howardfredrics

A copy of Prof. Schiffman's August, 2008 letter to NYU officials sent after the "confession" email was circulated appears, along with additional correspondence with NY A.D.A John Bandler and, what I believe is an excerpt from a "draft" copy of Schiffman's letter to NYU in which he references his belief that no one would be likely to take Raphael Golb's "confession" letter seriously. Subject to further confirmation, I believe that this final excerpt may not have been permitted by the Judge to be entered into the record by Golb's legal team, despite the fact that it appears to support Golb's contention that no one, not even Schiffman himself, could have thought that the "confession" was genuine.

manwithdream

Toto,

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that parody does not have to be funny to be parody. I think it has to be an imitation of something that makes a statement about that thing, but I think it has to be done in a way that the people know it is a parody. I don't think he committed identity theft or any serious crime by imitating Schiffman and admitting plagiarism in emails, but I don't think it was parody either. It was a childish prank made out of frustration that nothing he did was working to get the plagiarism charges to be taken seriously, in my opinion. I am guessing it would be some kind of low-level harassment if they were judging him fairly. He should not go to jail for a childish prank that didn't really hurt anyone. Everything else he did was just using fake names and scholarly arguments to spread his beliefs about his father being plagiarized and his work being misrepresented by Schiffman.

I think he should have contacted the publishers of Schiffman's books and scholarly articles if he felt they were publishing plagiarized work or work that had false information about his father. Those are the people who are supposed to make sure they don't publish false or plagiarized information.

Kenneth Greifer

howardfredrics

Kenneth, I agree that Golb did not commit identity theft or any serious crime, but I beg to differ with your assertion that what he did was not parody. He did imitate Schiffman in order to draw attention to the view that Schiffman's prior implausible denials of plagiarism and/or claims of originality were so worthy of ridicule that the best way to effect that ridicule was through a mock "confession."

The average reader might not immediately grasp the irony, but clearly, as shown in the final page of the previously referenced Schiffman correspondence, Schiffman says "While I know no one will take this (the "confession" email) seriously, I should point out that the ideas claimed by Golb as original, were published years before and include some concepts that are generally accepted in the field." This suggests to me that Schiffman believes that the confession was so preposterous because no sane academic would ever confess in such a manner to plagiarism so as to render it entirely incredible. Thus, the confession meets your stated criteria for parody in so far as it is identifiable (to an informed audience) as not being genuine or serious.

It would be interesting to find out whether or not R. Golb contacted any of the publishers of books/journals, but generally, such matters are first handled within the academic community itself (e.g. within the accused's university), after which point, if an investigation verifies the accusation, the publisher is notified and the article/book is withdrawn.

manwithdream

Howard,

I read Schiffman's article, and I thought it was very interesting. I also read Norman Golb's response before. I am not actually interested at all in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I just don't think a person should go to jail with dangerous people for things that can be punished by community service at most.

I am not convinced that he made a parody at all. If he had drawn a cartoon character of Schiffman that said he had committed plagiarism, then you could say it was a parody because it would be obvious that Schiffman is not really a cartoon character admitting to plagiarism. I don't think an email is a parody even if most people would not believe it was really from him. Everybody in this world makes mistakes and does stupid things. I have done more stupid things than Raphael Golb and I feel bad to say that I probably could have been arrested too for some minor stupid thing that I don't want to discuss.

I think he is 99 percent innocent, but when it comes to the emails impersonating Schiffman confessing plagiarism, I can't agree that this was parody or satire or anything like that. I think it was a minor crime if any crime at all. It really should just be a civil matter. I think it is against Jewish law for an Orthodox Jewish man to have another Jewish man arrested and put in jail in a very dangerous place for a childish prank. I hope Schiffman will try to help keep Golb out of jail. I also think it is wrong to put anybody in jail for minor things that are not a threat to people. Our jails are full of drug users instead of violent and dangerous people who can't be kept in jail because of overcrowding.

Kenneth Greifer

manwithdream

Howard,

I don't know why my opinion even matters. I might have a slightly different opinion of what is harassment compared to parody because I had a neighbor who was mad at me, so he told many people in my neighborhood that I am a peeping Tom and not just once in a while, but all of the time. I called the police on him twice for harassment, and he called twice on me in revenge and he lied about me and they believed him because he is able to fake emotions. He could even make his voice shake like he was really upset by something I did when I did nothing to him. He was better at lying than I was at telling the truth, and I can never really clear my name. I would not want my neighbor to go to jail for what he did. I called the police just to try to get him to leave me alone.

DCHindley

May be. I just think the window of opportunity for scrolls to exit the city wasn't as great as most folks think, even if one doesn't suppose that it was Simon bar Giora who deposited them.

