Examining the Statistical Evidence
So what are the odds that these characters found in the tomb are the authentic characters of Christianity? Well lets first understand the method taken by the authors (pg. 67-83)
First, the commonality of the names found in the tomb. Remember that this is old news. The tomb was found in 1980 and dismissed on the basis of the cluster in the first place. That is, the names were common enough of first century Jews that it was not compelling enough. According to Joe Zias the names of the time period are as follows: "Joseph/Jose 8.3%, Judah 6.2%, Jesus 3.5%, Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary 21.4%" (www.JoeZias.com/tomb.html) . Now, that is just during the time period. Among all the documented ossuaries with names, 233 were male and 193 were female. Out of 233 ossuaries, roughly 14% of them bear the name Joseph and 9% bear the name Jesus. Now, the authors estimate that during the period of use of ossuaries, there was 80,000 males who lived in Jerusalem. So the formula goes as follows:
(percentage of Jesus' in Ossuaries x percentage of Joseph's) x estimated male population of era
(.09 x .14) x 80,000 = 1008
1008/ 80000 = 0.0126
1 of 79 persons who could have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"
According to the book, "From this point onward, the 'Jesus equation' was simply a matter of factoring the probability of each name in the tomb cluster, one after the other, and multiplying them against each other." (pg. 75) So here are the formulations:
Mariamne 1 of 193
Mary 1 of 24 (8 of 193)
Jose (taken as a variant of Joseph) 1 of 7
So here's what we're looking at mathematically:
(1/79) x (1/193) x (1/24) x (1/7) = 1/2561496
Roughly interpreted, the odds that this name cluster appears together in Jerusalem based on all known ossuaries is 1 in 2.56 million. Now let's examine what this really proves.
First of all, probability only proves what it proves. That is, it only proves the probability of the NAMES. Since the factor that we are working on is based on names, the stats only logically conclude the odds of finding this particular name cluster. Now, do odds really mean that something can't be entirely possible? For instance, let's take the statistics of "Jesus, son of Joseph". According to the stats, out of an estimated 80,000 males in the ossuary time period, 1008, or 1 out of 79, could have borne that name. What the stats don't say is at what time periods these possible 1008 people could have borne the name. Hypothetically speaking, the names could have been borne in one generation, either early or late in the ossuary period; they could have been all spread out. The stats won't tell us that at all. The stats won't even tell us the ACTUALITY.
In other words, according to a pool sample of 233 ossuaries bearing male names, it is POSSIBLE that out of a POSSIBLE 80,000 males in Jerusalem during that time period, that POSSIBLY 1,008 of them could have borne the name "Jesus, son of Joseph". Now, the sampling of names is from a pool of 233. It is entirely possibly that in ACTUALITY, there could have been more people who bore the name, "Jesus, Son of Joseph" and it is entirely possible that there could have been less than 1,008 people bearing the name "Jesus, Son of Joseph." The stats don't tell us that! They only give us a probability.
All that these stats prove is that probability of the names being grouped together. They do not prove, nor can they, that these names belong to the actual characters of the Bible! This brings up another point. There is a HUGE name discrepancy with some of the names in tomb in regard to the names of members of what would be Jesus' family.
First, there is the name "Mariamne e maras". The translation of this from the Greek is supposed to read, "Of Mariamne, the Master". Now, in any reading of the canonical Gospels, there is no mention of a character named "Mariamne". In fact, historically speaking, "Mariamne" was the name of Herod the Greats wife during the Hasmonean dynasty, which is when the practice of ossuaries began. The only supposed evidence for associated Mariamne with the family of Jesus are the non-canonical works of the Gnostic sects. In particular, the Acts of Phillip – which alone mentions the name "Mariamne" as being the sister of Phillip. That is the only explicit mention of who she is in this (generously dated) 4th text! Based on the speculation of one Prof. Bovon from Harvard, it is said that this "Mariamne" is "Mary Magdalene". Does the text explicitly say this? No. Is this connection between "Mariamne e maras" explicit therefore, with the Acts of Phillip? Not to mention, the Acts of Phillip was written almost 300 years after the death of Christ. So there is a very blatant discrepancy already. "Mariamne" is not necessarily "Mary Magdalene". Let's factor that in.
