomb" if the chances of finding the "real tomb" are say one in 5 million as compared to one in 2.5 million as reported in the lost tomb book.<BR/><BR/>The area is large and there are many tombs. What are the chances of finding the "real tomb" in this area?<BR/><BR/>For the name of Jesus in the "real tomb", there are other names of Jesus. For each such name, ther are say 9 other names. For each name of Mary associated with Jesus, there are 9 other names - and so on. Continuing with this procedure, the statistics in my first blog can be repeated for the "real tomb" as it was done for the "random tomb".<BR/><BR/>As a result, there is one chance in 2.5 million of finding the "real tomb" of Jesus. As indicated in my previous blog, I believe the number is much larger than 2.5 million.<BR/><BR/>The "real tomb" of Jesus is also a random tomb because all the names in the tomb are random. By this, I mean that so many variables are involved in selecting a name that it cannot be determined before the naming.<BR/><BR/>As concluded in my previous blog, the chances of finding a "real tomb" or a random tomb" are so small that I believe the tomb to be a hoax developed recently or in the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-91409024412092642712007-04-23T13:38:00.000-04:002007-04-23T13:38:00.000-04:00Let's look at the statistics of the lost tomb of J...Let's look at the statistics of the lost tomb of Jesus. On first studing this story, I found it did great damage to my faith. On careful consideration of the facts, my faith is at least partially restored. <BR/><BR/>I accept the factor of one in a thousand for the possibly of finding an incription of Jesus son of Joseph. Likewise I accept a factor of one in a thousand as the possibly of finding an inscription of a named son of Jesus.This means that for a thousand tombs, only one would have the inscription of Jesus son of Joseph. Of a thousand tombs, only one would have a named son of Jesus. This means that there would be only one tomb in a million with both incriptions. <BR/><BR/>For each Mary, there might be one chance in ten that she is mother or wife. The same possibility might apply to the one named brother and grand father. As a result, there is only one chance out of ten thousand million of finding the Jesus tomb. This is like finding a needle in a very very large haystack. <BR/><BR/>For all practicle purposes this tomb could not have been found even if it existed. In my opinion, its "finding" is a hoax.<BR/><BR/>Here I have used only information from the tomb. Many oither factors could be considered, but I wanted to evaluate only the tomb and its meaning.<BR/><BR/>Say that the tomb is real. What is the possibility that it belongs to Christ? Either Mary could be his mther, wife, one of several sisters, daughters, or grand daughters. I say there is one chance in ten that each Mary is his wife or mother. A similar factor could be applied for his gandfather (Mathew) or named brother. This means that there is one chance out of ten thousand possibilities that Mary is his mother or wife, and his named bother and named grand father his actual grand father or brother. <BR/>Out of ten thousand tombs, with these inscriptions, only one could be the tomb of Jesus with the relatives of Christ. <BR/><BR/>I think the best interpretation of statistics indicate strongly that the tomb is a hoax. I do not blame the Discovery team. The hoax could have been developed by someone or a group either very recently or a thousand years ago, but it is a hoax nevertheless in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-57052126375557982482007-03-07T11:05:00.000-05:002007-03-07T11:05:00.000-05:00Regarding the "Simon bar Jonah" ossuary in Dominus...Regarding the "Simon bar Jonah" ossuary in Dominus Flevit, and speaking from my own naivete, is this the accepted family name of Simon Peter? Or could it be a nickname that Jesus gave Simon, equating him with the prophet Jonah?Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03211127761388887571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37519415458473858502007-03-05T17:34:00.000-05:002007-03-05T17:34:00.000-05:00Tabor specifically makes the claim on a comment in...Tabor specifically makes the claim on a comment in the post two prior to to this one on NTGateway.