This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That is a great job for a first attempt! Excellent. Jlc46 ( talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am new here and not used to editing, but I have been following this issue and discovered this article. All of the initial hype surrounding this has been reported as if it were factual, with references to unnamed "experts."
But your footnote 14 notes that one named expert, Peter Thonemann, has come up with definitive proof: "The text on your bronze tablet, therefore, makes no sense in its own right, but has been extracted unintelligently from another longer text (as if it were inscribed with the words: ‘t to be that is the question wheth’). The longer text from which it derives is a perfectly ordinary tombstone from Madaba in Jordan which happens to have been on display in the Amman museum for the past fifty years or so. The text on your bronze tablet is repeated, in part, in three different places, meaningless in each case.
The only possible explanation is that the text on the bronze tablet was copied directly from the inscription in the museum at Amman by someone who did not understand the meaning of the text of the inscription, but was simply looking for a plausible-looking sequence of Greek letters to copy. He copied that sequence three times, in each case mixing up the letters alpha and lambda."
It seems to me that this finding should be the most prominent. David Elkington is not an academic, not an expert, not an archaeologist. Fran2244 ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Fran2244
I've put it in this category on the basis that that the supposed codices are stated to be located in Israel. Petecarney ( talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51540533/Lead-Plates-Press-Release
http://www.lauralee.com/elkington.htm
http://www.lauralee.com/stcatherineexperiment.htm
http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/speakers/david.htm
http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/review023.htm
Petecarney (
talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The "definitive proof" cited by Peter Thonemann is about bronze tablets, not these lead tablets. There has been no definitive proof given that makes these lead tablets forgeries. Fleckerl ( talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and looked up each of the items marked as "dubious". A couple were dubious, and I deleted them; but the remainder were reported and I've added the reference and verbatim citation to each.
I'm not clear that anything in the article is now anything except a report of what someone has said. Since there are now no "dubious" tags, and as far as I know nothing in the article is factually in question, I have removed the "disputed" tag.
If anyone feels this is wrong, can we have details of what is in dispute? (For all I know there is still rubbish in there, of course) If something is dodgy, it should be removed. I think the article could still be improved quite a bit, tho. Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
These two new reports give more emerging details:
Could this couple's Bible 'codices' tell the true story of Christ's life?
Fleckerl ( talk) 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the need for reputable sources, the Telegraph reported that examinations by Israeli archaeological sources had shown them to be forgeries. The Jewish Chronicle reports the same conclusion, citing The Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Andre Lemaire. Both are reputable publications where journalists have done their jobs instead of merely embelishing the Elkingtons' press release. These two references are themselves enough to put this article in the categories 'Archaeological forgeries' and 'Hoaxes in Israel'. The detailed debunkings by Peter Thonemann, the Oxford Ancient History Lecturer, are, as been pointed out, presented in blogs which as self-published works are necessarily to be treated with caution. However the PaleoJudaica blog authored as it is by James Davila, Professor of Early Jewish Studies at St Andrews University, must be considered more authoritive than most. Indeed the images speak for themselves and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it is actually these blogs rather than the tablets which are the elaborate hoax. The Elkingtons' press release predicts considerable academic debate about the collection’s authenticity but, on the contrary, there is no sign of any such debate at all. It's not a case of the Jury's still out. The Israel Antiquities Authority, Lemaire at the Sorbonne, Thonemann at Oxford, and Davilla at St Andrews have given a unanimous verdict - Fake. In the complete absense of any credible case for authenticity we have no choice other than to tag the article with the categories mentioned. Not to do so undermines our mission to supply reputably sourced information and panders to a fringe publishing industry which feeds off the credulous. Petecarney ( talk) 08:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Fixed. Roger Pearse ( talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have restored a sentence linking to queries about whether those involved hold professional qualifications as archaeologists etc. This is not some kind of snobbery -- I don't care --, but rather a response to some of the press coverage which has attributed all sorts of things to these people. Amateurs can make important discoveries -- remember Schliemann! -- but must not be represented as if they hold doctorates in archaeology or teaching posts at universities. Some of the coverage would have led most people to suppose the latter. There may well, of course, be a better way of saying all this in the article, and I certainly don't intend any offence or character assassination. Roger Pearse ( talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph was added by a contributor Shibli12, who sounds as if he has some first-hand knowledge. It was rightly removed under WP:RS but ... it's certainly interesting:
Roger Pearse ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure wikipedia frowns on citing blogs and that likely goes double for Historians that have no degree. -- Protostan ( talk) 06:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(I hope people don't mind, but I realised the following material is not about Protostan's statement (and tag) that the article is unreliable, but about the blogger question. I think we need that tag issue resolved. Hope this is OK. ) Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity ... do you actually think that Tom Verenna and Dan McLennan are lying here? That the material posted is not by the people concerned? Roger Pearse ( talk) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue boils down to (a) providing readers with information they need to weigh the evidence for themselves, and (b) giving credit to to those who deserve it. I've been watching this discussion for a few days and posted an edit a little while ago. My intention was to accomplish the goals just stated and, out of curiosity, to see what would happen. The information has been removed. Some of the editors of this entry have a strange set of criteria for deciding what to include. It seems to be more about the source of the information cited than the information itself. (Let me think about this. Can I think of another case where someone might be led to believe false statements are true on the basis of the fact that they come from a "reliable" or "credible" source? Wasn't there something reported by the BBC recently about some ancient codices, whatever those are? I think I ran across some stuff posted on a couple of professors' blogs, though, showing it's all bogus. I guess I shouldn't believe the evidence I see in front of me because it's posted to a blog and not some other place. We certainly wouldn't want scholars using media affording them access to instant communication with people around the world to dispel the falsities published by reliable news organizations owned by multi-national corporations whose share-holders profit whether the sensational "news" they report is true or not. This is Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, not some corporately owned propaganda machine . . . wait . . . I can get this right . . . ) The site referred to in my edit provides evidence that speaks for itself, as do others chalenged in this discussion. My 5 year old sister could have posted the information and it would not matter? Dismissing it on the basis of the supposed credibility of the source amounts to an ad hominem argument and is irrelevant in regard to the evidence it relates. Moreover, it fails to credit the one who discovered the evidence with his find. It would be like saying that we shouldn't include anything published by Martin Luther because he was not a trusted authority and used new-fangled technologies like the printing press to disseminate his ideas quickly to his audience. No, we better wait until the Pope weighs in and our local bishop lets us know if what Luther says is true or not. Heaven forbid we should think for ourselves. And, yes, this and my edit of the article are anonymous. If you think about it for a minute you might be able to figure out why. I'll give you a hint: it's not to hide my identity. CatBrother01 ( talk) 22:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the following here as it doesn't seem to pass WP:RS. It's interesting but ... I don't think we can use it.
