Sunday, September 12, 2010

Schiffman said, "NYU took the bogus 'confession' seriously enough to mount an investigation"

The New York Post wrote here:

This was no innocent little spoof," said Schiffman in a telephone interview today. Golb had allegedly gone online posing as Schiffman -- sending out emails to as many as 400 academic colleagues in a single day in which he purportedly "confessed" to being a plagiarist.  NYU took the bogus 'confession' seriously enough to mount an investigation, Schiffman said. "If I had been found guilty, I would have lost my job, my tenure, my reputation and my livelihood," Schiffman said. "You can call it a game all you want," he added, "but that doesn't mean anything. Russian Roulette is a game too."

So NYU mounted an investigation and found you innocent of plagiarism.  Well it would hardly have been an independent investigation, would it?  We only have your word for it in any case, don't we?  If they did conduct an investigation, was it thorough?

You see this as a game, and a pretty serious one at that, like Russian Roulette you say, a game that could have resulted in the loss of your job, your tenure, your reputation and your livelihood.  But was it as bad as all that?  We have no evidence of that. Are you not using the tactics of an academic bully, frightened of losing face?

What has Raphael Golb done?

1. Has he revealed to the public a conspiracy between an academic clique and museum directors to keep Norman Golb's views hidden from the public?

2. Has he made the public aware of Norman Golb's view that the Scrolls were of Jerusalem origin?

3. Has he brought to the public's mind questions about museum exhibitions and academic ethics?

4. Has he written using polite language?

5. Has he revealed yours and the academic clique's disgusting behaviour towards Norman Golb?

I think he has.

Jewish poet Heinrich Heine wrote 190 years ago,  "Them that begin by burning books, end by burning men."

Raphael, just to let you know that I am with you and your family all the way.  Schiffman, Cargill, West,  Gibson and company are vandals.   


  1. I have rearranged Anonymous's last posts because it came in a number of bits: Geoff Hudson

    Anonymous wrote:
    The purpose of this post to inform and question -- no way, shape or form to injure. I believe its my basic right to speak up and speak out on this matter, and for others whom are not speaking up for whatever reason. Issues I feel that are worth consideration.

    Part I
    1. Respected as a tenured professor, Schiffman contends he has never committed plagiarism and has been cleared by NYU.
    2. I've read news articles and blogs posted on this matter -- curious about the NYU Prof's
    comment in "the Post, August, 2010 -- I could have lost my job, my tenure if found guilty."
    3. Dr. Schiffman has made public statements that he's never plagiarized any work by Dr. Golb --therefore he is claiming innocence. So how would he been found guilty and lost his job if Schiffman were indeed innocent? Not possible.
    4. So now he admits to plagiarism in the NY Post news article back in August, 2010?
    5. But plagiarism either is or it is not - doing it by accident, inadvertently - and is completely unethical.
    6 One example I would like to bring up that is not clear cut - sexual harassment cases. Someone files a complaint to a university. The school must open an investigation. Most institutions take these complaints very seriously – at times the cases are hard to prove, it's one parties word against the others and fine lines involved.
    7. If one is accused of plagiarism – one should address the matter, and prove otherwise, or offer an apology if it indeed were an accident.
    8. When Dr. Schiffman was confronted with these charges, I was informed that he shook his head, looked down at ground, avoided eye contact and said "I don't know – I mean Golb and I have completely different theories."
    9. These may interpreted as non verbal signs of untruthfulness. Who knows, maybe it's his normal way when confronted on any issue.
    10. Again, Schiffman claims that he and Golb have totally different theories - how could there possibly be plagiarism? I will challenge this statement -- I have known of a writer who stole phrases, entire passages, and character personas from chapters of a book that that had absolutely nothing to do with his subject matter and twisted to fit the story he was writing . Which is next on my list of having this matter addressed.
    11. This matter dates back to decades ago, 20 + years, That's quite a long time. And questioned by a known Israeli journalist.
    12. Schiffman wonders and cannot seem to figure out why on earth someone would play a prank on him at his university. But did he ever stop and think that if he wronged someone - and considering the duration of time - decades, never resolved after numerous attempts and questioning, nor avidly attempted to prove otherwise - just maybe someone might try bring attention to this: via the media, a talk show, writing a book, or even as a prank?
    13. Pranks on teachers and professors are not uncommon -- sometimes for clear unjustness and unfairness that simply cannot be resolved by the administration, to get a point across; a last resort.
    14. NYU Prof. was not robbed, burglarized, no property damage, no one took his credit cards and made charges. I believe Golb’s attempt was to inform – period. No harm was done – there was no gain for him doing this prank – other than the time he lost trying to get point across because no one would listen and address this serious issue properly.