Second, there is the "Judah, son of Jesus". Again, no source – canonical, non-canonical, even historical at best – mentions Jesus having a son, much less one named Judah. So that this "Judah, son of Jesus" is the son of "Jesus, Son of Joseph" the Jesus of the Bible, is hardly credible. The conclusion is based on speculation, rather than on solid premises. Where do we find any information saying that Jesus had any offspring? In fictional works like the most recent "The Da Vinci Code". So again, a blaring discrepancy in the name cluster. This should actually decrease the odds that the tomb even belongs to the family of Jesus at all. For the sake of non-argument, it seems, this was not factored in at all. Why? Probably (no pun intended) because this information probably would have actually lowered the odds that this is, in fact, Jesus' family tomb. How convenient.
Now let's look at Mary. The tomb is said to have the name "Maria" which is said to be a Latinized version of the Hebrew name, "Mariam". Stop. In what source do we find Mary, the mother of Jesus referred to by her Latin variation? Could it be that this isn't the same Mary, the mother of Jesus? Why would Mary, a good Jew, be known according to a Latinized, or Romanized version of her name? Why would she be buried with that version of it if it was not her name? Think of it this way: my name is Moses Flores. Now, there are many variants of my name in different languages. In Hebrew, my name is Moshe. In Spanish, Moises (Moy-ses). Last name in English translates to Flowers, etc…When I die, my name will more than likely be printed according to what it was legally known as: Moses Flores. Why would I be known as Moises if that were not my name? Why would Mariam be known as "Maria" by her own family, rather, by her own Jewish family? Why would a family of Hebrew descent all of a sudden refer to their mother through a Latin variant? While there certainly could be a viable explanation for this, it certainly escapes us. Without evidence to believe contrary to the historical records with reference to "Mariam" (known as Mary), we really have no historical reason to believe that this "Maria" is the Mary who gave birth to Jesus at all. Hence, another discrepancy.
Another member that was in the tomb is known by the shorthand for Joseph, "Jose". According to the common name list, this name is not uncommon. How do we know that this named person is the BROTHER of Jesus? There is nothing explicit in the tombs that leads to this conclusion. Their only inference is made from Mark 6:3 which says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" These names come to us in Greek as follows: Mary is marias, James is Iakwbou (Iakoobou), Joses is Iwshtos (Ioosetos). In Matthew 13:55 this same brother of Jesus is called Joseph, thus showing the shorthand form of Joses for Joseph. But what does this prove? The text only proves that Jesus had half-brothers one of whom was named Joses. Is the Jose of the discovered tomb necessarily the same Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55? Not at all! In fact, if all the connection one can make is the names, this is obviously weak being 8.3% of the names of that period were Joseph/Jose and even at that, 14% of the names found in the ossuaries were Joseph/Jose as well. This is hardly compelling evidence! We may as well say that any Joseph/Jose related to a Jesus are brothers if this is the type of logic one is going to use here! Names do not prove familial relationships. At least not logically, especially since the names are common names for that time period.
But there is something else. Joses is not the only Joses in the Bible. In fact, there is another Joses who also has a brother named James, just like Jesus' half-brother and who even has a mother by the name of Mary, just like Jesus! Talk about a name cluster! In Mark 15:40 we read, "There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (the less) and of Joses, and Salome." In Matthew 27:56 we read "among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons Zebedee." Cross-referencing this with John 19:25 we can see that this Mary, mother of James and Joses, is more than likely "Mary the wife of Clopas." The funny thing in this text as well is that at least three Mary's at the cross with Jesus. For our purposes here, we can at least entertain another possibility based on a name cluster other than those of Jesus' family. We have a Mary, a James, and a Joses. The names Mary and Joses are in the "Jesus family tomb".
So now the question: Why couldn't the names in the tomb somehow have been related to them? Isn't it entirely possible that the "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the son of "Jose" in that tomb as well? After all, granting the name variation with "Maria", it would not be anything to grant another name variation for Joseph either. The point is, that to only conclude that "Jose" in the tomb can only be the brother of Jesus is not a logical necessity. Rather, it is a conclusion based on its premises already. That is, the argument is circular. "Joses is Jesus brother because in the Bible there is a Joses who is Jesus' brother." How ludicrous! Needless to say, the discrepancy is certainly a real one that the Jacobovici did not care to deal with. Hardly any scholarship in that.