A Jewish Christian bibleblog provided a detailed analysis of the plate, said to possibly show the earliest depiction of Jesus, along side a sculpture of Roman deity Sol Invictus, the counterpart to Greek deity Helios. Using image filters on the likeness on the plate and of the sculpture a resemblance can be observed. Sol Invictus, and Greek deity Helios, were used as a representations for Jesus in religious art in the 4th century. The likeness appears to be inspired by the Roman artistic style. Early 3rd century religious art associated with Jesus depicted Jesus as a young Roman in Roman attire. [AA 1]
Roger Pearse ( talk) 12:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, RL0919: you took out the ref for "other news sources" in the header which leaves it like an unreferenced claim. Would you care to add some better refs to it, then? I've stuck a fact tag on it in the meantime. Thanks. Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on some of the discussion above, I wanted to present a more organized version of my take on which of the blog sources are or are not usable as reliable sources under the " established expert" exception. A bunch of the cited bloggers easily qualify:
The following do not seem to qualify, and accordingly I've been removing material that is exclusively cited to them:
In a few years we might be citing McClellan and Varenna routinely. But not yet. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about Verenna is largely academic. He has claimed repeatedly in the past to have been on the point of publishing multiple tomes. His only effort to date is a self-published vanity piece. His record is several years of claiming to be on the cusp of publishing multiple books through academic channels. To date, he has zero publications through academic or peer-reviewed journals.
As of yet, though, he is not a reliable source, and as has been pointed out, a blog with essentially hearsay reportage is not a valid source for an article such as this should strive to be. 87.64.44.214 ( talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC) ~~ To be fair to Mr Verenna, I should point out that he at least has the appeance of being passionate about the field that he is studying, and it is quite possible that if pursues it as far as his passion seems to warrant, he may well in the future be cited as an authoritative source. In the meantime, he rigourously blocks opposing voices on his blog. I'm not speaking about "OMG, these codices prove Jesus existed" posts, but posts which specifically counsel caution about drawing conclusions before all of the relevant analysis is in. It ill behoves any of us to draw conclusions precipitately when there remains a good deal of analsis to be performed.
Unfortunately the clamour of the popular press creates a strength of perception which involves costly research and analysis - work that could be better done on better-sourced finds. The reality is that the community should stand back and wait for the results to come in. There's always the risk that if they're proven to be the real deal that the professional historians end up with with egg on their face - and, much worse - the accusation that they try to fit their conclusions to the evidence. This isn't necessary when time will expose what the real story with these things is.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.170.138 ( talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This BBC interview with David and Jennifer Elkington might shed some additional information: BBC Interview. Fleckerl ( talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll start this post by introducing myself. My name is Robin Whitlock and at present I am a freelance writer, having graduated from Bath Spa University in 2008 straight into a recession. My main topic these days is environmental issues, and you can find some of my articles by looking at Ask The Experts and world.edu. I also write a blog entitled Energy & Environment. My first love though was ancient history and mythology, a subject which I have been interested in since childhood.
I was sitting in the living room of a friend of mine in Sherborne, Dorset, who unfortunately died some years ago. In walked Mr Elkington and we started to converse. I had just managed to get my first magazine article published in The Lady magazine at the time (this was around 1995) and Elkington, after having seen a copy I had brought with me and also having discovered I was interested in ancient history and mythology, invited me to participate on a project he was working on (and no it wasn't anything to do with codices). We basically agreed to write a book together on the Green Man. It was agreed, verbally, that we would be co-authors and that we would share any revenues from the book, status, appearances at conferences and so forth. Over fifteen years later and I am still waiting to Elkington to join me on this book, although having written a manuscript myself (which needs more work on it yet I am freely willing to admit) and having seen the controversy over the codices and also seen convincing remarks from various people on the Telegraph story comments page testifying as to the way in which Elkington has treated some people over the years, I am more inclined than ever to work on the book myself and try and get it published as my own project.
