fo ol ish ness ▁of ▁its ▁central ▁th esis ", ▁not ing ▁how ▁Ba igent ▁had ▁seen ▁pap y ri ▁written ▁in ▁Ar ama ic , ▁a ▁language ▁that ▁he ▁did ▁not ▁understand , ▁yet ▁was ▁able ▁to ▁say ▁that ▁what ▁he ▁saw ▁dated ▁from ▁" about ▁A . D . ▁ 3 4 " ▁- ▁Sh anks ▁noted ▁that ▁arch ae ological ▁finds ▁cannot ▁be ▁dated ▁so ▁precisely , ▁adding ▁that ▁the ▁two ▁previous ▁famous ▁arch ae olog ists ▁who ▁had ▁alleg edly ▁seen ▁this ▁pap y ri ▁were ▁now ▁convenient ly ▁dead . ▁Kevin ▁Mc Cl ure , ▁review ing ▁the ▁book ▁for ▁For te an ▁Times ▁commented ▁how ▁the ▁author ▁was ▁unable ▁to ▁obtain ▁photograph s ▁of ▁the ▁said ▁pap y ri , ▁adding ▁that ▁" B a igent ▁records ▁no ▁further ▁effort ▁to ▁investigate ▁these ▁supposed ly ▁amaz ing ▁documents , ▁and ▁appears ▁not ▁to ▁have ▁approached ▁any ▁academic ▁body ▁or ▁community ▁for ▁help ". ▁The ▁Bib lic al ▁historian ▁Craig ▁Evans ▁has ▁described ▁the ▁book ▁as ▁" one ▁of ▁the ▁worst ▁examples ▁of ▁pseudo - sch olar ship ▁ever ▁published ". ▁ ▁There ▁are ▁critic isms ▁that ▁the ▁release ▁of ▁the ▁book ▁was ▁tim ed ▁with ▁the ▁release ▁of ▁The ▁Da ▁V inci ▁Code ▁film ▁version ▁in ▁an ▁attempt ▁to ▁c ash ▁in ▁on ▁the ▁market ing ▁h ype . ▁Ba igent ' s ▁response ▁is ▁on ▁p .   3 5 5 ▁of ▁the ▁book , ▁where ▁he ▁points ▁out ▁that ▁the ▁publication ▁schedule ▁had ▁been ▁set