    Continued in next post....

  2. Continued...

    15. One has to anticipate problems and consequences when they have dome something unethical, and when accused and confronted --- never resolved properly. Ex: "I'm curious -- if you believe I took words and ideas from you work, let me see your article and book -- I'll go through chapter by chapter and show you I've not used or taken your ideas." Has he done anything as such? I'm not sure. Dating back to Avi Katzman, the Israeli Journalist, who questioned him - did he offer to prove otherwise and until this issue is 100% resolved?
    16. Degrading: “there's nothing innovative about Golb's theory.” Whom is Schiffman to say this? God himself? Let's hear scholars viewpoints -- old and new. Golb's credentials are excellent. He’s a fine writer, the entire family in fact. Sometimes it takes awhile for society to consider and accept new ideas versus dogma and older ideas.
    16. One thing to consider, and only a speculation -- the Golb family knows entirely too much information (and has evidence) regarding his plagiarism and the NYU Professor is trying to do away with the evidence,(i.e. Golb's knowledge.) He had no choice but to prosecute. It's in the DA's hands now.
    17. Maybe the Mrs. is behind this prosecution?

    Schiffman is accomplished and well known, respected in his field. I would imagine a celebrity. But all I do know is that something does not add up here. A respected professional could handle accusations otherwise - investigate, prove the it's not true no matter how much time it takes; or if it turns out they are wrong - apologize and correct, even if it were an accident, or intentional.

    Another example: "I may not agree with Golb’s work, but I respect Golb him as a scholar and human being. And I will prove there is has been no plagiarism on my part."

    To date I have not seen any replies as such.

    Nothing personal, by the way. Issues to probe and consider.

    One final comment: in some cases due to the politics in a University - they never resolve unethical complaints and issues properly. A college I had studied at - numerous accusations – 40 yr. tenured professor for something completely unethical, grounds for dismissal. Never settled. The final straw is that he did this to one of the board members children, it was reported to the provost and was immediately was let go, with no investigation conducted.

    An entirely new administration at NYU may handle things differently. Which is what I remember with another instance of unethical conduct at a known Uni. in Boston some years back, fraud in the department. With their new president - they not only renamed the school (not the entire University) but he cleaned up scandals going on for decades that were never addressed and concluded.

    End of part 1. Disclaimer: one may or may not agree with the information I have discussed in this blog.
    It is my right to speak out regarding this matter.

    And no I'm not Raphael Golb just because I use "double dashes."

  3. It's starting...

  4. The New York Post:

    'Schiffman was the DA’s first witness, and said he was "paralyzed" for a month, answering the shady cyber accusations.'

    The accusations are in no doubt Professor Schiffman.

  5. The New York Post:

    Bandler said.

    "He chose to commit the crime. He chose to cover his tracks. His motive is just background."

    Some covering of his tracks - John Bandler had his case laid on a plate by Robert Cargill using standard off-the-shelf software and the help of people more experienced in the tracking of aliases. These are the sort of determined folk who Raphael Golb was up against. Cargill and his helpers are a part of the anti-Golbian clique that apposes the Jerusalem origin of the Scrolls. As for his motive being 'just background', it was the main purpose of Raphael's writing.

  6. I am glad Schiffman finally admitted there were ideas in his work that were also present in Golb's. If not anywhere else, it's a good idea to be truthful in the courtroom. And speaking with journalists - recently admitted to some minor depression after the emails were sent - perhaps indicating some guilt on his part? Schiffman has been smart also, in not posting any blogs or public commentary on the subject, which leads me to my next topic, Robert Cargill, who has done the complete opposite.

