Skip to the main content
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Israel March 9 Submitted by bock on Fri, 2007-03-09 15:32. I contiunue to do interviews while here. Did three over the phone.
But today was dedicated to getting to see some places I have always wanted to see: Qumran (home of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee (where I am writing from).
It is quite an experience to see the terrain Jesus had to traverse in his minstry, especially in the South as he went from Galilee to Jerusalem, no easy walk. The visit to Qumran was fun as I climbed around the area of the caves. (Yes, get in shape for this). I hope that many of the pictures I am taking will show up on bible.org one day.
On Monday, hopefully, you will get to hear the fruit of some of my labor over here. We think we have our technical problems solved, but Sabbath in israel means nothing happens for a few days. So the audio files will hopefully make their way to the States in a few days.
Trackback URL for this post:http://dev.bible.org/bock/trackback/124 bock's blog · 119 reads »
What are the chances? #4828 On Sat, 2007 03 10 15:03 jnjwallen said, What about the fact that the ossuary as being Jesus's ossuary was plain compared to all the others? Scribbly. At first I thought fraud then remembered the Ossuary Judah Son of Jesus. That threw that out? Also thought of the fact if the first one dead was Jesus who could not afford a nicer one? Later the deciples stole the body to hide it from the Jews to save face and their own lives. They Hid it in a cave in the hills.. This tomb was a cave about 5 miles out of town where the cave they found this tomb in is. They did not need to then afford a tomb. Just make the ossuaries. After Jesus death they hid the body in the cave and made the first ossuary plain. Then as the others died afforded better ones. Now when the people found out the deciples were lying they killed them; not as martyrs but as liers as the Jews saw. They may have renounced their faith begging for mercy before they were killed; not as they say dying for their faith but instead dying because of their lies. ?? This is just a theory that I wish somebody could disprove with actual dated material or writings.. not with the bible..Circular reasoning. I just need a shadow of doubt.This stuff should be considered in a book to be written by Lee Strobel or somebody else on the issue. Read other below on this. The slim chances on the grouping in the whole number of names..the small sampling they had make this chance happening even more improbable. Then tack that Jesus was attributed to this Mary instead of Mathew or one of the others. Then the plain Jane ossuaryattributing only to Jesus, etc. The chances are slim. Barely hangin on, Jeff Wallen
ps. Maybe all these slim chances was created by God as He had sent a deceiving spirit in the past; But why the plain ossuary for Himself. This tripped me up on that theory and the idea of sabatage because those sabataging would have given im a Nice ossuary. UGH!
Read all below..
One more thing in addition it seems very far fetched to state that because there are many more people that were born at that time that were not given tombs or ossuaries; that you can lower the statistic credibility. First of all you must go by the sampling of names that you have ; not by the dead you have no idea as to what their names were. The statistics still hold water because you must go by that name grouping out of all possible names found. It is still fantastic that this grouping was found in such a small sampling! Then they are trying to get around Mary being attributed to Jesus. Was not the ossuaries placed near eachother? Was there not a Judah son of Jesus in that tomb? They did not even use this fantastic piece in their statistics; this would make the odds 6000 to 1! What are the chances for this grouping and the fact that Mary was not attributed to Mathew or other? What are the chances? Let's not gloss over the facts to prove a different point. I am seriously afraid of the facts here. Looks Bleak! The timeframe is possible. Location possible due to the idea Jesus had to be barried near for all to see or that He was in hiding from His people in His hometown of Galilee who would recognize Him. Also the fact this was in a cave far from stuff..in hidding? One more unforgettable stat. The ossuary attributed to Jesus son of Joseph was plain and different from the rest. That is hugely interresting in and of itself on top of everything else. Jesus was crafty with his hands he was a mason right? What are the chances?
Claims on statistics credible! Help?
Read my email. It answers all their claims; I have been reading up; They are avoiding some huge coincidences in their stats.Please get this to Lee Strobal. Let me know he can address this stuff. I am really scared!
