Schiffman (Qumran and Jerusalem, 2010, p.415) “Already in the debate over Christian origins we can see the inversion of reality in which the real scholars (Schiffman sees himself a “real” scholar) have to defend themselves and their work against unlikely, illogical, or unfounded theories. … This inversion is the case with the theories of Barbara Thiering and Robert Eisenman, who see Christian figures as having lived or visited Qumran, and Norman Golb, who claims that the scrolls are the remnants of the Jerusalem library of the temple, brought to Qumran for safekeeping during the revolt of 66-73 CE, and not the library of a sectarian group who lived at Qumran. These theories are actually impossible, from an objective, that is scientific, point of view.”
Golb –
1. He has emphasized in his writings that no evidence has been found that Hebrew literary scrolls were either kept or written at Qumran.
2. Nor has he ever suggested that they were “brought to Qumran” for safe keeping. But rather scrolls were removed from Jerusalem before or during the siege and taken into the Judean wilderness to be hidden away in a number of places including the caves around Qumran. (see his statement in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124, 1980, p.11).
3. And Golb has never stated in his writings that the scrolls were limited to remnants of the temple library. He has said (way back in 1980) that the scrolls showed a wide variety of practices, beliefs and opinions. I have to agree with this part of his theory, having read the archaeological report, The Qumran Excavations, 1993 – 2004, Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
http://www.antiquities.org.il/images/shop/jsp/JSP6_Qumran_color.pdf
- Just read the summary.
With its evidence, this Report affirms Golb’s theory and damns Schiffman’s Qumran sectarian theory. Schiffman makes a vicious demeaning attack on the theories of three scholars and says all of them, including Golb’s, is impossible, not objective and unscientific. Schiffman does not acknowledge anywhere in his 2010 book the increasing receptivity of scholars to the Jerusalem origin of the Scrolls. Nor does he acknowledge in his book the decade-long archaeological investigation of the Qumran site under the direction of Dr Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg. This investigation ended several years ago with an affirmation of Dr Golb’s views on the origin of the scrolls. http://heritage-key.com/category/tags/yitzhak-magen
So Dr Golb’s theory is very possible, objective and scientific, isn’t it Dr Schiffman! And it is your theory that is "impossible, from an objective, that is scientific point of view.” (See below)
Extracts of Magen’s and Peleg’s Summary of their decade-long archaeological investigations:
1. The claim that the location was chosen because of its isolation, for the purpose of establishing a first Jewish monastery or a community center for the Judean Desert sect, is groundless.
2. Qumran was part of the Hasmonean military presence along the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea. The volume and quality of construction is not consistent with a private building project of the Judean Desert sect, …
3. Neither (Qumran or Ein Feshkha) was inhabited by members of the Judean Desert sect.
4. After the Roman conquest, the site was no longer used for military purposes and the building deteriorated.
5. During the first century CE, the site suffered from considerable neglect and was turned into a pottery production center,….
6. Upon reexamination, the hypothesis that every one of the pools was a ritual bath has been an unfortunate error, bereft of any scientific or halakhic validity. According to Jewish law, most of the pools were unfit for use as ritual baths because the water in them would have been considered “drawn water”. The entire site contained perhaps two ritual baths, and even this is not certain. The purpose of the pools was to collect rainwater and potter’s clay for the pottery industry.
7. One more baseless hypothesis concerns the number of sect members who lived at the site. This number ran, depending on the calculations of each scholar, from 200 to 250. In fact, at Qumran there is room for 20 to 30 people at the most. Certainly no evidence has been found, like ovens and cooking utensils, to indicate that 250 people had been fed twice a day for 170 years.
8. The main activity at the site was the production of pottery, a fact that we find is hardly consistent with the identification of Qumran as a communal center for the Judean Desert sect.
The scrolls deposited at Qumran, while disordered compared to a library, were not disordered compared to what one might expect from people fleeing for their lives. This was more in keeping with the hiding of a hoard stolen by robbers. The goods were valuable to them and they had to be kept hidden somewhere out of sight. There was no general panic about the deposits. To transport what must have been tons of parchment (and we must not forget manuscripts deposited elsewhere) would have taken considerable time of the order of weeks. This was alot of patient hard work. My conclusion is that the Romans were not on the scene yet, and these deposits were made well in advance of any Roman arrival by the rebel priests who had captured the Qumran site from its Hasmonean soldiers..
