La “Tumba” de Jesús encontrada 2

Discovery Channel ha cambiado el “tono” de aseveraciones que tenia en su sitio web acerca de la Tumba de Talpiot:

====================================

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, profesor de estadistica y matematica en la universidad de toronto, ha concluido una alta probabilidad estadística que la tumba de Talpiot es la tumba familiar de Jesús.

CAMBIO A:

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, profesor de estadistica y matematica en la universidad de toronto, ha concluido (conforme a las asumsiones históricas establecidas) que es hay bajas probabilidades que el entramado “interesante” de nombres hubiera sido sacada por casualidad bajo un muestreo aleatorio.

====================================

“Un estudio estadistico encargado por las televisoras (Discovery, Vision Canada/C4 UK) concluye que el factor de probabilidad es 600 a 1 en favor de que esta tumba es la tumba de jesus y su familia

CAMBIO A:

“Un estudio estadistico encargado por las televisoras (Discovery, Vision Canada/C4 UK)” concluye que el factor de probabilidad es 600 a 1 de que el “increible” arreglo de nombres juntos haya salido solamente por azar dadas las asumsiones que se manejan.

Así ha cambiado la tónica, ahora sus estudios solo son validos SOLO SI sus asumsiones “históricas” se validan, cosa que estan ya invalidadas de antemano por los expertos.

Como dato extra, esas asumsiones “históricas” Jacobovici el director del filme las saco de un libro llamado “LA DINASTÍA DE JÉSUS” que bebe directamente de las teórias gnosticas de que jesús estuvo casado con maria magdalena. No el mejor lugar donde investigar historia y sostener una investigación.

El autor de ese libro James Tabor ha hecho hasta lo imposible por querer “vender” sus ideas, tanto que varios escolares y eruditos comentan:

Creo que alguien en el blog de Ben Witherington comentaba que James Tabor se pone cada vez mas y mas desesperado, esta comenzando a sacar de su sombrero cualquier numero fantastico de hipotesis para soportar su teoria, incluyendo la posibilidad de un 11vo osario de Talpiot. Yo creo que se ha percatado que es poco probable que el 10mo osario podria ser el de Santiago, por que las dimensiones en el reporte oficial claramente no concuerdan (que aun el se niega a admitir), el 10mo osario esta descrito en la lista de reconocimiento como PLANO y SIN INSCRIPCION, y el reporte Wolfgang Krumbein en el Osario de Santiago concluye que ha estado expuesto a la luz solar y a condiciones atmosfericas variadas por al menos 200 años, pero que no hay absolutamente ningun indicio de que los osarios de Talpior hayan sido removidos. Sin contar que Oded Golan dice que compro el Osario de Santiago al menos un año o mas antes de que Talpiot fuera escavada. Asi que ¿que mas le queda a Tabor que inventar un 11vo osari, que no aparece en la lista original -el reporte- de Shimon Gibsón? Pura desesperación.

Tabor ha estado manteniendo esta caso a flote atraves de su retorica de “discucion civilizada” y “investigación cuidadosa”, pero una remarcable falta de substancia y profundidad ha emergido desde que el documental fue televisado desde la primera vez. Son los nuevos, y duros hechos los que deben de sertomados en consideracion, o ¿Tendremos que ser torturados por mas intentos de preservar similitudes aun que tenues e improbables, entre “Mariamenon” y “Maria Magdalena, y el osario de Santiago con Talpiot?

¿No hay cosas mas interesantes y reales que los eruditos del NT nos tengamos en que ocupar?

__________________

Si alguien se pregunta que tiene que ver el “osario” de Santiago, explico rapido. Dado que la mayoria de expertos han descartado y callado a base de correctos argumentos la “teoria” del ADN, TABOR que sigue queriendo vender libros y teorias cree que puede SALVAR esa teoria si en esa “tumba” mete el nombre de SANTIAGO EL HERMANO de Jesús…. (un osario que apareció ya hace tiempo en las noticias) El problema es que no hay posibilidad de que ese osario haya estado EN ESA tumba.. como ya Mark Goodrace y otros expertos, (los mismos que conocen y estudiaron el osario de Santiago) han repetido innumerables veces… (Tabor intenta salvar el día inventándose una teoría de dimensiones conspiradoras, de errores de eruditos y de posibilidades no posibles).

De hecho el mismo JAMES TABOR (Dios bendiga la tecnologia) ha “intentado” contra-argumentar, pero de nuevo, fue completamente desmentido por expertos en el tema.

