2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Collection of Scholarly Views, However Bias,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review (Paperback)
Wonderful scholarly viewpoints and well worth the read, however the book's authors are partisan to much of the traditional monotheistic views of the Judea-Christian consensus. While Hershel Shanks and a list of scholars write beautifully, with clarity and cover a host of issues, including some very informative pieces by Father Frank Cross, they represent a protective consensus of the traditional views. Two of the articles, one by Shanks and another by James C. Vanderkam do mention the findings and thesis of J.L.Teicher, Barbara Thiering, O'Callahan and Eisenman, however they are passing and condemnatory. Eisenman has no voice in this collection and is simply stated as "widely rejected."
Shank's goes so far to label the thesis of Baigent and Leigh as "hogwash," "ludicrous" and as "foolish supposition." Perhaps he is correct in is assessment of Catholic liberalism, but only under a reactionary stance. And only once in the entire book is John Allegro, one of the original Dead Sea Scroll scholars, even mentioned. And this small blurb only goes so far as to condemn him as man whose "reading of the text was so bad" that it justified Strugnell's critical editing, or as more appropriately stated by Eisenman as a "hatchet job." Not only does Eisenman have no voice in this publication, but Vanderkam's is included with consent to his thesis on John the Baptist as the "teacher of righteousness," which falls far short from Eisenman's extensive work, one of the chief persons associated with the Huntington Library responsible for the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the private libraries of the cartel scholars. Yet why isn't Eisenman's views included without condemnation as a valuable scholarly argument? The very reason Allegro complained about for 40 years.
There is much valuable information, but ultimately the book is bias to the religious scholars in protecting the faiths they represent.