Why is this? I'm coming to a rather troubling conclusion: scholars seem to be reading each other, but not the primary sources. I think anyone publishing works on New Testament studies should have at least read through all of the published Dead Sea Scrolls, and the the pseudepigraphal writings--especially 1 Enoch! It seems to me though certain fragraments from Qumran get usually get attention from scholars and certain chapters in pseudepigraphical works are mentioned, a lot of relavent data gets overlooked. In other words, it is suspicious that different scholars treat the same texts while ignoring others.
When I read Markus Bockmuehl's work Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), I was glad to see someone else voice these concerns.
“Some of the most accomplished scholars are showing ill-concealed signs of exasperation with the rising incompetence and carelessness manifested even in some high-profile publications in the field. The discipline’s increasingly fluffy dependence on secondary and tertiary citations make such disgruntled views difficult to dismiss out of hand. It is extraordinary, for example, how many publications in the field still restrict their range of rabbinic reference, if any, to texts discussed in the classic commentary of Strack and Billerbeck 1922-61 (a point rightly stressed by [David] Daube [“Zukunftsmusik: Some Desireable Lines of Exploration in the New Testament Field,” in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led By M.-É Boismard, W. R. Farmer, F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984 (ed. D. L. Dungan; BETL 95; Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1990), 376] and their engagement with the Dead Sea Scrolls to recycling the same handful of passages that were popularized in the first wave of Qumran scholarship in the 1950s and 1960s.”So, ad fontes!