Golb (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124, 1980, The Problem of Origin, and Identification the Dead Sea Scrolls Authors):
“What may in my opinion be fairly inferred about the scrolls from the caves from facts now available, but not known in 1948, is that these manuscripts stem from first-century Palestinian Jews and are remnants of a literature showing a wide variety of practices beliefs and opinions which was removed from Jerusalem before or during the siege, brought down to the Judean wilderness and adjacent areas, and there, with the aid of inhabitants of the region, were successfully hidden away for long periods of time.”
“What may in my opinion be fairly inferred about the scrolls from the caves from facts now available, but not known in 1948, is that these manuscripts stem from first-century Palestinian Jews and are remnants of a literature showing a wide variety of practices beliefs and opinions which was removed from Jerusalem before or during the siege, brought down to the Judean wilderness and adjacent areas, and there, with the aid of inhabitants of the region, were successfully hidden away for long periods of time.”
A child would know what was going on here. How did Schiffman get away with this? Why hasn’t NYU taken notice? He never credited or acknowledged Golb for his theory, a theory that Schiffman subsequently adapted to develop his own ideas (e.g. regarding Pharisees) and thus further his own career. And yet Golb had paved the way for Schiffman’s theory by pointing out the “wide variety of beliefs and practices” supported by the scrolls. It was an appalling mistake not to give credit where it was due. Instead, Schiffman announced that it could “now be stated” there was “a new understanding” of the scrolls, as though he and his supporters were the discoverers of new ideas.
Schiffman recognized that credit should have been given to Golb. In his 1990 article “The Significance of the Scrolls”, he dismissed Golb’s theory more or less with a stroke of his pen. He didn’t bother to argue (except in the broadest of terms) against Golb’s theory, explained in considerable detail in “The Problem of Origin of the Scrolls”. He wrote: “At this point, I should perhaps comment briefly on the Dead Sea Scroll hypothesis recently put forward by professor Norman Golb.”
Earlier in his article, Schiffman similarly dismissed the views of Jacob Neusner. Thus, in support of the Talmud (compiled well post first century), Schiffman wrote: “This letter (the scroll MMT) requires that the view of prominent scholars (prominent, as distinct from Golb?) – most notably Jacob Neusner (notable, as distinct from Golb?), who doubted the reliability of the rabbis regarding Pharisees, must be re-evaluated.” It seems that Schiffman’s attitude to other scholars who opposed his views has been arrogant, to say the least.
If Schiffman wants to die at peace he ought to apologise to Norman Golb.
If Schiffman wants to die at peace he ought to apologise to Norman Golb.
To appropriate, without credit, the core of Norman Golb’s findings, is precisely the same as stealing an inventor’s original ideas.
ReplyDeleteFor Schiffman to appropriate, without giving credit, the core of Norman Golb's findings is certainly indeed the same as stealing an inventor's original ideas. Do people think that gaining income (assuming that Schiffman has) from producing content that is derived from Golb's findings, even in the case of oversight (i.e. Schiffman's 1990 article "The Significance of the Scrolls"), which dismissed Golb's theory is credit enough for one's hard work and expertise? Where has our society gone wrong in this value judgment? Content theft, stealing ideas from another author - shouldn’t this be criminalized? It is equivalent in some ways to being a thief. I would be infuriated if someone took my ideas from my work and did not credit me properly. My entire family and close friends would be furious as well. Why didn't he ever fix those errors after so many confrontations? Considering one viewpoint, it just seems criminal. Golb has been robbed. Another element that has been overlooked is that by supposedly lying under oath, Schiffman perjured himself when he was confronted with his plagiarism, but no one at the trial seemed to care about that fact. As one person stated, they were trying to narrow the criminal aspects of the case, but what about the criminal acts of Lawrence Schiffman? Lying and stealing are still crimes in my book!
ReplyDeleteThe Golbs went through all the proper channels. Schiffman was informed of the plagiarism theft on numerous occasions and even by the known journalist Avi Katzman. It was requested that he remove and/or modify the statements, but to no avail. After decades of attempts to get him to rectify his errors, concerning Golb’s stolen ideas, a dialog blog was opened to try to inform the public of what he had done. Which I saw for myself that there was nothing threatening or unprofessional in the writers' content. Schiffman was given the chance to explain why he did this and a comment he plainly stated at one point, "there's nothing innovative about Golb's theory", just seems to be demeaning in my opinion. If this were not true, why didn’t he ever take the time say, to call Google and have this removed? I believe that it was a form of illegal use when Golb's ideas were not credited by Dr. Schiffman. I firmly believe that appropriating the core of Norman Golb's findings is precisely the same as stealing an inventor's ideas. He assumed the credit without acknowledging Golb's work and his theories, which made a critical contribution to the Dead Sea Scrolls origin. Yet, regardless of why someone plagiarizes, whether by ignorance or intention, the consequences can be very severe. Assuming this is true, why Schiffman's consequences were not is beyond comprehension. He is a distinguished, well known Scholar in his field, and based on what I have read - this could have handled this matter differently, more professionally, which is seems not evident in this matter.
ReplyDelete