Name:sadinoel •
Title: "Jesus Tomb" Theory has Serious Problems •
Date posted: 03/09/07 16:39
Q: Source: http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html
STATISTICS- Whereas their attempt as probability looks impressive, a 600 to 1 chance this it is the ‘Family’ it falls flat when one realizes that the info. given to the statistician was that of a nuclear family of ca 10 people whereas the truth of the matter is that the family of 10 is an extended family of maybe 50 or more comprising 4-5 generations, as a result it simply cannot be computed. They knew this and I have the feeling that this info. was not divulged to the mathematician. In fact, I published in 1992 a tomb with 15 ossuaries, 88 people and one name. The one person, one ossuary scenario is how the film makers present their findings whereas in an article I published in ‘Atiqot XXII, three of the ossuaries had the remains of a minimum of 6 people. There has been an enormous amount of discussion on the web dealing with the probabilities of this being the family, which I suggest the viewer read, all of which totally dismiss the statistics as of no value whatsoever.
For a more detailed explanation on how they rigged the statistics see the following:
http://ntgateway. com/weblog/ 2007/03/correct- interpretation- of-dr-andrey. html
http://ntgateway. com/weblog/ 2007/03/statisti cal-case- for-identity- of-jesus. html
THE NAMES For those of us familiar with ossuaries and ossuary inscriptions this is, despite all their hype, totally unconvincing as all the names were very common. The ratios of names for that period are as follows: Joseph/Jose 8.3 %, Judah 6.2 %, Jesus 3.5 Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary a whopping 21.4%. Dr. S. Pfann from the University of Judaism has written an impt. Blog on this showing that 75% of the names occurring on Jewish ossuaries during this period are from a pool of but 16 names. (http://www.uhl.ac/)
The important thing to remember here is that individuals outside of Judea, buried in Judea were named according to their place of origin, whereas in Judea this was not necessary. Had the names been Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Nazareth, Joseph of Nazareth etc I would have been totally convinced that this may be the family tomb, but as none of the names have place of origin, they are all Judeans.
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER The truth of the matter is that the missing ossuary was never missing, never stolen from the IAA, nor stolen from the Talpiot tomb. Plain ossuaries which bore no inscription, nor any ornaments were automatically placed in an inner courtyard in the Rockefeller Museum during my tenure at curator (1972-1997). Due to a lack of storage space this was standard operating procedure, the ossuary was given a registration number, measured and simply stored in the inner courtyard with perhaps an additional 50-100 plain ossuaries. This was personally explained to Tabor by me so as to avoid any problems of a conspiracy theory in which the plain ossuary would figure. Unfortunately, it did not fit their agenda so they artificially created a story in which a plain white ossuary, suddenly morphed into a ossuary with two rosettes on the front, traces of red paint, bearing the inscription on the back ‘James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.
"The publicity for the Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” has a disturbingly familiar ring. First came the James Ossuary; then The DaVinci Code, next the John the Baptist cave, and now “the lost tomb of Jesus. The two archaeologists involved in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” for example, already have a well-known track record for sensationalism. These programs go for the quick buck. Everything is crafted to generate interest, to make sales. The disturbing trend in recent documentaries toward profit-driven sensationalism, however, is an insult to all concerned, and especially to those of us who are scholars of these subjects. And that is why it is scholars who should bring this train of sensationalism to a stop." Slight correction- make that one archaeologist and one biblical scholar.
Joe Zias
Jerusalem 03/07
Who is Joe Zias?
Joe Zias
- Thirty years professional experience in the field of Medical/ Physical anthropology
- Over 80 articles in peer reviewed medical and scientific journals
- Science and Archaeology Group at Hebrew University. Former senior curator of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Israel Antiquities Authority for which he was responsible for the curation of the antiquities stored in the Israel Antiquities Authority, ranging from the Pre-historic periods up to the 18th Century AD. These objects, numbering over 75,000, included the Dead Sea Scrolls, pre-historic human skeletal remains as well as artifacts from the regions premier archaeological sites such as Jericho, Megiddo, and Gezer.
972-2-588-2811 Hebrew University (from United States first dial 011)
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 3:04
A: Thanks, I'll add this as a second reference on the James ossuarty to the packet I'm working on.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 3:09
A: One question, its been noted that if a crucifixcion victim had been found, that it would have been a fairly notable event. I really doubt that something like that would not have been announced worldwide, but has Dr Zias discussed this issue directly?
Name:steve192 •
Date: 03/10/07 3:35
A: Yes, you have impressive credentials but what you are saying is that the odds that this is the tomb of Jesus are lower than expressed in the documentary. That is all. So it is, according to you, less likely that it is the tomb of Jesus. But it still could be. and if there is even a remote chance that it could be, it must be studied until the last bone fragment has been examined and it is proven not to be the tomb of Jesus.
The possiblility that it might be is exciting and the filmmakers should not be scorned until it is proven that it is not and that they knew all along that it was not and concealed this information.
I couldn't care less how much money they make in the meantime.
As for the James ossuary, it is only part of the picture and a theory and even if not true, does not take away from the significance of the tomb.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 4:07
A: Steve,
I don't mind open investigation into the tomb, but what I think this actually implies is that the filmmakers were purposefully deceptive; there is some evidence of that, though not enough for me to come to this conclusion, yet. It could also simply be a very poor ability to understand how to work with this kind of evidence.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/10/07 8:25
A: Joe Zias was one of the experts interviewed in 1996 by the BBC crew. He then considered the cluster as significant.......
I'm not sure I would call it deceptive. It's not deceptive not to reveal details, when you ask experts to examine a specific find. Having details might taint their findings. Actually, I would say that it is prescribed, not to reveal to much. That scientists suddenly feel, that they are taken hostage shows that they are unsure of their own findings. Simcha interprets the result, and any conclusion is his alone. A scientist that would have changed his conclusion, had he known how others would have used it, is hardly worthy of being called a scientist at all.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/10/07 8:29
A: This is what he said then:
"The curator of the Rockefeller Museum, Mr Joe Zias, said: "I find it very
interesting that we have the combination of names. This thing definitely, I
think, is worth some further research." "
Name:Red •
Date: 03/10/07 13:29
A: Exactly.
These guys may have presented the evidence in a way that supported thier theory, but that doesnt make it deceptive. A theory has to be portrayed 'somehow', and that Somehow has to connect to the evidence.
They did this convincingly, not by deception, but by using simple logic in deducing what they found.
There have been people put in prison on far less 'hard evidence', and the the trick is to logically connect that person to that evidence. Sometimes they are connected on a 'claim' that cant be verified with anything, and off to the pen.
My point is , these guys found good evidence, and used reasonable logic to deduce it .
I
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 03/12/07 17:17
A: Red you claim they used reasonable logic but who are you? Even their own experts are jumping ship now. I'll trust their opinion on what is "reasonable" over yours thanks.
I'd also trust the opinion of their peers, who conveniently were left out of the equation as Cameron and Crew went right to the public in an irresponsible manner, and presented data to people they knew would not be able to discern it with the same accuity of scientists and archaeologists.
Is it possible this is Jesus' tomb? Sure. I just think there are serious credibility problems, and there are also huge problems with the methods. That's why they had to hype it to the public. People who know about this stuff would not have put much "faith" into their "Study".
It's worthy of more study of course. However it's already falling to pieces and will be forgotten soon. It's pretty evident that Cameron's case does not supply enough information to draw any conclusion or even forcast a reasonable chance. Especially since they shot themselves in the foot by using selective data for their stats.