One time and David were standing on the platform of Thornford Halt, a small railway station in Dorset, and he started chatting about his dreams of wealth and fame. I quickly stated that my main intention was to establish myself as a writer and that I wasn't particularly bothered about money. He came back spouting some nonsense about "commissioning works of art...." and other such stuff about what he would do if he was rich.
Having seen Thonemann's comments about the codices, I do now believe them to be fake, but the recollection I've just shared above should tell you what you need to know. I would add that on several occasions during the years we were working together I had doubts about the authenticity of some of Elkington's findings. In my opinion, fame and fortune is his goal, and that, unfortunately, has the capacity to produce a less-than-careful approach to researching. That is all I have to say on this matter at present, I'll let you make of this what you wish.
Robin Whitlock Bristol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwhitlock ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not the wish to get rich that annoys me actually, it's where it begins to affect the quality of research and also, more importantly, the treatment meted out to other people in the attempt to get there. Fine, lets all get rich, but lets try and do it ethically ate least! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwhitlock ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the comment area doesn't need me any more.
Just don't forget we can only cite reputable sources and that doesn't include anything written in a blog or any first hand experience by an editor. -- Protostan ( talk) 21:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
AMMAN 15th June 2011 - Preliminary lab results indicate that a collection of metal books unearthed in northern Jordan may indeed represent the earliest Christian texts ever discovered, according to experts. According to the Department of Antiquities (DoA), initial carbon tests to determine the authenticity of lead-sealed metal books billed as the greatest find in biblical archaeology since the Dead Sea scrolls have been “encouraging”. The tests, carried out at the Royal Scientific Society labs, indicate that the texts may date back to the early first century AD, at a time when Christians took refuge from persecution on the east bank of the Jordan River.
http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=38498
Question has to be asked - how can lead be "carbon dated".
I think we need references for the "scholars". According to the first few lines, these plates are fakes, or so readers are entitled to beleive after reading the last word of the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.154.113 ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just stupid, but why isn't there any information anywhere online about what the actual contents of the tablets is? Yes, I'm sure they're forgeries, but... I can't seem to figure out what they're even forgeries OF. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.7.39 ( talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Jordan Lead Codies Are real books need to be translated to be understandable by us, the thousands years gap make it hard to understand what is meant by these writing. I am sure non of you have seen any of these books, I do. The people who made these books worked hard to preserve their thoughts on hard lead pages. It is great idea and great job. a book may include different types of languages of that time, symbols and drawings. I hope Mr.David Elkington will be successful translating these books. It may change the minds of some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.11.190 ( talk) 15:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the press release, but I can tell that some of the reports aren't accurate. See [1] and [2]. In any case this is probably too early to add. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mediacentre/press/2016/jordan-lead-codices-not-modern-forgeries Samoojas ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Samoojas ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Once again, we need to avoid using the media as sources. I see that the tabloid Daily Mail is used as a source [4] - it's a terrible source, and it's not surprising that it the page lists related articles which include one about UFOs. The Mail article has no proper sources, only a wanna-be archaeologist and his wife with no formal qualifications. [5] And why are we quoting the engineer Matthew Hood as though he's a reliable source? Hood is a co-author with Elkington of a dubiously published [6] book [7] - I see another co-author is a hypnotherapist. [8] In other words, we have no reliable sources for this, only 2nd or 3rd hand reports and unreliable sourcces. And it's now included in the lead as though it's 100% accurate. @ Makeandtoss:, are you willing to revert yourself? I can go to RSN if you want to defend these sources. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Sigh, ok, RSN it is. This is not the way to write an article. The book I mention wouldn't meet our criteria, yet we are quoting Hood who has no credentials and fails WP:UNDUE. Why should I be pushed into making a revert? Where is there real evidence? See my post at RSN. Yes, there are claims of a press release, an email, etc. Where is something more direct than these claims? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have had this page on my watchlist for a while, and there seems to be a little of scratching around the edges without confronting the big issues. Are the codices a seismic historical discovery or a tawdry fake? It seems that the preponderance of stuff you read online leans towards the latter. But given that is the absolute core point of interest in the article it is critical that (a) we just start to address that directly, both in the opening paragraph and a dedicated section setting out the claims and counterclaims, and (b) we cite some WP:RS for the propositions. In this case, mainstream media comment is clearly not appropriate - what we need is links to primary sources, ie. the claims made by Elkington and his contemporaries, and the analysis provided by mainstream academic commentators. The article also seems to rather skate over that Elkington refuses to allow the codices to be forensically examined by outside academics, which seems pretty key. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The article needs protection. -- Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
A recent study by the university of Surrey revealed that the codices are NOT fakes:
This should be added to the article because as it currently is it seems terribly biased to me. No efforts are spared to discredit Mr. Elkington, even by stating sources that have never actually seen the codices. Whereas this new study sheds a whole different light on the story. My edit of the article was revoked because the Daily Mail was not considered a legitimate source. Yet, there seems to be no problem at all quoting the BBC.
Wikipedia should always remain neutral and represent both sides of the story, not become the pulpit of Christian apologetics.
P vercauteren ( talk) 13:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering why the Jordan Codices were left in the fake category as of 2012 updates.
I keep trying to add 2016 updates but it keeps getting rejected.