With that, I also want to note that Simon and his men, when expelled from Jerusalem early in the revolution, took refuge for a period of time in the fortress of Masada, which was being held by the Sicarii party. Excavations of Masada's synagogue found a copy of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices, which I believe is associated with a 364 day calendar, a work that was also found among the DSS. Among the DSS also exist fragments of several other works that presuppose a 364 day year and also how to synchronize it with a lunar calendar for the purpose of the rotation of the priestly courses.

Since it is pretty evident from Josephus that until the destruction, or at least the inception of the revolution, the temple was still using the standard lunar calendar of the Greeks/Seleucids/Babylonians (although with different intercalations), it seems clear that this work (SoSS) is not the product of mainstream Judaism of the day. It must represent the alternatively practiced liturgy, or utopian ideal (such as the War scroll or the Temple Scroll), of some sect(s) or disenfranchised factions within Judaism. Utopian ideals are usually not mainstream. If so, it may mean that both the Sicarii and the followers of Simon shared it. So I am inclined to see the DSS (besides the texts of scripture) as essentially sectarian (although several sects may have shared that utopian 364 day ideal calendar).

The swift defeat of the rebel forces in Galilee by Vespasian probably marked the point when some mainstream Jews felt the war was a lost cause. At this time there were a couple of strong factions in Jerusalem (the Zealots and the priestly party holding the temple proper), and the Zealots held the gates and guarded the roads to prevent refugees from exiting the city. They had every intention of staying and eventually, maybe by miracle or maybe by stratagem, ultimate victory. Why would these folks want to store away their sacred sectarian books? But at this point, in the Judean countryside, only a loose confederation of rebels held the forts of Macharus, Cyprus, Herodium and Hyrcania. Simon seized the opportunity and left Masada, took control of the region that included wadi Qumran for an extended period (well, a year anyhow), and prepared to take Jerusalem by storm.

They left their baggage (Josephus calls it their "treasures") in the cave system somewhere in the area. What does one take into battle? New durable copies of the revered books, weapons, clothes, medicines, money enough to operate on (purchase food and supplies and troop pay), but also maybe documents indicating where supporters and interrogated refugees had hidden away caches of money and valuables (e.g., the Copper Scroll), which could be utilized if found intact. What do you leave behind? Older, less durable copies of revered texts, and evidently a copy of the map to find hidden caches of money and valuables.

Oh yeah, it rubs many the wrong way. The anachronisms suggest to me a process of adoption and adaptation. They are most notable in the letters of Paul, which should reflect the 25 years from the death of Jesus (based on Acts), but show indications of later time (references that suggest the Jews got what they deserved, are in slavery, etc), suggesting later redaction at the hands of an editor who had adopted the letters (which had to do with the justification of God-fearing gentiles before God but knowing nothing whatsoever of Jesus Christ), and adapted them to fit his POV that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was an even better option for gentiles faithful in the Jewish God.

Kooky is what kooky does, sir, as Forest Gump might say. Besides, as I am psychic, I think I can feel his presence. According to this 11/18/10 online news article by DNAinfo Reporter/Producer Shayna Jacobs:

Raphael Golb, 50, was found guilty in September on more than 30 counts of identity theft, forgery, aggravated harassment and other charges. He used the identities to damage the names and reputations of rivals of his father, who is a respected scholar on the ancient Hebrew texts.

Although he was handcuffed and led away at his Manhattan Supreme Court sentencing Thursday morning, his lawyers said an appeals judge ruled Thursday afternoon that Golb can remain free on $25,000 bail pending his appeal, which could take years.

Golb was at Rikers Island Thursday evening and was expected to remain there until Friday after his family wires the bail money, his lawyer Ron Kuby said.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Carol Berkman ordered Golb to stay away from the experts he victimized and barred him from ever using an alias online again.

He is only allowed to author online posts under his own name or "anonymous," Berkman ruled.
http://www.dnainfo.com/20101118/gree...ating-scholars

"Chronology" refers to the relative sequence of the presentation and adoption of ideas relative to Schiffman and Norman Golb. A link to the letter has been posted in this thread immediately after your post, and I have looked it over. Schiffman seems more than a bit defensive. Now in his court testimony he stated he was surprised how seriously students, other faculty and administrators were taking these Internet messages, so I can understand the defensiveness. His tone towards Norman Golb's proposals relative to the DSS is, to put it mildly, dismissive.

Robert Cargill, on his site "Who is Charles Gadda?" clearly is of the opinion that Norman Golb knew of Raphael Golb's sock puppet messages directed against him and Schiffman. If he suspected this back when he corresponded with Schiffman, prompting Schiffman to write to NYU administrators, perhaps this dismissiveness is a reaction to Cargill's suspicion. However, the e-mails Cargill cites seem only to suggest that Norman Golb was aware that his son Raphael was lobbying the museums to open up their show to alternative views such as Schiffman's. I do not think they show he was aware that Raphael Golb was impersonating Schiffman in order to make him "admit" plagiarism, or even to smear Schiffman and Cargill personally.

