I'm a Christian, and a nerd and so the intersection of that puts mW firmly in the amateur biblical historian camp. As a theist reading ancient texts in modern languages you have to do your research on methods of translation, sources, etc. In my 30 years regularly reading in this field this is the first time I've heard a contrary opinion to the essine theory.. And that pisses me off, I rely on good research of the kind Golb provides to be readily available. What Golb says here makes far more sense than a monastic group burying scrolls as a matter of course, especially considering the volume and diversity of the material. The exodus of Jerusalem provides a far more sensible motive for burying a library in the wilderness, Rome was intent on leveling the city and the culture. Historians should be happy and welcome contrary theory, assuming they are interested in truth and not fame.