2016 updates New testing said to confirm their age, say authors who have been campaigning since 2009 for the tablets to be recognised and protected. A further report by independent analyst Matthew Hood, an examiner of the erosion of the codices since 2009, has claimed that the “visible formation of mineral crystals as the metal reverts to organic compounds provides strong evidence of the great age of some of these artifacts”. "The suspicion of forgery, sown by the bloggers and a rashly published note in the Times Literary Supplement in 2011, has been disproved by several independent scientific tests of the metal as well as yet unpublished expert study of the writing. No one of those actually involved with research on the codices has any doubt about their antiquity," the statement said.
Here are just some of internet sites showing new information. I am sure there are more articles. http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-lead-codices-not-modern-forgeries-%E2%80%94-british-experts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3985150/Is-written-mention-Jesus-2-000-year-old-lead-tablets-remote-cave-genuine-claim-researchers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthetruth123 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
My main concern is that Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral, yet the Jordan Codices are clearly being declared as fake and any sources saying they are not fake are criticized. I tend to believe that many don't want the information in the Jordan Codices to be true. At the very least, it should be left open whether it is fake or not until more conclusive testing. The Shroud of Turin was deemed fake and then they found the really messed up the Carbon dating. (That and a hologram was found.) I worry the same thing is happening again with the Jordan Codices. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fixthetruth123 (
talk •
contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Jordanian archaeological department issued a statement saying that there is still no evidence to support the authenticity of the inscriptions, the only publicized reaction after the Ion Beam Centre's results. I guess this should sum the controversy up. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am taking some interest in this, being involved in actually getting the Ion Beam Centre results. Which results, it should be said, are very limited in scope, showing only that the books are not made of new lead. This rules out a class (perhaps rather a small class) of modern forgeries, but does not establish the artefacts as "genuine" (whatever that means). The question of the inscriptions is a different matter. The Jordanian archaeological department's statement that there is still no published evidence to support the authenticity of the inscriptions is quite correct, but only part of the story since there are a number of competent scholars decoding the inscriptions as we speak (as is clear if you dig a little). Interestingly, these scholars have divergent views on the (possible) dating of the artefacts, so it is not that they are all following the same agenda.
I suspect that the opening paragraph of the Wiki page ("regards them as forgeries") overstates the case. It is certainly true that the Jordanians do not regard them as established as authentic, but it is also true that they have taken at least some steps to protect the hoard pending futher work. So that is not true that they regard them, unequivocally, as "fakes". Although it is also certainly true that artefacts which are certainly fake do exist (as the article correctly makes plain).
Margaret Barker is named in the article as one of the competent scholars taking an interest in this work and preparing decodings of selected pages for publication. I tried to add a link to her Centre of the Study of the Jordanian Lead Books ( http://www.leadbookcentre.com/), but my edit was reverted by "Makeandtoss (Undid revision 772096568 by C.jeynes)" with the comment "these stupid books are fake, move on". I have undone this reversion since it is manifestly prejudiced (IMHO). I hope that if Makeandtoss wants to revert my reversion he will have the grace to come and talk about it here. At this point I think we should talk first and revert later. C.jeynes ( talk) 12:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
(UTC)
Doug Weller, your criticism of the Surrey press release seems to me unjustified considering it as a press release, but entirely justified considering it as a citable Wiki source. I warmly agree with your assertion, "We shouldn't have the statement in the lead about the Surrey study." I had nothing to do with the lead para, and I don't want to change it, I think someone else should do that from a position agnostic between the PoV of the press release and the PoV of (for example) Makeandtoss. And I think that you should let my very minor edit (the addition to the list of links) stand! C.jeynes ( talk) 06:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at the info and I do think that the existence of "The Centre for the Study of the Jordanian Lead Books" needs to mentioned and documented in this article (though it seems to be a limited company not a non-profit https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09705928/officers (admittedly this could be how a non-profit is listed in Britain)). Sources for it are https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/20-march/news/uk/jordan-lead-books-authenticity-to-be-tested I think those associated are pursuing a mirage, but, it would not be the first time that scholars have tried to translate pseudo-old documents. There is also http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2016_12_04_archive.html#7108291391090192367 though we can 't use it directly. The centre exists, is involved in studying the books, and seems to have had a split with Elkington. -- Erp ( talk) 11:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jordan Lead Codices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the back and forth recently, this should be taken to talk before someone gets into to trouble for too much reverting, hence this new section. I note http://mandaeanbookofjohn.blogspot.com/2010/06/neh-announces-grant-award-to-fund.html which describes him as an assistant in an National Endowment for the Humanities funded project to translate the Mandaean Book of John (lead investigators James McGrath of Butler University and Charles Haberl of Rutgers University). McGrath also refers to him several times as an authority in Aramaic matters (e.g., http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2012/02/the-original-aramaic-lords-prayer-is-none-of-the-above.html). The description of him as an Aramaic translator seems justified. However the whole article could probably do with a rewrite. -- Erp ( talk) 04:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
How about some translation of the texts, or where we can find such? This article does not appear to be unbiased, but biased against it being fake or fraud when there are other opinions that differ. How about the other opinions of other scholars? Add references for scholarly consideration. Misty MH ( talk) 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I know that this next link is not necessarily a trustworthy source, but it contains some positive information that may have come from a trustworthy source, which would be nice if someone could locate it. https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-writings/jordan-codices-020640 Misty MH ( talk) 00:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That is a great job for a first attempt! Excellent. Jlc46 ( talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am new here and not used to editing, but I have been following this issue and discovered this article. All of the initial hype surrounding this has been reported as if it were factual, with references to unnamed "experts."
