In the rush to promote confusion and misunderstanding regarding the Talpiot tomb any number of Websites have now loudly and falsely declared that Andrey Feuerverger, the University of Toronto Professor who was consulted for the statistics on the names in the Talpiot tomb, has somehow recanted his work. This is totally false and quite ridiculous. I am in constant touch with Dr. Feuerverger and he assures me that certain clarifying statements of his have been completely taken out of context in a dishonest attempt to imply that he has changed his mind. One quote I have seen on quite a few Web sites that are dedicated to refuting the case that the Talpiot tomb might be that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family is the following: “I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.”

What Feuerverger is saying in this quote, twisted out of context of course, is perfectly plausible and proper. He has a post on his Website that makes his position clear for anyone who is really interested in understanding and participating in a rational discussion. Dr. Feuerverger is not saying that he has decided or determined that the tomb is not connected to Jesus of Nazareth but he is simply echoing what I have been saying on this Blog for a week now–the job or task of the statistian is not to do the history, but to deliver the numbers. In other words, the statistician can tell us whether or not the cluster of names found in the Talpiot tomb is indeed common, and thus insignificant, or unique and thus worthy of attention. But the “second step,” as I have called it, is for the biblical scholar and historian to determine whether the cluster, that Dr. Feuerverger has shown is highly unique, has any “fit” with what we know of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Far from “recanting,” Dr. Feuerverger is simply making it clear that there is a team effort involved, a division of labor. He is perfectly correct to do so. Why should he, after all, as the one who is doing the math, also be expected to run the hypotheses connected with the history? It would be like asking the person who did the DNA studies to also make a judgment on whether the names in the Talpiot tomb are common. Or asking the historian who accesses the “fit” between the names and what we know from our texts to also access the DNA.

For those who want to understand this it is as clear. For others who might want to “debunk” tomb claims at all costs, the basic issue gets lost. We all know how quotations can be taken out of context in any field. Let me be clear here: Dr. Feuerverger has not in any way repudiated his work on the Talpiot tomb in accessing the probability statistics for this tomb, though he does continue to refine and work on final versions of his paper having benefited from input from colleagues in the field of statistics who have offered him constructive feedback. As Joe D’Mello wrote me just this morning, even if Feuerverger revises his numers to 100:1, 50:1 or even 20:1, “even a 20:1 odds is very, very good! I for one would have been impressed.” I think Joe is mainly concerned that the Discovery Web site be updated if it is claiming to rely on Feuerverger’s work, and that is a fair request. My own sense is that Feuerverger will end up staying fairly close to his original numbers, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Comments are closed.