Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Since the probability manipulation is perhaps the primary issue in
the "Jesus Family Tomb" public misrepresentation (deception) here
is my reply post to the James Tabor post above. ANE closed up
the thread very quickly so the Tabor post above was almost the
last one. This continues from the posts on ANE linked above.

> James tabor -
> is is terribly confused and long...

A bit long in order to explain a bit about post-facto probability
and methodology. To help a bit in conceptual thinking. The
only confusion is your next comment, which is a complete
misrepresentation of what I shared.

> James Tabor
> It is not the case that any group of names has the same
> probability, they all differ, according to frequency.

Of course not, and I never said that they have the *same*
probability, just a shared unlikeliness, a low probability. They
can be expected to have an unusual probability. Even in modern
culture there will be a Gertrude and a Inez and a Maxmillian and a
Niels and an Avery and a this and that. Perhaps nickname or a
middle name or an unusual phrase will be used on a tomb. One
spelling might be strange, or names and titles used in an unusual
fashion.

Yet even with very common names, if each name is 1 in 5, the
odds of six names in order are 390,625 (5x5x5x5x5x5)
combinations divided by 720 = (6 !) = 1 in 5,402 permutations
(4 AM math :-) ) Of course with six names the likelihood of an
uncommon name is quite high, thus increasing the probability from
the 1 in 5000 base. If each name is one in 10 .. 10% names .. the
odds go up to 1 in 138,875. (Even common names like Steven,
Frank, James etc. will likely be less than 1 in 10).

Hmm.. this is what we are dealing with .. and as James Tabor
earlier pointed out ..

> James Tabor
> "People don’t realize how unique sets of even common names
> are when it comes to simple probabilities".

So to make such numbers the base of the TV extravaganza was
clever but clearly worked to deceive and confuse, whether by
design or ignorance. This is the biggest single problem with the
TV show and why it will be hard to unravel the poisoning of the
mathematics well.

> James Tabor
> His numbers had nothing to do with the identification with the
> Jesus tomb.

Thank you, James.
That of course of course is exactly my point of my last post.
How many people watching the TV show understood this ?
The *** "numbers had nothing to do with the identification with
the Jesus tomb" ***

Please read this again ..

*** "the numbers had nothing to do with the identification with
the Jesus tomb" ***

That in fact was the deception of the TV extravaganza. Folks
watching got the impression that this was the nature of the
calculation. That was a false impression, deliberately honed by
Simcha, never made clear by you or others. Even today on the
web sites. You avoided that by not considering, using or
explaining what would be involved in calculating numbers that
were relevant and designed properly.

And that is why the methodology was flawed, there was not even
an attempt to discuss what math would in fact develop numbers
that would have *** "something to do with the identification with
the Jesus tomb" ***

> James Tabor
> I know, I worked with him on this for many months. You could
> do the numbers with x, y, and z. Then AFTER you do the
> names/numbers, which are not disputed, it is math, you ask
> the next question, which he did, but he would not have had
> to as a statistician.

Actually the methodology should have been considered before
doing the numbers. The cart was in front of the horse. You
chose a flawed methodology so it would not matter if you did the
math for 10 years.

ie. if you were truly concerned the film topic, the possible
** identification with the Jesus tomb ** .

As I have pointed out, apparently nobody in your group ever
considered the problems in developing a post-facto probability
calculation. So you gave us an ex-post-facto calculation that
was only designed for frill and show and had no real relationship
to the theme of the show, the possible identification of the
Talpiot tombs as the tomb of a conjectured Jesus family.

Aside:
It might be good to spend some time considering what post-facto
probability is and where and how it is used (and some of its
difficulties). One fascinating case was when Hillary made her
100g in the futures market. It comes up sometimes in science
discussions, e.g. about evolution. Conceptually it comes up a lot
when you think of something simple like ..

"wow, what is the 'probability' that I was walking down Bell
Boulevard and I saw the lightning streak across the sky at 2:07
PM on Saint Patricks Day"

Rare.. but if you are considering after the fact .. it happened.
So what is the probability ? One in a gazillion if you calculated it
before it happened. What about if you do the calculations after it
occurred ? What then is the significance of the one in a gazillion ?

Whether this (ANE) is the forum to do so, this field is an
interesting question, and fraught with pitfalls. The methodology
of designing a post-facto calculation that is meaningful
and usable (rather than just reflecting the 'rarity' of events... rare
events occur every minute) is the real issue for the claims of the
film.

I do appreciate that the question was raised here and it quickly
led to the complete disavowal by James of any real utility to the
numbers given :

> James Tabor
> ** "Feueverger ... numbers had nothing to do with the
> identification with the Jesus tomb" **

Remember the example for consideration in the last post:
Even if the name is not actually "Jesus" on the Tomb, or if we
found out that Joseph and Mary of the Bible were buried in Galilee
or Bethlehem, your "rare" calculation numbers would still be just
as rare, even rarer. I mentioned this to show the independence of
the two types of calculations :

a) designed to show the mandated rarity of the names
b) designed to calculate a possible identification with a Jesus Family Tomb

===

I was properly asked by a moderator as to what is my background
and interest.

