Talk:Talpiot Tomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talpiot Tomb article.
Article policies
Israel Portal
Talpiot Tomb is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] James Ossuary

Do any of you know if the James Ossuary has any picture or designs on the front side or the side without the inscription?

Also, do any of you know the dimensions of the missing Talpiot Tomb ossuary. So far it has been unclear if the 10th ossuary is in reference to a different original talpiot tomb ossuary. This is to say that, the james ossuary connection might be in connection to some other ossuary rather than the commonally refenced 10th one in the reports. The use of the term 10th ossuary is somewhat ambigious; I can name any of the ossuaries to be the 10th one.

The book claims they were nearly identical in dimensions. There was a two and a half inch difference in one of the dimensions, I forget which, but they explain that by saying it could've either changed in size slightly when it broke or that the archaeologists estimated all the numbers since the dimensions listed are all round numbers. But their book's the only place I've been able to find any discussion at all about the dimensions of the "lost" ossuary.--74.207.77.138 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sprot?

I am starting to think this page needs protection from anonymous editors. Any thoughts? Heathhunnicutt 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll betray my ignorance because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I didn't realize anonymous editing or postings were allowed. If so, I'm against it if controls to prevent it are available. That's just my opinion, but I'm open to what the majority want. --pkuchnicki 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly no expert on page protection, but my impression is that it is usually done when an article is being vandalised a lot. This article has been subject to unsourced statements (some later sourced), sloppy writing, some ignorance of Wikipedia's style guidelines, and a few just plain dumb edits. But it doesn't seem that there has been much vandalism, and I would hate to deprive anon, but legit, editors from contributing possible important information, unless things get out of control. My two cents. Ward3001 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Copyvios

I just noticed some trails of quotation marks that lead me to fear that previously attributed material has made its way into the article as non-quoted text. This would be a WP:Copyvio. Consider, for example, this old revision [1] and the statement

The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied scriptstyles are characteristic of that time

that has made its way into the article mostly unattributed. As I am writing, we are at this revision: [2] and you can see there is a dangling quotation mark remaining. Heathhunnicutt 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This will get controversial. I think it's necessary with a story like this to add citations at every single fact. LukeSurl 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I added "citation needed" tags to the article. Ward3001 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Also agree 100%. It might be a good idea to monitor changes to the article in the coming weeks as this article may grow considerably. takethemud 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with a qualifier! To me it makes no sense to allow somone to quote their parish priest, pastor, rabbi, or imam, UNLESS they are a recognized expert/specialist/scholar in the field in which they are making an authoritative pronouncement. I will allow that they could quote the above people in a section where people want to make their opinions known and there are controls on how many times duplicate affirmations/negations are allowed. I mean, why repeat the same thing a million times?
By the same token I find it kind of shallow to hear a recognized expert either pro/con to say something is nonsense without a supporting explanation of why. Without that, how is that any different from opinion? And as we all know opinions are like a$$h*&%$, they are worthless because everybody has one. --pkuchnicki 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I think this line in the article should be kept, but placed somewhere else (perhaps in a section titled "Conflict with Common Christian Beliefs"): Christian tradition holds that Jesus was buried in a tomb at the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Christianity holds to a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Anthius.

Is this the same Christian tradition that says Jesus was crucified through his palms versus his wrists? The same tradition that holds there should be four gospels as there are four corners of the earth or four winds? We don't need tradition per se, we need truth and truth is found sometimes in tradition and sometimes not as time and history teaches us.... a lesson we forget at OUR peril.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkuchnicki (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 February 2007.
Yeah but unfortunately the truth certainly isn't found in this Talmudist myth.

I tried to consolidate the Support section to contain subsections for some of the cited evidence. I think Support and Criticism need to be maintained as whole sections for the sake of the article having any cohesion. Heathhunnicutt 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date nonsense

The article said "Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, ”The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). " This quote is attributed to wordpress.com who are quoting someone "Discovery News", so it may be a typo or cumulative error, but it is wrong. Per Herod the Great one of the "Herods" he ruled from "(c. 74 BC – c. 4 in Jerusalem)." and another Agrippa I "Agrippa I also called the Great (10 BCE - 44 CE), King of the Jews, the grandson of Herod the Great, and son of Aristobulus IV and Berenice. His original name was Marcus Julius Agrippa, and he is the king named Herod in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Bible, 'Herod (Agrippa)'". Since the dates for "Herod" make no sense I removed it here until it can be straightened out. Nothing should go into such a controversial article unless accurately cited. The text as it it was is saying that Jesus got married and had a son then was buried before he was 5 years old, since he is believed to have been born 1 BC to 5 BC. Find the original article which may have been misquoted at wordpress.com and restore a corrected quote. Edison 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately as much as I hate to admit I was sloppy, it is nonetheless the case and thank you for not only catching it, but gracefully dealing with it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkuchnicki (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 February 2007.
The Discovery News article also says the same wierd thing. Should I put the nonsense back in te article but add a source for the Herodian dates? I fear that might make Discovery Channel look idiotic and the whole purported find less credible. Am I just misreading or misunderstanding it? Discovery Channel quotes an expert who thinks Jesus died at age 5 and that he might have been a father? What? And that Herod only ruled 2 years? Edison 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing the dates when they are clearly impossible is the correct thing to do. Someone did a sloppy editing job. When the correct dates are supplied, they can easily be used. pkuchnicki 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Edison, I think it's very likely that the Near Eastern Languages expert gave them a two HUNDRED year time range: the first CENTURY BC through the first CENTURY AD. Then someone on the filmmakers' team corrupted it down to a two YEAR time range, by omitting the word "century". Then they gave this wrong time range to their math expert, causing all his calculations to be wrong by a factor of 100.
Part of the statistical calculation requires an estimated answer to this question: "How many of these tombs would have been required, to hold all the people who died in Judaea during the relevant time range?" They answered this question with the number 1,000. I can't imagine that 1,000 ten-person tombs could possibly hold all the people who died in a 200-year period; that would mean that the population of the entire province would be outnumbered by the student body of my old high school. On the other hand, I can certainly imagine that 1,000 ten-person tombs could hold all the people who died in a two-year period.
Correcting the "1 BC to 1 AD" mistake will require changing "1" to "1st century", and changing "1,000" to "100,000", and changing "600-to-1" to "6-to-1".
This is not to say, of course, that I would endorse a claim of 6-to-1 odds in favor of the filmmakers' hypothesis. If they are careless enough to introduce an obvious 100x error in just one term of their calculation, then I suspect that there are probably many other errors in other parts of their research, very probably enough to reduce the odds to a level far below even 1-to-1. -- Evil-mer0dach 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
WOW! You get the Sherlock Merodach award for sleuthing. I bet you are right. It just shows tle low standards the Discovery people have with this project's fact checking. It is non-peer reviewed for obvious good reason, and it is starting to look like a lot of sensationalistic nonsense. Perhaps someone with archeological credtentials will publish such an analysis so it can be added to the article to debunk it. Edison 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Watched the show yesterday. Lost all respect for Discovery. Thirteen year old cousin, who likes math: "What do you mean, you can't just multiply the fractions like that?" Me: "Suppose you shake two quarters in a box, and open the lid and look. What are the chances you'll see a head and a tail?" Cousin: "You mean it isn't just a half times a half?" Me: "No. Think about it." After a few minutes (and 50 cents): "Wow, I see what you mean. Is the blackboard guy really that stupid?" Me: "Maybe. Or maybe somebody else really did the math that was in the show. Or maybe he's just an actor pretending to be a professor; how would you know? Sometimes stuff on TV isn't real, even when they say it is." -- Evil-mer0dach 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The "1000" is an upper estimate of how many tombs have been examined, based on the number of ossuaries which have been described. It isn't anything to do with the whole population. McKay 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No; that number is supposed to include everyone, including people whose remains have NOT been found.

