Anonymous_

A British science writer named Geoff Hudson has some interesting comments on this announced departure from NYU and what may or may not be its context.

Anonymous_

Two little points:

(1) perhaps we should refer to the full version [link] of Raphael Golb's commentary, which is also available online, has many interesting footnotes, and is presented in a more readable format than the html material linked by Toto; and

(2) the idea of "promoting" a side seems rather an odd way of speaking in a forum that respects freedom of debate. It would perhaps be better to say that Raphael Golb "presents" his side (which, judging from what he says, he may not have been exactly allowed to do in his trial).

DCHindley

You have to take Geoff Hudson with more than a grain of salt, as he is just as kooky as Raphael Golb. He thinks just about every e-list personality since 1995 or so are really just sock-puppets of Jeffrey Gibson. When it comes to the DSS it brings the worst out of people. I have seen cases in which people engaged in Internet debate about the subject created sock puppets to get back into e-lists and forums that had banned them for flaming others (I am thinking specifically of Ian Hutchinson, [] who was banned from Crosstalk2, ANE, Orion List, etc, for rude language and ad-homonym attacks on those who disagreed with him about DSS origins).

I have also seen Stephen Goranson (a PhD currently working as an academic librarian) be banned for various periods of time from ANE and Orion lists for flaming Prof Greg Doudna for daring to identify the persons mentioned in the sectarian scrolls with individuals otherwise known from the late 1st century BCE to early 1st century CE, and for his subsequent attempts to scientifically refine/recalibrate the carbon-14 readings of the DSS mss to compensate for use of castor oil to 'fix' the fragments to glass plates for study, in hopes of moving the average age of some key scrolls closer to the period he proposed. While Doudna was never banned from any lists I don't believe, or used sock puppets, and in time made a name for himself as an expert in such testing, there was a period where Doudna and Hutchinson collaborated on the science of C-14 testing and formally publishing Doudna's dating proposal.

It seems too many folks, both Jewish and Christian, find a threat in the DSS so terrible that they cannot think straight about them. Too many scholars who otherwise pride themselves in dispassionately studying the relics of history, cannot perceive of these relics without shrill pronouncements and defensive posturing when challenged. What is so goddamn scary?

Now like you I have been reading the trial transcripts (I notice they are just some of them) and Raphael Golb's ultra defensive response to his conviction. Everyone, from Lawrence Schiffman, Robert Cargill, Stephen Goranson and Raphael Golb, seem to be posturing and twisting everything around to justify their own actions or cast the other parties in the worst possible light. In his testimony Schiffman seems to suggest that he became a pariah at NYU on account of the barrage of accusations of plagiarism, yet others are suggesting Schiffman somehow got NYU to sweep the charges under the rug. It can't be both. Schiffman was truely wronged by Raphael Golb, but IMHO he has been talking from both sides of his mouth about what, if any, influence Golb may have had on his own positions. I doubt strongly that he is being pushed out of NYU by the administration, but perhaps he is losing the confidence of some of his peers by his selective memory. Norman Golb apparently still securely holds his position at the Oriental Institute, as it is not clear that he was directly involved in the smear campaign against Schiffman, and he has tried not to get involved in the verbal battle between his son and Dr Schiffman or Cargill. So far, the only thing he has published is his reaction to specific claims found in Schiffman's defence to NYU against the plagiarism charges.

D-C:H

PS: Raphael Golb stated in his defensive response to his conviction, that Schiffman's NYU voluntary defense against the shadowy plagiarism charges is now in the public domain. Has anybody bothered to post it on the Internet yet? Then at least I could compare Schiffman's account of the chronology of the progression of ideas with the chronology presented in Norman Golb's reaction to it, spend some time in the library, and see if we are comparing apples and oranges, direct influence, or independent development from common sources.

Anonymous_

Hey D-C,

I'm happy to take things with a grain of salt, but that might have to include some of what you say too

And in fact, this "grain of salt" seems to be a term used by Norman Golb. Now in some of your comments on the preceding pages in this thread, which I've been reading, you try to show that there could be other explanations different than the one Norman Golb proposes, and then you try to base a more definite claim on this speculation, but I have to confess that your theory seems less convincing and direct to me than his.

And I wonder if the general picture of Jerusalem that we get in the New Testament reflects the desolate state of the city a long time after its destruction, and not at the time the DSS were being written. And maybe the idea of such an anachronism makes some people uncomfortable. What say ye?