But your footnote 14 notes that one named expert, Peter Thonemann, has come up with definitive proof: "The text on your bronze tablet, therefore, makes no sense in its own right, but has been extracted unintelligently from another longer text (as if it were inscribed with the words: ‘t to be that is the question wheth’). The longer text from which it derives is a perfectly ordinary tombstone from Madaba in Jordan which happens to have been on display in the Amman museum for the past fifty years or so. The text on your bronze tablet is repeated, in part, in three different places, meaningless in each case.
The only possible explanation is that the text on the bronze tablet was copied directly from the inscription in the museum at Amman by someone who did not understand the meaning of the text of the inscription, but was simply looking for a plausible-looking sequence of Greek letters to copy. He copied that sequence three times, in each case mixing up the letters alpha and lambda."
It seems to me that this finding should be the most prominent. David Elkington is not an academic, not an expert, not an archaeologist. Fran2244 ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Fran2244
I've put it in this category on the basis that that the supposed codices are stated to be located in Israel. Petecarney ( talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51540533/Lead-Plates-Press-Release
http://www.lauralee.com/elkington.htm
http://www.lauralee.com/stcatherineexperiment.htm
http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/speakers/david.htm
http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/review023.htm
Petecarney (
talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The "definitive proof" cited by Peter Thonemann is about bronze tablets, not these lead tablets. There has been no definitive proof given that makes these lead tablets forgeries. Fleckerl ( talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and looked up each of the items marked as "dubious". A couple were dubious, and I deleted them; but the remainder were reported and I've added the reference and verbatim citation to each.
I'm not clear that anything in the article is now anything except a report of what someone has said. Since there are now no "dubious" tags, and as far as I know nothing in the article is factually in question, I have removed the "disputed" tag.
If anyone feels this is wrong, can we have details of what is in dispute? (For all I know there is still rubbish in there, of course) If something is dodgy, it should be removed. I think the article could still be improved quite a bit, tho. Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
These two new reports give more emerging details:
Could this couple's Bible 'codices' tell the true story of Christ's life?
Fleckerl ( talk) 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the need for reputable sources, the Telegraph reported that examinations by Israeli archaeological sources had shown them to be forgeries. The Jewish Chronicle reports the same conclusion, citing The Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Andre Lemaire. Both are reputable publications where journalists have done their jobs instead of merely embelishing the Elkingtons' press release. These two references are themselves enough to put this article in the categories 'Archaeological forgeries' and 'Hoaxes in Israel'. The detailed debunkings by Peter Thonemann, the Oxford Ancient History Lecturer, are, as been pointed out, presented in blogs which as self-published works are necessarily to be treated with caution. However the PaleoJudaica blog authored as it is by James Davila, Professor of Early Jewish Studies at St Andrews University, must be considered more authoritive than most. Indeed the images speak for themselves and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it is actually these blogs rather than the tablets which are the elaborate hoax. The Elkingtons' press release predicts considerable academic debate about the collection’s authenticity but, on the contrary, there is no sign of any such debate at all. It's not a case of the Jury's still out. The Israel Antiquities Authority, Lemaire at the Sorbonne, Thonemann at Oxford, and Davilla at St Andrews have given a unanimous verdict - Fake. In the complete absense of any credible case for authenticity we have no choice other than to tag the article with the categories mentioned. Not to do so undermines our mission to supply reputably sourced information and panders to a fringe publishing industry which feeds off the credulous. Petecarney ( talk) 08:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Fixed. Roger Pearse ( talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have restored a sentence linking to queries about whether those involved hold professional qualifications as archaeologists etc. This is not some kind of snobbery -- I don't care --, but rather a response to some of the press coverage which has attributed all sorts of things to these people. Amateurs can make important discoveries -- remember Schliemann! -- but must not be represented as if they hold doctorates in archaeology or teaching posts at universities. Some of the coverage would have led most people to suppose the latter. There may well, of course, be a better way of saying all this in the article, and I certainly don't intend any offence or character assassination. Roger Pearse ( talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph was added by a contributor Shibli12, who sounds as if he has some first-hand knowledge. It was rightly removed under WP:RS but ... it's certainly interesting:
Roger Pearse ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure wikipedia frowns on citing blogs and that likely goes double for Historians that have no degree. -- Protostan ( talk) 06:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(I hope people don't mind, but I realised the following material is not about Protostan's statement (and tag) that the article is unreliable, but about the blogger question. I think we need that tag issue resolved. Hope this is OK. ) Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity ... do you actually think that Tom Verenna and Dan McLennan are lying here? That the material posted is not by the people concerned? Roger Pearse ( talk) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue boils down to (a) providing readers with information they need to weigh the evidence for themselves, and (b) giving credit to to those who deserve it. I've been watching this discussion for a few days and posted an edit a little while ago. My intention was to accomplish the goals just stated and, out of curiosity, to see what would happen. The information has been removed. Some of the editors of this entry have a strange set of criteria for deciding what to include. It seems to be more about the source of the information cited than the information itself. (Let me think about this. Can I think of another case where someone might be led to believe false statements are true on the basis of the fact that they come from a "reliable" or "credible" source? Wasn't there something reported by the BBC recently about some ancient codices, whatever those are? I think I ran across some stuff posted on a couple of professors' blogs, though, showing it's all bogus. I guess I shouldn't believe the evidence I see in front of me because it's posted to a blog and not some other place. We certainly wouldn't want scholars using media affording them access to instant communication with people around the world to dispel the falsities published by reliable news organizations owned by multi-national corporations whose share-holders profit whether the sensational "news" they report is true or not. This is Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, not some corporately owned propaganda machine . . . wait . . . I can get this right . . . ) The site referred to in my edit provides evidence that speaks for itself, as do others chalenged in this discussion. My 5 year old sister could have posted the information and it would not matter? Dismissing it on the basis of the supposed credibility of the source amounts to an ad hominem argument and is irrelevant in regard to the evidence it relates. Moreover, it fails to credit the one who discovered the evidence with his find. It would be like saying that we shouldn't include anything published by Martin Luther because he was not a trusted authority and used new-fangled technologies like the printing press to disseminate his ideas quickly to his audience. No, we better wait until the Pope weighs in and our local bishop lets us know if what Luther says is true or not. Heaven forbid we should think for ourselves. And, yes, this and my edit of the article are anonymous. If you think about it for a minute you might be able to figure out why. I'll give you a hint: it's not to hide my identity. CatBrother01 ( talk) 22:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the following here as it doesn't seem to pass WP:RS. It's interesting but ... I don't think we can use it.