On page 47 of Qumran in Context, Hirschfeld writes: “In terms of both extent and content, the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the vigorous and varied literary activity that characterized Jerusalem in the second Temple period. One of the centers of this activity was the royal palace in the Upper City. Herod’s palace, like those of other Hellenistic kings, contained a large library. There was even a library in Herod’s palace at remote Masada.” The king’s library would surely contain books that represented the whole culture of his people. It seems to me that the books found at Qumran could well have been from the king’s library in Jerusalem. Thus we have an alternative explanation of where the scrolls came from, and why they represented a broad cross-section of the society. If the king’s library was invaded, then whoever raided it would have had a storage problem, especially if they had set fire to the library. Secondly, treasure could have been stolen from the king’s vaults, which was no doubt the place where the library was also.
Were the Jews fleeing from the Romans in a panic when they deposited the scrolls. (I don't believe they were). This was depicted as occurring during the siege of Jerusalem (or near the time of the siege) in a documentary: Writing the Dead Sea Scrolls made by National Geographic. The National Geographic article http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100727-who-wrote-dead-sea-scrolls-bible-science-tv/ has Robert Cargill (an archaeologist who appears in the documentary) saying "Jews wrote the Scrolls, but it may not have been just one specific group. It could have been groups of different Jews." The writer of the of the article Ker Than describes this as a “new view”. The view was put forward by Norman Golb in his 1980 paper, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society No. 124, and has been upheld by him ever since. Cargill gave no credit to Golb in the National Geographic article, and made no subsequent attempt to correct his error.
The Real Issue
Golb has confused the issue. There was one group that took the scrolls from Agrippa's archives and stored them temporarily in the Caves around Qumran, the rebel priests. No doubt there was a mixture of manuscripts from various sources collected in Agrippa's library (archives). In that respect, Golb's expert opinion is correct. But the priests did not have the time to filter out their own documents. They knew that Nero was on his way and they were to prepare for his coming. This was why no manuscripts were found in the Qumran buildings.
This is much worse than I thought. Not only is he plagiarizing, but Schiffman is putting words in other scholars mouths. He is fabricating things that other Dead Sea Scrolls scholars, like Norman Golb, have never said or he is twisting things to support his theory of the origins of the Scrolls. He is misquoting things that Golb said, producing untrue citings and misinformation. Schiffman proposes things and ideas to sway his readers. I agree with Hudson that he clearly attacks other scholars, demeaning their theories on this subject. For example, stating that Norman Golb’s theory is not possible from a scientific point of view. What right does he have to do this? Schiffman presents extremely biased opinions toward his own work, degrading the other scholars work. His own works are filled with half-truths and misinformation despite the more recent evidence from Dr. Golb and the other scholars that support Golb’s theories. Schiffman’s ideas are dogma. He appears to show little respect towards other scholars and their findings, which is evident in his tone of writing and through his demeaning, vicious statements. He twists information to how he wants it to sound, which has been documented and cited in his works. He is not only a plagiarist, but he also makes up stories to suit his own needs. Schiffman clearly does not do his homework and research, or rather maybe chooses to not acknowledge other theories. Golb, on the other hand, is much more meticulous in his work and findings than Schiffman. It is clear from the information that Hudson has presented. Schiffman has many consistent errors in his work. He’s not honoring the other scholars theories and evidence that has been proven in this matter, for what seems to be his personal gain.
ReplyDeleteWhat “real scholar” would do this? Who can actually trust this man? Is this not a form of fraud? It seems that Schiffman will not engage in any respectful disagreement regarding alternate explanations of the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What this man is doing is a terrible thing and he is getting away with it! If it were not for Hudson’s blog, I would not be able to see all these specific examples and learn this valuable information. Schiffman seems behind the times on his work and still clings to the old beliefs about the origins of the Scrolls. Norman Golb has done some fine work regarding more recent research and evidence regarding this matter. Perhaps Schiffman is envious of his new findings.
It is even much worse than I imagined because he is clearly putting words in Norman Golb’s mouth, twisting information cited from Golb’s publications to make himself look better. Just plain and simple - he doesn’t care about the truth. Golb’s theory is not unfounded, based on the evidence that is out there. There is clear evidence that proves what Schiffman is saying is false. He has many inconsistencies in what he says. I thought that magazine publications and books had to be reviewed before they were published? Who is reviewing Schiffman’s articles and books? It is certainly someone that has not done their homework on the Dead Sea Scrolls and is also biased toward Schiffman. Perhaps a good friend?