Hay mas puntos,

…. la inscripción que se alega es de Maria Magdalena “La maestra” (mas new age no puede sonar) resulta mas probable que signifique MARTA Y MARIA es decir que fueron dos mujeres enterradas alli. Dado que las pruebas de ADN no fueron de cromosoma si no MITOCONDRIALES, por lo que si en ese osario habia dos mujeres una Marta y una Maria y una era madre y otra hija, aparecerian de la misma manera ya que comparten el mismo ADN mitocondrial, esto disminuye excesivamente la importancia de esa prueba de ADN como prueba de algo a favor del argumento del documental. De hecho lo unico que prueba es que las personas enterradas en el osario con la inscripcion de Marta y Maria no tenian la misma madre que el osario de Jesús, saltar de eso a que eran esposos… hay un largo tramo de imaginacion.

… La inscripcion de Mariamene se puede leer de variadas formas

… la inscripcion de “Jesus hijo de Jose” no es clara y se puede leer de otras maneras (principalmente el Jesús”).

… el mismo Dr. Feuerverger (quien realizo la estadistica) corrige ciertos “abusos” que el documental hace a sus aseveraciones y deja muy claro que aun corrigiéndolos solo es probable una estadística SI TODAS las premisas históricas que se manejan resultan ciertas. El punto es que TODAS las premisas históricas estan a debate, tienen otras hipótesis y muchas hipótesis mas fuertes en contra de las que clama el documental.

… 16 de los 72 nombres personales conocidos en esa epoca hacen el 75% de los nombres usados. Incluidos en el top 16 estan nombres como Salome, Simon, Maria, Jose, Judas, Lazaro, Marta, Jesus y Santiago, todos los cuales estan conectados a Jesus de Nazaret en un modo u otro. Asi que mientras que la probabilidad de que un grupo de 4 osarios haya tenido un PARTICULAR acomodo de nombres es poco probable, la probabilidad de que 4 osarios haya tenido un conjunto NO particular de esos nombres es muy grande… y de la misma manera hubiera podido denominarse una “IMPRESIONANTE” coincidencia ya que todos esos nombres hacen eco en la vida de Jesús…

— De hecho el tema no ha movido muchas aguas (es como si alguien quisiera sacar concluciones historicas del Codigo DaVinci)… simplemente se ha ido aprentando el cuello a Tabor (que es el que continua peleando por su causa de Jesus y Maria casados, probablemente desee sacar la secuela de su libro “La dinastia de Jesús”) y han tenido que salir mas teorias sin sustento alguno.

Por mi parte solo deseaba compartir esta información por que -como yo mismo he visto en los comentarios de blog– hay gente que hara hasta lo imposible por aferrarse a destruir a la Cristiandad con estos temas -como si la mentira, la falsedad, lo manipulado pudiera contra la realidad, contra la verdad-, asi que solo queria que estuvieran un poco mas informados. Mas pruebas contra las teorias descabelladas de Jacobovici y TABOR y su libro no pueden existir.

Pero es cansado ya estar rebatiendo sobre estos supuestos. Por mi parte es hora de cambiar de canal. Pero si alguien desea mas información dejo dos enlaces y un excelente resumen de como todos los puntos “históricos” son altamente rebatibles, poco probables y por ello los datos estadísticos son inválidos (en ingles).

¿Que se le va a hacer…. ? me parece que personas que son producto de mutaciones aleatorias sin sentido, que no son libres por que están condicionadas por movimientos irracionales de las moléculas de su cerebro estén condicionadas a discutir la inexistencia de un ser inteligente, racional y que resulto ser en esencia lo que mas deseamos los hombres… toda belleza, todo poder, todo amor, toda entrega, toda humanidad, toda divinidad, toda grandeza, todo lo que es… quien sabe a lo mejor – parafraseando a Mark Shea – esta generación de niños malcriados, ateos, aburridos, materialistas, amargados, sin ojo para el arte, sin espíritu para la filosofía, sin mente para la verdadera razón, sin corazón para el verdadero amor… cansados de escupirle a Dios, su Padre a la Cara, de odiar el plan maestro y glorioso de su despoje de la Gloria para nuestra salvación, sea un demonizante recóndito donde el alma pervertida puede regodearse de si misma o mas bien en términos ateos, el producto de una mutación aleatoria destinada a la extinción…. Lastima por ese fracaso humano… lo digo no por todos los ateos (saludos a mis amigos no creyentes de los foros) si no por aquellos que se babosean en inventos, teorias conspiradoras, racionalismos, odios, escapes de razón, mercantilismo y demás ídolos humanos que los van convirtiendo en patéticos intentos de hombres.

Saludos.

CJBS

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1176152766396&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/discovery-website-adjusts-tomb-claims.html

 

Among the online articles that Mark mentioned, I found Stephen Pfann’s brief essay particularly informative. But in a way, Dr. Pfann is only observing, from a different angle, the same thing which Dr. Feuerverger has affirmed about his own statistics:

“The interpretation of the computation should be that it is estimating the probability of there having been another family at the time, living in Jerusalem, whose tomb would be at least as ‘surprising’, under certain specified assumptions.” (Andrey Feuerverger, at http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt )

Let’s walk through the assumptions which Dr. Feuerverger has listed, remembering that he has written, “Should even one of these assumptions not be satisfied then the results will not be statistically meaningful.”

