"With Shrine of the Book curator Adolfo Roitman (left), Professor Cargill looks at the longest segment of the actual Isaiah Scroll, the oldest copy of any book of the Bible known today. Only a few select scholars are allowed access to the documents."
This was published by UCLA's press officer Meg Sullivan . She name-drops on Cargill's behalf. But she doesn't stop there. She then adds to the cringe factor by writing, "only a few select scholars are allowed access to the documents." Of course Cargill approves, because he published it on his blog. This was part of the publicity for Cargill's 'show' produced by National Geographic, which sets out to prove that it was possible for about one third of the Scrolls to have been written (and the vellum manufactured) at Qumran.
We now see what (who) Robert Cargill is all about.
To emphasise his importance, Meg Sullivan further reports Cargill as recalling, "Nobody I know has ever been down there", referring to the underground vault beneath the Shrine of the Book. Never mind that he was accompanied by a still camera-man, and the video camera-man (above) who "captured the moving moment" for his forthcoming "show". This owes more to Hollywood than it does to archaeology. How much did the British film Company pay the The Shrine of the Book for its services? And how much did UCLA pay the British film Company?
If roughly one third of the scrolls were manufactured and written at Qumran, why have no finds of vellum been reported as coming from the complex? Scrolls survived in the caves. So why doesn't he look in the right place for the origin of the Scrolls? Jerusalem had the necesary production facilities: a plentiful supply of water, animals, ink, inkwells, people capable of writing, and the sort of folk with the motives revealed in the Scrolls. The Scrolls were written in Jerusalem by priests. They were stored carefully at Qumran before the Romans came. The Scrolls were stolen from Agrippa I's library.
One of three comments I wrote to Robert Cargill's blog in connection with his article, http://robertcargill.com/2010/07/22/thoughts-on-the-recent-announcement-by-italian-scientists-regarding-the-bromine-and-chlorine-levels-of-the-temple-scroll/ was:
ReplyDelete"And of course the Scrolls have been stored for a very long time in precisely the area where the air has been been filled with the vapours from the Dead Sea." (which Cargill declined to publish)
That this fact was not self-evident to an aspiring archaeologist, shows that Cargill does not really know his business.
Shortly after I submitted my comment, David Stacey piped-up with his quite scathing reflection:
David Stacey, on July 23, 2010 at 4:23 am Said:
"The problem with this research is that it does not address the issue of how much bromine or any other salts would be absorbed by any porous material after it had been in a cave near the Dead Sea for 2000 years. The human bones from the Qumran cemetery had a high bromine content (Rasmussen et al in Kh Q II, Humbert and Gunneweg (eds)) and Crowfoot when dealing with the linen wrappers over 50 years ago never questioned that they had absorbed Dead Sea salts. How about testing the wooden coffins from Ein Gedi for bromine content?
David Stacey"
There is nothing clever here. This should have been obvious to any archaeologist worth his 'salt'.
And what about these Italian 'scientists'? Why were they doing this investigation in the first place? Who, for example, paid for the use of expensive equipment and manpower to undertake this obviously dubious research? What were the religious beliefs of these 'scientists'. Were they Catholics, commisioned by the Roman Catholic Church? Has anyone found any answers to these questions? Does Robert Cargill or Owen Jarus know the answers? Has anyone even bothered to investigate these 'scientists'? Or are we expected to accept what they say, just because they are 'scientists'? Was it a 'clutching at straws' attempt to get the production of some scrolls at Qumran? These people just don't give-up, do they!
ReplyDeleteThis was the subject of one of the comments which I posted to Robert Cargill's blog, but he deleted it.
Why?
Robert Cargill wrote here:
ReplyDeletehttp://robertcargill.com/2010/07/27/writing-the-dead-sea-scrolls-airs-on-national-geographic-channel-some-reflections/
"The Point of This Exercise
The point of the documentary and of our approach was to do less of this
http://www.bobcargill.com/who-is-charles-gadda.html
and have more of the professional exchange of ideas and more of the kind of scholarly and public dialogue that a documentary like this can generate. It is possible to discuss Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls without resorting to aliases and anonymity, without abusing one position to suppress new ideas, and without doing drive-by hit jobs on the personal lives of graduate students and scholars with whom you disagree. This documentary is an example of how one can facilitate a discussion amongst a number of scholars – many of whom disagree strongly – and present the new information, responses to these new ideas, and allow the viewer (both scholar and non-specialist alike) to make an informed decision. It is hoped that this documentary can shed light on the new research surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls, and can serve as an example of how scholarship can be done professionally and collaboratively in this new age of modern media and the Digital Humanities."
Cargill was referring to his own collection of data regarding Raphael Golb (see Cargill's link). Where would Scrolls scholarship be without Norman Golb. Tell me that!
As for scholars not getting-on with each other, what about the highly entrenched postion of Lawrence Schiffman, who, to quote Ker Than, who in-turn quotes Schiffman:
"The notion that someone brought a bunch of scrolls together from some other location and deposited them in a cave is very, very unlikely,"
Lawrence Schiffman just can't think laterally. However, it does not take a genius to see that there is considerable congruency in the texts. Vermes also says that. So the question is: How do you explain the apparently incongruent texts?
Much better to have a fight, which is what Raphael Golb chose to do without a great deal of concealment.
ReplyDeleteIf Robert Cargill thinks that Raphael Golb was not professional, then he should have ignored what what Raphael said.
