Steven Avery

And the reference to the various Joses and Josephs in the Bible don't give us any idea what name would be on whose ossuary. We discussed this upthread a bit. If you saw a "Joe" on a modern gravesite it might be a bit unusual but you likely would not be too sure, even after digging around, which Joseph is a good Joe, or vica versa.

Once it is understand that the names Jose and Joseph were related and that Jose was a common usage (hidden in the film) the pizazz of finding Joses on an ossuary becomes minor.

Shalom,
Steven

Cege

I didn't have any impression that Jose and Joseph were unrelated--in fact, the film explained that Jose was a diminutive of Joseph, much as Joey would be in the English language today. I saw nothing hidden about the relationship of the names, but only an explanation. Whereas a family with Joseph, as father, with a son named Joseph after him, might refer to son as Jose (Joe, Joey, Jose) in the 1st century, so might a family today make the same choice to distinguish father from son by name.

If the diminutive Jose on a 1st century ossuary in the Jerusalem area has been found to be an oddity (there have been thousands of Jewish ossuaries from the 1st century found), then finding a 'Jose son of Joseph, brother of Jesus' assignation does carry some pizazz.

blastula

Oh yeah, forgot to include that.

I suppose ultimately they are too many assumptions at this point to come up with any kind of meaningful number, but I hope more analysis will be done.

Cege

I also hope that more analysis will be done. Much more!

If there's a treasure of material to yield DNA as well as stone inscriptions connecting families with historitical identies, surely science will make the best of it, whether it's biblical NT or not! Maybe even patina on stone ossuaries will reveal a world of scientific information that will be helpful and expository for historical questions about 1st century Palestine.

DougWeller

Francis Bovon's letter on the Society of Biblical Literature site

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656

François Bovon

As I was interviewed for the Discovery Channel's program The Lost Tomb of Jesus, I would like to express my opinion here.

First, I have now seen the program and am not convinced of its main thesis. When I was questioned by Simcha Jacobovici and his team the questions were directed toward the Acts of Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the whole program and the orientation of the script.

Second, having watched the film, in listening to it, I hear two voices, a kind of double discourse. On one hand there is the wish to open a scholarly discussion; on the other there is the wish to push a personal agenda. I must say that the reconstructions of Jesus' marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction.

Third, to be more credible, the program should deal with the very ancient tradition of the Holy Sepulcher, since the emperor Constantine in the fourth century C.E. built this monument on the spot at which the emperor Hadrian in the second century C.E. erected the forum of Aelia Capitolina and built on it a temple to Aphrodite at the place where Jesus' tomb was venerated.

Fourth, I do not believe that Mariamne is the real name of Mary of Magdalene. Mariamne is, besides Maria or Mariam, a possible Greek equivalent, attested by Josephus, Origen, and the Acts of Philip, for the Semitic Myriam.

Fifth, the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is part of the apostolic team with Philip and Bartholomew; she teaches and baptizes. In the beginning, her faith is stronger than Philip's faith. This portrayal of Mariamne fits very well with the portrayal of Mary of Magdala in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and Pistis Sophia. My interest is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions. I have suggested this identification in 1984 already in an article of New Testament Studies.

François Bovon, Harvard Divinity School

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

James Tabor has made another attempt to 'explain' the statistics and probability perspective of the 'Jesus Family Tomb'. He posted on a few forums, on ANE-2 in response to my post. And he placed this on his blog.

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/03...b-an-overview/
The Talpiot Jesus Tomb: An Overview

I have held off responding a bit, folks may want to review where he is today on the numbers.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

DougWeller

There are an awful lot of 'ifs', 'mights', 'could wells' there.
He seems to have backtracked quite a bit. And he seems to be building in things we don't know but might just possibly find out some day if we look in the right places to make his argument sound more plausible.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Professor William C. Thompson is the co-author of a well-known study
that concentrates on probability abuse in 'making a case'.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=014...C%3E2.0.CO;2-9
Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials:
The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy
William C. Thompson, Edward L. Schumann
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1987)

I brought the Jesus Family Tomb claims and probability methodology to his attention, and he replied about
" a statistical conclusion that appears to be fallacious"
a faulty methodology that is
"similar to the well-known prosecutor's fallacy".

==========================================
Professor William Thompson

I have only the most minimal familiarity with the Jesus Family Tomb controversy. However, a quick perusal of the material on the Discovery Channel website turned up an interesting example of a statistical conclusion that appears to be fallacious. According to the website, as statistical analysis by Andrey Feuerverger has shown that:
Based on the description of Feuerverger's analysis, he could at best generate a likelihood ratio. He could estimate the likelihood of finding particular combinations of names on the tomb if the tomb did (and did not) contain the remains of the person we call Jesus. But the conditional probability of finding certain names on a tomb IF it contained the remains of Jesus is not necessarily the same as the conditional probability that the tomb contained the remains of Jesus IF it had those names on it. In order to estimate the latter conditional probability, one needs to know the prior probability that a particular tomb will contain the remains of Jesus (which would, even in Jerusalem, necessarily be rather low). I assume (or at least hope) that the Discovery story is simply a misinterpreted Feuerverger's conclusions and presented what is actually a conditional probability or likelihood ratio as a posterior probability. This would indeed be fallacious and is logically similar to the well-known prosecutor's fallacy.
As already mentioned, the prior probability of a particular tomb containing the remains of the person we call Jesus would certainly be rather low. In my judgment one would need something more impressive than a likelihood ratio of 600 to provide convincing evidence that this tomb is in fact what some claim or hope it is.
Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention.

Feel free to quote what I wrote to you.
Bill Thompson

============================

It is true that those who watch closely know that much of the original Jesus Family Tomb probability claims have been abandoned. Yet the scholastic and integrity and public damage of the original claims (not clearly recanted by the Discovery Channel and Tabor) stands. Personally I think it is more important for folks to first understand the fallacious methodology that was used .. rather than twiddle competing sets of numbers, as was the response of some of those who do not agree with the Jesus Family Tomb.

And also to realize that the excuse given by Tabor that Andrey Feuerverger was only a bean-counter will not wash. It does not make any sense whatsoever.

The design of mathematics probability analysis should be done by those who actually understand probability - rather than having the design given to a mathematician on a platter by those who clearly do not. Which includes James Tabor or Simcha Jacobovici. To do so is an invitation to peddling deceptive numbers, exactly what was done by Tabor and Jacobovici and the Discovery Channel.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

sharrock

Bugger! Does that mean I gotta work Easter ?

Charles Gadda

For anyone who might be interested, an editorial by Professor Norman Golb of the University of Chicago, who is one of the world's leading authorities on ancient Judaism, has appeared in The Jewish Forward.

The editorial is mainly about the Dead Sea Scrolls (or misrepresentations thereof), but touches on the Jesus claim in passing. The link is http://www.forward.com/articles/take...th-a-grain-of/.