Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-23-2011, 08:07 PM

Welcome to the forum, Maklelan. I think the fraud would be obvious to anyone who would take this seriously, and you have done well to help expose it.

Maklelan · 12-24-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Welcome to the forum, Maklelan. I think the fraud would be obvious to anyone who would take this seriously, and you have done well to help expose it.

Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to participating here. It looks like a pretty informed board.

ApostateAbe · 12-24-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Welcome to the forum, Maklelan. I think the fraud would be obvious to anyone who would take this seriously, and you have done well to help expose it.

Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to participating here. It looks like a pretty informed board.

Yeah, maybe you say, "informed," because that is the highest compliment available, and I would agree.

Toto · 12-24-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Welcome to the forum, Maklelan. I think the fraud would be obvious to anyone who would take this seriously, and you have done well to help expose it.

Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to participating here. It looks like a pretty informed board.

Let me add to the welcome. We value free speech, so there are some informed people here, and others at various points on the learning curve.

When your post count gets up to 5, you can post links - in the mean time here are your links:

http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.co...ordan-codices/

http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.co...ordan-codices/

Doug Shaver · 12-25-2011, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to participating here. It looks like a pretty informed board.

There are some very informed people here. There are others who have trouble distinguishing informed speculation from creative speculation.

Toto · 11-05-2012, 03:47 PM

You probably thought this story was old news, that no one could possibly take these seriously - but no.

Philip Davies: Codices from Jordan - the Mystery Remains

Jim Davies at Paleojudaica: Response

Quote:

FAKE METAL CODICES WATCH: Philip Davies has another editorial in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly on the codices: Codices from Jordan: the Mystery Remains. (His earlier editorial in the same journal on the same subject is noted here). He sums up the current situation and calls for those who think they are genuine and those who think they are fake to maintain an open mind.

I have explained in detail already, repeatedly (see here with many links), why I think that, although at least in some cases it looks as though ancient lead was used to make them, the codices were manufactures in modern times. I hold this position with considerable confidence because the evidence that they are fake is substantial. Could I be wrong? Sure. But the best working hypothesis by far is that they are fake and I see no reason to keep agonizing over the remote possibility that they are ancient productions....

Toto · 03-04-2013, 11:33 AM

The story that will not die.

Mistrust, but verify

Quote:

WHENEVER discoveries are announced that could possibly be of great importance for religious history, there tend to be blazes of publicity followed by periods of mysterious silence. Such has been the fate of the lead codices, apparently found in a cave in Jordan, whose existence was publicised nearly two years ago. So last August some 38 scholars, mostly from Britain but also from as far afield as Romania and South Korea, wrote an open letter to the Times of London, calling on the Jordanian authorities to break their silence and investigate further a collection of objects which have variously been described as the most important find in Biblical archaeology for half a century, as clever fakes or as crude fakes. As the signatories noted, the lack of any news from Amman was "strange" given the excitement they had initially generated. When the objects came to light in 2011, Jordan laid claim to them, and serious Jordanian archaeologists said there were good initial indications of their authenticity and importance. It was widely expected that there would be an announcement about the codices at an international archaeological conference which Jordan hosted in January, but to the disappointment of many participants, no such statement was made.

.... the codices have been subjected to a torrent of denunciation and ridicule on the internet, with many bloggers arguing there is a moral duty as well as a scholarly one to expose the objects as fakes. The sceptics' certainty is undented by the fact that very little laboratory analysis of the objects has been published. Peter Thonemann, a classical scholar and historian at Oxford University, has said he was shown an image of a copper codex which was clearly a forgery, containing crude reproductions of publicly available images and Greek writing. He is no less convinced, on the basis of the other images circulated in the media, that the remaining codices are fake, given that they contain similar images. "These are moderately ingenious tourist tat," Mr Thonemann told me, taking an intermediate position between the advocates of "crude" and "sophisticated" forgery. He says he has no objection to metallurgical study but it would be a "less decisive index" of authenticity than is provided by analysis of the content of the letters and images.

Toto · 03-04-2013, 12:33 PM

Paleojudaica responds

Quote:

...an oddly naïve post ...

What a childish little rant. No wonder this B.C. doesn't want to put his or her name to this blog. There have been rumors for the last two years that tests on the codices were imminent or that the publication of such tests was imminent. For the same period I have been calling for such tests to be published, if they exist. The bottom line is that such evidence as we have points strongly to the codices being fakes. If someone wants us to reconsider this conclusion, they should present us with new evidence that calls for consideration. It is being open to new evidence, or the possibility thereof, that constitutes having an open mind. Being forever unwilling to make a judgment call—in the vague hope that someday someone will come up with something that actually supports the claims—is being gullible, not open minded.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2011, 08:07 PM	#191
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Welcome to the forum, Maklelan. I think the fraud would be obvious to anyone who would take this seriously, and you have done well to help expose it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.