Freethought & Rationalism Archive

douglas · 02-28-2007, 04:24 PM

This "statistical probability" thing has got me stumped. My understanding is that Jerusalem had a population of about 100,000 during the time of Jesus. This is roughly the population of Davenport, Iowa.

What are the chances that you could survey all of the cemeteries in Davenport and find a collection of grave stones from a family that has the names of Mary, John, William, Frank, and Sue? (Name variations count ) I don't know the answer, but I assume there's a fair chance (1 in a 20?). But what if you throw in a less common name, say Calvin or Theodore? I assume the chances are reduced. Add a third component (Mary has to be Franks mother, John has to be Franks Dad, etc) the chances go down even more.

That seems to be the crux of the argument. I don't see the relevance of the "these are all common names" defense. No duh! It's this specific combination of names and their familial relationship that's interesting.

blastula · 02-28-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

If they really wanted to do a confirmation they would have done the DNA test between the Jesus and the supposed mother Mary. If they are not related, game over. Yet, they didn't do this test did they...

Because of the Immaculate Conception, the Christian believer would conceivably accept either scenario (Jesus and his alleged mother being genetically related, or not).

Malachi151 · 02-28-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

4. Jesus' was from a poor family from Gallilea, which doesn't fit the scenario.

#4 is a valid point, but doesn't rule out the possibility that Jesus family could have been buried in this fashion. It just makes it less likely. Also, no one has suggested that the ossuaries are fakes.

This isn't really a valid point, because we don't actually know this to be true. Just look at Lenin or Che or Castro.

These were "working man's" heroes, voices for the poor, whose propaganda played up their "common man" status, but in reality they all came from well off families.

blastula · 02-28-2007, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhan

They have done DNA and concluded that Mary Magdalene was not a relation of Mary or Jesus. The odds of finding these names are extremely rare (600 - 1). [/url]

You mean, the alleged "Mary Magdalene."

Quote:

Originally Posted by modernPrimitive

What are the chances of 1) in terms of the entire family - in other words Joseph's mother had to name him such, Mary's mother, Mary Magdalene's mother all pretty much within a single lifetime of the death of Jesus etc etc. It is far more likely with your theory that we would have had a "Jesus son of Jesus and Mary". What about "Mary Magdalene" - how common is that for a name?

Again, the name "Mary Magdalene" is not inscribed on any of the ossuaries. The story is that there are two ossuaries with a form of the name Mary. One says "Maria" (Latin) and the other says "Mariamene" (Greek). DNA from the "Mariamene" ossuary was compared to that of the "Yeshua bar Yosef."

There also may be uncertainty as to the exact reading of some of the inscriptions. I hope we will be seeing more scholarly analyses of the writings. And of course, further DNA comparisons of the other ossuaries is necessary before arriving at conclusions. What's the holdup? Where's Grissom when you need him?

blastula · 02-28-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There are no extra-biblical contemporary historian or writer, in the 1st century, who have mentioned any apocalyptic cult of which Jesus the Christ was the leader.

Why should biblical writings not count as evidence for the cult?

douglas · 02-28-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This isn't really a valid point, because we don't actually know this to be true. Just look at Lenin or Che or Castro.

Dr. Tabor offers this rebuttal on his blog...

Quote:

The Talipot tomb and ossuaries are such that they would have belonged to a rich family, which does not match the historical record for Jesus

This is not the case. I have been in the tomb and it is quite small and modest, not at all aristocratic. It is in an area running from Silwan to Talpiot that Gibson and Zissu, in an extensive survey of tombs of the area, have identified as those of a poorer class, in contrast to the monumental tombs nearer the Old City. Actually both the James ossuary, and the Jesus son of Joseph ossuary are exceptionally modest and plain, as are the majority of the others. There are photos and full documentation on the Discovery Web site. (go to Enter the Tomb, then download documentation).

Tabor is not an archaeologist, and I don't know who Gibson and Zissu are, but his point seems to be a good one.

blastula · 02-28-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For whatever it is worth, Robert Eisenman, who correctly identified the James ossuary as forged 2 seconds after hearing about it, has labeled this as "primeval stupidity".

I was not impressed with that blog post.

From Eisenman:

Quote:

1) To think that an inscription seemingly bearing the name of one "Mariamne" has anything whatever to do with some character we think was called "Mary Magdalene" (only mentioned about three times in the Gospels and this cursorily or in passing) is a stretch of immense proportions. All "Mary"s in Josephus are called "Mariamne" in Greek. First disinformation. And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say nothing of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?

The Jesus Tombers are not saying that this Mary has to be the Mary Magdalene only because it has the name Mary. It's because of the cluster of names.

Also, the Jesus Tomber's story is that Mariamene was the name used for Magdalene in the Acts of Phillip.

Quote:

2) Then, of course, "Jesus"' father (if he existed or there was one) probably wasn't even called "Joseph" ( really the patronymical tribal name of the Samaritan Messiah). Most contemporary texts give Jesus' father or Mary's husband as "Clopas" or 'Cleophas". Even the Gospel of John does this, unless this was her second husband or there were two "Mary"s or three!