To be conservative, [Feuerverger] next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

– Discovery Channel, Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found

(emphasis mine) -- Evil-mer0dach 12:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should give an historical context to 1,000 number. It seems that there are several questions that should be answered: what was the population of Jerusalem at that time, what was the death rate? what was the percentage of the population whose remains where put in tomb and ossuaries? Sfoucher 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inscriptions

If someone is going to cite an inscription contesting a translation, they need to move it somewhere else in a section clearly labeled as disputed, not "blindly" editorialized in the Inscription section which should contain simply the facts, i.e., how the inscriptions read. If there is a dispute concerning insciptions, all sources should be identified so it is clear whether sources are "theologians", "documentarists", etc. rather than specialists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkuchnicki (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, disputes the translation. He also disputes the results of a mathematician who did a probabilistic analysis of the names. Perhaps Dr. Pfann would be so kind as to correct a few countries's economies or critique some classic literature, or revise the special theory of relativity. Dr. Pfann makes the case that James Cameron is none of these. Yet it is on the backs of specialists (epigraphers, mathematicians and biologists) that conclusions are drawn. It would seem more logical to debate the four epigraphers on their findings and credentials that Mr. Cameron. I find it a bit hypocritical to dismiss Mr. Cameron's claims as unqualified while he himself who has no academic standing in mathematics or statistics does not hesitate to dismiss their methodology and conclusions. One has to wonder whether his emotions and attachments to Christianity have clouded his scientific judgement.--pkuchnicki 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stephen Pfann, president of Jerusalem's University of the Holy Land and an expert in Semitic languages, appears in The Lost Tomb of Jesus." [3]
Based on his position, my bet is that Professor Pfann is Jewish, if religious at all. And who are these mysterious "4 epigraphers"? No one has their names? Do they exist? David Bergan 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It has not been made clear who they are, but I think it is a legitimate question and either the book or the documentary should provide that data. If not, it should be treated for what it is.--pkuchnicki 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong: "Six of the ten names are claimed [...]" There are no ten names at all. There were originally ten ossuaries, of which one is reportedly lost. Of the remaining nine ones only six have an inscription at all. The other three ossuaries have no names associated with them.

The original paper says very clearly that the 10th ossuary is "plain" (i.e. has no inscription). McKay 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Misconception on my part. I assumed the "ten names" wrongly refer to 10 inscriptions -- treating "Yeshua` bar Yehosef" as the designation (name) of one person. But of course they are two names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.47.149.99 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Discussion

It is NOT sufficient to quote people in various sections as though the mere utterance of their opinion was the equivalent of fact. If supporting facts or logic are not supplied, the statement is, ipso facto, an opinion and needs to be qualified clearly as such. I do not have any issue with someone giving me their opinion. I do have a problem with someone passing off an opinion as fact. Facts are supported by data or tight reasoning. Opinions are not supported by anything other than an "appeal to authority" which is bogus. That being said, it is understandable to some extent when "authorities" are quoted in a section CLEARLY LABELED as Criticism. That's fair enough since they don't pretend to be factually or logically based and in fact, are not and there is, in my opinion, a place for opinion at times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkuchnicki (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Suggestion