I repeat, where would Scrolls scholarship be without Norman Golb? His voice has been a lone voice in the wilderness for many a year, starting in the early 80's. He had no a clear backer, opposition in abundance, and was ignored by some, including Lawrence Schiffman.
Norman Golb was correct in his view that NONE of the scrolls had their origin at Qumran.
They were placed carefully and slowly in the caves around Qumran which was probably a high priest's fortress and residence. Thus the owner was very interested in preserving these manuscripts which had come from Agrippa I's library. He had even arranged for some of the caves to be carved out of the rock to preserve the Scrolls. Many of the caves were in pretty inaccessible places. This was no haphazard, hurried action of people fleeing for their lives. There would have been no time clamber up the rocks.
How do we explain the fact that Norman Golb, whose ideas were suppressed for thirty years, is not included in this National Geographic show? Did certain scholars agree to participate under the condition that others be excluded?
ReplyDeleteSometimes it takes a little eccentricity to change the world. By the time this is over, I have a hunch Golb's son will have earned many people's respect and brought this scandal to the attention of thousands.
Yes, is that true? Did certain scholars agree to participate under the condition that others be excluded? Did they, Robert Cargill and Lawrence Schiffman? Or was there an understanding that this would be so? - Somehow I don't think so. People would want to make sure Norman Golb did not have a voice, before they took part. Was this why UCLA chose a British Company to make the film? - to keep the administration of who took part well away from the US.
ReplyDeleteThis makes an absolute mockery of Cargill's high words:
"This documentary is an example of how one can facilitate a discussion amongst a number of scholars – many of whom disagree strongly – and present the new information, responses to these new ideas, and allow the viewer (both scholar and non-specialist alike) to make an informed decision."
So well done, Raphael Golb for fighting your father's corner against opposition such as this.
Robert Cargill wrote:
ReplyDelete"This documentary is an example of how one can facilitate a discussion amongst a number of scholars – many of whom disagree strongly – and present the new information, responses to these new ideas, and allow the viewer (both scholar and non-specialist alike) to make an informed decision."
Norman Golb wrote here:
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/news/GolbRecent2007.pdf
"Whether the American public will continue to accept the increasingly dubious
treatment of the Scrolls in ostensibly scientific writings and in museum exhibits without
pressing for fundamental change cannot be foretold. Now, however, is surely the time to
consider whether these efforts, so contrary to the spirit of fair play and openness that are
the very trademarks of a healthy society, in any way result from the exercise of financial
influence either here or abroad. There are those who know the answer to this question;
should they not finally give the public a truthful account instead of hiding behind a
Qumran-like wall of silence?"
Robert Cargill and the others are not so fair-minded. Cargill seems more concerned about pushing the "new" information. So how can the public make an informed decision if they are treated so?
David Stacey, on July 30, 2010 at 2:33 am Said here:
ReplyDeletehttp://robertcargill.com/2010/07/27/writing-the-dead-sea-scrolls-airs-on-national-geographic-channel-some-reflections/#comment-2149
"The establishment, pro-temple docs would, of course, stay in the temple."
But the Scrolls are pro-temple.
Similarly, Robert Cargill wrote:
"but my question is this: where are the pro-temple, pro-priesthood,...docs?"
They were deposited at Qumran. Look no further. They came from Agrippa I,s library, not the temple library which was guarded in 66 CE by prophets. The Scrolls contained only copies (no autographs or original manuscripts) because they were held in the temple library.
Rachel Elior is right about Essenes. They have never existed. And before CE 70, neither did Sadducees, Pharisees, or the zealots. They are the fabrication of Flavian historians, some of whom were ex-priests used and taken into the Flavian fold. The prophets (about 800 were left) were led-off for Vespasian's triumph, execution and forced labour. It was the prophets who had defended the temple which had previously been left standing by Nero. Vespasian released the priests from prison who had been put there by Nero. Vespasians motive was greed for the temple gold and treasure which he carefully extracted before torching it.
ReplyDeleteWhen Josephus originally wrote about the different groups in Israel, he wrote about two groups or ORDERS of priests, who were the priests and the prophets. This was as an introduction to what followed which was disputes between priests and prophets, and the cause of the war. The Flavian historians, aided by priests, edited the writings of Josephus. They wrote-out the prophets, and fabricated all sorts of stories.
Josephus was Nero's historian, a descendent of the Hasmoneans, and a prophet (there is no record of him sacrificing).
Simon a prophet, probably brother to James, had been captured because his team could mine no further through hard rock below the temple. Hence the Flavian editors of the NT manuscripts mockingly changed his name to Peter (the rock). 'Peter' was executed in Rome at the end of Vespasian's triumph - his execution in Rome was not a tradition, it really happened. The editor-priests made 'Peter' a deserter of the Messiah, but they were hinting at his desertion of their original Messianic cause.
David Stacey, on July 30, 2010 at 1:37 pm Said:
ReplyDelete"If the High Priest confiscated docs whose ideology was opposed to the state he would have held them as ‘evidence’ for as long as there was any danger that their writers may have had influence, not as an ‘open shelf’ ‘library’ collection."
This was precisely what Agrippa I did. Agrippa I was very interested in what was happening in his kingdom right up to his death in 66CE. He held the manuscripts as evidence of anti-state activity.
Anyone who believes that Agrippa I was died before should think again. His death was manufactured by Flavian historians to appear earlier in a fashion about as fanciful as it gets. Agrippa I was killed by the priests in 66 CE, after which they raided his library.