Let’s file this under the “too little, too late” category. National Geographic has apologized for its television special on the Gospel of Judas. A new edition of the gospel with a “thoroughly updated translation” has now been put forth which, to cite Gnostic scholar Birger Pearson, acknowledges “the flawed scholarship of the original edition.” NG itself admits to putting out a “sensationalized reading.” Oops. Now if only we had done objective scholarship in the first place. Remind anyone of any other over-hyped claims about the ancient Christian world? Jesus Tomb? DaVinci Code? Why didn’t Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman step forward and call for more careful approaches?
Editor’s note: outdated link removed and typos fixed. Also, note the comments for cool links re: Pauline authorship and Dead Sea Scrolls dating.
Mike,
In the NG article, there is mention that 1 timothy may be dated late 1st century and written by some other than Paul due the “knowledge” referenced. Does this work?
The Pauline epistles are considered by some (maybe many) to not be Pauline in authorship. It’s hotly debated, as you can imagine. Probably one of the best resources for getting acquainted with the issue, as well as the best scholarship defending Pauline authorship, is the Pastoral Epistles blog hosted by my friend and co-worker, Rick Brannan –
http://www.pastoralepistles.com/
Note on this page the PDF article (in the second post) that is a brief defense of Pauline authorship – good place to start.
Editor’s note: link adjusted and you’ll have to look for the pdf, but the blog is a wealth of content.
Dr. Heiser,
I’ve been watching a video of Robert Eisenman, and he talks about the Pseudo Clementine Homilies and the Gospel of James, he sais that the gospel actually depicts Peter’s personality-history correctly, unlike Acts from the bible, well, so he sais.
You have any comments on this guy???
Blessings…
to rode: Eisenman is a “real” scholar – he has the credentials and is recognized as such. That said, his work is viewed as somewhat idiosyncratic – that is, most scholars disagree with him. Some even view him as a bit odd or a sensationalist. For example, here is a link from 2005 of a review of an article co-written by Eisenman – http://ralphriver.blogspot.com/2005/01/dating-dead-sea-scrolls-again.html
The blog from which this link comes is that of Ed Cook, an expert in Aramaic. The blog references a guy named Greg Doudna, who’s a friend of mine; his dissertation work included C-14 dating of Qumran material.