This is going to get tricky. It's archeology, either mixed with - or versus - theology, according to taste. We are dealing with hard science on the one hand, pseudoscience in the middle, and people's emotions and beliefs on the other. We therefore need ONE article - this one - confined STRICTLY to dates, locations, and physical aspects of the discovery, burial of found remains, inscriptions etc. We then need another article dealing with controversy, speculation, criticism, debunking etc. Otherwise this page is going to grow like topsy and become a mess of 'von Daniken' - style pseudoscience and various religious rantings. I would suggest that everything from the 'Support' paragraph downwards belongs in a different article called 'Controversy Regarding the Talpiot Tomb' ChrisRed 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It already looks like this article has a lot of overlap with The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Perhaps we should transfer all unique content from this article to that one (as it is the documentary that's causing all of the commotion) and delete the overlapping content? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
POV forking is against Wikipedia's policy. 205.250.233.59 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's already forking. Someone found some tombs in Israel, and it's just a matter of time until people start adding their own rants here. This page should be confined to a physical description of the tomb...whatever or whoever was in there. Then: "There has been speculation that this tomb once contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. See......". Make a separate place for rants elsewhere or this will degenerate into farce ChrisRed 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
It's not forking if it's in the same article. Read Wikipedia:POV forking and Wikipedia:NPOV for the policies. This article has to include all the views of the tomb in a balanced and NPOV way or it will be in violation of policy. Ecto 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have read them yourself first before posting that. This is a page in an encyclopedia called 'Talpiot Tomb', so it has to describe the tomb; end of... If it then refers out to a subsequent 'Controversy Regarding....' page, then this must, as you say, include all the views of the tomb in a balanced and NPOV way, because it's a page about the controversy. To comply with the rules; it is necessary to have one 'Controversy' page only: it must not 'fork' into two pages 'for' and 'against' the tomb being that of Jesus and his family. At the moment, this 'Talpiot Tomb' page only deals with the actual tomb briefly, before almost immediately launching into a series of statistics, thinly-veiled slanging matches between experts, credibility slurs etc. If I click on a page called 'Talpiot Tomb', I want to see pictures of the tomb, drawings, location, inscriptions with translations etc. If I then want to read all about the documentary and how it was received / disputed / accepted / discredited, then I will click on the link to the 'Controversy' page.ChrisRed 08:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I did read those myself before posting them. Usually controversy stays in the related article. The only way it moves to a new article is if the main article gets too long, and even then that's just an if. Read Wikipedia:Article size. The relevant section of that guideline will refer you to Wikipedia:Content forking (which isn’t necessarily done along POV lines), which will refer you to Wikipedia:NPOV. Burying controversy in a separate article when there is plenty of room for it in the main article is unnecessary and possibly POV. Feel free to start one up, but it will probably just get merged back into this article. I have no problem with moving the bulk of the controversy content in this article to the documentary and book articles as the controversy seems to be surrounding those works more than the actual tomb. We can then maintain a brief summary of the controversy in the Talpiot Tomb article. That should address your concern. How does that sound? Ecto 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the article, I don't think that it's worth it. I learned far more from the Discovery Channel website - a better source of information about the actual tomb than this page. I know it won't happen; but this page itself would be more accurately called 'Talpiot Tomb Controversy', as far more of its content deals with the controversy rather than the tomb itself, which barely gets a paragraph.ChrisRed 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bad source for references"

Something ironic. :-) I notice that someone added a link to the article I wrote on the epigraphy of the "Yeshua` bar Yehosef" inscription, but that it was later removed as a "bad source." I'm a professional Aramaic translator. It's my vocation. :-) Since I don't want to mess with links to my own page, as that's not in the spirit of Wikipedia, I wonder what the problem was? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I should have entered a more intelligent comment. The problem I saw was not with your aticle; rather with the statement that claimed your article for a citation. The statement I removed claimed the inscriptions are easily read. Even if you consider them to be so in your opinion, the article would need a couple of references to support the claim that they are easily interpreted inscriptions. Since WP:OWN is bad, what would you suggest as a replacement statement that your article does support? Heathhunnicutt 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I like how you've put it in. Not obtrusive, but accessible. :-) It's so difficult working with Wikipedia articles that cite your own work. I can only imagine how tricky it must be to have a biography. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article organization

All the sections below the "The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb" header has to do with those two works, the claims made in those works, or the controversy surrounding those works. Why are these subjects disassociated from the relevant header? Are the two sections named Support and Criticism about support and criticism of the actual tomb itself, or about support and criticism of those two works? If about the tomb itself, what do they support or criticize about the tomb? Is the connection to the James ossuary made anywhere besides in those two works? This header organization makes no sense and should be changed. Ecto 23:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Is this a real photograph of the tomb? I saw a report on TV and it looked very different. The reporter was standing beside a slab over a raised hole, not an entranceway carved in rock. Ecto 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This newspaper article has a picture. It's not as romantic as the picture taken from The Lost Tomb of Jesus Web site, but it looks like the one they showed on TV. Ecto 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Dean" comment

What does "and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars" mean? "Dean" is an academic -staff- title. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added it as I found it in the Wash Post article. David Bergan 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Scorn for the Discovery Channel's claim to have found the burial place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and -- most explosively -- their possible son came not just from Christian scholars but also from Jewish and secular experts who said their judgments were unaffected by any desire to uphold Christian orthodoxy.
"I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight," said William G. Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars. "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated." [4]
You should not "add it as found" from a newspaper article. The first, and major, problem with that approach is that it risks a Wikipedia copyright violation. Second, assertions of fact are supposed to be referenced with a citation that supports the assertion. The Washington Post article does not contain a footnote referencing the claim that Dever "is widely considered the Dean...", and so it is not itself a reference which supports the assertion. Therefore, it has to leave the article until referenced with a primary source. Heathhunnicutt 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't have any burning desire to keep that exact wording in. However, I doubt that it would amount to a copyright violation... fair use lets you take a couple sentences. David Bergan 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no "fair use" code but a plausible fair use would involve using quotation marks and a citation to the original source. Heathhunnicutt 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Salient Question

So in all the media coverage this has received, there is one question that I have yet to hear anyone ask or answer... and it strikes me as a pretty important one...

