## Re: [ANE-2] Re: Talpiot Tomb: A Summary of Counter-Arguments

Expand Messages
• ... One obvious problem here is that computing such a probability is not particularly relevant to the question of whether the tomb is a candidate for a family
Message 1 of 11 , Mar 28, 2007
• 0 Attachment
James Tabor wrote:

>No I totally agree here, I would estimate the Talpiot tomb might
>individuals. The whole "family size of six" number came from Koopman's work on
>frequency clusters, and had nothing to do with any tomb, i.e. those
>numbers, family size
>of 6, and population of 25K (Jeremiahs), can be shifted as
>variables. It was a way of
>presenting the numbers and was flexible. Thus his calcualtions ran like this:
>
>Q: What is the likelihood, given the frequency statistics of names
>(using here Tal Ilan) for
>the period, of the following cluster of names and relationships
>occurring in a single family
>of six in 1st century A.D. Jerusalem?
>
>Mary, a second Mary, Jesus son of Joseph, Jude son of Jesus, Joseph,
>and Matthew
>
>Cal>Assuming a family size of six, the probability of these six names in these
>relationships occurring together in one family is: 1/253,403.

One obvious problem here is that computing such a probability is not
particularly relevant to the question of whether the tomb is a
candidate for a family tomb that we would expect for Jesus of
Nazareth. It is UNLIKE the set of names we would expect.

The calculation of raw probabilities is often irrelevant, as we
learned years ago when people began finding "marvelous codes" in the
Hebrew Bible at various skips. This always raised the question from
skeptics such as myself: "Why the heck would you have expected to
find such a thing as this to begin with? And since you didn't expect
it, or even something like it, why should it matter what the
probability is?" The Bible coders never came up with satisfactory