    Considering another viewpoint, Cargill's website appears with the intent to injure and harm – because of his excessive and obsessive posting, although that may not be the case at all. After attempting to sift through his "dedicated to Gadda" page – from my perspective it is not what it initially seems to be on the outside – it is outlined extremely well, but also complicated. If you read carefully Golb was trying to take a stand by demanding a neutral scientific exhibit. He had hoped to obtain some respect for his father, whose views were not getting recognition at highly acclaimed events. No offense, please – but this little public ceremony and webpage, dedicated to the Golb family, it could easily be interpreted as if it is intended destroy them and their ability to put food on the table, where you can find page after page, googling all the way the top, entries that could cause permanent destruction in their lives.

    Golb's situation has turned out to be worse than a “National Enquirer” story. Raphael was stalked, ambushed and arrested, when they could have had a private detective show up at the doorstep and give a verbal warning first. Also, does Judge Berkman know that one of the victims that she granted a Restraining Order to awhile back, had been posting weekly, if not daily about this family's crisis. Using information about the case itself, digging up and releasing information, with dozens of metatags on his webpage. Is this not harassment or a violation of the Restraining Order? To others, and considering a different perspective, it appears that he is using this as a shield while he “strikes back”. This may not be his conscious intent – I don’t know for sure because I’m not him. He obviously has his side of the story and reasons he feels entitled to make this web entries and pages. Please, not while you have an order of protection in effect.

  7. A Restraining Order is supposed to work both ways. If I were granted one for someone that is harassing me to the extent I fear my life, I certainly wouldn't be dedicating a public ceremony or blog in order to take the opportunity to defame and destroy the person that I had the order out on. Cargill, you've had your say – I say it’s time to move on. Regarding the mailings between the Golb family, this is something that is certainly allowed, after all, I am permitted to write in my diary or email my aunt and vent any upsetting thoughts I may have. I have yet to see any words Gadda wrote that indicate physical harm, property damage of any kind, or a world trade center type plot. The words I have read, and it’s only my opinion – are vague and not clearly defined enough in detail.

    Cargill, I’m not sure you realize this – but your anger and upsetness have come through in all of your blogs and posts regarding the Golbs. Your followers and friends have been very empathetic - everyone who has read your posts understands you clearly and it seems like a nightmare for you too. Question: do you consciously realize that you've wrecked this entire man's life. In fact, it seems that Google was used as a vehicle and tool to do so (since you obviously know how metatags work) making sure it comes to the top of any search. Seriously, it's time to move on. No one wants to be impersonated, or have letters written to their school or place of employment, but unfortunately it happens all the time. For this case in particular, there was a reason involved, as you and Schiffman both wrote works and the rumor is that didn't credit the scholars you obtained some of the original ideas from. I mean you accepted money from the Steven Spielberg to do an entire film.

  8. It's terrible to witness the malicious destruction that's been done to this family via the Net.
    Golb does not have a criminal record, has never frauded the government, committed securities fraud, or any other type of crimes that Judge Berkman clearly has punished deserving persons for in the past. He is the type of person who would sooner sit at home and live off of bread and water, versus going on Wall Street and committing fraud. He's a decent person and wonderful human being.

    What is happening to this family is flat out wrong! This was not an idiosyncratic mission.

    “The material in question is common knowledge,” Schiffman, can you expand on this, please? So is this what you are referring to when you said that Golb's theory is not innovative?...Interesting. Many are still in the dark regarding exactly what this plagiarism is - page numbers, chapters, ideas? - and unfortunately the general public may never know the answer..As far as I’m concerned, a big mountain has been made out of a molehill here. The forty pages in Google has created a “living Hell” for the Golb family, with probable irreversible and permanent damage. Raphael Golb is no amateur scholar regarding this subject matter. He has a breadth of knowledge that could probably lead to writing his own book. Did you ever take the time to ask him to stop first? Otherwise, it appears to be a set upon your part. For the sake of fairness and the Scrolls, let all sides be heard and be given common consideration. Let God decide who is wrong here. Seriously, I think that the younger gentleman and the tenured professor need to sit back and look at this in its entirety, weighing what has happened to the both of you versus what has been done to this family. Have they not suffered enough? (The forty pages in Google, having his son arrested, isn’t that enough for you?) I say it's time to move on. Life is short and every moment is precious. Please be done with it and leave this family alone!