When they removed the bones from the ossuaries in 1980, did anyone notice if the bones from the "Jesus" ossuary had marks of crucifixion? I would assume that a detail like that would have made it into the original report before they re-buried the bones in the unmarked graves. Since the theory is that Jesus's grave is undecorated because it was made in haste to his untimely death... did the bones corroborate this theory and show that he was crucified? Is it just me or doesn't a huge amount of the authenticity rest on this question? David Bergan 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about the same question, and I found it surprising that given the inscription "Jesus son of Joseph" the archaeologists who found this ossuary did not first check for signs of crucifixion or at least estimated the age at death before tossing the bones in unmarked graves. My understanding is this: The bones were in an advanced stage of descomposition; there were probably more than one skeleton in each ossuary; they took out the ossuaries and put them in some warehouse, reburried the bones as per Israeli law, and only later studied the actual inscriptions.
I have made my statistical calculations and I found that the probability that this is Jesus's tomb is less than 10% (I have posted the results on Usenet where you can find them). But even so it's a great pitty they did not study the bones. Dianelos 10:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I sent Joe Zias an email asking him why they didn't study the bones in the Jesus ossuary to find any signs of crucifixion. He responded: "The human remains were rifled once in antiquity and again with their discovery, the chances of finding any evidence of crucifixion, which is a speclality of mine, is almost nil. see the article on my web site and youwil understand why." Dianelos 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics Report

I have added a table that is precising the calculation for the joint probability of the 4 names. In the text, it is said:

Some of the study's assumptions include:

  • that the Maria on one of the ossuaries is the mother of the Jesus found on another box,
  • that Mariamne is his wife
  • that Joseph (inscribed as the nickname Jose) is his brother.
  • that Jesus is the correct name on his box, whereas "Hanun" might be more accurate (see below)