So what does that leave us with? Well we have a "Maria" who may or may not be the mother of Jesus. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" who may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth. This "Jesus" could even be the son of the "Jose" in the tomb. We have a "Jose" who may or may not be the brother of Jesus, but who could have a mother named "Mary the wife of Clopas" or "Mary the virgin who gave birth to Christ" or even a totally unrelated Mary being that his name was the most popular among women names in that century. Who knows? We have a Matthew who may or may not be the disciple. Interestingly, some church traditions say that the disciple Matthew died a natural death is either Ethiopia or Macedonia. Some other traditions celebrate his martyrdom. And of course, you have a "Mariamne, the master" whom is not referenced to at all in the canonical Gospel, and whom no historical and even non-canonical work explicitly identify as Mary Magdalene. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" – not an unlikely name statistically speaking. We also have a few unnamed tombs as well. Add all that together and what do we really have? A whole lot of nothing!!!
Any true scholarship and research should immediately recognize, as the initial discovery of these ossuaries did, that there is no real substantial evidence in the names to reveal that these ossuaries are indeed the final resting place of Jesus Christ. The truth is that all we have are names. As we will see from the DNA evidenced to be examined later, there is not even any clear familial ties in the tomb.
In summation, statistics only prove the same kind of information that they put in. Math is like deductive logic. You input your premises and your conclusion yields what is already contained within the premises. In logic, it is fallacious when you have something like :
All A are B
All B are C
Therefore, All A are D
The correct conclusion should be "Therefore, All A are C". This conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So the question I have sought to clarify here is what kind of information was placed into these statistics? Names. That's all. The equation can only answer the probability of the names appearing in a cluster. To find out how bogus this can be, only need only to acquire the same information about their own names from their own family and then calculate the odds. The stats only prove the name cluster. They cannot prove WHO is in the tomb in any way!
Just to prove this is so, I can do the same calculation from above using the commonality of the names from the time period, provided by JoeZias.com. Accordingly the commonality of the names in the time period, rather than those of the ossuaries. Lets see what we come up with.
Joseph/Jose 8.3% or 1 of 12
Mary 21.4% or 1 of 5
Based on an estimated male population of 80,000
I ask, how likely is it that a Mary is in the family of a Joseph (Joses)?
(1/12) x (1/5) x 80,000 = 1,333
That's roughly 17 of 100 Jose's connected to a Mary. This is not even factoring the commonality of the name James (only because I could not readily find it). Suppose we give it a hypothetical 3% which is 1 of 33
(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000
Then we add the "Mariamne" factor (see above) of the ossuary, as well as the "Jesus, Son of Joseph" factor (see above) and lets see what we get:
[(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000] x (1/79) x (1/193)
(1/200) x (1/79) x (1/193)
1 of 3,049,400
That is, the odds are 1 in 3 million that the tomb belongs to a Joses who has a brother named James. And if we start off with the premise that this "Joses" is the son of "Mary of Clopas", then through circular reasoning, we have greater odds that this tomb is theirs and not Mary the mother of Jesus, or Joses the brother of Jesus either.
(* This formula may not be entirely correct. I believe I have used probability to the best of my knowledge as a former Math major. It is certainly subject to peer and even expert review. However, I have tried to use the same method that was employed by the Jacobovici team. Therefore, as long as I am consistent with their methodology, right or wrong, I only seek to prove the point that number don't necessarily mean anything.)
Again what does this statistic prove? It only proves the probability of there existing a Joses whom was clustered with a Mary and a James who might have ended up in an ossuary with a "Jesus, son of Joseph" and a "Mariamne e maras". That's it! These numbers are greater so do that mean that this is the case? Not at all. In fact, as mentioned before, the names in the probability formula do not even prove relation of any sort.
Don't be fooled by numbers! Rest assured dear Christian reader your faith is on solid ground! For any who deem the find to be true based on the statistics, I challenge you to be objective in the stats and understand their purpose. Christianity, I strongly believe, is not a matter of probability but one based on the real and objective revelation of the Almighty, everlasting and sovereign God.
