Discussion of: Statistical analysis of an archaeological find

TL;DR

This paper critiques Feuerverger's statistical analysis of an archaeological find, highlighting faulty assumptions and presenting an alternative Bayesian estimate that suggests a less than 2% probability the tomb belonged to Jesus of Nazareth.

Contribution

It identifies flaws in previous statistical analysis and provides an alternative Bayesian approach to estimate the likelihood of the tomb's association with Jesus.

Findings

Feuerverger's analysis is based on six faulty assumptions.

Alternative Bayesian analysis estimates less than 2% probability.

The critique challenges previous claims about the tomb's significance.

Abstract

We critique the analysis by A. Feuerverger of an archaeological find [arXiv:0804.0079] that has been alleged by some to be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. We show that his analysis rests on six faulty assumptions that have been severely criticized by historians, archaeologists, and scholars in related disciplines. We summarize the results of an alternative computation using Bayes' theorem that estimates a probability of less than 2% that the Talpiot tomb belongs to Jesus of Nazareth.