But the calculation available on Discovery website and detailled previously in the text does not require these assumptions. Feuerverger's calcul simply estimates the joint probability of the occurence of the 4 names assuming statistical independence and does not require knowledge of eventual familly links. Note that "Jesus son of Joseph" is also a joint probability of the simultaneous presence of the name Joseph and Jesus. According to the table given by Richard Bauckham, the probability of "Jesus son of Joseph" should even be lower and equal to 8.3%x3.8%= 0.32% or 1 in 317. I think that the text quoted above should be removed because it does not reflect the statistical reasoning followed by Feuerverger. Sfoucher 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. A more authoritative list of Feuerverger's assumptions which is not dumbed-down for public consumption is his own statement. Actually the details of his calculation have not been revealed and that makes them very difficult to critique on statistical grounds. McKay 09:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, there is a lot of details in this document and it should be included in the article. Sfoucher 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
No mention of the most glaring assumption? That a tomb of Jesus would contain EXACTLY these names, no less and no more? Because that is the assumption that underlies the whole "statistical" argument. (And as an aside, isn't it ODD that "Mary Magdalene" is designated "master" and there is NO honorific or mention of specialness about the supposed "Jesus"?
What a mess of a claim. Carlo 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: That a tomb of Jesus would contain EXACTLY these names, I disagree, The statistical analysis aims strictly at assessing the likelihood of such a cluster of names under a given period of time. It does not help you in deciding whether or not this family is the one mentioned in the New Testament (Sfoucher 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)).
McKay Actually one can. He speaks of multiplying probabilities, and this is clearly wrong in this case as it assumes that the order of the names is significant. Suppose you put two coins in a match box, shake it, open the box and find one coin showing heads and the other tails. How probable is that result? The probability of heads is 1/2 and the probability of tails is also 1/2 so, according to Feuerverger's logic, the probability of getting one heads and one tails is their product, i.e. 1/4. But that's grossly wrong. The correct probability of getting one heads and one tails is 1/2 (if you don't believe it try the experiment and count the results :-)
Here is a yet more realistic example. Suppose you take dice and paint their sides with 6 suggestive names: Jesus, Maria, Joseph, Judas, Simon, James. When you toss a die the probability of getting any particular name is 1/6. Now you take 4 dice, put them in a box, shake the box, open it, and find they show Jesus, Maria, Joseph, Judas. According to Feuerverger's logic the probability of this happening is the product of the individual probabilities, i.e. (1/6)*(1/6)*(1/6)*(1/6) = 1/1296. But the correct probability is 1/54 – this is 24 times larger than his result. The number 24 represents all possible permutations of these four names. (Incidentally the correct formula is: 4! / 4^6) My own computation using Monte Carlo simulation is that the probability of finding a tomb with the names Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Joseph, and Mariamene is about 1/170.
What can I say, to multiply name probabilities in this case is an error that nobody who passes probability theory 101 would commit. I can imagine the "investigative reporter" who directed this film committing this error, but the three professional statisticians he supposedly employed repeating the same trivial error? Something is strange in the whole story.Dianelos 11:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The statistical analysis as published on the web is a mess and was probably "formated" to make it understandable by a large public. Unfortunately, we have no choice but wait for Feuerverger's paper to come out (if ever!). I found also some links where the statistical evidence is discussed here and here. (Sfoucher 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)).
FYI I have done some statistical analysis myself using computer simulations. I have posted some results on Usenet here and here and here. There is a bit that I have not posted in this thread. *If* we assume Mary Magdalene's real name was "Mariamene", and if we assume that she was married to Jesus, and if we assume that Jesus's family was entombed in Jerusalem, and if we assume that Mary Magdalene was entombed in it, and if we assume that Jesus Christ was entombed in it, then the probability of the Talpiot tomb being Jesus Christ's can grow up to 90%. Dianelos 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Something is strange in the whole story" -- Dianelos, you are right. If the filmmakers had gone to a local junior high school, and picked a math teacher at random, they would have been given a better calculation than this one. This is the sort of math you might expect to get from a randomly selected junior high school English teacher. Even the random English teacher probably could have done a better job, if allowed to spend an hour or so reading the beginning chapters of a "statistics for dummies" book.
It must be extremely embarrassing for the U of Toronto department of Statistics, to have their name and reputation used to endorse a calculation which any first semester statistics student can see is incompetent and/or fraudulent, in a nationally publicized and televised academic fiasco. I imagine there must be ongoing conversations about revoking Feuerverger's tenure. I am beginning to think of this Simcha as the Borat of academia: he seems to have a unique talent for humiliating scholars, or for somehow inducing scholars to humiliate themselves.
What I don't understand is this: why has Feuerverger still not done what he needs to do? If he wants to save his career and reputation, and the reputation of his department, his next move is obvious. He needs to make a very simple statement, clear and explicit, and easily understandable by everyone. He needs to make the same statement already made by McKay on this discussion page: "The calculation in the film is statistical nonsense."
Of course it may already be too late. Ethically he should have made that statement immediately when the press release appeared, last month. Why didn't he do what he needed to do? Why has he still not done it? -- Evil-mer0dach 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of these statements are way too strong. Andrey Feuerverger is a very senior and competent statistician, and it has not been shown that any of his calculations are mathematically incorrect. Wild assertions about "junior high school" are false and unhelpful. What I said, and I stand by, is that the dumbed-down version made available on the Discovery site is nonsense. The main error is the one Dianelos pointed out above (the coins and dice example). I made these points to Feuerverger some time ago, and he replied that his calculation was conditioned on various "ancillary" assumptions (search for "ancillary" in his statement). From a strictly mathematical point of view this is a good answer. The fundamental core of the problem is that statistical calculations are done within a enclosed mathematical world that is an abstraction of some given assumptions. This allows for errors of a non-mathematical nature caused by wrong assumptions, or by the dubious interpretation of some number, such as a probability, outside the mathematical world in which it has a strict meaning. The most common fallacy is that something is impressive just because it is associated with a small probability. Personally I am very dubious about the practice of conditioning on observations made of the data, rather than a priori, but I'm guessing that Feuerverger will provide an argument for this in his full paper. Finally, I highly recommend the lovely simulation Dianelos has posted here. McKay 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I understand your comments, but I suspect that you have misunderstood mine. You write: "it has not been shown that any of his calculations are mathematically incorrect." You seem to think that my comments referred to some calculation which Feuerverger may have given to Cameron and Jacobovici. I don't know what calculations he may have given to them, and neither does anyone else.
Instead my comments referred to the calculation which Cameron and Jacobovici included in their broadcast. They stated explicitly, several times, that Feuerverger was the author of that calculation. No one can dispute that his name and reputation, and the name and reputation of his department at U of Toronto, were used to endorse that calculation.
Because he has not yet addressed a statement to the general public, unequivocally disavowing the calculation that was attributed to him, you can't dispute that his name and reputation are STILL being used to endorse that calculation.
You write: 'Wild assertions about "junior high school" are false and unhelpful.' Do you know anyone who teaches math in junior high school? If so, do you honestly believe that he or she could have produced a calculation as bad as the one in the film? I am sure that there are many English teachers who could produce a calculation like that one, but I suspect that you are severely underestimating the competence of our math teachers.
Here's an experiment for you to try. Make a copy of the last page of the "evidence" document, and replace the words "Andrey" and "Feuerverger" with your own name, and read it. Imagine seeing yourself on national television, writing on a blackboard, with your name and department and institution featured prominently on the screen. Imagine CGI graphics showing how "you" allegedly carried out each step in that grossly incompetent calculation. Now imagine a massive publicity campaign, promoting that calculation and the claim that you are its author (and "your" conclusion, the fact that "the odds - on the most conservative basis - are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB") to everyone in the English-speaking world who has basic cable. Try to answer honestly: How would you feel? What would you do? -- Evil-mer0dach 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
McKay, you wrote: "The main error is the one Dianelos pointed out above (the coins and dice example)." By referring to that error as "the" main error, you seem to be discounting the importance of several other serious errors which have been found in that calculation. I would be interested to know your opinions about some of these other errors:
#2: The person who did the calculation (allegedly Feuerverger) multiplied 1/190 (probability of "Jesus son of Joseph") by 1/20 (probability of "Jose"). This would make sense mathematically, if those two probabilities were independent. But everyone agrees that Jose is an abbreviation of Joseph, and everyone also agrees that families tended to re-use names! The idea that you can just multiply these probabilities together, without verifying their mutual independence, is a gross error in basic statistical reasoning.
#3: Even if the person who did the math had known enough to avoid errors #1 and #2, he still would have been trying to calculate the probability of only one particular set of names, without taking into account all the other possible sets that would have been considered equally or more favorable to the filmmakers' theory. You can't do that! This is another gross error in basic statistical reasoning.
For anyone who doesn't understand this error, try to imagine a Jacobovici film named "Lost Jackpot: the Great Lottery Heist" which might go something like this: First Jacobovici conducts an extensive "investigation" which leads him to a momentous discovery: that Saturday's Powerball drawing resulted in the numbers 14, 18, 34, 42, 43 and 32. Then he shows Feuerverger at his blackboard, explaining that although the probability of drawing any particular ball is not especially low, the probability of drawing this particular set of six numbers is only 1 in 146,107,962. Then he concludes that the odds are 146,107,961 to 1 that the drawing was not conducted randomly, and thus the lottery was a fraud!
Do you see the problem? The calculation fails to account for the fact that there are many other sets of numbers which would have fit the filmmakers' theory equally well. You can't just pick one set of numbers AFTER the lottery drawing (or pick one set of names AFTER the tomb discovery) and pretend that it's the only set of numbers (or names) that you would have cared about.
#4: After you've calculated the probability that an individual family would have had a suitable set of names, you need to account for the number of families that lived in first century Judaea. Feuerverger's calculation provides a ridiculous value for this number: 1,000. Apparently the number 1,000 is approximately equal to the number of TOMBS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED. In other words, instead of trying to calculate the approximate number of families that had the right set of names, he was trying to calculate the number of families which have ALREADY BEEN DUG UP and had the right set of names. Obviously this can't be what he really wanted to calculate, because it makes the whole calculation pointless. It seems clear that this use of the number 1,000 must have been caused by yet another gross error in basic statistical reasoning.
#5: he leaps from an attempted calculation of the probability that one or more families would have had that set of names randomly, to a declaration that "the odds - on the most conservative basis - are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB." You can't do that! Even if his math producing the number 1/600 had been accurate (as we have seen by #1 through #4 above, it is very far from accurate) it would not mean that the odds are 600 to 1 in favor of the filmmakers' theory. This is a version of the Conditional Probability Fallacy, yet another gross error in basic statistical reasoning.
You've given us your opinion about #1; would you like to express an opinion about #2 through #5? -- Evil-mer0dach 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing Feuerverger's calculation with what was shown on TV. For all practical purposes it is quite impossible for the TV show to have described a valid statistical calculation. Neither Jacobovici nor any other documentary maker would ever agree to it. (I'm writing this with lots of personal experience of trying to explain statistical concepts in TV shows.) This is regrettable but it's true. Even more regrettable is that the dumbed-down version on the TV show was not really intended to be rigorous but was more intended to impress the audience. Jacobovici knew that very few viewers would understand what the numbers meant and why anyone would want to multiply them together. All he really wanted to get across was that there was some qualified statistician out there who thought the combination of names was statistically surprising. As to your points, you need to read the newest edition of Feuerverger's statement. All of your points are addressed there. I am still very skeptical about the calculation, but I want to wait for the formal version before pronouncing it as invalid. (The non-mathematical assumptions, however, especially the one about Mary Magdelene, are historical nonsense but that is a different issue.) McKay 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I'm sure it's true that Feuerverger's "complete" calculation could never fit in an 80-minute film. But it could certainly fit in a PDF file! I wouldn't be criticizing the filmmakers if they had included a legitimate calculation in their PDF file, and if they had included an honest assessment of the outcome of that legitimate calculation in their film. Instead they included an incompetent and/or fraudulent calculation, and its corresponding incompetent and/or fraudulent outcome, in both the film and the PDF file.
You wrote: "you need to read the newest edition of Feuerverger's statement. All of your points are addressed there." As far as I can see, he is not ADDRESSING my points of criticism against the calculation in the film, so much as he is AGREEING with them. He needs to make the same statement about the invalidity of the statistical "techniques" used in the film, in a document addressed to the general public instead of a document addressed only to his statistical colleagues. -- Evil-mer0dach 16:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If they absolutely needed to present a "dumbed down" calculation to the viewers, they should have introduced simplifications that would make the outcome of the calculation LESS favorable to their theory. Introducing "simplifications" (better known as "errors") that make the outcome MORE favorable to your own theory is never acceptable. -- Evil-mer0dach 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Evil-mer0dach, I think #3 above is especially relevant. In fact I computed that there were between 10 and 50 families in ancient Jerusalem that could have produced in a tomb a cluster of suggestive names that would appear to be *as unlikely* as the name cluster found in the Talpiot tomb. For more details about this see here. Your point #4 above depends on the assumptions. *If* you assume that Jesus of Nazareth's family was entombed near Jerusalem then it is reasonable to use 1,000 tombs as the relevant population for the statistical analysis. Indeed if you assume that Jesus of Nazareth's family was entombed near Jerusalem, and that Jesus was entombed in that tomb, and that a "Mariamene" belonged to Jesus' family, and that she was also entombed in that tomb, then the probability of the Talpiot tomb being Jesus's becomes significant. Of course if you make a sufficient number of assumptions you can prove about anything. Dianelos 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Dianelos, you are right. It's OK to factor an assumption into a calculation, if the assumption is universally accepted, or if when you state your end result you include an admission that the result is conditioned on the assumption.
Unfortunately, that isn't what was done here. It seems that an important assumption, a presupposition that the "Jesus family" was already known to be buried in one of those 1,000 tombs, was factored into the calculation; but the claimed end result DID NOT include an admission that the outcome was conditioned on that assumption. -- Evil-mer0dach 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re #5 above: Dr. William C. Thompson (see Prosecutor's fallacy) has weighed in. In a quick informal review, he noted that Feuerverger's calculation, as presented in the film, "appears to be fallacious." Compare his explanation to Wikipedia's: Conditional probability#The conditional probability fallacy. He is certainly a quotable expert on this subject (one of the best, in fact) and his opinion definitely should be in the article. Can we use the link I gave above, or is its provenance too weak? It's a private e-mail message, forwarded (with permission) to an Internet discussion board. -- Evil-mer0dach 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Salient Question

