Thanks for your response. You say that it’s not surprising that the Church tried to get an exclusive hold on the findings for ideological reasons. But isn't that exactly the point? Of course it's not surprising; it's the fact that they were allowed to do it, and get away with it, hence the numerous complaints from independent scholars, and those from other traditions, e.g. Geza Vermes. You say the Israelis stepped in a few decades later, which I take to mean the 1980s. But didn't the original problem persist, when they took possession of them in 1967? The complaints continued.
As for what ground-breaking information might be withheld, what's your view on the work and thoughts of John Allegro, especially the Copper Scroll?
Certainly some brighter kids can see that the churches you mention are a sham. But not all the ones brought up in them and indoctrinated by them, who suffer into their adulthood [lots of examples among those writing on Medium].
As for Salibi, I'm not sure why you say his arguments derive from the Koran. That's true of some of his ideas about Jesus, but not the geography. He may perhaps have got it wrong, but that work is based on the study of the origins, meanings, use and typology of place-names, and the comparative phonology and morphology of the Arabic and Syriac languages. To dismiss what he said, you would have to argue on those grounds, rather than call him a pan-Arabist. [Isn't that a bit ad hominem?]
Archaeology does not put all the origins of the Bible in current day Israel. That's why we frequently have archaeologists disputing the history of the Old Testament, which is what got Salibi interested in the first place. The heterodoxy of ancient Israel (northern kingdom) may indeed have been Sumerian and Babylonian, but that does not disprove Salibi's ideas, since he believes that it was possibly around the time of the exile that the migration from Arabia took place. What followed was obviously heavily influenced by their stay in Babylon. And there may have been an earlier 'Israel' and 'Judah' in Arabia.
I agree with your next paragraph about the Essenes, although we are still quibbling about the meaning of the word 'Jew'. You probably have a broader definition of it. In support of my argument, I refer you to John 8: 39-47, where Jesus accuses the Jews of following the wrong religion, and not recognising him as a true prophet. He says “you are from your father the devil” who is “a liar and the father of lies”. He also says that the Jews he is addressing “are not from God”. So in what sense is Jesus a Jew? Probably not in a religious sense.
I don't think that we are disagreeing about Gnosticism, and I agree with your analysis. I was originally merely making the point that Gnosticism was suppressed and that therefore alternative, possibly truer, ideas were no longer available.