May be so, Anonymous, but I only stated what Norman Golb said. Unfortunately, as I believe I am 5 years your senior, I am having a senior moment and cannot remember whether this was in his court testimony or in the response to Schffman's NYU letter. Probably the former.

Well, that is what Raphael Golb says in his defense after sentencing. It was all a bunch of over-the-top parody and sarcasm, never intended to be taken seriously, which he foolishly and with remorse realizes he took way too far over the top. How is that different than saying "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" (Barry Goldwater's response to Nelson Rockefeller's call to continue the Republican platform of progressive politics) as a justification for moving the party in favor of the super conservatives. It was reactionary and lives on today in crosshairs on Democrat "liberals". Personally, I find that kind of defense to be - mmmm - indefensible.

Nothing wrong with having opinions. But just like serving food, presentation is key. Thanks for the pleasant discussion.

DCH

PS: Thanks for noticing my play on activist David Wynn Miller's "truth grammar" when I signed that last post "D-C:H". Very observant!

DCHindley

Hello, avi,

Well, I have my opinions too. Sometimes I think the game playing and childish back & forth lobbing of insults and charges gets to be more important than the subjects under discussion. The subject of DSS/Qumran seems to get the most blood boiling. Personally, I think all that boiling blood only steams up my glasses.

I cannot judge your situation (I do not know who you are in real life, or your history, although I can glean some details about a medical past and a sense of betrayal at the hands of a mentor in your field), but not all miscarriages of justice are created the same. In the case of Raphael Golb, he made his own bed and now he has to sleep in it. He should have known better when he showed his anger, and yes I call what he did something done in anger, in that way. But to keep the blood simmering by trying to justify it as righteous anger, just doesn't cut it with me.

No offense taken!

DCH

DCHindley

Toto brought to my attention an error in my earlier post. Toto, you are quite correct, it is "Ian Hutchesson". When I searched Google under Hutchinson (how I remembered the name) I got some links to Qumran and Doudna, but realize now these must have misspelled the name. "Ian Hutchesson" is not the "Ian Hutchinson" who is an MIT nuclear physicist!

DCH

Anonymous_

What about the tunnels. What about 500 scribes in 15,000 fragments. What about Copper Scroll and pattern of wadis all going down from Jerusalem. What about the sheer volume of genres and ideas in so many different texts, a volume pointing to an urban social and economic insfrastructure. Maybe you are pointing to something that could have been part of the phenomenon.

I'd say rather that Forest Gump would probably have understood what Raphael did. Opinions are divided. A Holocaust survivor I know thinks he did something "very important." Academic jerks who dislike his father tend to disagree. Others say it wasn't a good idea but it wasn't a crime and they can understand why he did it. It all seems to depend on what your attitude is about the "silencing."

Good guess!! About as good as thinking that people living at Qumran or Simon bar Giora must have written, gathered or hidden the Dead Sea Scrolls. Or that Toto is Hutchinson. Or that Hershel Shanks is Toto. Or that we are all Gibson. I read the newspapers too, and I'm happy to come to someone's defense when people are lynching him, which honestly seems to be what has happened in this case.

Pardon me, did you mean the proposals of Norman Golb, or Karl Rengstorf?

This time you "can understand the defensiveness." You weren't so charitable with the ultra-defensiveness of Raphael Golb who was subjected to a criminal prosecution by this man.

Did Norman Golb testify? I don't see him listed. This certainly does not seem to be what he says in his response to the letter. He does not say he "admits," he does not say "his" theory. Those words seem to express your own opinion, and neither of them seems to have any basis in fact.

I'm having difficulty understanding your analogy. I would think there's a difference between advocating political extremism and sending out a bunch of "satirical" emails accusing a professor of plagiarism and then pointing out that this is stupid but not a crime.

I try my best to be accurate

howardfredrics

Your neighbor telling people in your neighborhood untrue and damaging things about you is slander, a civil tort. That is not a criminal offense.

Calling the police under knowingly false pretenses is a criminal offense. You can't make a false police report.

Of course that's not the same as calling the police with the mistaken but honest and genuine belief that someone has committed a crime, which might be a nuisance, but is legally permitted, until and unless the police inform you that the acts complained of are not criminal or if such calls become a pattern that leads the police to warn you that further calls about the same matter might be viewed as false and therefore criminal.

In any event none of these things you've described sound like harassment as it is defined under most laws of which I'm aware. Annoying and aggravating, perhaps, but not rising to the level of criminal harassment.