Essentially I am just a layman who likes to think about these
issues. My work is as a computer programmer and systems
designer (consider a good systems designer as a permutations
and combinations theorist while a computer programmer is more
like a statistician working as a bean counter).

I have worked as a 'statistician' once (rating statistician for the
United States Chess Federation) when I was a teenager :-) ...
and I have discussed these particular issues with a friend who is
one of the top combinatorial mathematicians (Erdos number of 1)

(He did not know about the "Jesus Family Tomb" show
calculations). Basically most of what I am sharing above is very
simple, conceptual, common sense.

The cat is out of the bag when James tells the public (well, the ANE public) that the :

" numbers had nothing to do with the identification with the Jesus tomb"

Would you be so kind as to put that quote prominently at the top
of the "Jesus Family Tomb" web site and your blog ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

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

It was pointed out to me by Ariel L. Szczupak (who posted well
on this on ANE before the thread was closed) that it is not
strictly accurate to say that the rarity numbers would not change
on an external negative. Here is an extract that gets right to the
main point.

Ariel
Feuerverger says his computations are not only for this specific
group, but for all possible "Jesus Family" groups that are equally
or more "surprising" (a term which has replaced in the latest
version of the notes the previous term he used, "compelling").

And Ariel is correct, and I thank him for the note. Nonetheless it
appears that these have no effect on the rarity calculations,
which are, as James pointed out, independent of the Jesus Family
Tomb issue.

"Feueverger .. numbers had nothing to do with the identification
with the Jesus tomb"

So the "surprising" or "compelling" part appears to be in essence
an "all or nothing" falsification that does not have any effect on
the resultant calcs (unless other issues go so far as to declare
the tomb name calculations null and void through falsification of the overriding theory).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

TedM

From your post, Steven:

It seems to me that if something highly improbable happens at a certain place and time and there is an explanation for it that isn't contrived in the sense that there is some reasonable support for it, it is more likely than not that such explanation is the right one. That's what to me makes this theory somewhat compelling.

However, I agree with you that the simple calculation is based on assumptions that make up a hypothesis. Therefore it is TOO simple. We can't really say yet that something highly improbable happened. The math doesn't look at all the assumptions appropriately. What the show really is doing is saying "IF this and IF that then something highly improbable happened".

One has to be VERY careful. For example, if the odds of a father-mother-son combination of Joseph-Mary-Jesus is 1 in 200 then finding such a combination may seem unusual and since we have an explanation for something 'unusual' (the gospel record) one might conclude that such a find (I realize even this scenario isn't supported since 'Mary's' role isn't identified) is most likely confirmation of the gospel explanation. However, the math is bad. One needs to take into account the sample size. If it is roughly 1000 ossuaries AND this is a highly representative sample of ALL Jewish people of that time then dividing by 1000 seems appropriate, and the math shows that such a combination is NOT unusual.

Lot's of assumptions are made in the film in order to end up with something that looks highly unusual. What needs to be done is exactly what you say--work out the math so that the assumptions don't bring in a built-in bias. Don't ASSUME that Mary is the mother, Jose is the brother, etc...Instead, compute the ODDS that Mary is the mother (as opposed to a sister or an aunt or a neighbor, etc..), Jose is the brother etc.., based on what is known about ossuary tombs. It seems like THAT is an approach that might be possible.

I'm just stopping by so will ask: Is anyone that you know of taking the hypothesis seriously enough to actually come up with more reasonable probability models? Or, is has it been determined that such a task is virtually impossible with what is known about tomb ossuaries and the like?

Thanks,

ted

ggazoo

It was proselytizing at all, it was simply from a Christian point of view.

Steven Avery

Hi Ted,

It is very difficult to "do the math" without the assumptions predominating. Honestly, the five or so folks who have done math calcs so far have not impressed me (apologies if that sounds arrogant) as really understanding the underlying issues .. and then expressing them to their readership. Folks like to do "calcs" to look fine (when I posted on NT Gateway I quickly calculated the possibility of my getting the right six letters for posting verification at 1 in 200,000,000! if I did them randomly, that is) but this is a conceptual issue as much as a math issue. That is why design is the key and you cannot start with the "rarity" calcs as done by Tabor and Andry et al. That simply throws a monkey wrench into the situation since most everything is rare and many rarities can be integrated in one way or another post facto.

Now you are right that what is involved here is a combination of calculations combined with various "unusualnesses". And such unusualnesses are hard to quantify. Off the top of my head .. three of the six names seem to directly match NT ideas and three others can be compatible. The Joses thing is nice but easily overblown since it is a common nickname. And the Mariamne unusualness idea has its ups and downs.. no indication of that name in the four Gospels themselves and no obvious reason why it would be omitted.

I'm not even getting into the concepts of .. if Jesus was married, if he had a son, if the Gospel stories are true or false. You do have a bit of an uncertainty principle at work here .. the observer will effect the result, all observers, including the observer who claims to be totally objective.