  9. For some reason, this post by Madeline did not appear on the blog.

    Madeline has left a new comment on your post "Schiffman said, "NYU took the bogus 'confession' s...":

    Unbelievable. I certainly would be upset if someone took ideas from my work and used it to obtain notoriety. Does this plagiarist even care that he claimed Golb's ideas as his own, not even mentioning the source?

    I would be very angry.

    And you know, I've just realized after reading one of the so called victims blog that the Golb family has suffered so much - they're in fact the real victims!

    Over a son that was just trying to protect and help his father. Raphael was only trying to obtain proper recognition for his father's theory and book - and had Schiffman called out for stealing words and ideas.

    Yes I agree with the comments in Part 1 - looking down at the ground, avoiding eye contact, shrugging ones head and shoulders - sounds guilty to me.

    Also, Raphael never attacked.

    DA's comment: "He chose to commit the crime."

    I believe this attorney is obviously talking about Schiffman, correct? From what I have read, Schiffman is a thief - and what he did was far worse than Raphael sending out those parody emails to alert the NYU community of his wrongdoings.

    Golb has not committed crime!

    Also, Golb and his immediate family has been harassed and defamed via Google - which may violate their terms of use. Is that not willfull misconduct - to intentionally put metatags on your page make sure your site googles to the top with incessant derogatory information posted and re-posted over and over - to injure and harm - that's the message readers are getting. Has any one actually sat down and counted how many times this man has made negative commentary on his page about Golb, the number categories, how often? It adds up to a lot.

    I agree with anonymous - "you've had your say Cargill - I also say it's time to move on."

  10. I am posting to this particular thread in continuation of my first post, "Part 1".

    Just read the news - taken from the NY Post, "I made one error, if you call it plagiarism ... forget it, no chance!" Schiffman yelled.

    I believe you are not entirely correct, Schiffman.

    ..In 1998 I had moved into a flat in the Boston area. My new roommate left the apartment for the afternoon - and also money on living room coffee table. It was only a few dollar bills. Anyway, when he came back I told him, "you left money on the table?" He said, "Yes I did - and am happy that you did not take it - otherwise I would have asked you to move out."

    I am only hoping to get a point across - Schiffman obviously knows better and that it doesn't matter whether it was one or two sentences, a single idea, or an entire book in fact. He finally confessed to "one error" after being cross examined.

    I would hope the next step from Schiffman would be to apologize, and offer to make restitution for this error. Correct the mistake you made - it doesn't matter if it was only one idea or sentence! Schiffman is missing the point here, my guess is probably not and as a tenured professor he knows what to do to rectify this.

  11. (cont'd...)
    That's Golb's hard work, and ideas! He is a respected Scholar. No matter how small it may be to you, but it's very upsetting to him and I can see why. This is unethical and academic misconduct, especially when you were questioned by a known journalist years back and simply would not correct this "error."

    This should have been taken care of long ago - the moment it was addressed. Schiffman had been confronted for several decades!

    So why did he chose not to correct this "error?"

    Why? He feared losing his job (the quote he made in August - "I could have lost my job and tenure if found guilty.) A tarnished image. Schiffman is dishonest. He also does not entirely respect Golb. The son became the victim through all of this trying set matters straight - almost risked his life in fact to bring this out into the public eye - since no one would listen for decades and take this complaint seriously. I am glad this man finally was "called out." And the rest of us are now wondering, "what other errors has he made...?"

    I wish Schiffman much continued success in his career. He is an intelligent man - admitting to this error in the courtroom (put yourself in Golb's shoes - how would you feel if this happened to you?)
    Thursday, September 16, 2010 4:28:37 PM

  12. Schiffman tried to cover up his wrong doings by having Raphael arrested and then taking a plea deal. He didn't want the publicity and obviously he'd have to deal with if the case went to trial. Even told the media back in August, "I would have lost my job if found guilty!" – so basically he told on himself.

    Now after being cross examined in court he claims to have never committed plagiarism - but only making a seemingly minute error – notice his choice of wording.

    Personally, I feel this is not a minute error misquoting Dr. Golb's research saying the Dead Sea Scrolls came from a single library in Jerusalem versus "several", -- and considering other prevailing theories. Also, it's his research and theory!

