Magic Statistics

A heated controversy has broken out over the alleged discovery of the tomb of Jesus and his family.  Experts in many related fields have weighed in and, since a statistical analysis was presented in support of the claim, I’m going to throw in my two cents’ worth as well.  As you can tell from this post's headline, I don’t think the statistical support proves anything.

In the documentary, University of Toronto statistician Andre Feuerverger calculates that the chances of the names being found together are 600 to one.

He said that the Maria on one of the ossuaries is the mother of the Jesus found on another box, that Mariamne is his wife and that Joseph — inscribed as the nickname Jose — is his brother.

Jesus' mother was known after his death as Maria, the Latin form of Mary, as more Romans became followers. Mariamne is the Greek form of Mary. Mary Magdalene is believed to have spoken and preached in Greek. Jose was the nickname used for Jesus' little brother.

Furthermore, the tomb is the only site where ossuaries have been found with the names Mariamne and Jose, the documentary's creators claim.

CTV got the man’s first name wrong: It’s really Andrey.  His home page at the University of Toronto gives no indication of interest or expertise in religion or archaeology.  His listed publications all pertain to highly technical (not to say arcane) mathematical statistics.

An outline of Dr Feuerverger’s calculations is posted at The Discovery Channel’s The Lost Tomb of Jesus pages.  The website is presented almost entirely in Flash animation, making it quite difficult to download or even print off the contents.  Also, most of the pages do not have unique URLs.  So, to document the location of the statistical information, I have to describe the steps necessary to find the page.  Here goes:

From the Lost Tomb of Jesus home page, click on “Explore the Tomb”, the second item in the list of tabs to the left of the tomb photo. This will take you to a page headed “Explore the Evidence”.  (After this point, individual pages do not have unique URLs.)

Click on “Enter the Tomb”, immediately above tomb photo.  When the next page has loaded, click on “Supporting Evidence” at the bottom right of the main window.  When the next page has loaded, click on “Statistical Evidence”, the fourth item in the list to the left of the main text.

This is the full text:

Statistics Overview

Dr Andrey Feuerverger, Professor of statistics & mathematics at the University of Toronto, has concluded A [sic] high statistical probability that the Talpiot tomb is the Jesus Family tomb.

In a study, Feuerverger examined the cluster of names in the tomb.

This involved multiplying the instances that each name appeared during that time period with the instances of every other name.

To be conservative, he then divided the number by the statistical standard of 4 (or 25%) to allow for unintentional biases in the historical sources.

He then further divided the results by 1,000 to account for all tombs that may have existed in First Century Jerusalem.

Taking into account  the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds — on the most conservative basis — are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB.  A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.  

Statistics Tables

Frequency of names:
Jesus Son of Joseph: 1 in 190
Mariamne: 1 in 160
Matia: 1 in 40
Yose: 1 in 20
Maria: 1 in 4

Initial Computation: 1/190 x 1/160 x 1/40 x 1/20 x ¼ = 1/97,280,000

Second Computation: Eliminating Matia since he is not explicatively [sic] mentioned in the Gospels:
1/190 x 1/160 x 1/20 x 1/4 = 1/2,400,000

Third Computation: Adjusting for unintentional biases in the historical sources:
2,400,000 / 4 = 600,000

Fourth Computation: Adjust for all possible First Century Jerusalem Tombs:
600,000 / 1,000 = 600

Probability Factor = 600 to 1

The second sentence refers to a “study” which I have searched for without success.  It is definitely not posted at Dr Feuerverger’s website and, as far as I can determine, it is not posted anywhere else on the internet.

To me, this looks like something dashed off on the back of an envelope in five minutes.  Moreover, Dr Feuerverger has simply taken someone else’s word that the tomb is genuine and that the names listed were found therein.  The probability estimate is based on uncritical acceptance of the reports of others as to the contents of the tomb.

Several crucial but unexamined assumptions lie behind this computation, which I think an academic mathematician should have spelled out.  These assumptions are all extremely tenuous.