Now you also mention that Raphael Golb is kooky and defensive. Why don't you pick on someone who can answer you? It's easy to kick a dog when he's down.

I haven't been able to find Schiffman's letter either. And I'd like to see it too. But you know what? It doesn't sound to me like a little argument about "chronology." It sounds to me like Golb is accusing Schiffman of fabricating information and slandering him in a secret letter which he thought Golb would never see.

So that's the same as accusing someone of a little bit of "bad manners," as Toto put it. Just a little bit of poor etiquette, but the son is a criminal, huh.

You said, in one of your comments, that Golb "admits" he engaged in an effort to have "his" view included. But it's not only "his" view, is it, even though there are people trolling around who try to make it seem that way. And what's to "admit," since Golb's work on this stuff, which seems to include scholarly memorandums addressed to museums, is plastered all over the Oriental Institute website. This all seems to be pretty frank and out there. But none of us really have time to read all that technical stuff, do we.

Sure, there's a lot of craziness going on. Maybe Golb Jr. decided to make fun of it. Maybe he thought it was interesting that the internet offered a way to really stick it to the "silencing" he complains of.

And another thing I saw, you seem to agree with Raphael Golb that people's attitudes, to some extent, are mixed up with their religious beliefs. That's something I don't remember learning in his father's book, but it sounds like an interesting idea, and just the kind of thing that can get a lot of people pretty upset if you do it "truely" enough. (Just quoting your pun!)

So what say ye? No hard feelings, just a different take. Have a good night and day!

avi

Hi DCH!!!

I am not, I hope, offering criticism, but, simply a note of caution about this post. It lies a tad outside of the traditional DCH objective, impartial, thorough, scholarly analysis, to which we are accustomed.

Perhaps, I am, as is not unusual, wrong, and then, in such a case, please ignore this message. It seems to me, however, that you misunderstand how one SHOULD respond to a verdict imagined unfair, prejudicial, or biased in some way.

I would claim, in my own situation, to be "ultra defensive" about the outcome of litigation to which I was a party, when that court proceeding led to a judgement contrary to either, the law, or the truth, or tradition, as I observed those three parameters through my rose colored lenses.

cheers,

avi

Toto

From my experience with how the "justice" system works (somewhat limited and out of date to be sure) it appears that Raphael Golb saw this as a civil rights and free speech matter, while the prosecutor saw it as stepping over the line.

If Golb had just admitted that he had been a bit naughty, that it was not right to pretend to be someone else, things would have gone better. Golb would have admitted to some bad conduct, shown "remorse" and agreed to abide by the law, and everyone would realize that a felony conviction is out of line for this conduct.

But Golb appears somewhat stiff necked and self righteous and unwilling to play by the rules.

In the midst of all of this, any questions about whether his father's theories have been treated fairly, or acknowledged by Schiffman, or plagiarized, have tended to get lost.

howardfredrics

I believe that Golb admitted that his methods were "childish" or "foolish" or something similar. As someone who attended the sentencing hearing, it is clear that he did indeed show remorse, but the kind of remorse reserved for "naughtiness" rather than conduct rising to the level of criminality.

Toto

When dealing with the court system, you have to give some indication that you recognize the superior authority of the law and the court, and humble yourself at least a little. I got the impression that Golb only admitted to tactical mistakes.

Anonymous_

Toto seems to be suggesting that Raphael Golb made a tactical mistake by not "recognizing the superior authority of the law." In other words, he believes that Raphael Golb, at least tactically speaking, committed a crime, and that, tactically speaking, he should have "humbled" himself by admitting this. But, it could turn out that the "law" made a tactical mistake by violating the U.S. Constitution. And it could turn out that the "confidential" letter, another tactical mistake, ends up getting a lot more scrutiny than was ever intended.

Toto

It's possible. It's possible that on appeal, the courts will decide that the free speech clause of the first amendment protects Golb's right to send an email purporting to be from someone else, confessing to plagiarism. I think that Golb is betting on this, or possibly that the criminal statute involved does not cover this situation.

I don't think that anyone buys the parordy argument - it just wasn't funny. But I would not be surprized if the appellate court finds some reason to reverse on some or all of the counts.

I would be interested in reading Jeffrey Gibson's testimony, just for old times sake.