 |
 |
Talpiot Tomb Update – Statisticians Debunk Critics
Kevin T. Kilty, Ph.D., P.E., and Mark Eliot, Ph.D., of Laramie County Community College in Cheyenne, Wyoming have written a statistical paper entitled "Probability, Statistics, and the Talpiot Tomb" clarifying the work, and popular criticisms, of Andrey Feuerverger of the Univ. of Toronto, who did the initial statistical analysis of the tomb inscriptions relative to the probability that the tombs belong to the family of Ribi Yәhoshua.
According to Kilty and Eliot, "Critics have mainly garbled what Feuerverger said, or have misunderstood and misrepresented this work· In fact these critics, without any calculations to back up their assertions, claim that such a collection of names in one tomb is hardly surprising because the names involved are very common… We intend to show is that this is not, in fact, the case. While Feuerverger's specific approach may be off-target, we feel he is essentially correct in concluding that the group of names associated with this tomb are hardly something a person should have expected to find."
"In what ranks among the more fantastic statements regarding the controversy Amos Kloner, the Bar Ilan University Professor who engaged in the original excavation of the tomb, says in a National Geographic News story that archeological and historical evidence trumps the Discovery Channel Documentary claim
"Joseph, Mary and their son
Jesuswere a poor family from Nazareth. There is no proof they even lived in Jerusalem.
"If Kloner intends to mean by this that no portion of Jesus' family ever lived in the Jerusalem area, then this is so demonstrably untrue that we tend to think instead that this is a misquotation."
"Another argument voiced by critics of the Talpiot tomb is that Jesus is known in the Gospels as "Jesus of Nazareth" and not "Jesus son of Joseph" as inscribed on the ossuary uncovered at Talpiot.8 The claim that an ossuary holding the remains of Jesus would not be inscribed with Jesus son of Joseph is not supported by statistics of the ossuaries catalogued by Rahmani."
Evans' and Feldman's assertion is simply preposterous and ignorant. Not only are Kilty and Elliot correct statistically, there are only 3 instances of Ναζαρεθ (Nazareth), נצרת, in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM), none of which refer to "Yәhoshua of Nâtzrat." (The first, 2.23, is "dwelled in a city called נצרת." The second, 4.13, "leaving נצרת." And the third, 21.11, "Yәhoshua the Nâvi from Nâtzrat.")
In the Hellenized – i.e. apostate and not knowledgeable in Judaic practice – Christian books not accepted by the Nәtzârim, there are still only 2 instances (Jn. 1.45 and Acts 10.38) where the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" is found. Of 12 instances in NT, only these 2 instances support Evans' and Feldman's assertion while the remaining 10 (83+%!!!) contradict Evans and Feldman.
What has confused Evans and Feldman is their ignorance that 2 other similar-sounding Hellenist terms, Ναζαρηνος and Ναζωραιος, mean נצרים, not נצרת!" 18 of 19 instances are mistranslated by Christians, to distance themselves from Jews and Judaism and support their Displacement Theology, as "Jesus of Nazareth" while only one instance (Acts 26.9) is – tellingly – correctly translated supporting the reading "the נצרים." The "doctrinally correct" Christian mistranslations are the basis for Evans' and Feldman's preposterous assertion. This additional evidence corroborates Kilty and Eliot and makes their analysis even more compelling.
Regarding the argument that the names found in the Talpiot tomb were common and, therefore, prove nothing, is contradicted by statistics as well. Due to the relatively larger size of the Dominus Flevit ("the Lord wept") necropolis, Kilty and Eliot calculated a 782x greater likelihood of finding these names there. Therefore, of the 43 ossuaries found there, nearly every six should match those of the first (and only) six in the Talpiot Tomb. However, there is no match, of any kind, among the entire 43 ossuaries!!!
The more information one considers, the more unique the Talpiot Tomb becomes and, correspondingly, the more complicated the calculation of its uniqueness also becomes.
Doubtless, critics will pick up on Kilty's and Eliot's conclusion of a 49% (.487) likelihood that the Talpiot Tomb is the tomb of Ribi Yәhoshua and his family to claim that there is a greater probability it is not. In a sense, that's right because everything unknown, all uncertainty, is contained in that 51%. Kilty and Eliot seem to have been writing to fellow statisticians because what they did not bother to point out is that the next likely scenario, which they don't provide, could be less than 1% and is almost certain to be far less than .487. In other words, the probability that the tomb belongs to any other particular family, even if there may have been one with similar names, might be as low as, say, 7%. This is because their Miryam may have died as an infant or their Yәhoshua may have moved to Turkey as a child, etc. The possibilities are endless that a hypothetical family or two, out of a few thousand, which included the necessary names, would not have a tomb containing the names found in the Talpiot Tomb. If there were more than one family, that decreases, not increases, each's particular likelihood, making the 49% even more formidable.
An example may help illustrate. Suppose you estimate that there's a 70% chance that you can finish your day's work and chores in time to go to a sports event and a 70% chance you can get tickets. Is it likely you'll go to the sports event? The answer is no (.7 x .7 = .49, a 49% chance you'll go to the sports event). Now relative likelihoods come into sharper focus: how compelling should it be if someone were to argue that it's more likely that you'll bungi jump off the Eiffel Tower instead of going to the sports event or that the sports event won't be held at all because of a terror attack? The 49% likelihood that you will go to the sports event is likely far higher than either of these (or perhaps any other) alternatives. Still, you could have a flat tire, a relative could be in an accident, the possibilities are endless… but you're more likely to go to that sports event than any of these particular alternatives. In other words, there can be thousands or millions of alternatives; however, each may have a low, even negligible, likelihood and, compared to the alternatives, 49% can be quite high compared to the alternatives.
In terms of the Talpiot Tomb, if the endless string of possibilities consumes, say, 40% of all possibilities, then the likelihood that the Talpiot Tomb belongs to the most likely other family that has the right combination of names (if such a family even existed) might be a mere 11% compared to 49% likelihood that it is the tomb of Ribi Yәhoshua and his family. Yet, so far, there is no evidence or indication whatsoever that any other such family even existed!
Kilty and Eliot conclude: "While we are unsure of the correctness of Feuerverger's approach to statistical analysis of the Talpiot Tomb, we do agree with his conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb is significant by virture of its improbability." They note that the probability that such a small tomb would have no more than one of these names inscribed on the six ossuaries is over 70%. Defying these odds at a geometrically steep rate with every match, however, "the tomb contains four name references, identifies Jesus with his correct father, and contains possibly the rare form of Jesus' brother's name."
"We have also noted the large amoung of erroneous arguments and statistics unleased to trivialize this tomb as an archeological find. Much of this criticism is simply ad hoc, sometimes has no basis in fact, and is often thin on logic. We feel this tomb is a significant find and worthy of whatever other scholarly and research efforts could prove its identity."
 |
|
 |