    Is Schiffman envious of Golb?!

    Every professor I've known will correct mistakes in their writings once brought to their attention immediately. In fact an instructor made a reference in another blog that he made a similar error and modified it the following day.

    After being questioned for 20 years? That would make me angry! It was done deliberately so it seems.

    In reality was he cordial with Golb all these years?

    He claims many things, and then says otherwise.

    I like the comment Geoff Hudson made regarding Schiffman having to answer so many shady accusations -- there’s certainly something shady about the administration at his University and how this was handled.

    Raphael tried to set the record straight. I agree with a comment made in another blog - he indeed deserves a gold medal - and here’s my reply -- to have Schiffman called out once and for all.

  13. Also, regarding the DA’s comments:

    - He chose to commit the crime
    - He covered his tracks
    - His motive was just background

    Jury: “We’re not going to ask you any questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls – we’re here because of the crimes this man committed.”, says the DA and the Judge – repeatedly.

    Bandler’s wording is carefully chosen if you notice. I believe to influence the jury subliminally - sending the message, “don’t bother paying attention to Raphael's side of the story, nor his Attorneys. This is not a fair trial. That’s not why we’re here – and we are here to prosecute. Point blank. Don’t even think about what the other two gentleman that are testifying have done -- It’s actually okay by me, as the DA I don’t have a problem with it - totally irrelevant.”

  14. Pastor Jim West's little brain is revealed.

    Thus he writes: "If his father’s ideas had any merit, they would be accepted."

  15. Madeline posted:

    (There's another discussion I could get into, but will refrain regarding Pastor West's comment.)

    Does this man have a brain the size of a pea? I’m sorry, Jim – please read this statement you made one more time – is that what you intended to say? There are in fact ideas in the world – of caliber and great merit that are not accepted at this moment in time.

    (Van Gogh’s ideas – artists of his time were not in agreement with his ideas. Where are his works today?)

    And not welcomed by whom? (which you didn't mention) Golb’s theory may be accepted by a smaller, high caliber group perhaps, but does that mean it has no importance?”

    You come across as a chorus member; a follower. Or did someone put you up to this – to write this remark? If so let me take a guess as to whom it was (or clique.)

    And for Schiffman: not correcting mistakes you had made for 20 something years, insulting a fellow scholars work, having people followed and arrested, and then telling someone when they don’t accept your plea deal they are playing Russian Roulette?

    Some people in this world are obviously not so afraid of you and to take a stand.

    Golb’s credentials are excellent. You've been disrespectful to him as a Scholar and as a person.

  16. Hudson asks a most relevant question of Schiffman: “Are you not using the tactics of an academic bully, frightened of losing face?”

    The Jewish community is all too familiar with other bullies over the course of history that have lied unblinkingly to vast public crowds. We know of bullies who insult others to further their own acclaim and control. My convictions about the nature of scholarship may be idealistic, but is an ideal that must always be striven after: open and honest exchange of ideas, respectful disagreement, deferential attitudes toward the commitments of others, earnest curiosity about the positions of others. Has Norman Golb ever attacked or defamed the proponents of dissenting viewpoints? How could it possibly be acceptable for a scholar—ahem, Schiffman—to do so?
    Schiffman’s dismissal of the allegations of his plagiarizing Dr. Golb’s work: "I don't know I mean Golb and I have totally different theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls. There's nothing innovative about his theory anyway." Why the need to insult Golb while defending yourself, Schiffman?

  17. Schiffman’s behavior simply illustrates the questionable character of the (so-called) scholarly (so-called) community: Schiffman has behaved erratically and unprofessionally. He denied plagiarizing Norman Golb's work after being confronted by Israeli Journalist Avi Katzman, as well as other noted scholars and said he's never had a personal problem with the Chicago historian. Though initially he refused to admit to such charges, he recently suggested there may be some truth to the allegations. His shifty and uncomfortable comportment when asked direct questions about the matter casts doubt on his character and integrity—who’s to say that does not extend to his professional ethics?

    His discomfort and uneasiness is also apparent in the hasty and vengeful way he chose to handle this situation —so quickly did he run to the Manhattan DA, press charges and have Golb hunted down. One begins to doubt that he didn’t harbor some long-standing grudge against the elder Golb. Perhaps he saw an opportunity to take the spotlight off his own questionable behavior by creating a veritable circus around Golb. I suggest to Schiffman that he handle problems on his own, rather than getting the law involved.

