No academic, as far as I know, considers the Judean Desert Scrolls to be authoritative. What those scrolls do show is that, at the time, the Biblical text was open, i.e., numerous variant texts co-existed. In any attempt to understand the transmission of the Biblical text, the Scrolls have to be taken into consideration, because each variation is a manuscript witness.
Yaakov is correct that many academic scholars have made suggestions as to "corrections" of the text which illustrate a cavalier attitude towards the Masoretic text. At the same time, numerous serious scholars, only when faced with no other logical possibility, have made judicious attempts at understanding how possible corruptions of the Masoretic text came into being. One type of scholar is not to be equated with the other. I have already quoted this statement by Moshe Greenberg,
"Ultimately, the holistic interpreter is animated by a respect for his cultural heritage that takes the form of a prejudice in favor of the ancient biblical author-editors and their transmitters. He requires more than a theoretical cause before discounting and disintegrating their products."
Finally, Russell Hendel will find that his remark that only Lower Criticism done by a "believer" can be respected opens the door to everything he wishes to counter when he reads Marc Shapiro's article cited by Rabbi Blau (as this thread has already dealt with Higher Criticism, I will not continue that discussion).
Jeremiah Unterman
