I’ve seen come comments here and there wondering if we can draw conclusions about the new lead codices with their paleo-Hebrew script based on the judgments passed on the old copper plate analyzed by Thonemann (with its Greek script). I discussed this in the comment section of my previous post on the topic, but thought I would highlight the question in its own post. Besides the numerous reasons Elkington’s credibility has been eradicated, at least one portion of the copper plate analyzed by Thonemann was pressed or cast from the exact same die or mold as one of the lead plates currently making the rounds. Below you can see the tree from the old copper plate and the tree from one of the newer lead plates. They are absolutely identical. They came from the exact same die or mold. The lead plates are forgeries just like the copper plate.
Another photo of the current hoard of lead plates appears to have the same image on it, although I can’t find a large enough photo to tell for sure:
UPDATE: Here’s a photo provided by the Daily Mail of one of the guys involved with the codices. The codex standing up and in the middle appears to be the same as the lead one pictured above with the same tree on it as the old copper codex.
Daniel O. McClellan 
April 1st, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I agree with you. Though technically it is possible that there were multiple castings from the same mold made in antiquity. It’s not quite decisive, but very damning.
April 3rd, 2011 at 10:53 am
It’s technically possible that there were multiple castings, William, but how possible that two different ancient castings would wind up in the same hands within two years?
April 1st, 2011 at 6:32 pm
On second glance they are a bit different. The copper has square block marks in the upper left corner the lead lacks. And the lead is framed with small dots the copper lacks. The trees may have been pressed from the same original, but not the plates as a whole.
June 19th, 2017 at 3:12 pm
has no one else overlayed the two pictures? I did. they are very different, and age and erosion are not to blame.
April 1st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
That hole in the one lead tablet; how many of those tablets have holes in them? I didn’t notice that before.
April 1st, 2011 at 7:40 pm
They all have holes for the rings, and I imagine the rings are gone on some of them.
April 2nd, 2011 at 1:39 am
[…] not absolutely conclusive, it’s beginning to look that way more and more. See his post here: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/on-the-lead-vs-bronze-codices/ Subscribe To Site: Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments […]
April 2nd, 2011 at 4:08 am
An analysis of the lead material would reveal whether it was cast using lead sourced before 1945 or thereafter. Fallout from atomic weapons use and tests has contaminated post-1945 metals. Pre-1945 material is difficult (but not impossible) to obtain.
April 2nd, 2011 at 11:18 am
Fantastic work, Daniel.
April 2nd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Excellent work, Daniel. You just exploded the “Christian Image of the Crucifixion and Resurrection” hypothesis with regard to these codices!
April 3rd, 2011 at 7:08 pm
[…] There are many reasons to doubt these tablets are authentic, but these similarities are uncanny and supply more weight to the conclusion many of us have already drawn: These tablets are fakes. […]
April 4th, 2011 at 2:46 am
Honestly – try just being patient and waiting for the whole story to unfold – you are attempting to comment without knowing all the FACTS.
FACT: The dead sea scrolls were claimed to be fakes…..and yet now?????
If you knew the full and very complex story and were genuinely interested in the early formation of the Christian faith you would be supporting research not trying to create disbelief in their validity.
It is far more complex situation than your obviously tiny mind can wrap itself round – suggest you prepare to eat your own words!!!!
April 5th, 2011 at 11:43 am
I wouldn’t be too quick to condem these books as ‘fake’ or ‘forgeries.’ So far I have only seen criticism of their contents. I haven’t seen any metallurgical analysis of the lead and copper used to construct them. I’d be interested to know if the alloys of the metals are consistent with accepted ancient sources and the geographic origin or their ores. I’ll bet the chemical composition of the corrosion will be a strong indicator of the authenticity of these pieces. If each book and plate were named/numbered, studying them would be much easier.
April 5th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Thanks for clarifying the connection between the lead and bronze codices. At first I didn’t realize that these were all from the same batch. Now that I’ve seen the original email text Elkington sent to Thonemann, it makes more sense. The similarities of symbols between the bronze and lead plates is pretty striking.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
[…] https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/on-the-lead-vs-bronze-codices/ […]
April 9th, 2011 at 10:44 am
[…] On lead vs. copper codices. “at least one portion of the copper plate analyzed by Thonemann was pressed or cast from the exact same die or mold as one of the lead plates currently making the rounds. […]
April 12th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I am somewhat dismayed that people seem more interested in Thonemann’s analysis of plates he examined a year ago, rather than the ones being circulated in the news right now. The evidence I have posted to my blog leave no room for doubt. The image presumed to be Jesus on the recently published photo of one of the lead codices is neither of Helios nor from a coin. It is a copy of a photo taken of the “Mona Lisa of the Galilee.” This is not speculative. The claim is supported with empirical evidence presented on my site. Check it out.
April 12th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
To clarify my comment: McClellan is obviously correct in observing that the trees depicted in the lead and copper plates are identical. Playing devil’s advocate, it might still be argued that at least one of the two plates was cast 2000 years ago and the other copied from a mold created from it. Or, as suggested by others on this site, they might both have been cast 2000 years ago. This is, of course, unlikely, but it is possible.
The evidence I present on my site establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the image presumed to be Jesus on one of the lead plates was molded in the past several decades. The die from which it was cast could only have been made from a photo that proliferates on the Internet. The plate, therefore, could not have been produced prior to the taking and publishing of the photo.
Some still express doubt that the Lead Jesus and the Photo of the Mona Lisa are identical. As I have time, I am working on better illustrations to show their identity, although the doubt expressed is almost as hard to believe as the the fact that anyone believed the forged “codices” were ancient artifacts, in the first place. The evidence stares you in the face, literally.
June 24th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
[…] post. I’ve already discussed the iconography of the lower register in the first photograph (here), but the iconography in the upper register is also found scattered among a bunch of other plates. […]
August 18th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
[…] Elkington seems to have overlooked this in sharing select photos of the lead codices. As I show in this post, the stylized palm tree near the bottom of the copper codex is exactly identical to a stylized tree […]
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:54 am
[…] iconography of the Thonemann codices and the others being promoted as genuine (see my discussion here and here). It also produces a rather unique codex that has little relationship to the other […]
August 25th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
[…] of understanding the text. It bears repeating that the stylized palm tree on the plate above is absolutely identical to the same tree on the copper codex exposed as a crude forgery by Peter […]
August 30th, 2011 at 9:51 am
[…] ago I pointed to the very clear iconographic relationships shared by the copper codices and the lead codices. The exact tree image found on the copper codex […]
December 21st, 2011 at 9:51 am
[…] of the copper codices that were shown conclusively to be modern forgeries by Peter Thonemann (see here and here, and here for good measure). They all came from the same forger. It should be pointed out […]
June 27th, 2012 at 7:47 am
[…] note that the date palm image in Codex LXXXII is exactly identical to the date palms I discuss here. It obviously came from the same die. The script appears to have been manipulated to appear more […]
June 11th, 2013 at 9:29 am
[…] and unquestionably links every scroll so far made public to the same workshop or craftsman (see here, here, here, or here, for […]
May 23rd, 2014 at 1:36 pm
[…] day after my original posting of Dr. Peter Thonemann’s correspondence with David Elkington—I pointed out that the materials used to create the codex in the images sent by David Elkington to Dr. Thonemann […]