First, the commonality of the names found in the tomb. Remember that this is old news. The tomb was found in 1980 and dismissed on the basis of the cluster in the first place. That is, the names were common enough of first century Jews that it was not compelling enough. According to Joe Zias the names of the time period are as follows: "Joseph/Jose 8.3%, Judah 6.2%, Jesus 3.5%, Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary 21.4%" (www.JoeZias.com/tomb.html) . Now, that is just during the time period. Among all the documented ossuaries with names, 233 were male and 193 were female. Out of 233 ossuaries, roughly 14% of them bear the name Joseph and 9% bear the name Jesus. Now, the authors estimate that during the period of use of ossuaries, there was 80,000 males who lived in Jerusalem. So the formula goes as follows:
(percentage of Jesus' in Ossuaries x percentage of Joseph's) x estimated male population of era
(.09 x .14) x 80,000 = 1008
1008/ 80000 = 0.0126
1 of 79 persons who could have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"
According to the book, "From this point onward, the 'Jesus equation' was simply a matter of factoring the probability of each name in the tomb cluster, one after the other, and multiplying them against each other." (pg. 75) So here are the formulations:
Mariamne 1 of 193
Mary 1 of 24 (8 of 193)
Jose (taken as a variant of Joseph) 1 of 7
So here's what we're looking at mathematically:
(1/79) x (1/193) x (1/24) x (1/7) = 1/2561496
Roughly interpreted, the odds that this name cluster appears together in Jerusalem based on all known ossuaries is 1 in 2.56 million. Now let's examine what this really proves.
First of all, probability only proves what it proves. That is, it only proves the probability of the NAMES. Since the factor that we are working on is based on names, the stats only logically conclude the odds of finding this particular name cluster. Now, do odds really mean that something can't be entirely possible? For instance, let's take the statistics of "Jesus, son of Joseph". According to the stats, out of an estimated 80,000 males in the ossuary time period, 1008, or 1 out of 79, could have borne that name. What the stats don't say is at what time periods these possible 1008 people could have borne the name. Hypothetically speaking, the names could have been borne in one generation, either early or late in the ossuary period; they could have been all spread out. The stats won't tell us that at all. The stats won't even tell us the ACTUALITY.
In other words, according to a pool sample of 233 ossuaries bearing male names, it is POSSIBLE that out of a POSSIBLE 80,000 males in Jerusalem during that time period, that POSSIBLY 1,008 of them could have borne the name "Jesus, son of Joseph". Now, the sampling of names is from a pool of 233. It is entirely possibly that in ACTUALITY, there could have been more people who bore the name, "Jesus, Son of Joseph" and it is entirely possible that there could have been less than 1,008 people bearing the name "Jesus, Son of Joseph." The stats don't tell us that! They only give us a probability.
All that these stats prove is that probability of the names being grouped together. They do not prove, nor can they, that these names belong to the actual characters of the Bible! This brings up another point. There is a HUGE name discrepancy with some of the names in tomb in regard to the names of members of what would be Jesus' family.
First, there is the name "Mariamne e maras". The translation of this from the Greek is supposed to read, "Of Mariamne, the Master". Now, in any reading of the canonical Gospels, there is no mention of a character named "Mariamne". In fact, historically speaking, "Mariamne" was the name of Herod the Greats wife during the Hasmonean dynasty, which is when the practice of ossuaries began. The only supposed evidence for associated Mariamne with the family of Jesus are the non-canonical works of the Gnostic sects. In particular, the Acts of Phillip – which alone mentions the name "Mariamne" as being the sister of Phillip. That is the only explicit mention of who she is in this (generously dated) 4th text! Based on the speculation of one Prof. Bovon from Harvard, it is said that this "Mariamne" is "Mary Magdalene". Does the text explicitly say this? No. Is this connection between "Mariamne e maras" explicit therefore, with the Acts of Phillip? Not to mention, the Acts of Phillip was written almost 300 years after the death of Christ. So there is a very blatant discrepancy already. "Mariamne" is not necessarily "Mary Magdalene". Let's factor that in.
