I was checking out at the Discovery.com site regarding the upcoming TV special about the supposed tomb of Jesus. The site published some calculations that seem to indicate that -- on a very conservative scale -- the odss are at least 600-to-1 that rthe tomb belongs to Jesus's family. But based on my understanding of statistics, they mean something diffeerent, if they are correct at all.
The chart in this post vis from the site. It seems to indicate that --even using the most conservative possible criteria, that the change that this is Jesus's tomb is a 600-to-1 chance that the tomb belongs to Jesus's family. I thnk this is shaky match, and I'll try to explain why.
First of all, what is the calculation telling us? There are names in the list, presumably matching the names of the 5 inscriptions found in the tomb. Each name has odds associated with it. For instance, "Yose" is associated with "1/20," indicating that there is a 1/20 chance of someone havng the name Yose. The same goes for the other names. I will assume for now that this data is accurate for the period in question. But what do you get when you perform the math in the computations? This is cruial, becuase the question you think you are answering may not be the one the nbers are describing. If, as seems to be implied, we are calculating the odds that this is the tomb of the Jesus Family, we might get very excited when we show high odds against this combination of names occuring by chance. But is that what the numbers really show?
We know from the gospels (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3) that Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon and Judas. He also has unnamed sisters. Jesus's father was Joseph, and his mother was Mary.
What does the "Tomb of Jesus" give us? 10 ossuaries, 6 ofwhich have names:
Not that Discovery and James Cameron don't try.
"Computation 1" attempts, I guess , to show the odds that this is Jesus's family. We are shown the odds that 5 random people buried in the same tomb could have the names in question. Why we aren't examining all six names is a mystery to me, but let us move on. Following the logic of the numbers, and assuming the frequencies given of the names of people living in Palestine at the time of Christ is accurate, you would expect that, at random, only one set of 5 ossuaries out of 97 million would contain "Jesus son of Joseph," "Mariamne," "Matia," "Maria" and "Yose." Remove the odd name Matia, and the odds drop to the still impressive 2.4 million to one.
But 2.4 million to one of what? Only that 5 people with the names in question would end up in the same tomb. This is far from proving that Jesus's family is the family (if family this is) in question. Next, are we to assume that all people who lived in Jesus's time would have been buried in an ossuary? Let's say that only 1 of 100 people had this luxury. That drops the odds to 24,000 to one. And that's just for starters. Assuming that 600,000 people would have been candidates for ending up in a Jerusalem ossuary, this yields 120,000 groups of five, yielding 200 chances (=1/600 *120000) that a random selection of these 5 names could be buried together. Even if Jesus was buried in one of these boxes, there would be a 1 out of 200 chance that this box would be his.
The logic behind these numbers is spurious and nonsensical. Suppose that our "Jesus son of Joseph" was buried in this box. What does that tell us about the occupants of the other boxes? Is "Yose" his father, his brother or his son? Is Mariamne his mother or Mary Magdalene?
Of course for believers, the crucial multiplier is that probability that Jesus was buried in a bone box at all, which is 0%. For Caytholics, that goes double for the Virgin Mary, since the dogma of the Assumption indicates that her body was glorified and is in heaven with her Son's. Multiply that by the unlikelihood that the Resurrection story would have survived a quick tour by hostile authorities of the Jesus Family Tomb, or that the disciples (most of whom stayed in Jerusalem) would not have been aware that Jesus was secretly buried, decomposed, and a year later was transferred secretly to an ossuary with his own name on it!!! Or that no cult of Jesus would have been apparent at the tomb of Jesus -- as it was not long hence at the graffiti-rich tomb of Peter in Rome. And that no oral tradition grew up around the tomb of Jesus as it did for various other holy sites when St. Helena visited Jerusalem in the early 4th century. Even the gnostics, as silly as they were, did not mention Jesus being buried.
The improbabilities mount implacably. The only thing that seems certain is the ever present demand for money, status and attention. Not to mention the seemingly insatiable desire on the part of some moderns to disprove the Resurrection story.