There are some issues with these statistics and statements That will undoubtedly be challenged. Wasn't the oldest manuscripts we have written at a later era? Could the decipleshave been put to death publisizing the stories they compiled from lore? As far as the bodies being kept in Jerusalem; that most likely could have been for all to see; So that the Jews would not be swayed from their faith?Below are some ideas and stats that are being left out. First off the amount of names themselves are not spectacular; but the grouping and the placement in one place is! Read on..With this and my last thought you also have to factor how many of the other names that existed at that time; (other than the ten mentioned that could have been one of the ten in the tomb); or how many other even similar groupings they found that had Mary associated with Jesus. Was it common at all to have a tomb of ten blank ossuaries to attribute Jesus to? Also the fact one said son of Jesus and the placement of the ossuaries as well. This is pretty incredible! Also the tomb was further from the rest in a cave as we wonder if those who died in this Jesus party were placed there either in hiding or for all to see in Mockery following the death and the rumors that His body was left behind. This would not have been needed to be written down and the oldest Bible New testament script only dates after this supposed era. So the tomb could have been sanctioned by the Jews for all to see right in Jerusalem. So now considering one marked the son and one Mary attributing to Jesus instead of one of the others we have even higher stats on probability. Jesus if the swooning theory applies was a carpenter ..a wall maker and could have fashioned these ossuaries especially Mary's whom he supposedly loved; Which was a pretty fancy ossuary. The fact that women had few ossuaries in that day; it is another big stretch to say that a common wife would have such an extravagant one in that day. Do not overlook or throw this stuff out. All stats and theories must be answered and then thrown out. That is what we believers need to defend against; prepared to have an answer to everything! On the James ossuary.. Given the Petit test and measurements taken on the stolen ossuary? Mathew being a brother was in question; but what about the others? Then add in the stats on Mary and the son being linked to Jesus and Joseph being associated with the whole family. Please respond. When it was written about the False Jesuses arising that if you hear Jesus is over here or there..Do not believe them.. That could be construed as a fore warning of the deceptive intent? Or it is as it is. Peter, James, and John may have been killed by the jews for making this stuff up; they may not have died a Martyers death? ps. Jesus was crafty.. Carpenter/ wall maker. Wasn't the Mary attributed to Jesus ossuary a lot nicer than the rest? One more stat. Yes using the fact that there were many more men and women that are not being accounted for in these statistics raises probability but it is then again lowered given this grouping was actually produced out of what we can see. Then the fact if this is the Body of Jesus.. we can not state that He rose in spirit; because if that were true he could not have fathered a son? Help!
There is still a lot to answer though like why Its just the slim chances.. The grouping is simple Jesus was the only one with a child, the only one who seemed to be married in that grouping who's name happened to be Mary. If there were another grouping why in a cave far away and why not one of the other names like Mathew attributed to Mary. Also was James even included in these stats? That is why I am stirred up. The Christian side seems to be ignoring these facts. Add in what ever book is written on the issue? Hopefully there are answers.. Given these stats as well as the fact Jesus was next to Mary as if a couple and not others it looks bleak! The only evaluation is that Jesus may not have been able to afford the tomb but what if it were away from the others , in a cave and hidden, as it was. Also factor in the fact that Jesus and not one of the others were not placed next to Mary as if married. Wasn't Jesus was handy and may have made the ossuraries as He was a carpenter? Wall Maker..How does this change the slim chances of that tomb and it's names existing? I want to keep the faith but what are the chances? Given these stats as well as the fact Jesus was next to Mary as if a couple and not others it looks bleak! The only evaluation is that Jesus may not have been able to afford the tomb but what if it were away from the others , in a cave and hidden, also factor the fact that Jesus and not the others were not next to Mary as if married. Are they trying to prove that Mary is not nessesarily attributed to this Jesus; there is an ossuary that states Judah son of Jesus. What does that say? How does this change the slim chances of that tomb and it's names existing?
edit · reply Discovery Channel to Update Interpretation of 600:1 Odds Claim #4807 On Fri, 2007 03 09 22:53 joedmello said, I am pleased to state that as a result of several e-mail exchanges I have had with Dr. Andrey Feuerverger over the past few days, and a phone conversation with him this morning which confirmed our informal understanding reached by e-mail yesterday, he has agreed that the following two statements made on Discovery Channel’s website:
1. “A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery
Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in
favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”
(from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html)
2. Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the
University of Toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that The
Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. In a study, Feuerverger examined the
cluster of names in the tomb ……
Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a
family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most
conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A
statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times
out of 600.