Let me stop there.. off to puter work. Your post showed sense and we think similarly about this thing. I am trying to decide whether this should be thought up and written up in a more structured form. And I would prefer it be done by a probability theoretician but the one who is my friend follows this stuff only from a distance (although his Israeli friend did help actively with the Bible Code debunking, maybe I will contact him... thinking out loud here). Sometimes the professionals have a problem seeing the forest while they navigate the trees.

One thing that I would like to see is a little honesty. Acknowledge that there is little conjunction between the general rarity issue and the Jesus Family Tomb identification (as James Tabor acknowledged on the email forum but not in public speaking). And explain a bit about post facto probability. And point out how difficult such calcs would be in any case short of a virtually absolute identification or debunking.

Maybe that would lose some rating share but it surely would leave a much more helpful and professional fragrance than what was done. And I am not presuming that the responses have been focused and fair either. The belligerent aggressive misuse of probability in the initial presention did make it hard to have a good follow-up. That to my view was the great fault of the presentation.

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

TedM

Ditto your sentiments entirely, Steve. Especially when it pertains to such an important issue.

Sorry if this has already been discussed here, but you said that the name Joses was common. I thought they said on the show that it (or Jose) was very uncommon, never having been found on an ossuary before. That was something that seemed noteworthy. Was the show simply wrong about that?

Best of luck with persuing this.

thanks,

ted

Steven Avery

Yes, we had a little upthread and Notsri gave some details. While Joses is not seen on the ossuaries it is mentioned in other venues such as the Talmud quite frequently. Apparently it is also more like a nickname, similar to Joe to Joseph, than anything else. Today if you saw most gravesites with Joseph and one with Joe you would not have an easy time digging up who is the Joe since many folks simply use both names. So they grossly overstated the uniqueness and significance, perhaps by just emphasizing ossuaries, rather than the actual usage of the name. It could be only a minor point of attempted uniqueness identification.

Thanks for the kind words.

Shalom,
Steven

TedM

Thanks Steven for clearing that up for me.

ted

spamandham

Possibly, because that's how they referred to ordinary human beings at the time.

Possibly, because an ordinary human being might have a son.

Just because later legends say he was poor, does not mean he was. A historical Jesus would have pretty much had to have come from a wealthy family (or been a criminal) in order to have liesure to wander around rebel rousing.

When discussing HJ, you have to forget all the mythical crap in the Bible and think in terms of "what sort of man could later be deified like that". Obviously, a miracle working, water walking zombie sky floater is not a historical person.

If there was an HJ, he would have likely been wealthy (or the son of a wealthy man), well educated, charismatic, with political ties, liked to hang out with whores and black mail tax collectors, and had delusions he could overthrow Rome. Basically, an ordinary spoiled rotten rich kid who knew how to manipulate people. That's the HJ we should be looking for, IMHO, not the silly charicature in the Bible.

Good point. C12 is not going to pinpoint an ossuary to the first century. It's only going to bound it to about a 120 year window.

Steven Avery

Welcome.

Here is somebody who wrote about the methodology issue with
some savvy and sense.

As I mentioned the public writers on the blogs and forums and
websites have generally not been overly impressive, on any side.
(It would be an interesting exercise to actually review them ..
apparently James Tabor has set up a private forum with some
mathematical critics and a couple of JFT statisticians to hash
out some issues.)

Back to a sensible methodology beginning.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheJes...omb/message/97
Dr. James Garner
"let me start with the primary problem - methodology. What these guys
have done is to go get some names from the tomb and then see if they
could justify saying that this is the Jesus family tomb. That's their
methodology. Here's how the methodology should have gone ..."

His own view is eclectic and you might disagree with some of his
emphasis and logic however James Garner is at least explaining the
methodology problem sensibly and offering a more realistic attempt.

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

Charles Gadda

"let me start with the primary problem - methodology. What these guys
have done is to go get some names from the tomb and then see..."

I must reiterate that there is a more fundamental problem than the statistical one on which so many readers have naturally focused their attention. The statistical claim was itself based on the unwarranted presupposition that the name "Jesus" is legible on the ossuary, and much of the ensuing discussion has simply assumed this to be true ("get some names," etc.). The name "Jesus", however, is not legible, and this fact alone vitiates the statistical claim being made. If the basic absence of the name had been recognized (as it would automatically have been had any number of serious paleographers like A. Yardeni been integrated into the process), Feuerverger would have had to admit from the outset that his work was pure speculation based on a guess as to the writing on the ossuary. This is not to say, of course, that Feuerverger's analysis would hold up if the name were legible. But he was not presented with the facts, and so the entire ensuing discussion was outrageously skewed from the outset. See, e.g., http://jesus-illegible.blogspot.com/. (It should be noted that the other name proposed so far, "Hunan", is also merely a guess. That part of the inscription is in fact illegible, as is the case with many other inscriptions in the Catalogue of ossuaries, as is perfectly natural due to the effects of weather).