  18. Pastor Jim West writes in his usual bombastic way:

    "I’m more than confident that the jury will find R. Golb guilty on all counts and a clear message will be sent to all those who assume the identities of others, cower behind anonymity, and wage battle from the cover of darkness, assasinating the characters of others because they wrongly believe they won’t, or can’t, be found out. Yes they can be, and yes they will be."

    Then Chuck Jones commented on the above blog:
    "1.Jeffrey Gibson testified today, Bob Cargill tomorrow."

    Two very reliable people, I'm sure! And Chuck Jones is a friend of Gibson's. They write to ANE 2 a Yahoo site, as does West and Cargill. This is a site that Gibson owns. It came from Orion which was also controlled by Gibson.

  19. Then on the same Jim West blog, the literalist Roman historian Jona Lendering pipes up in partial defence, at least:

    "I think it is not good to label this “pseudo-archaeology”. Father Golb is an academician; son Golb is not one of the people who believe in, say, the books of Tom Holland or Von Däniken. It is too easy to call it pseudo-archaeology. “Failing academicians” might be a better label."

    The fight is not over by a long way.

  20. Again on his blog, Jim West writes:

    "More than anything I wish I could be in New York to hear Cargill’s testimony. To be sure, the entirety of the scholarly world is on the side of right and fairness and hence on the side of Schiffman and Cargill (and the other victims of Golb’s actions including Jeffrey Gibson). Golb too has one or two supporters. People like Geoff Hudson (himself a person who is actually delusional enough to think that Jeffrey Gibson is virtually every biblical scholar on every list and author of every biblioblog) and a friend of Golb’s who teaches English."

    Jim knows full well what Gibson is like. I found out the hard way going back to before 2002. I have a word to say to Jim: N T Wrong.

    As for saying that the entirety of the scholarly world is on the side of Schiffman and Cargill, I assume he refers to the academic cabal of thugs who like to get their own way.

  21. This ongoing disturbing charade raise some difficult questions and suggest some unfortunate characteristics of academia—a purportedly scholarly community—but the schism amongst Jewish colleagues is most unflattering and disappointing to the Jewish community. The younger Golb’s behavior was an outcry of righteous indignation because of years of witnessing disrespect, exclusion and maltreatment of and towards his father’s life’s work on the part of his father’s so-called colleagues, Dr. Schiffman in particular. Perhaps we ought to try to understand his extreme frustration.
    After years of watching his father’s work go unappreciated—worse, excluded—by the scholarly community, and after years of seeking the deserved recognition and inclusion—to no avail—is it any surprise that Raphael Golb felt that he had no other recourse than to act out in ways that would finally catch public attention?
    Raphael tried to arouse public awareness because for decades biased museum exhibits (per the counsel of a certain niche of scholars) obscured and suppressed Norman Golb’s innovative theory on the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is an outrage, considering that museums are beholden to neutral standards that were not adhered to. What is the danger in representing a view valued by a significant portion of the Jewish community? What threat does it pose to the “scholarly” consensus? Any time a group clings so fiercely and fixedly to an idea, to only that idea, how can it not beg serious questions of ideological monopoly? How is it not fascistic?

  22. Jim West’s ignorance is offensive. He made a comment the other day that "If Golb's theory had any merit, it would be accepted." Over and over again the question comes back to the authoritarian regime protecting the singular voice of academia. Again I return to the question: what kind of academic environment represents only a single theory? How is that in keeping with the spirit of innovative inquiry? How is that in the spirit of earnest discussion?

    Moreover, where is there the acknowledgment that ought to accompany every last scholarly pursuit—that what is accepted as true at the moment very well may not be True next week, next year, next decade? It hardly needs saying that there are ideas in the world that have great merit but are not accepted at their moment of conception. Remember that once the world was flat…

    When it is said that Golb’s ideas were not welcomed, we must ask by whom? Is it not possible that Golb's theory may be accepted by an elite group of scholars whose credentials may say something in themselves. Golb, for instance, has taught at some of the world’s finest institutions, including Harvard University, Hebrew Union College, and Tel Aviv University, and he presently holds the Ludwig Rosenberger Professorship in Jewish History and Civilization at the University of Chicago. At such institutions, he has toiled alongside of the world’s finest scholars at the cutting edge of Judaic studies, where traditional ideas and scholarly consensus are regularly challenged and critiqued. Are we to simply reject Golb because his ideas are not considered “mainstream”? The popular attitude toward Norman Golb’s work has been singularly disrespectful and unscholarly.

