Comments on: James Tabor and Jesus Tomb Math http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2008/05/james-tabor-and-jesus-tomb-math/ Your antidote to cyber-twaddle and misguided research about the ancient world. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:48:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: New Research on the Jesus Tomb and Statistical Probability | PaleoBabble http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2008/05/james-tabor-and-jesus-tomb-math/comment-page-1/#comment-483 New Research on the Jesus Tomb and Statistical Probability | PaleoBabble Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:53:29 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/?p=9#comment-483 [...] talk about a blast from the past. In my very first post on PaleoBabble, back on May 1, 2008, I blogged about the so-called Jesus Tomb and the mathematical work used to defend the tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family.  You can check out that link for the [...] [...] talk about a blast from the past. In my very first post on PaleoBabble, back on May 1, 2008, I blogged about the so-called Jesus Tomb and the mathematical work used to defend the tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family.  You can check out that link for the [...]

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2008/05/james-tabor-and-jesus-tomb-math/comment-page-1/#comment-7 MSH Mon, 05 May 2008 07:04:47 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/?p=9#comment-7 Good points. I'm not sure what the rules of the journal were. Some give permission for "pre-publication" drafts to be put out to the public. That, of course, is left to the author to ask for or not. Maybe the others didn't ask or didn't want a wider readership. Randy is used to writing for the popular audience, so it doesn't surprise me that he'd ask. Good points. I’m not sure what the rules of the journal were. Some give permission for “pre-publication” drafts to be put out to the public. That, of course, is left to the author to ask for or not. Maybe the others didn’t ask or didn’t want a wider readership. Randy is used to writing for the popular audience, so it doesn’t surprise me that he’d ask.

]]> By: John K. http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2008/05/james-tabor-and-jesus-tomb-math/comment-page-1/#comment-5 John K. Sat, 03 May 2008 15:33:23 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/?p=9#comment-5 Dear MSH, In my opinion, it is a little premature to evaluate Feurverger's paper and James Tabor's interpretation merely on the basis of Randy Ingermason's paper. I appreciate the fact that Ingermason's paper is being distributed "for free" while Feurverger's paper (and the other refereed reports) is not. This results in an unbalanced perspective, at least to the general public who cannot affort to purchase the numerous papers, each at a very signficant cost, resulting in over $100 for the set of papers. Fortunately, I have a copy of both Feurverger's paper as well as Ingermason's paper, and am in the process of studying each (I am a professional Demographer although a layperson with regards to biblical academics). I hope to post my observations at the conclusion of this review. It is of very great concern to me that Ingermason seems to be permitted to release a paper publicly from a Professional Journal while other authors appear to be restricted by the terms of agreement imposed by the Journal. I do not know what the actual arrangements are or why there appears to be this selective permission being granted, since it would tend to provide an unbalanced (biased) promotion of perspective. In any event, if Ingermason is permitted to provide his paper to the general public "for free" and promote his perspective onto a public that cannot afford the other papers, then it would only be fair that the Journal do some damage control and likewis release the other papers for free to the general public. Otherwise, it appears to me that the Journal's credibility is seriously at risk. If, on the other hand, Ingermason released his paper against the permission of the Journal, then I would assume that his credibility is seriously at risk. I can only hope that this is sorted out before any further biased interpetations are aired. Sincerely, John Koopmans Dear MSH,

In my opinion, it is a little premature to evaluate Feurverger’s paper and James Tabor’s interpretation merely on the basis of Randy Ingermason’s paper. I appreciate the fact that Ingermason’s paper is being distributed “for free” while Feurverger’s paper (and the other refereed reports) is not. This results in an unbalanced perspective, at least to the general public who cannot affort to purchase the numerous papers, each at a very signficant cost, resulting in over $100 for the set of papers. Fortunately, I have a copy of both Feurverger’s paper as well as Ingermason’s paper, and am in the process of studying each (I am a professional Demographer although a layperson with regards to biblical academics). I hope to post my observations at the conclusion of this review.

It is of very great concern to me that Ingermason seems to be permitted to release a paper publicly from a Professional Journal while other authors appear to be restricted by the terms of agreement imposed by the Journal. I do not know what the actual arrangements are or why there appears to be this selective permission being granted, since it would tend to provide an unbalanced (biased) promotion of perspective.

In any event, if Ingermason is permitted to provide his paper to the general public “for free” and promote his perspective onto a public that cannot afford the other papers, then it would only be fair that the Journal do some damage control and likewis release the other papers for free to the general public. Otherwise, it appears to me that the Journal’s credibility is seriously at risk. If, on the other hand, Ingermason released his paper against the permission of the Journal, then I would assume that his credibility is seriously at risk.

I can only hope that this is sorted out before any further biased interpetations are aired.

Sincerely,
John Koopmans

]]>