Tom Verenna has done a good job of replying to the article in the comments, but I will add a few things.
And given their supreme confidence, the militant sceptics should surely have no problem with further scientific analysis. From their point of view, it must be a pre-ordained certainty that peer-reviewed laboratory tests in Jordan, or anywhere else, will simply confirm their rightness and give them fresh opportunities to wag their fingers at anybody who took the codices seriously.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.
That makes it slightly puzzling that a couple of the most vociferous sceptics declared that they would have refused, if asked, to sign the letter to the Jordanian authorities asking for more information. From their perspective, perhaps, backing such a request would have implied taking the codices too seriously.If B.C. is really puzzled by my comments, cited by Jim West and published originally here, perhaps he or she needs to brush up on basic reading comprehension skills. What I said was:
Regarding the letter that was submitted to and published by the London Times, I was not at the SOTS meeting and was not asked to sign the letter, but I would not have done so if asked, at least in the form in which it was published. ... If I am wrong, it would be helpful to hear what they [the Jordanian authorities] do think and what they are currently doing about the codices, and to that extent I can support the central point of the letter. ... The second issue is the final sentence of the first paragraph of the letter: "There are many indications that these finds are not modern forgeries, but [that] possibility cannot as yet be definitively excluded."* I know of no such "many indications that these finds are not modern forgeries."Let me try to make it even simpler: I said I would not have signed the letter in the form in which it was published because it incorrectly stated that there were many indications that the codices are not modern forgeries, but I supported the central point of the letter—that the Jordanian authorities should speak up if they knew something.
I will just add that all of my many posts on this subject have been in my own name. I stand behind what I write rather than hiding behind anonymity. I'm looking at you, B.C.
Background most recently here and just keep following those links back over the last two years.