[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion-list Baigent & Leigh (was Angel Scroll)
> You call the 'Baigent story' a conspiracy, only because you do not know
> or do not wish to believe the facts which are described in the book. They
> are basically authentic! Whether you like it or not.
> Dozens of articles in the magazine of Biblical Archeology testify to this
> If there was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy of those who had been
> entrusted with the documents and were refusing to publish them, as all
> good scholars and historians would have done.
I was referring solely to the one point of Baigent & Leigh which has become
most famous: the allegation of a Vatican-orchestrated conspiracy, for which
these authors provided no evidence, which from your second paragraph
you sound as if you don't believe either. I agree with your second
provided Vermes's word "scandal" is substituted for "conspiracy". I also
do not think the contents of the scrolls played any direct role in the
for the editors' slowness to publish or allow access to non-editors (with
possible exception of the Copper Scroll saga, which in any event was
published). As for indirect role, i.e. in terms of systems theory, Kuhnian
reactions of academic guilds to new information, sociology of scholarship,
etc., that may be a matter for future historians to debate--that may be more
of a grey area. With no demonstrated role of the Vatican or the contents
of the scrolls as directly causative factors in the scandal that indeed was
the case, the Baigent & Leigh book fails in its thesis, which is to be
distinguished from some interesting and true reporting that is included
along the way. That's my take on it, anyway.
For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to email@example.com with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.