A Jewish Christian bibleblog provided a detailed analysis of the plate, said to possibly show the earliest depiction of Jesus, along side a sculpture of Roman deity Sol Invictus, the counterpart to Greek deity Helios. Using image filters on the likeness on the plate and of the sculpture a resemblance can be observed. Sol Invictus, and Greek deity Helios, were used as a representations for Jesus in religious art in the 4th century. The likeness appears to be inspired by the Roman artistic style. Early 3rd century religious art associated with Jesus depicted Jesus as a young Roman in Roman attire. [AA 1]
Roger Pearse ( talk) 12:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, RL0919: you took out the ref for "other news sources" in the header which leaves it like an unreferenced claim. Would you care to add some better refs to it, then? I've stuck a fact tag on it in the meantime. Thanks. Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on some of the discussion above, I wanted to present a more organized version of my take on which of the blog sources are or are not usable as reliable sources under the " established expert" exception. A bunch of the cited bloggers easily qualify:
The following do not seem to qualify, and accordingly I've been removing material that is exclusively cited to them:
In a few years we might be citing McClellan and Varenna routinely. But not yet. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about Verenna is largely academic. He has claimed repeatedly in the past to have been on the point of publishing multiple tomes. His only effort to date is a self-published vanity piece. His record is several years of claiming to be on the cusp of publishing multiple books through academic channels. To date, he has zero publications through academic or peer-reviewed journals.
As of yet, though, he is not a reliable source, and as has been pointed out, a blog with essentially hearsay reportage is not a valid source for an article such as this should strive to be. 87.64.44.214 ( talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC) ~~ To be fair to Mr Verenna, I should point out that he at least has the appeance of being passionate about the field that he is studying, and it is quite possible that if pursues it as far as his passion seems to warrant, he may well in the future be cited as an authoritative source. In the meantime, he rigourously blocks opposing voices on his blog. I'm not speaking about "OMG, these codices prove Jesus existed" posts, but posts which specifically counsel caution about drawing conclusions before all of the relevant analysis is in. It ill behoves any of us to draw conclusions precipitately when there remains a good deal of analsis to be performed.
Unfortunately the clamour of the popular press creates a strength of perception which involves costly research and analysis - work that could be better done on better-sourced finds. The reality is that the community should stand back and wait for the results to come in. There's always the risk that if they're proven to be the real deal that the professional historians end up with with egg on their face - and, much worse - the accusation that they try to fit their conclusions to the evidence. This isn't necessary when time will expose what the real story with these things is.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.170.138 ( talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This BBC interview with David and Jennifer Elkington might shed some additional information: BBC Interview. Fleckerl ( talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll start this post by introducing myself. My name is Robin Whitlock and at present I am a freelance writer, having graduated from Bath Spa University in 2008 straight into a recession. My main topic these days is environmental issues, and you can find some of my articles by looking at Ask The Experts and world.edu. I also write a blog entitled Energy & Environment. My first love though was ancient history and mythology, a subject which I have been interested in since childhood.
I was sitting in the living room of a friend of mine in Sherborne, Dorset, who unfortunately died some years ago. In walked Mr Elkington and we started to converse. I had just managed to get my first magazine article published in The Lady magazine at the time (this was around 1995) and Elkington, after having seen a copy I had brought with me and also having discovered I was interested in ancient history and mythology, invited me to participate on a project he was working on (and no it wasn't anything to do with codices). We basically agreed to write a book together on the Green Man. It was agreed, verbally, that we would be co-authors and that we would share any revenues from the book, status, appearances at conferences and so forth. Over fifteen years later and I am still waiting to Elkington to join me on this book, although having written a manuscript myself (which needs more work on it yet I am freely willing to admit) and having seen the controversy over the codices and also seen convincing remarks from various people on the Telegraph story comments page testifying as to the way in which Elkington has treated some people over the years, I am more inclined than ever to work on the book myself and try and get it published as my own project.