I know there was DNA testing confirming that "Mary Magdalene" was not of the same family as "Jesus" (and hence could be a wife or lover)... but did they do any DNA testing to confirm that the other "Mary" was in fact the mother of "Jesus"? Or how about the family relations of the others... was "Jose" confirmed to be the brother of "Jesus"... "Judah" to be confirmed as his son...

It seems reasonable to assume that they would have done DNA tests on all the members... but then why don't we hear of the other results? The silence on this and my above crucifixion question suggests that the filmmakers either aren't asking some pretty basic questions... or they aren't telling us about evidence that contradicts their theory. They would have benefitted from peer-review. David Bergan 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just watched the documentary and Ted Koppel's critical commentary... seems like Ted wondered the same thing I did. David Bergan 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The book claims that several of the ossuaries had been thoroughly cleaned before the investigation and no human residue could be found in them. The "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary had more organic material than any of the others, according to the book. --24.107.35.146 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The further problem with DNA evidence is that it was not uncommon to have the remains of several people put in one osuary. In several of these stone boxes there would likely be more than one person, which could be the case with this box (the name is wrong anyways-- the "ou" at the end of Mariamenou indicates possession, and is a derivative of Mariamenon, not Mariamne (which would be Mariamnes in the same context)).

[edit] Which Feuerverger calculation should Wikipedia present?

Now I understand why Wikipedians are having so much difficulty reaching a consensus about the best way to present Feuerverger's statistical calculation.

