1. " ...  spurious attacks such as in the opening paragraph: 'Illicit trade in antiquities' and 'questionable scholarship'."
Please provide evidence for this assertion, otherwise it is YOU who are making the spurious attack. 

2." I think the thrust of the book is the same old same old apologetic that says 'one cannot simply take the Bible for what it says, or doesn't say, but must have an official interpretation from a priest'."
I heard something entirely different, especially in the context of opening a Bible Museum: it requires genuine scholarship to tangle with the Bible authoritatively. No, it doesn't need a "priest" ... especially if they were trained in the years when the Bible was used as ammunition for proof-texting. 

3. "papyrologym" Why would anyone have heard of a word you seem to have invented?