ReplyDeleteI completely understand why he is upset with Schiffman. His statements completely disregard and disrespect Golb’s theories. There should be follow up articles and books published about what Schiffman has done. It’s totally out of line and uncalled for. So, who’s the “real” scholar here? Does Schiffman not have any decency or shame? Obviously, he thinks that his readers do not do their homework either. I specifically remember one statement that Schiffman made after the Golb trial and Raphael’s convictions, telling the District Attorney that he was so appreciative of the DA’s results and that the field of the Dead Sea Scrolls can “get back to read business now”. Real business now? Do you mean, Mr. Schiffman, the real business of your plagiarized, misquoted, wrongly cited information. Statements that have twisted the recent evidence about the Scrolls and their origins, attacking scholars, making demeaning comments relating to other known and respected theories and misleading the public into believing that the information is untrue? The business of making statements that Norman Golb never even made? It is a form of fraud in my opinion. Perhaps you should be in jail for this? I have no idea how you can live with yourself. This is greedy and dishonest. Attention to details is a very important quality for a writer to have. Are you doing this purposely to sway your readers and followers because you know darn well, due to recent evidence in Golb’s and his colleagues’ work, that they may very well have you beat? All you have to do is go and read the links in the previous blogs, the truth about the Dead Sea Scrolls, to know that you may no longer be number one in your field.
How can you live with yourself and try put other people in jail to make yourself look better? I believe that Raphael tried to make a difference in the world by revealing this plagiarism and misinformation over the past years. I believe that he was trying to take a stand on “fairness” also. Who can actually respect someone who has done as such - Schiffman thinks that he is the “real” scholar? Interesting..
ReplyDeleteA new twist in the saga seems to be that not only Schiffman, but now Cargill will not acknowledge the fact that Norman Golb came up with this theory in 1980 that " The Jews wrote the Scrolls, but it may not have been just one specific group. It could have been groups of different Jews." Another case of dishonest scholars behaving badly again. Both of them disrespectful to Golb. Also, Schiffman and Cargill are hypocrites, since they have clearly stated that Golb's theory carries no little or no validity. Have they not read the article above? Or, have they just chosen to ignore it?
I think that Schiffman has "got away" with his arrogant attitude to other scholars for far too long. Whilst he can’t think outside the ‘orthodox’ box himself, he criticizes those who have done so. Yet they all bring something to the table. I am pretty sure that Schiffman’s silence over a long period in deliberately not referring to Norman Golb’s work, taken together with his personal comments written in his books, would be justification for a prosecution in a UK court. Especially when one considers this protracted sequence of ignorant behavior by Schiffman (added to by his protege Cargill) has had such a dramatic effect upon Golb’s son Raphael. So scholars carry a heavy responsibility by what they write, or don’t write.
ReplyDeleteCargill gloats today: "I am satisfied with the outcome. I have moved on. However, because Dr. Golb has vowed to appeal, and thereby prolong this case, I unfortunately believe this is not the end, but rather only the latest, never-ending chapter in the continued legacy of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
ReplyDeleteYou bet! Characters like you and Schiffman never move on. Someone wrote about Schiffman, "just keep in mind that now he is known worldwide as the professor who got his rival's son arrested." Well now he is known as the professor who got his rival's son put in Jail. And you Robert Cargill, will be known worldwide as the person who facilitated it. So both you and Schiffman should be very satisfied with your days work.
In his pre-prepared disgusting post justifying himself Cargill writes (http://robertcargill.com/2010/11/18/golb-gets-6-months-in-jail-5-years-probation/):
ReplyDelete"Because Dr. Golb wasted the people of New York’s time and money in a trial he used as little more than a soapbox for his father’s dismissed scholarly views and a weapon to attack his victims further, I believe the sentence is appropriate."
As the son of Schiffman, Cargill follows in his father's footsteps, dismissing Norman Golb's views. This doesn't sound like moving on to me.
I’ll be willing to bet that both of them will not move on. Why stop now? There’s plenty more to write about and say in upcoming months. What I am hearing is that Cargill is indeed a protege of Schiffman and perhaps under his tutelage. It’s very clear that he is another one that has been influenced by Schiffman’s charismatic ways. He is very talented at presenting information to suit whatever point that he is trying to get across, in order to sway his readers. He is a born leader, or of the sort.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've heard - when Schiffman walks into a room, all eyes are on him and people listen. I believe that he could convince anyone of anything. What about all the readers and followers of this case? What happens next with Golb? I’m sure that there are folks from all backgrounds and all different walks of life, in every state across the US (and I would be willing to bet in several continents as well), that know about Lawrence Schiffman and how he was confronted with plagiarism - followed by his reporting to the Manhattan DA, which led to the arrest, conviction and sentencing to Riker’s Island of Norman Golb’s son. Raphael bravely tried to expose this man in his own way - through a parody and everyone now will be surely curious as to what is happening next. Riker’s Island is not a place that Raphael should have to go, not even for one night! I can’t even imagine what he is going through right now.
As far as Cargill’s hand in facilitating this, he’s known via his blog where he clearly states that he did help facilitate this outcome. This case is always on the first page of Google, which has many readers. There’s even a link on Wikipedia! From what I've read - it’s the first case of its kind and it's becoming common knowledge now too. They wanted to set precedence here. Unfortunately laws vary from state to state and what exactly constitutes a crime verses a civil matter, or nothing at all. Under other circumstances with different people I personally believe this case would have been thrown out in a fit of laughter - it's only my opinion. But, on the other hand, is it okay to write as Schiffman has been doing? Overtly twisting proven facts that he prefers not to acknowledge and continually downplaying Golb’s theories and ideas? What precedence has been set in this regard for future professors, scholars and author in the field of The Dead Sea Scroll Scholarship? Is what Schiffman has been doing okay and acceptable? Is it not viewed as a form of academic fraud and crime? As Hudson said in the UK, Schiffman may very well be subject to prosecution for this. How can he live with himself?
ReplyDeleteIt has been demonstrated via Hudson’s blog exactly what this man has done and gotten away with in academia. I don’t blame the Golb’s for being upset in the very least. It’s Norman Golb’s hard earned and proven work! Naturally, his family would be upset as well. Again, who is the “real” scholar here? I completely understand why Raphael is upset by Schiffman. His statements completely disregard his father's theory and hard earned work. I believe that neither Raphael nor his father would ever do certain things in academia as Schiffman has done, in order to get ahead. I have complete empathy for Raphael’s horror over what this man has gotten away with. Schiffman, on the other hand, maybe seems to believe that his readers do not do all of their homework on this subject matter and can be influenced by anything that he charismatically says.
The point is that Norman Golb’s views are not dismissed! This is another case of how someone has been influenced by Schiffman making his demeaning and convincing statements (a young and impressionable Scholar - whom has been referred to as a protege of Schiffman.) All one has to do is read the evidence and articles out there! Golb’s views have been proven. A good portion of it is shown in Hudson’s blog right here. Raphael certainly did not use this trial as a soapbox to harm others. He was trying very hard to explain his plan and simply his side of the story - the truth! And from what I have gathered through reading, I honestly believe that he did not think he committed crime nor intended to at all. I believe Raphael is a humble man, who has worked hard for his education and is an upstanding citizen. As I have said before, he would sooner live of bread and water than commit fraud or crime! I also believe Raphael, and his family, would never put his work, career, or precious education in jeopardy. He was trying to help his father - plain and simple. He was emotional and passionate about what was happening to his dad. Raphael went about this in his own way, after decades of polite requests and attempts to get Schiffman to stop what he was doing. He was trying to get important points cross to the public what the “real business” was here and what was truly going on with the Scrolls.
ReplyDeleteNorman Golb is a fine writer and known Scholar. His work is meticulous and impeccably written. His views were truly being suppressed. Doesn’t anyone really get it? I hope that Schiffman can get on with his life now and get back to the “real” business of charismatically influencing others to whatever he deems as right. What Schiffman did and how he went about all of this is wrong. Is it not right for Raphael to bravely step up to the plate, taking some risks that he may not have wanted to and show what Schiffman was getting away with for decades?
Read Hudson’s blog - it’s all right here. The evidence is becoming more and more clear about the “real truth and business” of what’s been going on regarding the current politics of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Each time I come back here to read, I learn new information and specific examples about what Schiffman has done and gotten away with! But no, they would certainly not take this into consideration at the trial. Raphael had no choice at this point than to go to trial to accomplish this and explain why he did what he did. Otherwise, to accept the plea and what he would have had to plead guilty to - Raphael believed he did not do! This is my personal opinion here. He was trying to make the truth be known, something that he believed that was long overdue. Schiffman was disrespectful and mean to Golb for years, decades even, to try to use his natural charisma and leadership qualities to sway others into believing that Golb’s ideas were invalid and nil! I hate to say this because neither I nor anyone would want this to happen to them, but it was probably long overdue that Schiffman needed to be called out somehow, someway.
ReplyDeleteSchiffman was confronted for decades about what he was doing, still, no apologies, no remorse and he never fixed his errors, even after he was confronted by people in authority. Now, people accuse Raphael of showing no remorse toward Schiffman? In turn, the Golbs were victims for many years and hurt very badly. Did anyone show any empathy for Norman Golb? They had no other choice than to fight back. I don’t blame them at all.
Raphael never used this trial to hurt anyone! Again, my personal opinion is that he honestly didn’t feel that he did anything wrong (and I believe his attorneys said yesterday too.) He had the hopes to be given one fair chance to explain his side of the story, which was what Schiffman had been getting away with and what had prompted Raphael to his writings. “Was Judge Berkman was fair and impartial this time? The DA pushed for the maximum time of four years and she only gave Raphael six months.” Six months too long in my opinion. He shouldn't have gone to jail period for this.