The chart in this post vis from the site. It seems to indicate that --even using the most conservative possible criteria, that the change that this is Jesus's tomb is a 600-to-1 chance that the tomb belongs to Jesus's family. I thnk this is shaky match, and I'll try to explain why.
First of all, what is the calculation telling us? There are names in the list, presumably matching the names of the 5 inscriptions found in the tomb. Each name has odds associated with it. For instance, "Yose" is associated with "1/20," indicating that there is a 1/20 chance of someone havng the name Yose. The same goes for the other names. I will assume for now that this data is accurate for the period in question. But what do you get when you perform the math in the computations? This is cruial, becuase the question you think you are answering may not be the one the nbers are describing. If, as seems to be implied, we are calculating the odds that this is the tomb of the Jesus Family, we might get very excited when we show high odds against this combination of names occuring by chance. But is that what the numbers really show?
We know from the gospels (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3) that Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon and Judas. He also has unnamed sisters. Jesus's father was Joseph, and his mother was Mary.
What does the "Tomb of Jesus" give us? 10 ossuaries, 6 ofwhich have names:
- Jesus, son of Joseph
- Maria
- Matthew/Matia
- Yose (Joseph)
- Judah, son of Jesus
- Mariamne
Not that Discovery and James Cameron don't try.
"Computation 1" attempts, I guess , to show the odds that this is Jesus's family. We are shown the odds that 5 random people buried in the same tomb could have the names in question. Why we aren't examining all six names is a mystery to me, but let us move on. Following the logic of the numbers, and assuming the frequencies given of the names of people living in Palestine at the time of Christ is accurate, you would expect that, at random, only one set of 5 ossuaries out of 97 million would contain "Jesus son of Joseph," "Mariamne," "Matia," "Maria" and "Yose." Remove the odd name Matia, and the odds drop to the still impressive 2.4 million to one.
But 2.4 million to one of what? Only that 5 people with the names in question would end up in the same tomb. This is far from proving that Jesus's family is the family (if family this is) in question. Next, are we to assume that all people who lived in Jesus's time would have been buried in an ossuary? Let's say that only 1 of 100 people had this luxury. That drops the odds to 24,000 to one. And that's just for starters. Assuming that 600,000 people would have been candidates for ending up in a Jerusalem ossuary, this yields 120,000 groups of five, yielding 200 chances (=1/600 *120000) that a random selection of these 5 names could be buried together. Even if Jesus was buried in one of these boxes, there would be a 1 out of 200 chance that this box would be his.
The logic behind these numbers is spurious and nonsensical. Suppose that our "Jesus son of Joseph" was buried in this box. What does that tell us about the occupants of the other boxes? Is "Yose" his father, his brother or his son? Is Mariamne his mother or Mary Magdalene?
Of course for believers, the crucial multiplier is that probability that Jesus was buried in a bone box at all, which is 0%. For Caytholics, that goes double for the Virgin Mary, since the dogma of the Assumption indicates that her body was glorified and is in heaven with her Son's. Multiply that by the unlikelihood that the Resurrection story would have survived a quick tour by hostile authorities of the Jesus Family Tomb, or that the disciples (most of whom stayed in Jerusalem) would not have been aware that Jesus was secretly buried, decomposed, and a year later was transferred secretly to an ossuary with his own name on it!!! Or that no cult of Jesus would have been apparent at the tomb of Jesus -- as it was not long hence at the graffiti-rich tomb of Peter in Rome. And that no oral tradition grew up around the tomb of Jesus as it did for various other holy sites when St. Helena visited Jerusalem in the early 4th century. Even the gnostics, as silly as they were, did not mention Jesus being buried.
The improbabilities mount implacably. The only thing that seems certain is the ever present demand for money, status and attention. Not to mention the seemingly insatiable desire on the part of some moderns to disprove the Resurrection story.
There seems to be as much of a need for many to believe that the Jesus story was not what it has been taught to be. The rise of neo-gnostics, atheists and moral relativizers must certainly be a hallmark of our time. The Churches have a huge responsibility to react with gentleness, humor and truth to these silly attempts at neutralizing the faith of so many vulnerable minds. I rather doubt they'll rise to the occassion. Will we?
No comments:
Post a Comment