One time and David were standing on the platform of Thornford Halt, a small railway station in Dorset, and he started chatting about his dreams of wealth and fame. I quickly stated that my main intention was to establish myself as a writer and that I wasn't particularly bothered about money. He came back spouting some nonsense about "commissioning works of art...." and other such stuff about what he would do if he was rich.
Having seen Thonemann's comments about the codices, I do now believe them to be fake, but the recollection I've just shared above should tell you what you need to know. I would add that on several occasions during the years we were working together I had doubts about the authenticity of some of Elkington's findings. In my opinion, fame and fortune is his goal, and that, unfortunately, has the capacity to produce a less-than-careful approach to researching. That is all I have to say on this matter at present, I'll let you make of this what you wish.
Robin Whitlock Bristol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwhitlock ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not the wish to get rich that annoys me actually, it's where it begins to affect the quality of research and also, more importantly, the treatment meted out to other people in the attempt to get there. Fine, lets all get rich, but lets try and do it ethically ate least! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwhitlock ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the comment area doesn't need me any more.
Just don't forget we can only cite reputable sources and that doesn't include anything written in a blog or any first hand experience by an editor. -- Protostan ( talk) 21:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
AMMAN 15th June 2011 - Preliminary lab results indicate that a collection of metal books unearthed in northern Jordan may indeed represent the earliest Christian texts ever discovered, according to experts. According to the Department of Antiquities (DoA), initial carbon tests to determine the authenticity of lead-sealed metal books billed as the greatest find in biblical archaeology since the Dead Sea scrolls have been “encouraging”. The tests, carried out at the Royal Scientific Society labs, indicate that the texts may date back to the early first century AD, at a time when Christians took refuge from persecution on the east bank of the Jordan River.
http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=38498
Question has to be asked - how can lead be "carbon dated".
I think we need references for the "scholars". According to the first few lines, these plates are fakes, or so readers are entitled to beleive after reading the last word of the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.154.113 ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just stupid, but why isn't there any information anywhere online about what the actual contents of the tablets is? Yes, I'm sure they're forgeries, but... I can't seem to figure out what they're even forgeries OF. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.7.39 ( talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Jordan Lead Codies Are real books need to be translated to be understandable by us, the thousands years gap make it hard to understand what is meant by these writing. I am sure non of you have seen any of these books, I do. The people who made these books worked hard to preserve their thoughts on hard lead pages. It is great idea and great job. a book may include different types of languages of that time, symbols and drawings. I hope Mr.David Elkington will be successful translating these books. It may change the minds of some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.11.190 ( talk) 15:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the press release, but I can tell that some of the reports aren't accurate. See [1] and [2]. In any case this is probably too early to add. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mediacentre/press/2016/jordan-lead-codices-not-modern-forgeries Samoojas ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Samoojas ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Once again, we need to avoid using the media as sources. I see that the tabloid Daily Mail is used as a source [4] - it's a terrible source, and it's not surprising that it the page lists related articles which include one about UFOs. The Mail article has no proper sources, only a wanna-be archaeologist and his wife with no formal qualifications. [5] And why are we quoting the engineer Matthew Hood as though he's a reliable source? Hood is a co-author with Elkington of a dubiously published [6] book [7] - I see another co-author is a hypnotherapist. [8] In other words, we have no reliable sources for this, only 2nd or 3rd hand reports and unreliable sourcces. And it's now included in the lead as though it's 100% accurate. @ Makeandtoss:, are you willing to revert yourself? I can go to RSN if you want to defend these sources. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Sigh, ok, RSN it is. This is not the way to write an article. The book I mention wouldn't meet our criteria, yet we are quoting Hood who has no credentials and fails WP:UNDUE. Why should I be pushed into making a revert? Where is there real evidence? See my post at RSN. Yes, there are claims of a press release, an email, etc. Where is something more direct than these claims? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have had this page on my watchlist for a while, and there seems to be a little of scratching around the edges without confronting the big issues. Are the codices a seismic historical discovery or a tawdry fake? It seems that the preponderance of stuff you read online leans towards the latter. But given that is the absolute core point of interest in the article it is critical that (a) we just start to address that directly, both in the opening paragraph and a dedicated section setting out the claims and counterclaims, and (b) we cite some WP:RS for the propositions. In this case, mainstream media comment is clearly not appropriate - what we need is links to primary sources, ie. the claims made by Elkington and his contemporaries, and the analysis provided by mainstream academic commentators. The article also seems to rather skate over that Elkington refuses to allow the codices to be forensically examined by outside academics, which seems pretty key. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The article needs protection. -- Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
A recent study by the university of Surrey revealed that the codices are NOT fakes:
This should be added to the article because as it currently is it seems terribly biased to me. No efforts are spared to discredit Mr. Elkington, even by stating sources that have never actually seen the codices. Whereas this new study sheds a whole different light on the story. My edit of the article was revoked because the Daily Mail was not considered a legitimate source. Yet, there seems to be no problem at all quoting the BBC.
Wikipedia should always remain neutral and represent both sides of the story, not become the pulpit of Christian apologetics.
P vercauteren ( talk) 13:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering why the Jordan Codices were left in the fake category as of 2012 updates.
I keep trying to add 2016 updates but it keeps getting rejected.