This is especially bad because even me, not much of a student of the Bible or HJ or MJ, know that that "Mary the wife of Clopas" in John is referring to a different Mary than the mother or Magdalene. Yes, there was more than 2 Marys in the NT. It was a common name, which I thought was the argument against the Jesus Tombers.

Quote:

3) And what was "Matthew" (diminutive or otherwise) doing in this tomb - a "statistical" outlier, no?

It's possible, he could be some unknown relation? But that is a good question.

Quote:

And "Mary"'s DNA didn't match "Jesus"', so they were married, right?

Yes, that is speculation, but a match would falsify the Jesus Tomb story.

Quote:

4) And "Jose" was Jesus' brother, right? Why not father - meaning,the one mentioned on the alleged "Jesus ossuary"? And what is Jose's DNA, since we seem to have "Jesus"' and "Mary"'s, or weren't we able to get a sample?

We don't know yet. How about waiting for the evidence before saying either way?

Quote:

5) And who is this mysterious "Judas"? Of course, "Mary's child" by "Jesus" - why didn't I think of that? Again, another 'statistical outlier".

Yes, this name along with the Matthew name is a good point. If the Jesus Tombers are comparing these names to the Bible stories, then they have some assumptions to make and holes to fill.

Quote:

6) Oh yes, and I forgot, "the James ossuary" was pilfered from here. Why of course. How sensible. And therefore, it wasn't forged (or was it from the Antiquities Authority's storeroom) - again, why didn't I think of that?

Well, if the science does conclusively match it to the same tomb, then yeah we have to say it was taken from there. And of course it could still be forged. So?

Eh.

Ruhan · 03-01-2007, 02:49 AM

The reason that this "Mariamne" is being considered as a spouse is because she is not related to the Mary nor the Yeshua in this grave. As it's a family grave, she had to have been married to one of the men.

Furthermore, Tabor states that the population of the 2nd Temple Jerusalem was between 25000 - 100000 which makes this cluster extremely rare. Throw in the James Ossuary (if the Patina tests could be verified) and you have an astronomical figure in the millions to 1 that this is the actual Jesus' grave.

andrewcriddle · 03-01-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

The Jesus Tombers are not saying that this Mary has to be the Mary Magdalene only because it has the name Mary. It's because of the cluster of names.

Also, the Jesus Tomber's story is that Mariamene was the name used for Magdalene in the Acts of Phillip.

This seems doubtful, if anything Mariamene in the Acts of Philip seems more likely to be Mary of Bethany the sister of Martha

Andrew Criddle

the_cave · 03-01-2007, 10:10 AM

Well, Mary of Bethany is usually taken to be Mary Magdalene, but it's still a non-story. I've read the (single) article that the book & show are based on. One does clearly say Judas son of Jesus, but the other is nearly illegible. The original author (Kloner) says that "Mara" is just a nickname for "Martha", not "master"! (Though the names together are intriguing; but Martha was apparently a very common name as well.) That's probably why Cameron & Co. dig into what they claim is DNA evidence; the names themselves, while interesting, don't really say all that much.

02-28-2007, 04:24 PM	#91
douglas Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 701	I'm statistically challenged... This "statistical probability" thing has got me stumped. My understanding is that Jerusalem had a population of about 100,000 during the time of Jesus. This is roughly the population of Davenport, Iowa. What are the chances that you could survey all of the cemeteries in Davenport and find a collection of grave stones from a family that has the names of Mary, John, William, Frank, and Sue? (Name variations count ) I don't know the answer, but I assume there's a fair chance (1 in a 20?). But what if you throw in a less common name, say Calvin or Theodore? I assume the chances are reduced. Add a third component (Mary has to be Franks mother, John has to be Franks Dad, etc) the chances go down even more. That seems to be the crux of the argument. I don't see the relevance of the "these are all common names" defense. No duh! It's this specific combination of names and their familial relationship that's interesting.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2007, 02:49 AM	#98
Ruhan Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: London Posts: 176	The reason that this "Mariamne" is being considered as a spouse is because she is not related to the Mary nor the Yeshua in this grave. As it's a family grave, she had to have been married to one of the men. Furthermore, Tabor states that the population of the 2nd Temple Jerusalem was between 25000 - 100000 which makes this cluster extremely rare. Throw in the James Ossuary (if the Patina tests could be verified) and you have an astronomical figure in the millions to 1 that this is the actual Jesus' grave.

03-01-2007, 10:10 AM	#100
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	Well, Mary of Bethany is usually taken to be Mary Magdalene, but it's still a non-story. I've read the (single) article that the book & show are based on. One does clearly say Judas son of Jesus, but the other is nearly illegible. The original author (Kloner) says that "Mara" is just a nickname for "Martha", not "master"! (Though the names together are intriguing; but Martha was apparently a very common name as well.) That's probably why Cameron & Co. dig into what they claim is DNA evidence; the names themselves, while interesting, don't really say all that much.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.