(1) “We assume that the physical facts of the case are as stated. (Note that the inscriptions on these ossuaries and the fact that they were provenanced properly do not appear to be under dispute.)”

The “Mariamene/Mara” inscription is under dispute. Pfann’s proposal that it is actually two inscriptions — “Mariame” and “kai Mara” looks rather strong. It will require more than a simple re-statement of the opposite view to keep the opposite view tenable.

(2) “We assume that the available onomasticon data is adequately relevant to the study at hand and that, on a time-cross-sectional basis, the assignment of names is, for practical purposes, adequately modelled by assuming independence.”

Relevant, yes. Sufficient, no. Pfann’s observations have an impact here: “A mere 16 of the 72 personal names account for 75% of the inscribed names (214 in all).” Included in that Top-16 list are the names Salome, Simon, Mary, Joseph, Judas, Lazarus, Martha, Jesus, and James (Jacob) — all of which are connected to Jesus of Nazareth in one way or another. So while the chance that a group of four ossuaries would have any particular set of four of these names is low, the chance that a group of four ossuaries would have any non-particular set of four of these names — and thus be comparatively “surprising” — is higher.

If tomorrow someone found a tomb that contained 24 ossuaries, then wouldn’t we expect to find each of the names I just listed on at least one ossuary in the tomb, if it’s legitimate to base the probability of name-occurrences on the percentages in the onomasticon? To an extent, the Talpiot tomb may just show us the sort of names that we would tend to find wherever we find larger-than-normal collections of inscribed ossuaries.

(3) “We assume that ‘Marianemou e Mara’ is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene. Note that this assumption is contentious and furthermore that this assumption drives the outcome of the computations substantially.”

As Feureverger says, it’s contentious. Especially since Hippolytus and Origen do not explicitly identify “Mariamne” as Mary Magdalene, and because the “Acts of Philip” is a fourth-century tale (with several fabulous miracles) that identifies Mairamne as a sister of Philip (who was from Bethsaida); it does not call her Mary Magdalene.

(4) “We assume that Yose/Yosa is a highly appropriate appellation for the brother of Jesus who is referred to as Joses in Mark 6:3 of the NT.”

What would really be a highly appropriate appellation for Jose, son of Joseph would be the ossuary-inscription “Jose, son of Joseph.” (Plus, there’s a text-critical question here. Vaticanus has IWSHTOS in Mark 6:3. Sinaiticus has IWSHF. Alexandrinus has IWSH, supported by the Byzantine Text. Also, the parallel in Matthew 13:55 has IWSHF. Why should we rely on Mark in Rome, rather than Matthew, on this sort of point?)

(5) “We assume that the Latinized version Marya is an appropriate appellation for Mary of the NT.”

This assumption stands. “Marya” would be an appropriate name for Mary, even if one were to insist that it is just a variant-form, not necessarily “Latinized.” But it’s just one of several forms of the name “Mary,” which was an extremely common name.

(6) “It is assumed that Yose/Yosa is not the same person as the father Yosef who is referred to on the ossuary of Yeshua.”

Why? L.Y. Rahmani explicitly conveyed his suspicion that the “Yose” and “Marya” in the Talpiot tomb were husband and wife, and that Yehuda-bar-Jesus was their grandson. This assumption seems to rest on another assumption: that a person’s personal name was consistently spelled the same way. But that’s like saying that a person who, when buried, was known as Joe, would not be remembered a generation later as Joseph.

This assumption is unwarranted, and as far as I can tell it exists only to guide the statistician away from the otherwise nigh-inevitable deduction that the Yose-inscription is negative evidence: if the Yose at Talpiot is the father of the Yeshua at Talpiot, then the Yeshua at Talpiot is not Jesus of Nazareth, because Saint Joseph would, in all probability, have been buried in Galilee when Jesus was a youth.

(7) “We assume that the presence of Matya does not invalidate the find but we assign no evidentiary value to it (other than factoring in its combinatorial role).”

Fair enough.

(8) “We also assume that the Yehuda son of Yeshua ossuary does not invalidate the find but we ignore it in the computations. (This last assumption is contentious, although note that there is more than one possible explanation as to how it might have occured.)”

This seems unwarranted. Suppose someome found a tomb inscribed “George & Martha W.” from about the year 1800. We have no indication that George and Martha Washington produced offspring. None of our historical sources suggest that they produced offspring. So — even if we forget about Mount Vernon — shouldn’t it impact a calculation about the likelihood that we’ve found the tomb of President George Washington and First Lady Martha Washington, if we find, alongside the “George & Martha W.” tomb, a tomb that says, “Thomas, son of George”? Of course it should.