  23. We are told that "few scholars accept Norman Golb's views"—whose word are we to take on this condemning judgment? Again, there are those who seem to be thugs at the academic gates, preventing Golb and others who agree with him from presenting their findings at museum exhibits. These Dead Sea Scroll exhibits represent the views solely of the reigning thugs of Scroll scholarship.

    What kind of academic community squelches the voice of a well-established scholar? What kind of scholarship is it that suppresses dissenting opinions? It smacks of authoritarianism…

  24. On Jim West's blog here:

    A kindly soul (one of Westy's mates) wrote:

    "First, Dr. Cargill was asked to speak up a number of times. He seems to be a very soft spoken person. I remembered that the press had accused Professor Schiffman of yelling so I thought it amusing that the lawyers kept asking Dr. Cargill to speak up."

    Robert Cargill certainly remembered that Professor Schiffman was reported as "yelling" and "screaming agitatedly", in the New York Post. What a way for Schiffman to behave in court!

    Cargill was playing to the gallery, or rather the jury, making-out he was meek and mild - "he seems to be a soft spoken person" indeed! . His students wouldn't have recognised him. They can hear him speaking loudly and quickly when he delivers his lectures. What a hypocrite!

  25. wow geoff, i see you've assembled a crack team of people as delusional and deranged as yourself. and i thought there was just one geoff hudson. boy was i wrong.

  26. They are not delusional and deranged, Jim, and have certainly expressed their views much better than I could do. You should read them if you haven't already.

    And there is only one Geoff Hudson, and he may have been mistaken on occasions, but I stand by my basic understanding of Gibson. He is a multiple personality capable of creating (and mimicing) any character. And unlike Cargill and Gibson, I have not resorted to tracking people's e-mail IP addresses. I have things I would rather do.

  27. How much damage has Lawrence Schiffman done to the acceptance of Norman Golb’s theory of the Jerusalem origin of the Scrolls? Are people underestimating that damage? After all Schiffman is a respected academic figure to a large number of scholars. Has Norman Golb’s theory of a Jerusalem origin been played down and deliberately ignored by Schiffman? It certainly seems so. Has Schiffman’s error been to bury his head in the sand, all in the hope that he is right and Norman Golb is wrong, and Norman Golb will vanish from the scene anyway?
    You see Schiffman’s idea suits the Christians and some Jews very well. I think his view is, of a Sadducean sect writing scriptures at Qumran. He must be under a lot of pressure to maintain this position. One has to ask the question: is that why Schiffman’s view seems to prevail? Is it a matter of vested interests? Is it a matter of a Sadducean sect writing at Qumran – a sect and their scriptures which Schiffman uses to explain the origins of rabinnic Judasim, and which the Christians support because they can simply dismiss them as a sect whose writings may shed some light on Christianity. We are talking about some really important questions here - the very origins of modern Judaism and Christianity in which very large pressure groups have an interest. And I don’t think that the scrolls were Christian or that Christianity was derived from them.

    If the scrolls came from Jerusalem, there is every chance that we are dealing with the Judaism of the day. And when one reads about the ‘seekers of smooth things’ who from the writer’s point of view flouted the law, we are in fact reading about prophets in opposition to the writers, the priests, who would have hardly called them prophets. And we are looking at a radical split in Judaism.

  28. Looks like Geoff Hudson has a following to me. He's is not delusional nor crazy either, and I don't believe anyone has written commentary so far that sounds nutty or as if they're deranged. Have you read the posts? I have and noticed differences in the styles (and level) of writing - unlikely one person could mimic and pretend to be everyone who's posted in this particular blog - (it's almost like a fingerprint one leaves when you write something) - and the personalities are unique. But from what I have read the Golb's apparently have supporters, and heartfelt concerned followers. They has been subject to extreme opposition from a select few scholars in this community (like yourself, Jim.) There seems to more to this story than is being told. But I agree wholeheartedly with Rachel's recent posts and also the last comment from Geoff regarding the extreme damage (publicly) that has been done to Norman Golb and his theory about the Sea Scrolls origins. It's seems irreparable regarding what had been to this family via the other professors website and posts.

