The New #1 Biblioblog and More!

The new #1 Biblioblogger is fellow Patheos blogger Scot McKnight’s blog Jesus Creed. Congratulations to Scot and RJS who also blogs there occionally. Exploring Our Matrix came in at #3. Thank you, as always, to all of this blog’s readers and commenters!

Several Bibliobloggers have been active in editing the Wikipedia entry about the fake Jordanian lead codices. The Biblioblog Reference Library page on the lead codices has been updated with lots of interesting and important information.

Over at Scotteriology, an “appetizer” for the monthly Biblical Studies Carnival has been posted, which is sure to whet your appetite for the main course soon to follow!

Brief Update (With Pictures!) on the Lead Codices

Tom Verenna has written an article which has just appeared online in The Bible and Interpretation which explains clearly and concisely why increasing numbers of scholars have reached the conclusion that the lead books allegedly discovered in Jordan are fakes.

Jordan Lead Codices: Exposing the Fakes

YouTube Preview Image

Tom Verenna made the video above, with input from a variety of scholars and bloggers. It sums up nicely the reasons for concluding that the lead books supposedly found in Jordan are in fact fakes.

Skepticism Around the Blogosphere

I began this post wanting to share the news that the forger of the lead codices has admitted that they are fakes – but David Elkington is claiming that his are real. See Steve Caruso’sJoel Watts’Jim Davila’s and Tom Verenna’s posts on the subject for all the details.

Elsewhere in the skeptical blogosphere, Joe Felsenstein points out that criticisms of Dembski’s No Free Lunch continue to be ignored by proponents of Intelligent Design.

John Wilson emphasizes that no one takes the Bible literally (HT Danut Manastireanu).

Arni Zachariassen explains why Christianity goes on the internet to die.

Jim West shared James Watts’ article on whether the narrator in Job is unreliable (and also told Ken Ham to shut up!)

Finally, a piece in today’s New York Times focuses on why eyewitnesses are unreliable.