r333

excerpt from http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/jesustomb.pdf

Jacabovici claims to have shown that the Talpiot ossuary contains some other Jesus to have a low nonextont probability of 1/600 = 0.00167 implying a compelling argument that it must be the Jesus of the Gospels. The probability calculation done by Feuerverger for Jacabovici is listed below.

Feuerverger calculates the probability by multiplying these factors together and then multiplying by 1000 to account for the fact that over 900 tombs have been discovered which increases the chance of finding this cluster of names together in a single tomb. He also multiplies by a factor of 4 to account for unintentional biases in the historical sources. This unintentional biases should be explained to make evident whether or not they are conservative accounted for. The Feuerverger probability is listed below.

1/190 * 1/160 * 1/20 * 1/4 * 1000 * 4 = 1 / 600 = 0.00167 = 0.167 % chance

1/190 for Jesus son of Joseph
1/160 for Mariamenou thought of as Mary Magdalene because acts of Philip connection
1/20 for Yosi
1/4 for mother Mary
1000 number of tombs found in Jerusalem
4 for unintentional biases in the historical sources

Section 4.5.1.7 proves that this mathematical way of calculating the probability is incorrect. It does not properly account for all the possible opportunities for a match involved with the freedom used in achieving a match as Bayes formula does. It is no wonder how with so many flaws in the calculation shown below, Feuerverger, manages to calculate a nonextont probability about 400 times lower than the correct value which according to Table 2 is at least 0.674. With so many mistake involved with estimating the opportunities for matches as shown below, the Feuerverger calculation clearly has committed the Prosecutors Fallacy.

• Does not account for the three female names, (Mary twice, Martha once) found in the tomb provide three opportunities for matches to occur.
• Does not account for the two male names, (Yose and Matthew) found in the tomb provide two opportunities for matches to occur.
• Does not account for the fact that other names, such as Simon, Judah and James would have qualified as matches.
• Does not account for the fact that the Mary and Yose in the tomb may not be the brother of the Jesus in the Talpiot Tomb.
• Does not account for the negative evidence of this Jesus having a son Judah.
• Does not account for the tradition of sons being named after their father.
• Uses an implausible unsubstantiated interpretation of the Mary/Martha ossuary to make a match with Master Mary Magdalene (Ref. Section 10)
• Uses number of tombs rather the number of inscribed ossuaries as a basis for measuring opportunities for a match.
• Nothing about the calculation evaluates the probability that the tomb could contain one of the many other Jesus son of Josephs expected to have existed.

Steven Carr

Now if it had said James, brother of Jesus, the probabilties would have been totally different.

Jo

Jacobivici didn't have sufficient time to examine the cave. The IAA resealed it until "experts" in the field could better examine it themselves. Yet the claim of one of the ossuaries containing epigraphy containing the name "Jesus" is as dubious as Goran's "James Ossuary". Epigraphers didn't substantiate it. Negating the fact that its one of nine hundred such tomb sites found in that area, the reason it got the publicity is because a film crew went it, exploited the find to make more money and naive theists fell for it.

Chris Weimer

No, experts epigraphists did look at the Jesus inscription - it's authentic. Very few now doubt that's what it says. Remember, it was excavated by Kloner and Gath. It was then sealed, and Jacobivici reopened the tomb before the IAA resealed it.

"naive theists fell for it."

Which theists? James Tabor even wrote something to the effect that it was because of theists' strong reaction against the tomb that it wasn't as popular. The tomb is bad for Christianity because it negates the resurrection account.

Febble

What's your view, Chris? What's your prior?

Jo

Ben Witherington III is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary states,

The Jesus Tomb: 'Titanic' Talpiot Theory Sunk From The Start.

Blackbeard

This article provides no compelling argument, just a lot of rhetoric mostly based on biblical accounts, and we already know the bible contains many errors of fact so arguments based on the bible are not compelling. Nor does the article provide any in depth statistcal analysis (it is rather just dismissive with a "come on what do you think" attitude) that could counter Professor Feuervberger's (sp?) work, which was re-examined more thoroughly here, and though some problems were found with Professor Feuervberger's methods, this indepent statistical study confirmed the conclusions that it is very very likely that the Talpiot tomb was the tomb of Jesus' family and deserves further research, research that one would think xians would welcome. I mean, wouldn't xians want to know if they have been taught lies about Jesus' ressurection and thus his divinity which would mean that their immortal soul is in danger? That perhaps they should revert to Judaism, or convert to Islam if this is the case?