Scholarly subjectivism.

The author's standpoint is important to consider when opening a book on nascent Christianity. I have read kilometers of lines published in books that present the topics or pretend to have resolved the problems. And one gets quite nauseated at the material that is eventually released. 

Verbal gesticulation is a frequent misgiving, equally shared between Christian and Jewish apologists, skeptics or opponents. Endlessly quoting ancient authors or biblical verses to prove a point often amounts into throwing sand into our eyes. Scholars are very efficient in doing so. Most books try to create an ambiance rather than imposing a strict line of investigation. And many titles don't find an adequate echo within their own texts. 

How much does the Biblical criticism activity weigh in terms of publishing? It can't be peanuts, otherwise authors would not publish several times the same book, with minor variations. Or are they only trying to saturate the market where historicity accounts are arm wrestling against mythicists. Apologists from all sides are defending their own agenda and propagating religious propaganda to feed their respective flocks. Scholarly defense is hailed as intelligent contributions to support beliefs, and most readers are grazing on what they deeply need to see confirmed.

Any true interest in Biblical criticism and on how the Scrolls relate to Christianity should not have as a prerequisite to destroy nor protect dogma.