Comments on: Gospel of Judas Apology

By: MSH

MSH — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:10:02 +0000

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.

By: rode

rode — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:42:12 +0000

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…

By: MSH

MSH — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:02:28 +0000

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/CategoryView,category,Authorship.aspx

Note on this page the PDF article (in the second post) that is a brief defense of Pauline authorship – good place to start.

By: msacco1971

msacco1971 — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:40:24 +0000

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?