Name:Dennis •
Title: Another question about the statistics •
Date posted: 03/05/07 18:39
Q: In the program, it was said that about 4% (1/25) of the males in 1st century Jerusalem were named Jshua (Jesus) Why then was the number associated with Jesus in the statistical calculations of the program 1/196?
Similarly, the program said that as many as 1/4 of the women in Jerusalem were named Miriam (Mary) or a derivative. Why then were were numbers lower than 1/200 used for both Marys found in the grave in question in the calculations?
The program also noted that Jose is _today_ a very common Hebrew diminutive for Joseph. Why would it _not_ be in 1st century Israel? Given that Jose is also a shortening of the name, something _ideally suited_ for a nickname.
The documentary also noted that "all the names of the people in the tomb were New Testament" names and that none of the names were unexpected.
Well what about the Matthew in the tomb?
The documentary noted that derivations of Matias show up in Mary's geneology (at least a few generations back) in Luke.
But if they found a Yitzak or Simon, could not the same be said as well ... "Of course, these were common names at the time... and we can't expect to know _all the brothers, sisters, relatives of Jesus and Mary."
It just seems that the presence of the Matias derivative name in the tomb is an oddity ... and the program tried to explain it away in the same way as it would attempt to do so, if _any other commonly appearing 1st century Israelite name_ appeared in the grave as well.
Hence, I do question the way the statistics / converging arguments were done.
Dennis
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/05/07 21:56
A: "Why then was the number associated with Jesus in the statistical calculations of the program 1/196"
Because it is how many Jesus' had a father named Joseph. That would be app. 1 in 196.
Haven't seen the show yet....
Name:Dennis •
Date: 03/06/07 2:54
A: That may be ... but the the all the number seem to be kept low.
And I do wonder why one would also add to the calculations the statistical probability that a Matthew (or Matias) figure would be present in the tomb, since that _would be a something of surprise_ and for that matter the child figure (Joseph son of Jesus) because that is a complete surprise.
Arguably, the only important names in the grave from a statistical point of view would be those more or less expected to be there (if it were the grave of Jesus of the New Testament) ... that is, (1) Jesus son of (2) Joseph (this Joseph was not in the tomb, just mentioned along with Jesus), two brothers (3) James, and (4) Jose (also mentioned in the New Testament) and a diminutive of another Joseph, and then (5 and 6) the two Mary's (and that of course assumes that Mary Magdelene had a higher role in the life of Jesus than that which the canonical New Testament allows
The presence of a further child of Jesus in the tomb would flow quite naturally _if_ the Jesus of the New Testament turned out to be married ... but _that's_ of course a big if ... and could be argued as being evidence _against_ the tomb being of the the Jesus of the New Testament.
And the presence of a Matthew in the tomb is a more or less total surprise (and again could count as much against the tomb's authenticity as for it).
So you have the collective probability of finding in a tomb in 1st century Isreal of:
(1) J'shua
(2) two Josephs
(2) two Miriams
(1) Jakuv
Six very common names. One can perhaps play with the diminutives. One of the Josephs was a special one (Jose) and the two Miriams were both derivatives of the root name Miriam.
But if one is talking of a range of probability, one would think that one ought to give both the broadest possible statistical number (as a baseline) and then proceed to the most restricted one.
Of course, where is there a place where one can look up the frequency of these names in 1st century Jerusalem?
Dennis
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/06/07 13:33
A: "Of course, where is there a place where one can look up the frequency of these names in 1st century Jerusalem?"
Wikipedia of course..... Just kidding.
I know what you mean... We have to accept an educated guess sometimes.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/06/07 19:37
A: Well, I'm not to sure of the data pool myself. We know that Yose was fairly common in Galilee, and has been found in inscriptions there (though not on ossuaries), its not as rare as they are making it out to be; it is also found in Mark 15:40 (incidentally, this the son of a Mary with a brother named James).
I think there are a few potential problems in their sampling that I'm not sure if they are taking into account. I wish they would have noted something more about their technique.
1. The phenomenon of family names; sons are named for fathers, so someone from Galilee who is named yesu bar yoseph is far more likely to have a brother named yose or yosep than someone who is yesu bar yacob.
2. They used references in manuscripts and in inscriptions, but did they take precautions to make sure that they weren't including duplicates in their stats (i.e. is it possible that a particular person may be included in their stats twice because he is noted in two different locations)?
3. Since the rich are more often noted in print than the poor, are they simply assuming that names common among the rich are found in equal proportion among those that are poor? This may or may not be true and if it is not than this is going to skew their data.
4. Have they taken geography into account? Names that were popular in one region might not be as popular in another, this includes spellings and diminuatives that might be underrepresented.
Also, I think for honesty sake, due to the dubious nature of their association between Mary Magdalene with Mariamne, they need to remove her information and recalculate the probability there as well.
Name:Historian •
Date: 03/07/07 16:26
A: The genealogies given in the Bible both end with Joseph, not Mary. Mary's ancestry is not known, other than the names of her parents. I take Matthew to have been Maria's second husband, and Mariamne to have been Matthew's first wife, with Judah being Matthew's child by his first wife. This, then, would be Matthew's family tomb, in which Maria's family were also buried as required. Joseph was surely buried in Nazareth, where he died; Maria would have moved to her new husband's home. Other family members may have married and moved away or died after this type of tomb was no longer used. Genealogically speaking, while individual family names may appear every generation or two or three, specific groups of names seldom repeat, even in large modern cities. The first grandson may be named for Grandpa, regardless of which son sired him. The mother's name, then, may go to the first daughter of a different son, so the "set" is broken up, since families have always tried to avoid having cousins with the same name. If the second grandson is born to a different son, he grabs the favorite uncle's name, and so on. Name sets vary with each generation. We forget that in Biblical times, large families almost went without saying, and Joseph probably had lots of siblings, half-siblings, and step-siblings. The name "set" in the tomb isn't proof, but it is compelling evidence.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 18:40
A: Historian, Luke still may be referring to Mary's geneology, the reference to Joseph in the Luke 3 Geneology has several elliptical references that we are aware of, and the term "was supposed to be the son of Joseph" may not be intended to actually be part of the geneological formula. Mary's name would have been skipped due to the custom of the time. If you accept the conservative dates (as I do) then the geneological records would still have been extant and the time of the books authorship and one must then question why the divergence between the two. If you don't then one would reach your conclusions. Either way, this is largely a matter of one's presuppositions (as the primary reason for the later dates is that Jesus could not have predicted the fall of Jerusalem).
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 18:41
A: I've found a document that questions the method used in calculating the stats; has anyone here analyzed the method they used in the development?