The first assumption is that the tomb of Jesus and his family exists.  Given other readily available historical information, the probability of that has to be considered minute.

Secondly, it has been assumed that the four (or five) names found in the tomb are the actual names of the members of Jesus’ family.  In particular, the computation assumes that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (supposedly Mariamne in the tomb inscription).  If those two did not marry, then the computation is obviously pointless and absurd.  I don’t believe there is any credible historical evidence that Jesus married anybody.

Thirdly, Dr Feuerverger has assumed that the names given to him are all accurate transcriptions of what is written in the tomb.  In a lengthy post on that very question, New Testament scholar Ben Witherington demolishes any claim that the names presented by Dr Feuerverger are the names actually inscribed in the ossuaries.

Just for the record, I’m not familiar with the adjustment factors of 4 and 1000 applied in step three and four.  I stand to be corrected, but they look to me like arbitrary numbers.

In sum, Dr Feuerverger’s probability calculation is one big example of begging the question.  He has assumed what he purports to prove.  Assuming that Jesus was buried in a tomb with brother Yose, mother Maria, and wife Mary Magdalene, the calculation indicates that there is a 99.8% probability that Jesus’ tomb has been found.  If those assumptions are not correct, then the tomb will never be found because it does not exist in the first place.

h/t for Ben Witherington link: Thinking Christian

Previous related post: From our bulging “How not to do statistics” file

Leanne Larmondin of Anglican Journal unloads against all and sundry in her report on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s upcoming session with the Anglican Church of Canada's House of Bishops.  Her emotional roller coaster is something to behold.

She feels that The Most Rev Dr Rowan Williams has affronted the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church by taking so long to pay his respects to their bishops.

The news was unexpected, since it had appeared for all the world that North America, as far as the archbishop was concerned, had been “sent to Coventry.”

No, not that Coventry – the other one. The term is used in the United Kingdom and Ireland to describe a state of exile, ostracism. A more apt term for Canadians might be “sent to the penalty box.”

Does that mean the Anglican Affray is like a big hockey game?

Next, she goes through perceived slights that the shunned excluded ostracised churches have endured at the hands of the evil thoughtless insensitive archbishop.

The first strong indication that this was the case occurred in 2005, when the archbishop declined an invitation to attend a joint meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops and some of their American counterparts in Windsor, Ont.

The invitation was issued well in advance and was made in good faith.

I am puzzled as to why she feels the need to specify that the invitation was "made in good faith".  What does that mean, exactly?  Has anyone suggested it was issued in bad faith?

Abp Williams isn’t the only bad guy in the Anglican Communion, moreover.  At their 2005 meeting in Dromantine, several primates snubbed ACC Archbishop Andrew Hutchison and TEC Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold.  It’s beginning to look like a vast right-wing conspiracy.

It was also at that meeting that the primates asked the Canadian and American churches to “withdraw voluntarily” from the Anglican Consultative Council for at least three years.

Now why would all those primates do a terrible thing like that?  Could it have something to do with Canadian and American actions following The Windsor Report?  Dunno: not a word about that from Ms Larmondin.

So, many in the two churches were understandably feeling wounded – regardless of how they felt about the issues that led to the primates’ request: namely, sexuality and the authority of Scripture.

"Regardless of how they felt about the issues"?  I think not.  Traditional Anglicans who support orthodox understandings of biblical authority, including biblical teachings on sexuality, were, as far as I’m aware, quite accepting of ++Rowan's decision not to meet with Canadian and American church leaders.  The theological and liturgical innovators, on the other hand, were far more likely to feel "wounded" that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not want to appear to lend his imprimatur to novel teachings and ceremonies.

Ms Larmondin now goes into paranoid attack mode.

The announcement is all the more surprising because many had believed Archbishop Williams to be taking great pains to appease the church in the Global South and some of the more combative conservatives in Canada and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Any appearance of an olive branch being extended to the North Americans could be seen by some of the more militant agitators as a betrayal – not only of themselves but of the authority of Scripture.

When it comes to being “combative”, the primates got nothin' on Michael Ingham or Jim Njegovan.  “Militant agitators” indeed.

With each threat from that camp, he seemed to capitulate.

Examples of this alleged capitulation?  Well, there's only one, of which Larmondin presents a rather slanted picture.  ++Rowan invited three American bishops to the Tanzania meeting in addition to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Larmondin bewails the invitation of The Rt Rev Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, which represents beleaguered orthodox Episcopalians.  She raves on at such length, denouncing both Bp Duncan and Abp Williams’s decision to invite him, that the names of the other two invited bishops seem to slip her mind entirely.

So, it is a good thing that Archbishop Williams is coming to Canada, to speak to the church’s leaders and, hopefully, to listen and hear first hand about our experience and our realities. As he prepares to draw up the list of bishops whom he will invite to next year’s Lambeth Conference (a decennial gathering of all bishops in the Anglican Communion), he will at least be making an informed decision when he considers invitations to his Canadian brothers and sisters. Let us hope that the decision will be his and his alone.

Oh, dear.  If Abp Williams makes a determined effort to listen to all sides in the deeply divided Episcopal Church, and encourages his fellow primates to do the same, then, as far as Leanne Larmondin is concerned, that wasn’t his decision.  By implication, the only decision that she will regard as ++Rowan's very own is one that agrees with her biases.  How open-minded of her.

If Rowan Williams is so easily led astray, why care whether he speaks with the ACC’s bishops anyway?

I hope she is prepared for the eventuality that, in the course of his huddle with our House of Bishops, ++Rowan will spell out the implications of the Primates' Tanzania Communiqué for the Canadian church, which liberal Canadian Anglicans would find very disagreeable.  I wonder whose decision that would be.

h/t: Binky

Previous related posts:

• Rowan Williams: “The Bible is still important to most of us”
• Each Anglican province “has its own understanding of the Gospel”
• Time for Anglican Church of Canada to get serious
• Anglican Church of Canada still has a chance to do the right thing

A 21-year-old Indiana man has been arrested after trying to cash a $50,000 cheque from God.  Even though the man identified himself as the son of God, an employee at the Chase Bank in Hobart called police.

On Feb. 26, police received a call from an employee at Chase Bank about an “unwanted subject,” according to Det. Jeff White of the Hobart Police Department.

Kevin Russell, 21, had presented what appeared to be a starter check for $50,000. In the signature block was written, “King/Savior, King of Kings, Lord of Lords/Servant R.E.E," White said. The word “INHERITANCE” was written at the top of the check.

When the employee asked Russell who had given him the check, he answered, “My father,” according to White.

The bank checked the account number, found it was invalid, and called police. Hobart police officers found several more checks on Russell, including one for $100,000 that was also signed by the King/Savior, King of Kings, Lord of Lords/Servant R.E.E., which Russell hadn’t tried to cash.

Hobart police detective Jeff White gets off some good lines.

“Apparently he didn’t think God could cover that one,” White said. “I guess God didn’t have enough money in his account."

"You’d hate to have a check returned from God,” he said.
. . .
White said he was disappointed by one thing: “I've been a supporter of God for a long time,” he said. “I was disappointed that I didn't get a check from God too. I guess when you're the son of God, you take priority.”

And one more.

"I've heard about God giving out eternal life, but this is the first time I've heard of him giving out cash," White said.

Apparently Russell wasn't satisfied with just cheque fraud.  For good measure, he scuffled with police as they hauled him out of the bank and threatened the officer driving him to the hoosgow.  So, he has been charged with two felonies, attempted cheque fraud and intimidation, and one misdemeanour, resisting arrest.

He is being held on a $1000 bond.  One hopes that he will use the time to ponder his standing with God.

h/t: Religion News Blog

Previous related posts:

• Stupid criminals running amok
• Dumb criminal tricks
• Don’t drink and phone