(from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf)
ARE NOT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF HIS STATISTICAL COMPUTATIONS. He has also confirmed for me that, at his urging, Discovery Channel has agreed to “undertake the required updates to their website”. As evidence of this, I have appended at the end of this message the relevant portions of the last few emails I exchanged with Dr. Feuerverger.
Dr. Feuerverger indicates that an accurate interpretation of his results are to be found at his recently updated “Tomb Computation” link on his University of Toronto website. Please note the following excerpts from that website:
A. It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tomb site is that of the New Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering into the computations.
B. The role of statistics here is primarily to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) `compelling' cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.
C. The computations do not take into account families who could not afford ossuary burials or who did not have sufficient literacy to have their ossuaries inscribed, and does not take into account families living outside of the Jerusalem area.
I wish to thank Dr. Feuerverger immensely for his efforts to ensure that the viewing public receives the honest and truthful reporting they are entitled to! I also hope and trust that Discovery Channel will follow suit and retract these inaccuracies quickly.
As I have stated before, my efforts were never aimed at defending Christianity, because I truly believe that all religions must and will eventually reconcile themselves with science and our God-given reason. It is not Christianity that is at stake here but the honest and enlightened use, application, and interpretation of science and reason. Discovery Channel’s unqualified assertions that the 600:1 odds are specifically associated with the tomb in question being that of the New Testament Jesus family are, in my opinion, untenable and inaccurate in light of the clarifications on Dr. Feuerverger’s website.
======================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:08:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrey Feuerverger
To: joedmello@yahoo.com
i wanted to mention that thanks to your having pointed it out to me
i have managed to get discovery to undertake the required updates
to their website.
best
andrey f.
======================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:56:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Reference to "Dr. Feuerverger's Study"
To: Andrey Feuerverger
Great, Andrey! …..By the way, while you at it, kindly also make sure that the following statement at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html on Discovery's site
"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."
is reworded to appropriately reflect your statistical findings. I'll call you tomorrow.
Joe
======================================================
Andrey Feuerverger wrote:
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:23:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrey Feuerverger
To: joedmello@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Reference to "Dr. Feuerverger's Study"
hi joe
you are right about the mismatch between the two sites and thanks for
pointing it out. i will get on this right away.
best
andrey
======================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:00:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "Joe D'Mello"
Subject: Discovery Channel Reference to "Dr. Feuerverger's Study"
To: Andrey Feuerverger
Hi Andrey,
I'll talk to you tomorrow. I'm sure you have read this already, but just in case you have not, I've appended below (verbatim) the reference to you and your work on Discovery Channel's website (which, of course, is clearly not consistent with your assertions in "The Tomb Computation" on your website).
...
Joe
------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS OVERVIEW
Dr. Andrey feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the University of toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that The talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. In a study, Feuerverger examined the cluster of names in the tomb.
• This involved multiplying the instances that each name appeared during that
time period with the instances of every other name.
• To be conservative, he then divided the number by the statistical standard of 4
(or 25%) to allow for unintentional biases in the historical sources.
• He then further divided the results by 1,000 to account for all tombs that may
have existed in First Century Jerusalem.
Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.
STATISTICS TABLE
FREQUENCY OF NAMES
INITIAL COMPUTATION
SECOND COMPUTATION (Eliminating Matia since he is not explicatively mentioned in the Gospels)
THIRD COMPUTATION (Adjusting for unintentional biases in the historical sources)
2,400,000 ÷ 4
FOURTH COMPUTATION (Adjust for all possible First Century Jerusalem Tombs)
600,000 ÷ 1,000
PROBABILITY FACTOR = 600 to 1
Jesus Son of Joseph Mariamne Matia Yose Maria
1 in 190 1 in 160 1 in 40 1 in 20 1 in 4
Jesus Son of Joseph Mariamne Matia Yose Maria
1/190 1/160 1/40 1/20 1/4
Jesus Son of Joseph Mariamne Yose Maria
1/190 x 1/160 x 1/20 x 1/4 = 1/2,400,000