After reading the "Office Hours" document and the Scientific American interview, it's clear to me that the calculation described in SciAm and OfficeHrs is a different calculation from the one which appeared in the TV show and in the Discovery Channel press releases, and which was also attributed to Feuerverger. Neither calculation is a "simplification" of the other, in any reasonable sense of the word; they are simply different calculations.

The Wikipedia section about the statistical calculation is a mess, because several editors have tried to "correct" the Wikipedia version (which was originally a verbatim copy of the Feuerverger/Discovery calculation) by slipping in bits and pieces of the Feuerverger/SciAm calculation. The result is a mongrel calculation which is clearly invalid, and doesn't make sense, and which we can't even attribute to a source because we created it ourselves from bits and pieces of two other calculations.

To clean up this mess, we need to pick just one calculation and stick with it: either Feuerverger/Discovery or Feuerverger/SciAm. Or we can present both, but we need to keep them separate; we can't take bits and pieces from both calculations and stitch them together.

Which calculation should we present?

The Feuerverger/Discovery calculation has been published in its entirety. Anyone can whip out a calculator and verify the arithmetic, and debate whether it really proves anything or even suggests anything.

The Feuerverger/SciAm calculation seems much more scholarly, but it has NOT yet been published. We only have a few hints about how it was done. No one can whip out a calculator and verify anything. No outside expert can analyze or criticize it, until Feuerverger allows outside experts to see it.

My suggestion, unless someone has a better idea, is this: We should present the Feuerverger/Discovery calculation in its entirety, verbatim. (It is quite short). We probably should try to summarize the ways in which the Feuerverger/SciAm calculation differs (though it would be difficult to do this accurately, with the very limited information currently available to us). And we should hint that better information will probably be available on Wikipedia, very soon after Feuerverger releases the Feuerverger/SciAm calculation to the world. -- Evil-mer0dach 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should note the claim about 1/600 with a quotation or two on what that figure is supposed to mean, then note that the details of the calculation have not been revealed. The "calculation" shown on the Discovery page is actually statistical nonsense (a claim I am well qualified to make). Since the evidence so far from Feuerverger is that the real calculation is different, we should not just copy the Discovery page. That's my opinion. McKay 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The Feuerverger/Discovery calculation (which concluded: "the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb") was the keystone of the publicity campaign. It was used as the organizing theme around which the entire film was structured. It was released to the press, promoted, and shown to the viewers. We can't just ignore it. We need to present it to our readers, or we need to state explicitly that we aren't presenting it because it is nonsense.
Yes, I'm sure that you are well qualified to declare that the Feuerverger/Discovery calculation is nonsense. So am I. For that matter, so is every 13 year old with good math skills. The question is: Are you qualified to make that declaration as a Wikipedia source, with enough perceived authority to prevent editors from constantly re-inserting the Feuerverger/Discovery calculation (or, much worse, inserting a "corrected" version of that calculation)? Do you have a Ph.D. in the field? I don't think the declaration needs to have any kind of peer review, because the calculation itself never went through any kind of peer review. You just need enough perceived authority to prevent re-insertion, or at least to provide ammunition for editors who take action to revert the inevitable re-insertions. -- Evil-mer0dach 12:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section merge with The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb

The following sections should be merged with The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb:

1. "Support"--about support for the documentary and book, not support for the actual tomb itself.

2. "Criticism"--about criticism of the documentary and book, not criticism of the actual tomb itself.

3. "Connection to James ossuary"--a ridiculous claim only made in the documentary and book, and refuted only in relation to the documentary and book.

3. "Inscriptions"--heavily disputed translations only presented by the documentary and book.

Why are these sections in this article? This content is relevant to the Talpiot tomb only by way of the documentary and book. All of these sections are about the documentary and book, and so should be merged with the articles about the documentary and book. They do not reflect the views of the wider scholarly community in regards to the tomb, but only present the material in or about the documentary and book (which are not scholarly works whatsoever). These sections should be merged into the proper articles. The "Lost tomb of Jesus and Jesus Family Tomb" section can then be expanded in summary style, with main article links provided. Ecto 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links section

This section is disproportionately made up of links to conservative Protestant webpages. There should be a much more diverse list of links here, even among sources skeptical of Jacobovici and Pellegrino's claims. One website is even headlined "The undeniable reality of Christ's resurrection" and is clearly not at all dedicated to a critical assessment of the scientific and historical evidence concerning this or any of the other tombs with supposed links to Jesus. As a non-expert on the subject, I would really appreciate more emphasis in this section on archaeologists or statisticians who challenge the claims of the book and documentary rather than religious proselytization. The purpose of this page is not really to chronicle the overall debate re: the resurrection or Christ's divinity, is it?

--24.107.35.146 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think professional statisticians who are truly disinterested (i.e. those who have no opinion about Christianity, and have not been paid by the filmmakers) are waiting for Feuerverger's math to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is only natural: why should they work without pay, on a calculation which hasn't even appeared in a legitimate publication?
Until Feuerverger publishes his math, we can probably expect that nearly all of the available expert commentary will be written by people who are not entirely disinterested. -- Evil-mer0dach 11:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand: the calculation that appeared in the film could never get through any kind of peer review. So if some version of Feuerverger's math does eventually get published, it will be so very different from the calculation that appeared in the film, that the ensuing scholarly discussion of the math in the journal will not really help us in our coverage of the math in the film. -- Evil-mer0dach 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But none of that excuses putting links up to such off-the-wall personal Christian homepages such as those. If nobody's bothered to make any kind of a serious attempt to disprove these unscholarly claims, say that, but I hardly think that makes linking to sites like the ones listed appropriate for a supposedly "encyclopedic" article.--74.207.77.138 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of serious analysis has been done. It just hasn't been done the normal way, for the normal reason (i.e. normal peer-reviewed science) because Feuerverger has not yet exposed his work to normal peer-reviewed science. He hasn't even exposed it to informal peer review, by publishing it on the Web.
But I'm not disputing your opinion that the article has some unhelpful links. I haven't looked at them all; you may well be right. -- Evil-mer0dach 01:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols

I would like to know what the circular geometrc patterns on the ossuaries are. Does anyone know this or have a reference for it? Sandwich Eater 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosettes. -- Evil-mer0dach 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The Rosette, does it have a particular significance? Last night I viewed another film by Simcha J. about the Exodus. I noted with some interest that similar Rosettes appeared in the Mycenae museum where he claims there may have been a jewish tribe. I am sure that is controversial. But I do find the Rosettes interesting and I can't seem to find much out about them. Sandwich Eater 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Kirk Kilpatrick addresses the symbols that you are referring to ad nauseum on his blog site, confirmedword.blogspot.com. He has two articles on them, so be sure to check it out.
[5]

[edit] A Third Salient Question

I'm interested in whether this is the tomb of the historical (i.e. REAL) Jesus, not the character that appears in Christian mythology. Obviously mythic and metaphorical elements have already been added to the story (virgin birth, walking on water and other magic, etc.). Is there any reason or evidence to believe the crucifixion took place in actuality? And how would finding evidence of the body in this tomb having been crucified or not prove or disprove that this is the historical Jesus except of course for a devoted (and therefore inherently biased) Christian who already believes in the myth as being literally true?Rglong 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Historicity of Jesus. Presumably the finding of substantial bodily remains would contradict the biblical episode of the ascension, although this is probably not the right place to get into that discussion. Grover cleveland 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite, 4 June 2007, reverted

Gilabrand, I'm sure your edits are well-intentioned, but you simply don't know enough about this subject to attempt a major rewrite. You need to read (and understand) all the sources on which this article is based, before you attempt to rewrite the article.

Your edits and summaries contain numerous factual errors and misunderstandings. No, it is not a natural cave; it's a man-made tomb. Yes, the text "Jesus, son of Joseph" is disputed. Yes, bones were found in the tomb. Yes, James Cameron has been responsible for many very famous Hollywood movies. No, the "James Ossuary" is not one of the ten ossuaries that were discovered when the Talpiot tomb was opened. No, there was not any bone material found in the James ossuary.

The main effect of your edits has been to compromise the accuracy of this article, so I have reverted them. You are welcome to continue to edit, but I hope you will do a lot of studying first. 70.171.59.131 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Fourth Salient Question

Since all the "evidence" rests on the inscriptions - has it ever been checked whether they are as old as the ossuaries? The tenth (re-discovered) one "maybe" had the line "son of..." added, is stated in the film - maybe? This seems like the crucial point to me. ALu06 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments deleted

I removed the paragraphs below which were apparently inserted into the article by Pellegrino. While his opinion may be of interest the article isn't a forum. Gr8white (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Pellegrino comments: To begin, Joe Zias, mentioned above, wanted me to sign the above statement with him. Bizarrely, he sought my support (as a credible forensic archaeologist) by e-mailing me a photograph of the ossuary inscribed, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," captioned with the words, "On his throne." The "throne" was a toilet. When I decided I wanted nothing to do with Zias or his letter of protest, then (and only then) I was no longer a credible forensic archaeologist and the trashing of my own name began. As for the statement itself - the assertion that all archaeologists, epigraphers, scientists involved in Princeton's Jerusalem Symposium regard the Talpiot Tomb case as discredited and closed is simply not accurate and is, at best, somewhat biased and unbalanced. The math says so: While most of those named in the letter of protest are scientists of high standing who have been providing good counter-arguments based on legitimate scientific skepticism, the statement that all scientists/archaeologists involved in the January 2008 symposium have denounced the observations of Ruth Gat and the legitimacy of the Talpiot Tomb hypothesis happens to be patently false. To begin with, no polls of opinions were ever taken, either during or after the symposium. There were in fact 65 scientists attending the symposium and submitting papers for the Proceedings. I was one of them; and along with at least five other archaeologists personally known to me from the proceedings, our interpretations of the evidence run counter to Zias and the 12 - who but fractionally represent the attendees.

It should also be noted that even in the Vatican (where it would seem, at least to s simple mind such as mine, that people speak with some authority about whether the Talpiot Tomb results are truly "Christian-Bashing" or "resurrection denial"), Jesuits and Fransiscans have been quite interested in some of the recent bio-concretion and fiber evidence emerging from the Jesus ossuary's fiber evidence. It should be further noted that I have been on record for over a year, saying that except for a degraded fragment from a metacarpal (wrist bone: "as if popped out like a wisdom tooth"), there was never any skeletal material in the Jesus ossuary and only two cloths of unusual composition were placed inside. Further, all of the trace fibers - all of them - are anomalously pristine and were never in contact with decay products from a primary burial. In other words, we have a missing body. While some Vatican types see this and other emerging evidence as "proof" of the resurrection, there are other explanations and as a doubter, that's where I believe the Razor points (toward a possible body thief who evidently could not have been one of the apostles). Of further note, an apocryphal Philip gospel, completely intact and in the Vatican archive, refers to an adopted son of Jesus who was called his brother. This is consistent with Roman law, in which children or grandchildren of a man accused of sedition were always killed - bearing in mind that the Romans recognized no distinction between adoption and blood (and that emperor Tiberius was Augustus' adopted son), the Romans had a unique quirk of allowing siblings (like James and Judas Thomas) to live. There is apocryphal and canonical evidence indicating that this adopted son called brother (and "twin") was Didymos Judas Thomas. So, the Judas son of Jesus inscription is consistent. Of final note, I agree with Tal Ilan, and with evidence pointed out by the Jesuits, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene (Mariamene) were not married, and that she was a leading re-uniter of the early Jesus movement by virtue of much greater strengths than mere marriage to the founding Prophet. I admit this much: in the beginning, some of us (myself included) were a little too Da Vinci-coded out. The real story seems rather more fascinating and unpredictable than that. Stay tuned for scientific monographs. - C.R.P.