Ingermanson has written two analyses of the Talpiot names,

one a discussion for the statistics novice (2007), and another, more technical paper co-authored with Jay Cost (2007).These analyses examine the statistical work of Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, the mathematician whose statistical work was used in the Discovery Channel documentary in favor of the Talpiot tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb, and offer independent conclusions. Briefly, Randy argues that the names are common and the combination of these names in the tombs does not amount to a statistical slam dunk at all. Tabor recently posted a new statistical analysis of the names in the tomb that, in part, disputes Ingermanson’s method and conclusions. The paper is entitled, “Probability, Statistics, and the Talpiot Tomb” (Kilty and Elliott 2007). It is authored by Dr. Kevin Kilty, whose PhD is in geophysics, and Mark Elliott, whose PhD is from the University of Arizona in Near Eastern Studies. Both teach at Laramie County Community College. Tabor touts this paper as the answer to those who would argue that the combination of names is not statistically significant. He writes:[This paper] is exceptionally clear in argument, thoroughly academic in approach and method, and in my view advances the discussion of the Talpiot tomb to a new level. I believe that this paper clears the air on any number of convoluted issues, but particularly the matter of whether or not the cluster of names found in the tomb are common and statistically insignificant, or rare and unique (2007c).Tabor’s enthusiasm for this paper exceeds the paper’s merits. To date there has been no published response to the paper, but one is in process, in conjunction with a lengthy response to Feuerverger’s original statistical analysis. Feuerverger’s work, which formed the basis for the Discovery Channel documentary’s statistical claims, actually never underwent peer-review. Feuerverger’s work, along with a lengthy response by Dr. Ingermanson that will be relevant to Kilty and Elliott’s criticisms, is scheduled for publication in a peer-reviewed journal sometime in 2008. While I am not a statistician, I have one thought on the Kilty and Elliot paper. While Tabor wants his blog readers to think that the paper evidences tight thinking, it appears that their statistical analysis needs a methodological logic check in at least one place. Tabor is eager to point out that what makes Yoseh important is the fact that this shortened form for Joseph (Yehoseph) is rare, occurring only three other times. However, these three other occurrences are in Hebrew (Yodh-Samech-Heh or Yodh-Waw-Samech-Heh). Everyone in the discussion admits that the Greek term in Mark 6:3 is an abbreviation or nickname for the longer “Joseph.” What seems to be missed by Tabor, and now Kilty and Elliott as well, is that we cannot argue that the shortened Greek form has a one-to-one correspondence to the shortened Hebrew Yoseh. That is, it is possible that Jesus’ brother ‘Iωση never went by Hebrew Yoseh, but by the longer Yehoseph. The Greek ‘Iωση is a nickname for either long or short name in Hebrew. This needs to be factored into any statistical analysis. Tabor’s third line of argumentation is that the Talpiot tomb could have belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, circumventing the objection that Jesus and his family could not have afforded such a family tomb. Tabor writes:Nearly everyone seems to assume that the gospels report that Joseph of Arimathea took the corpse of Jesus and laid it in his own new tomb late Friday night. A group of women, Mary Magdalene and others, followed, noting the location of the tomb. Sunday morning when they visited, to complete the Jewish rites of burial, the tomb was empty. The problem with this assumption is that our best evidence indicates that this tomb, into which Jesus was temporarily placed, did not belong to Joseph of Arimathea. Mark, our earliest account,says the following:And he [Joseph of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (Mark 15:46).John’s gospel, reflecting an independent tradition, offers a further explanation:Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as thetomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:41–42).Mark does not explain the choice of the tomb, but according to the gospel of John this initial burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea was a temporary, emergency measure, with the Passover Sabbath hours away. It was a burial of necessity and opportunity. This particular tomb was chosen because it was unused and happened to be near. The idea that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes no sense. What are the chances that he would just happen to have his own new family tomb conveniently located near the Place of the Skull, or Golgotha, where the Romans regularly crucified their victims? Mark indicates that the intention of those involved to complete the full and proper rites of Jewish burial after Passover. Given these circumstances, one would expect the body of Jesus to be placed in a second tomb as a permanent resting place. This second tomb would presumably be one that either belonged to, or was provided by, Joseph of Arimathea, who had both the means and the will to honor Jesus and his family in this way. Accordingly, one would not expect the permanent tomb of Jesus, and subsequently his family, to be near Golgotha, but in a rock-hewn tomb elsewhere in Jerusalem. These circumstances also address the issue that some have raised that the Talpiot tomb could not be that of Jesus since he is poor and from Galilee. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes leader of the Jesus movement following Jesus’ death in 30 CE (2007a).I would agree that the wording of Mark 15:46 and John 19:41–42 could suggest that Jesus was hurriedly buried for expediency and then reburied in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. This reading is possible. However, it does not support the idea that the Talpiot tomb is the Jesus family tomb, nor can it. The reason is simple: there is not a single point of data that links the Talpiot tomb with Joseph of Arimathea. This is complete speculation on the part of Tabor, carefully crafted to lead uninitiated readers into thinking they are reading a coherent argument, when in fact they are not. This kind of crafted leap on Tabor’s part demonstrates his propensity at constructing history rather than reconstructing it. Introducing a new hypothesis is fine, being an expected part of the scholarly enterprise. It is even better, however, when such newly introduced hypotheses are fairly tested. When a scholar introduces a theory and then frames questions in such a way that there is only the guise of testing, a methodological—and I would say an ethical—line has been crossed. Framing questions in a way that biases them in favor of a hypothesis is not the scientific method. One is not supposed to frame questions so as to allow for or even move toward certain answers. It is to frame questions that allow the data to speak for itself, whether clearly or otherwise, and then live with the results. As this paper and the work of others has shown, Tabor exempts the data from certain questions, and then frames the questions in such a way as to give life to preconceived conclusions.CONCLUSIONI often ask myself the question, what drives people like Dr.Tabor to take the positions they hold? I do not think Dr. Tabor is part of the militant atheism we have seen growing more restless in the past few years. He seems too kind for that, both in print and in personal communications we have had. He just lacks the militant spirit, at least in my experience. Rather, I think Professor Tabor just cannot seem to accept that all scholarship—his included—is not about who is less a supernaturalist than whom, as if greater skepticism translates into more careful scholarship. There is no necessary cause-and-effect relationship there. Rather

language software