    Why is Lawrence Schiffman so greedy?

    (to be cont'd..)

  29. I'm obliged to ask Geoff, how much of this has been spoon fed to you by R. Golb and how many of the people making comments are either you or Golb simply using aliases. We know quite well he's willing to. That's been proven beyond question.

  30. Regarding Hudson's previous post -- personally, I believe Schiffman’s views predominate because he has developed a large following with those particular sects mentioned - but it also seems interlinked to his charismatic personality. Why he is so greedy? He likes power, being at the top and wants to maintain it. It didn’t surprise me at all last week, when confronted with plagiarism charges in court, he said, “I made one error and if you call that plagiarism – forget it!” Attempting to convince others that it was not wrong (what he did) in the very least. He speaks with conviction – his voice and demeanor carries through. It may bear some influence on his popularity, promoting his work, or when discrediting another. Something to consider.

    There is a fair amount of damage that has been done to the recognition of Norman Golb’s theory on the Dead Sea Scrolls origin. However, Schiffman didn’t want any damage on his part, in fact I believe he never thought it would happen. At least some truth has been brought forth about him publicly via this trial – what he has done to Norman Golb all these years - many people were unaware prior. I also believe he would very much like for him to vanish off the face of this earth.

  31. As far as I’ve known, Dr. Golb’s views are widespread, but I believe they’re just not accepted at certain renown venues (the ones Schiffman attends). There’s something to be said about this.

    It now seems there were possibly other motives for Schiffman pursuing criminal charges on Norman Golb’s son. He must have known the moment he read those letters – it was a prank. Something he should have been taken care of a long time ago and just never got around to it. It caught up with him (life usually catches up with many greedy people). This appears to be one reason Schiffman hoped Raphael would take this plea deal – to avoid negative publicity. Maybe he feels he has less power, his followers will question him – he doesn’t like it – he’s not in control now. Irregardless the outcome of this case, people will continue to question him. Yes it seems like a small error, but in reality it’s not. It was also brought to his attention too many times, and over too long of a period of time. He put Golb’s work down to obtain a benefit. The picture is becoming more complete through hearing this trial and Raphael’s side of the story.

    I just think Raphael Golb is an amazing person for going to such lengths. He’s endured a lot. Many others would have collapsed by now.

  32. So you are “obliged” Jim. Who put you up to this then? Who “obliged” you? Was it Cargill or Gibson? I’ll bet they are sweating. Cargill needs that break from blogging. You deleted their names from the comment by Chuck Jones on your blog of the 23 September. You also deleted Jona Lendering’s mild comment. Typical of you! If I need to know anything going-on in New York, all I have to do is go to your blog.

    You, hypocritically, like to boast about condemning the use of pseudonyms. But follower that you are, you worshipped at the feet of NT Wrong. You even conducted a full length interview of him - he who recommends to others the use of pseudonyms. He even advises the publishing of academic books under pseudonyms. And we know who N T Wrong is, don’t we. He is Jeffrey Gibson, Lecturer in Humanities, Harry S. Truman College/Roosevelt University, and Lecturer in New Testament, Institute for Pastoral Studies, Loyola University, Chicago. Does Gibson advise his students to practice using pseudonyms? But where is that interview now? Gone! along with your previous blog. But I recorded it on my blog. Has your friend Cargill used pseudonyms? He has certainly communicated with one Rod of Alexandria. And Cargill is a Facebook friend of Gibson.

    So Jim, you now appear as a fine upstanding fellow, who periodically resurrects himself, emerging like a butterfly from its chrysalis, completely transformed and free from the shadows of his old ways, and his old blogs.

  33. On September 8 2010, Cargill wrote: "On Burning Books"

    Well, figuratively, this is what some religious folk like Schiffman, Cargill, West and a whole clique of folk have been engaged in - ignoring Norman Golb's work, and the man.