2016 updates New testing said to confirm their age, say authors who have been campaigning since 2009 for the tablets to be recognised and protected. A further report by independent analyst Matthew Hood, an examiner of the erosion of the codices since 2009, has claimed that the “visible formation of mineral crystals as the metal reverts to organic compounds provides strong evidence of the great age of some of these artifacts”. "The suspicion of forgery, sown by the bloggers and a rashly published note in the Times Literary Supplement in 2011, has been disproved by several independent scientific tests of the metal as well as yet unpublished expert study of the writing. No one of those actually involved with research on the codices has any doubt about their antiquity," the statement said.
Here are just some of internet sites showing new information. I am sure there are more articles. http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-lead-codices-not-modern-forgeries-%E2%80%94-british-experts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3985150/Is-written-mention-Jesus-2-000-year-old-lead-tablets-remote-cave-genuine-claim-researchers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthetruth123 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
My main concern is that Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral, yet the Jordan Codices are clearly being declared as fake and any sources saying they are not fake are criticized. I tend to believe that many don't want the information in the Jordan Codices to be true. At the very least, it should be left open whether it is fake or not until more conclusive testing. The Shroud of Turin was deemed fake and then they found the really messed up the Carbon dating. (That and a hologram was found.) I worry the same thing is happening again with the Jordan Codices. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fixthetruth123 (
talk •
contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Jordanian archaeological department issued a statement saying that there is still no evidence to support the authenticity of the inscriptions, the only publicized reaction after the Ion Beam Centre's results. I guess this should sum the controversy up. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am taking some interest in this, being involved in actually getting the Ion Beam Centre results. Which results, it should be said, are very limited in scope, showing only that the books are not made of new lead. This rules out a class (perhaps rather a small class) of modern forgeries, but does not establish the artefacts as "genuine" (whatever that means). The question of the inscriptions is a different matter. The Jordanian archaeological department's statement that there is still no published evidence to support the authenticity of the inscriptions is quite correct, but only part of the story since there are a number of competent scholars decoding the inscriptions as we speak (as is clear if you dig a little). Interestingly, these scholars have divergent views on the (possible) dating of the artefacts, so it is not that they are all following the same agenda.
I suspect that the opening paragraph of the Wiki page ("regards them as forgeries") overstates the case. It is certainly true that the Jordanians do not regard them as established as authentic, but it is also true that they have taken at least some steps to protect the hoard pending futher work. So that is not true that they regard them, unequivocally, as "fakes". Although it is also certainly true that artefacts which are certainly fake do exist (as the article correctly makes plain).
Margaret Barker is named in the article as one of the competent scholars taking an interest in this work and preparing decodings of selected pages for publication. I tried to add a link to her Centre of the Study of the Jordanian Lead Books ( http://www.leadbookcentre.com/), but my edit was reverted by "Makeandtoss (Undid revision 772096568 by C.jeynes)" with the comment "these stupid books are fake, move on". I have undone this reversion since it is manifestly prejudiced (IMHO). I hope that if Makeandtoss wants to revert my reversion he will have the grace to come and talk about it here. At this point I think we should talk first and revert later. C.jeynes ( talk) 12:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
(UTC)
Doug Weller, your criticism of the Surrey press release seems to me unjustified considering it as a press release, but entirely justified considering it as a citable Wiki source. I warmly agree with your assertion, "We shouldn't have the statement in the lead about the Surrey study." I had nothing to do with the lead para, and I don't want to change it, I think someone else should do that from a position agnostic between the PoV of the press release and the PoV of (for example) Makeandtoss. And I think that you should let my very minor edit (the addition to the list of links) stand! C.jeynes ( talk) 06:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at the info and I do think that the existence of "The Centre for the Study of the Jordanian Lead Books" needs to mentioned and documented in this article (though it seems to be a limited company not a non-profit https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09705928/officers (admittedly this could be how a non-profit is listed in Britain)). Sources for it are https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/20-march/news/uk/jordan-lead-books-authenticity-to-be-tested I think those associated are pursuing a mirage, but, it would not be the first time that scholars have tried to translate pseudo-old documents. There is also http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2016_12_04_archive.html#7108291391090192367 though we can 't use it directly. The centre exists, is involved in studying the books, and seems to have had a split with Elkington. -- Erp ( talk) 11:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jordan Lead Codices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the back and forth recently, this should be taken to talk before someone gets into to trouble for too much reverting, hence this new section. I note http://mandaeanbookofjohn.blogspot.com/2010/06/neh-announces-grant-award-to-fund.html which describes him as an assistant in an National Endowment for the Humanities funded project to translate the Mandaean Book of John (lead investigators James McGrath of Butler University and Charles Haberl of Rutgers University). McGrath also refers to him several times as an authority in Aramaic matters (e.g., http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2012/02/the-original-aramaic-lords-prayer-is-none-of-the-above.html). The description of him as an Aramaic translator seems justified. However the whole article could probably do with a rewrite. -- Erp ( talk) 04:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
How about some translation of the texts, or where we can find such? This article does not appear to be unbiased, but biased against it being fake or fraud when there are other opinions that differ. How about the other opinions of other scholars? Add references for scholarly consideration. Misty MH ( talk) 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I know that this next link is not necessarily a trustworthy source, but it contains some positive information that may have come from a trustworthy source, which would be nice if someone could locate it. https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-writings/jordan-codices-020640 Misty MH ( talk) 00:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)