Dr. Feuerverger also mentioned some “additional facts” — I like to think that perhaps he meant “factors” instead of “facts” — which he noted as interesting; he did not say that they had a big impact on his calculations. Nor did he say that they had no impact on his calculations. Anyway, here are some of them:

(9) “The computations . . . does not take into account families living outside of the Jerusalem area.”

What is “the Jerusalem area”? The walled city? The area inhabited during Passover?

(10) “The high proportion (6 out of 10) of ossuaries bearing inscriptions, evidencing a more than typically literate family.”

It’s not a given that a high proportion of inscriptions is evidence of an above-average literacy rate among the family-members. If the Talpiot tomb was used for several generations, and housed some 35 corpses at one time or another, then we face a literacy-rate of 6 out of 35. Still relatively high, but we’re talking about the level of literacy required to write a relative’s name. And that’s assuming that no names were inscribed by the ossuary-making mason.

(11) “As well, the use of Hebrew/Aramaic script on 5 ossuaries with Greek on only one of them — and Greek inscription being thought more appropriate to someone from Magdal who also preached in Greek speaking areas.”

Greek was the common tongue of the Roman Empire in the first century. An inscription-writer who did not feel threatened by Hellenism could make such an inscription in the early first century. Similarly, an inscription-writer who had embraced Hellenism could make such an inscription in the mid-late first century (or later). The Greekness of the Greek ossuary-inscription is no reason to connect it to Migdal (or to Mary Magdalene). Greek was everywhere.

(12) “The unusual and highly untypical gable over circle carving on the facade of the tomb which is contentiously being argued as being symbolic of early Christianity.”

The gable may be simply a gable. (It’s sure not an “inverted pyramid.”) The circle appears to be an ordinary symbol, unrelated to Christianity, that may mean “This is a tomb.” (If you do a Google “Images” search for “Herod Philip Coin,” you will see some coins which appear to feature a building that bears this symbol, or something a lot like it.)

(13) “The apparent absence of ‘negatives’ in the finding, i.e. of archeological details (other than the ones mentioned here) that would in and of themselves invalidate ‘the hypothesis’ or that would appear to lessen its likelihood.”

I can think of a few negatives: the likelihood that the Jose at Talpiot was married to the Marya at Talpiot, for instance. Not to mention the New Testament’s reports that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and ascended bodily to heaven, and that his disciple Peter insisted that Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption. Even taking the Gospels and Acts strictly as artifacts, the reports they contain about the actions and statements of Jesus’ followers during the year after his death do not seem like the actions and statements of people who were aware that Jesus’ body was decomposing in a nearby tomb. Nor do the Gospels and Acts mention a Yehuda-bar-Jesus.

(14) “Claims about mitochondrial DNA evidence.”

The DNA evidence only established that DNA from the “Mariamene/Mara” or “Miriame kai Mara” ossuary and DNA from the “Yeshua-bar-Joseph” did not come from individuals with the same mother.

(15) “Contentious claims, backed by claimed spectral patina evidence, that the contentious James ossuary (with its disputed secondary inscription) had originated in the same tombsite.”

Inasmuch as Joe Zias has reported that the tenth ossuary was taken from Talpiot and placed in the IAA courtyard, and
inasmuch as the James Ossuary, at its greatest length, is 56 (or, according to Dr. Tabor, 57) cm long, and the length of the tenth Talpiot ossuary was recorded as 60 cm, and
inasmuch as the tenth Talpiot ossuary was described as plain, and the James Ossuary has an inscription on one side and faint circles (with fainter designs within them) on the other side, and
inasmuch as Joseph Gath’s initial report explicitly stated that the tomb contained ten ossuaries, and Shimon Gibson has, as far as I can tell, said nothing to really draw that into question, and
inasmuch as Wolfgang Krumbein has meticulously examined the James Ossuary and concluded that a particular kind of pitting on it indicates that it was not in a cave environment for 200 years (150 years, minimum), and
inasmuch as the “patina-fingerprinting” presentation in the “Lost Tomb” movie appeared to be misleading, for various reasons, and
inasmuch as Oded Golan has produced time-stamped photographs of the James Ossuary, showing its inscription, from 1976 (even though this could be a clever trick using old photo-paper or something; an FBI agent has testified that the photographs appear genuine, or words to that effect),
I think we may dispense with the theory that the James Ossuary is from the Talpiot tomb.
(Could anyone offer some statistics on the odds that all of these considerations will be surmounted?)

So: the invalidation of even one of the assumptions assumed by Dr. Feuerverger renders his present calculations meaningless. And almost all of those assumptions are invalid.

 

 

 

 

 

Anuncios

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: