XKV8R

yes. my mistake. jew, not xn. lol. i was just in a session mentioning orthodox xnty. my mistake.

i'll tell larry. he'll get a kick out of it. -bc

XKV8R

by invitation even...

and fitter, are you communicating with me? ;-)

Toto

By request, David Hindley's discussion of the reactions to the DSS has been split off here to its own thread.

DCHindley

I did find a "Rabbi Schiffman" on the internet.

It was Rabbi Michael Schiffman, author of Return of the Remnant: The Rebirth of Messianic Judaism. He is Executive Director of Chevra USA, a humanitarian organization ministering to the needy Jewish population of Eastern Europe. He currently serves on the Executive Board of the UMJC (Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations), is an adjunct professor of Rabbinic Literature at Fuller Theological Seminary and St. Petersburg Theological, a professor at MJTI (Messianic Jewish Theological Institute) and was a rabbi at Congregation Shuvah Yisrael in Connecticut. I think as of July 2009 he has moved on to Kehilat Aish Kodesh, Cape Coral's newest, and only, Interfaith synagogue.

No relation, I believe, to Dr Lawrence Schiffman.

DCH

manwithdream

If anyone is interested, here is more about the Golb case on the internet.


http://scrollmotions.files.wordpress...sy-motion1.pdf

http://scrollmotions.files.wordpress...ess-motion.pdf

Kenneth Greifer

Toto

You may need to go to http://scrollmotions.wordpress.com to get to the files.

The first brief is in support of a motion to suppress evidence. It asserts that everyone knows that anyone can set up a gmail or yahoo account, so no one was actually fooled by the accounts that Golb set up, and therefore the affidavit in support of the search warrant that was used to search Golb's apartment was based on false claims. Of more interest for this forum, at footnote 10 on page 8, there is an accusation that Frank Moore Cross committed fraud.

There is then an extensive narrative supporting the idea that Golb pere has been unnfairly treated by the so-called mainsteam of DSS scholarship.

fitter

This is fascinating.. I vaguely recall hearing that someone named "Cross" had been described as a "pretendster" (or was it a "fakester"?), but I don't think I had heard him described as a "fraudster." But then again, maybe I'm confusing this person with someone else. It will be interesting to see how these charges are met by the person in question.

These legal papers have some other interesting statements too:

On page 16 of the short one, quoting from a case, they say:

And then on the top of the next page they go on to comment:

Interesting comment. Then, in paragraph 55 of the long one, we read:

Then, in paragraph 62, we read:

In paragraph 70, we read:

<removed>

In paragraph 75 we read:

<removed>

And in paragraph 79(b), we read:

<removed>

There are a lot of other interesting passages too, but those are the ones that caught my attention the most.

In my opinion, these statements must be untrue. Perhaps someone here would have information to show this? Anyway, if I were one of the people involved, I would sue these lawyers. There is no excuse for making such charges and this should be made clear at the highest levels.

Toto

Hi fitter - I did not get through reading all of the brief.

I would note that a person is immune from libel based on statements made in court, but once you start reprinting those statements, you might run into trouble. I have removed some of the quotes that you have made.

eta: it does appear that Golb is using the court procedings as a publicity device for his dispute with the Qumran-Essene school.

XKV8R

lol. ya think???

golb wants to use a 'truth is always a defense' defense in criminal court. essentially, as this approaches trial in criminal court, he is threatening/wants to use a tactic used in civil court. he wants to try and argue that what he did is not defamation because he thinks he can prove that his claims are true.

the problem is that he is not on trial for defamation in criminal court.

it won't work. the defense is attempting to conflate the criminal charges with the civil charges that may (read: soon will) follow. the defense is attempting to argue that this is a civil matter (and not a criminal one) because no money was made by golb. this is a very narrow interpretation of 'identity theft' and 'forgery'. thus, the defense wants to argue that this is a matter for the civil courts, not the criminal courts, and then in civil courts, use a 'truth is always a defense' defense, hoping that those who he has already criticized won't want to go through it again.

essentially, this is a way to pressure/scare those who were attacked into not testifying. essentially, if the defense has its way, the golbs could put schiffman on trial for plagiarism, cross on trial for fraud, and essentially make the entire 'defense' into a soapbox for a referendum on golb's views.

he wants a show trial - a soap box. the thought is, if he's gonna down, he's gonna go down swinging and take as many people with him as he can. some might want to avoid being criticized in court, so may want this case to 'go away.' so yes, this website and the defense motions are being used as a pr device to bring about better terms for a settlement.

at least that's my completely uninformed $0.02 worth of an opinion... ;-)

XKV8R

lol. i just read golb's new motions to dismiss.

absolutely comical!

seriously, i must ask who is writing these motions? raphael? is norman helping?

there's even a whole section that examines claims made in my dissertation. lol. at least i know someone read my dissertation... ;-)

and of course, there are multiple, explicit instances where i am again called anti-semitic. i actually can't lol on that one, because i take that specific charge quite seriously. it's actually quite sad when people have to resort to calling people anti-semitic. just sad and desperate (and untrue).

as for the rest of the motions, it's sheer and utter desperate nonsense.

i guess free speech is only free speech when raphael golb says something...

===

and i'm still smiling because i know the golbs read my dissertation. good stuff, no? for those of you who have not read it, i disagree with golb's views on qumran and the origin of the scrolls. i also disagree with magness, hirschfeld, de vaux, magen, peleg, humbert, crown, cansdale, the donceels, eisenman... you get the picture. that is to say, i single out no one. everyone's interpretations are criticized, not just one scholar's.

btw - my revised dissertation is now out in hard back in a new book from gorgias press entitled, qumran through (real) time: a virtual reconstruction of qumran and the dead sea scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk). i corrected a few mistakes and added a few things, but the book is largely the same as the dissertation.