Statistics are based on the information provided; adjustments to that information translate into huge changes in the numbers
Mark Goodacre thinks that “The major part of the case that the Talpiot Tomb is Jesus' family tomb is based on the statistical claim.”1 If so, then this may be the most crucial portion of our discussion.
The statistician used in formulating the Talpiot Hypothesis, Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto, has said often that his “computations depend heavily on the assumptions that go into it.” This is incredibly crucial, as he acknowledges: “Should even one of these assumptions not be satisfied then the results will not be statistically meaningful.” For example, the identification of Mariamene with Mary Magdalene “drives the outcome of the computations substantially.”2 Similarly, Feuerverger reportedly told Ted Koppel: “I must work from the interpretations given to me, and the strength of the calculations are based on those assumptions.” For example, regarding the Mariamene ossuary, “if for some reason one were to read it as just a regular form of the name Maria, in that case the calculation produced is not as impressive, and the statistical significance would wash out considerably.”3
Accordingly, Feuerverger now realizes that statistics cannot conclude whether or not the Talpiot family is that of Jesus of Nazareth. He states, “It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tombsite is that of the New Testament family.” The reason for this is because, “Any such conclusion much more rightfully belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering into such computations.” He concludes the matter: “I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.”4 This indicates the ultimate importance of investigating these Talpiot Tomb assumptions. Since the assumptions feed the statistics, we must be sure that they are based on correct data.
Mathematician Joe D'Mello pointed out several problems with Feuerverger's computations, and made key clarifications about what is being claimed. In particular, his chief point seems to be that slight changes in the interpretations or factual basis very quickly change the overall conclusions.5
Joseph Fitzmeyer is typical of many when he argues that the Talpiot Hypothesis contains far too “iffy” conditionals which basically all must be true in order to arrive at their conclusions. Further, too many rhetorical questions are meant to be answered positively, when a negative answer will change the end result. As he concludes regarding this thesis: “Speculation is rife. …”6
“I MUST WORK FROM THE INTERPRETATIONS GIVEN TO ME, AND THE STRENGTH OF THE CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.”
Mark Goodacre thinks that “The major part of the case that the Talpiot Tomb is Jesus' family tomb is based on the statistical claim.”1 If so, then this may be the most crucial portion of our discussion.