Second, there is the "Judah, son of Jesus". Again, no source – canonical, non-canonical, even historical at best – mentions Jesus having a son, much less one named Judah. So that this "Judah, son of Jesus" is the son of "Jesus, Son of Joseph" the Jesus of the Bible, is hardly credible. The conclusion is based on speculation, rather than on solid premises. Where do we find any information saying that Jesus had any offspring? In fictional works like the most recent "The Da Vinci Code". So again, a blaring discrepancy in the name cluster. This should actually decrease the odds that the tomb even belongs to the family of Jesus at all. For the sake of non-argument, it seems, this was not factored in at all. Why? Probably (no pun intended) because this information probably would have actually lowered the odds that this is, in fact, Jesus' family tomb. How convenient.
Now let's look at Mary. The tomb is said to have the name "Maria" which is said to be a Latinized version of the Hebrew name, "Mariam". Stop. In what source do we find Mary, the mother of Jesus referred to by her Latin variation? Could it be that this isn't the same Mary, the mother of Jesus? Why would Mary, a good Jew, be known according to a Latinized, or Romanized version of her name? Why would she be buried with that version of it if it was not her name? Think of it this way: my name is Moses Flores. Now, there are many variants of my name in different languages. In Hebrew, my name is Moshe. In Spanish, Moises (Moy-ses). Last name in English translates to Flowers, etc…When I die, my name will more than likely be printed according to what it was legally known as: Moses Flores. Why would I be known as Moises if that were not my name? Why would Mariam be known as "Maria" by her own family, rather, by her own Jewish family? Why would a family of Hebrew descent all of a sudden refer to their mother through a Latin variant? While there certainly could be a viable explanation for this, it certainly escapes us. Without evidence to believe contrary to the historical records with reference to "Mariam" (known as Mary), we really have no historical reason to believe that this "Maria" is the Mary who gave birth to Jesus at all. Hence, another discrepancy.
Another member that was in the tomb is known by the shorthand for Joseph, "Jose". According to the common name list, this name is not uncommon. How do we know that this named person is the BROTHER of Jesus? There is nothing explicit in the tombs that leads to this conclusion. Their only inference is made from Mark 6:3 which says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" These names come to us in Greek as follows: Mary is marias, James is Iakwbou (Iakoobou), Joses is Iwshtos (Ioosetos). In Matthew 13:55 this same brother of Jesus is called Joseph, thus showing the shorthand form of Joses for Joseph. But what does this prove? The text only proves that Jesus had half-brothers one of whom was named Joses. Is the Jose of the discovered tomb necessarily the same Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55? Not at all! In fact, if all the connection one can make is the names, this is obviously weak being 8.3% of the names of that period were Joseph/Jose and even at that, 14% of the names found in the ossuaries were Joseph/Jose as well. This is hardly compelling evidence! We may as well say that any Joseph/Jose related to a Jesus are brothers if this is the type of logic one is going to use here! Names do not prove familial relationships. At least not logically, especially since the names are common names for that time period.
But there is something else. Joses is not the only Joses in the Bible. In fact, there is another Joses who also has a brother named James, just like Jesus' half-brother and who even has a mother by the name of Mary, just like Jesus! Talk about a name cluster! In Mark 15:40 we read, "There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (the less) and of Joses, and Salome." In Matthew 27:56 we read "among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons Zebedee." Cross-referencing this with John 19:25 we can see that this Mary, mother of James and Joses, is more than likely "Mary the wife of Clopas." The funny thing in this text as well is that at least three Mary's at the cross with Jesus. For our purposes here, we can at least entertain another possibility based on a name cluster other than those of Jesus' family. We have a Mary, a James, and a Joses. The names Mary and Joses are in the "Jesus family tomb".
So now the question: Why couldn't the names in the tomb somehow have been related to them? Isn't it entirely possible that the "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the son of "Jose" in that tomb as well? After all, granting the name variation with "Maria", it would not be anything to grant another name variation for Joseph either. The point is, that to only conclude that "Jose" in the tomb can only be the brother of Jesus is not a logical necessity. Rather, it is a conclusion based on its premises already. That is, the argument is circular. "Joses is Jesus brother because in the Bible there is a Joses who is Jesus' brother." How ludicrous! Needless to say, the discrepancy is certainly a real one that the Jacobovici did not care to deal with. Hardly any scholarship in that.