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-400958117691007402007-03-05T17:07:00.000-05:002007-03-05T17:07:00.000-05:00In response to the last Anonymous post, Tabor may ...In response to the last Anonymous post, Tabor may not have been making that incorrect claim (I just don't know), but Jacobovici and the Discovery Channel have repeatedly been making that claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-10908594766812187832007-03-05T16:40:00.000-05:002007-03-05T16:40:00.000-05:00In fairness to Dr. Tabor, I don’t see him suggesti...In fairness to Dr. Tabor, I don’t see him suggesting that his statistician was claiming that the 1:600 odds were the odds that this was the tomb of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather Feuerverger calculated the odds that the particular set of names given to him might occur in a particular site; it doesn’t appear that he was asked to do anything more than this. As with many documentaries one needed to distinguish between what various authorities were saying and the interpretations Jacobovici and Tabor were suggesting as plausible. There is a difference between Feuerverger contending that that the odds of these names occurring together was 1:600 and the claim that the odds of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth are 1:600; they are not exactly the same question. Feuerverger can assert the one and still distance himself from the other. The basic point is that one should not accuse Dr. Tabor of lying based on Feuerverger’s distancing himself from Dr. Tabor’s conclusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-24832821933517551542007-03-05T10:37:00.000-05:002007-03-05T10:37:00.000-05:00Now that Tabor's own statistician is making it exp...Now that Tabor's own statistician is making it explicit that the 600:1 odds are not the odds that this tomb belonged to Jesus's family, is there any explanation for Tabor sticking by that assertion other than that he's lying? Now his latest blog is claiming that his critics are holding his claims to a higher standard than they do other historic claims. Apparently he thinks the scholarly guild just lets other people lie so he should be able to as well.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-76917409060791978852007-03-05T10:09:00.000-05:002007-03-05T10:09:00.000-05:00By the way, here's a link to another Scientific Am...By the way, here's a link to another Scientific American article that I forgot to include in my prior post. After an interview with Feuerverger, the article states expressly, "Feuerverger says he was neither asked nor did he attempt to calculate the odds that the Talpiot tomb was the final resting place of Christ, the Messiah." http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=14A3C2E6-E7F2-99DF-37A9AEC98FB0702A.<BR/><BR/>Feuerverger's website says that the article is a reliable summary of his views: "The website of Scientific American carries the results of an interview with me which seems to be sufficiently accurate to be considered fair." http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-27284831198493293682007-03-05T09:04:00.000-05:002007-03-05T09:04:00.000-05:00The show's statistician, Andrey Feuerverger, is no...The show's statistician, Andrey Feuerverger, is now backing away from the show's claims too.<BR/><BR/>Actually, he has been quite clear for awhile (at least since in his Scientific American interview) that <B>he was not asked to, and did not, calculate the odds that this was the tomb of Jesus Christ.</B> The show's claim that he did calculate those odds is, in my opinion, the most egregious misstatement of the many, but because most people don't have a good grasp of statistics, the claim has not been challenged (even by Koppel). As Feuerverger put in Scientific American, the 1 in 600 number "is saying that amongst those people who could afford ossuarial burials [in Jerusalem], the odds that there being another family that appeared in an ossuary that was like that or even more convincing than that, the odds against that are in that order, one in 100, one in 600 or one in 1000, depending on what you allow in your assumptions." See http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=13C42878-E7F2-99DF-3B6D16A9656A12FF.<BR/><BR/>The 1 in 600 number, in other words, is premised on the assumption that Jesus's family would have had an ossuary in Jersualem. <B>IF</B> Jesus's family had an ossuary in Jersusalem, then there is only a 1 in 600 chance that this one isn't it. But as the reputable biblical scholars will tell you, it is highly unlikely that a poor Galilean family would have had an ossuary in Jersualem. (This also means that the probability that this is the tomb of Jesus can be no higher than the probability that Jesus's family had an ossuary in Jerusalem. If the probabliity of Jesus's family having an ossuary in Jersualem is, say, 10%, the probability that this is the actual tomb of Jesus must be <B>less than</B> 10%.) Furthermore, as many people have pointed out (and as Feuerverger has explained in detail on his website), the 1 in 600 number is also based on a number of other very debatable propositions (Mary Magdalene's name appears on the tomb, etc.). <BR/><BR/>Here is what a post on Feuerverger's website dated March 4 at 11 pm (right after the show) says: "It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tombsite is that of the New Testament family. ... In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family. The interpretation of the computation should be that it is estimating the probability of there having been another family at the time living in Jerusalem whose tomb this might be, under certain specified assumptions." See http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-48988495381813311542007-03-05T07:35:00.000-05:002007-03-05T07:35:00.000-05:00The Talpiot tomb show reportedly asserted that eve...The Talpiot tomb show reportedly asserted that everyone agrees that the ossuary<BR/>of the High Priest Caiaphas has been found. This has indeed been proposed by<BR/>scholars. But, scholars who either strongly question or deny the assertion<BR/>include:<BR/><BR/>Wiliam Horbury, The 'Caiaphas' Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas, Palestine<BR/>Exploration Quarterly 126 (1994) 32-48.<BR/><BR/>Emile Puech, A-t-on découvert le tombeau du grand-prêtre Caïphe?,<BR/>Le Monde de la Bible 80 (1993) 42-47.<BR/><BR/>Margaret Williams, The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of<BR/>Judaism, in Cambridge History of Judaism volume 3, page 89.<BR/><BR/>Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries (2003), 107-8.<BR/><BR/>Did the tomb show producers seek a qualified fact checker?<BR/><BR/>Stephen Goranson<BR/>http://www.duke.edu/~goransonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-12986537774982306652007-03-05T01:51:00.000-05:002007-03-05T01:51:00.000-05:00While there are a lot of interesting view points o...While there are a lot of interesting view points on this most important find, I for one will not lose my faith and beliefs on what some people say is or isn't. My belief is in what the Bible says and that is that. The fact that Jesus’ bone could be found, well, why not? I'm sure they didn't go up with him to dwell in the heavens. That part would not bother me at all if they were in fact found and if it were true. However, I do not like hearing on a marriage of Jesus, this is just so much baloney and true believers will not fall for that blasphemy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-51090300978361069282007-03-05T00:45:00.000-05:002007-03-05T00:45:00.000-05:00Not only is Marimne Mary Magdalene, but they seem ...Not only is Marimne Mary Magdalene, but they seem to rush to the conclusion that "Mariamne" and Jesus were married...all on the basis of a DNA test which can only show these two were not maternally related.<BR/>Mariamne could have been an annoying sister-in-law to the Jesus of the tomb!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-76404203244870466662007-03-05T00:41:00.000-05:002007-03-05T00:41:00.000-05:00The filmmakers try to tie in "Yose" with the Jesus...The filmmakers try to tie in "Yose" with the Jesus by claiming this was the same name used in the Gospel of Mark for Jesus' brother Joseph. But when it comes time to talk about mary Magdalene, Mark is thrown away and they resort to a 4th century document to justify calling Magdalene "Mariamne". So if a source supports one of their views, they use it, and then ignore it when that source does NOT support another one of their views. Mark after all does not refer to Magdalene as Mariamne.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-64771347395227207302007-03-04T23:24:00.000-05:002007-03-04T23:24:00.000-05:00I've looked closely at the patina fingerprints for...I've looked closely at the patina fingerprints for the James ossuary in the book The Jesus Family Tomb, and it doesn't give quite as good a match as the authors claim:<BR/><BR/>1) The James ossuary has a copper peak that is not present at all in either the Jesus ossuary or the Mariamene ossuary.<BR/><BR/>2) All three of them have a silicon peak, but it is substantially smaller in the James ossuary.<BR/><BR/>3) All three have an aluminum peak, but it appears to be somewhat smaller in the James ossuary.<BR/><BR/>I am a physicist. While I'm not an experimental physicist, I can see the peaks in the data (or lack of them) as well as anyone else. The James ossuary appears to have a different chemical fingerprint than the Jesus and Mariamene ossuaries.<BR/><BR/>Given that Joe Zias has stated pretty clearly that the 10th ossuary was blank when he saw it on the day they dug it up, that does seem to seal it. The Jame ossuary just seems extremely unlikely to be the 10th ossuary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-3173081102266252772007-03-04T22:50:00.000-05:002007-03-04T22:50:00.000-05:00Going to get interesting to see how they will stee...Going to get interesting to see how they will steer around Kloner stating categorically the tenth ossuary is not missing. Then there is the differances in dimensions between the plain tenth ossuary and the purported James ossuary. Or those 1976 photographs of the James ossuary Golan introduced in his defense.<BR/><BR/>But what do I know, am an amatuer with hobbyist interests.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13364196938058625069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-2192580284843855722007-03-04T22:43:00.000-05:002007-03-04T22:43:00.000-05:00I missed the first hour of the documentary and che...I missed the first hour of the documentary and checked your blog to see if you had posted anything about it so far--it's pretty neat that you've blogged it all.<BR/>:)<BR/>Nicole JoyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com