Archaeology

The title says it all.

Talpiot Tomb Various

There are several additional things that are worth mentioning on the Talpiot tomb story from recent days. Randy Ingermanson has uploaded a clear, detailed investigation of the statistics and the tomb, co-written with Jay Cost. Some will remember his earlier piece, Statistics and the “Jesus Family Tomb”. This piece builds on that one and takes it to a whole new level of thought and detail, though with the same conclusion, that the odds are strongly against this being Jesus of Nazareth’s tomb. One particularly useful factor in the piece is the assigning of “Jesus factor”, “Not Jesus factor” and “neutral factor” to the evidence, the kind of ground work I was attempting to do, in my ham-fisted way, with talk of “matches” and “non matches” and the difficulty of the latter not having been factored in to the documentary’s thinking (The Statistical Case for the Identity of the “Jesus Family Tomb”).

There is much more, including links to his citations, so please see his complete entry. He also notes the Tomb of Star Trek that I posted. I would also remind folks of the amusing “Tomb of Jesus of San Gabriel, CA” that I pointed to last week.

(Via NT Gateway Weblog.)

 

Kirk Kilpatrick emailed me to let me know that he updated his theory regarding the chevron and circle on the so-called “Jesus tomb.”
Temple of Augustus or Temple of the LORD?

Upon further reflection and additional research, I believe that another possibility should be considered:

The Temple of Augustus. The coin of Herod Philip II (see examples of coins catalogued as Hendin 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 538, 539, etc.) struck at Caesarea Philippi shown above and in the last entry of this blog is almost universally associated with the Temple of Augustus in his territory by numismatists (Meshorer, 76-77; Roller, 191). See Hendin 530 where the shield feature is enlarged (here). It is thought that the temple appeared in this way at Sebaste as a tetrastyle (four columned) temple (though possibly enlarged at some point to be peristyle–six columned across the front and surrounded by columns).

Be sure to read it all!

(Via EVIDENCE.)

 

The Numbers Guy

Carl Bialik examines the way numbers are used, and abused.

March 8, 2007, 10:08 pm
The Lost Tomb of Jesus?
My column this week explores the controversy over an estimate of the probability that a tomb found in Jerusalem contains the remains of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. Makers of a television documentary about the tomb asked a statistician to make the calculation, and presented his finding — that there is just a one in 600 chance that the tomb doesn’t contain Jesus’ family. I examine the tenuous assumptions behind that calculation, and the awkward position of a researcher working outside the usual bounds of peer review. (Read the column.)

I still get lost in the maze of figures (what can I say? Calculus II beat me) but I think this is a good look at the issues to hand. Fundamentally it does come down to something I do understand: initially assumptions form conclusions.

“As you pile on more assumptions, you’re building a house of cards,” says Keith Devlin, a Stanford mathematician and NPR’s “Math Guy.” (Scientific American also challenged the calculation on its Web site.)

No one is questioning Prof. Feuerverger’s statistical credentials, or his calculation given the assumptions made. For each of the names believed to be appropriate for Jesus or an associate, Prof. Feuerverger calculated the probability it would arise by chance, then adjusted for other factors, such as the number of tombs in Jerusalem. But his conclusion is only as reliable as the assumptions that went into it.

See the Scientific American article referenced above.