So what does that leave us with? Well we have a "Maria" who may or may not be the mother of Jesus. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" who may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth. This "Jesus" could even be the son of the "Jose" in the tomb. We have a "Jose" who may or may not be the brother of Jesus, but who could have a mother named "Mary the wife of Clopas" or "Mary the virgin who gave birth to Christ" or even a totally unrelated Mary being that his name was the most popular among women names in that century. Who knows? We have a Matthew who may or may not be the disciple. Interestingly, some church traditions say that the disciple Matthew died a natural death is either Ethiopia or Macedonia. Some other traditions celebrate his martyrdom. And of course, you have a "Mariamne, the master" whom is not referenced to at all in the canonical Gospel, and whom no historical and even non-canonical work explicitly identify as Mary Magdalene. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" – not an unlikely name statistically speaking. We also have a few unnamed tombs as well. Add all that together and what do we really have? A whole lot of nothing!!!
Any true scholarship and research should immediately recognize, as the initial discovery of these ossuaries did, that there is no real substantial evidence in the names to reveal that these ossuaries are indeed the final resting place of Jesus Christ. The truth is that all we have are names. As we will see from the DNA evidenced to be examined later, there is not even any clear familial ties in the tomb.
In summation, statistics only prove the same kind of information that they put in. Math is like deductive logic. You input your premises and your conclusion yields what is already contained within the premises. In logic, it is fallacious when you have something like :
All A are B
All B are C
Therefore, All A are D
The correct conclusion should be "Therefore, All A are C". This conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So the question I have sought to clarify here is what kind of information was placed into these statistics? Names. That's all. The equation can only answer the probability of the names appearing in a cluster. To find out how bogus this can be, only need only to acquire the same information about their own names from their own family and then calculate the odds. The stats only prove the name cluster. They cannot prove WHO is in the tomb in any way!
Just to prove this is so, I can do the same calculation from above using the commonality of the names from the time period, provided by JoeZias.com. Accordingly the commonality of the names in the time period, rather than those of the ossuaries. Lets see what we come up with.
Joseph/Jose 8.3% or 1 of 12
Mary 21.4% or 1 of 5
Based on an estimated male population of 80,000
I ask, how likely is it that a Mary is in the family of a Joseph (Joses)?
(1/12) x (1/5) x 80,000 = 1,333
That's roughly 17 of 100 Jose's connected to a Mary. This is not even factoring the commonality of the name James (only because I could not readily find it). Suppose we give it a hypothetical 3% which is 1 of 33
(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000
Then we add the "Mariamne" factor (see above) of the ossuary, as well as the "Jesus, Son of Joseph" factor (see above) and lets see what we get:
[(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000] x (1/79) x (1/193)
(1/200) x (1/79) x (1/193)
1 of 3,049,400
That is, the odds are 1 in 3 million that the tomb belongs to a Joses who has a brother named James. And if we start off with the premise that this "Joses" is the son of "Mary of Clopas", then through circular reasoning, we have greater odds that this tomb is theirs and not Mary the mother of Jesus, or Joses the brother of Jesus either.
(* This formula may not be entirely correct. I believe I have used probability to the best of my knowledge as a former Math major. It is certainly subject to peer and even expert review. However, I have tried to use the same method that was employed by the Jacobovici team. Therefore, as long as I am consistent with their methodology, right or wrong, I only seek to prove the point that number don't necessarily mean anything.)
Again what does this statistic prove? It only proves the probability of there existing a Joses whom was clustered with a Mary and a James who might have ended up in an ossuary with a "Jesus, son of Joseph" and a "Mariamne e maras". That's it! These numbers are greater so do that mean that this is the case? Not at all. In fact, as mentioned before, the names in the probability formula do not even prove relation of any sort.
Don't be fooled by numbers! Rest assured dear Christian reader your faith is on solid ground! For any who deem the find to be true based on the statistics, I challenge you to be objective in the stats and understand their purpose. Christianity, I strongly believe, is not a matter of probability but one based on the real and objective revelation of the Almighty, everlasting and sovereign God.
posted by prchdaword at 12:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home