on recent erroneous claims made by the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibition

Science Museum of Minnesotaa point of order, mr. speaker.

i recently came across the march 13, 2010 associated press article on the kstp.com website entitled, ‘dead sea scrolls exhibit goes on display in minn.‘ the article is publicizing the latest dead sea scrolls exhibition at the science museum of minnesota in st. paul, minnesota. before i could even get a couple of paragraphs into the article, i noticed some glaring mistakes.

i must take issue with the ap’s article on two matters. first, the article claims the following incorrect statement:

By incorporating new archaeological finds and recent scholarship, the exhibit is the first to fully present two competing theories: Were the scrolls written and collected by an ultra-religious Jewish group living in the desert? Or were the manuscripts smuggled out of Jerusalem on the eve of the Roman invasion in A.D. 70 and hidden for safekeeping in the wilderness?

this statement is not only misleading, it is downright false. and not only is the statement untrue, it is guilty of the very overly-simplistic, either-or dichotomy that has plagued dead sea scrolls scholarship for the past six decades.

let’s deal with the first problem first.

as a matter of fact, previous exhibitions have indeed discussed the multiple theories concerning the origins of the dead sea scrolls and the nature of the settlement at qumran. in my ‘ancient qumran: a virtual reality tour‘ movie that was on exhibit at the san diego natural history museum in 2007, i specifically noted that some scholars argue that the dead sea scrolls came from elsewhere and that qumran was established as a hasmonean fort. in addition, i also mentioned the multiple other theories concerning the nature of qumran, including a pottery factory, a trading depot, a tannery, a pilgrimage site, all in addition to the identification as a sectarian center. likewise, i asked who the residents of the cave were and what that meant for the origin of the dead sea scrolls.

don’t believe me? here’s a clip from the movie’s trailer:

thus, the minnesota exhibit is certainly not ‘the first to fully present two competing theories.’ it was done at san diego in 2007.

likewise, there aren’t just two theories! this ‘two salient theories’ argument has been the mantra of norman golb and his indicted son, raphael, since the dead sea scrolls began touring the united states years ago. in one of raphael golb’s anonymous blogs written under the now notorious alias ‘charles gadda,’ golb points out that the language of a simple dichotomy of ‘two salient theories’ comes, in fact, from a cambridge history of judaism article (1999, vol. 3, chap. 25) on the dead sea scrolls written by none other than norman golb himself!! here we have an example of a scholar (golb in this case) writing an article about his particular theory, using an anonymous alias to promote the article and the theory while discrediting other museum exhibitions that do not talk enough about said scholar, and a museum being influenced by a student of said scholar (in this case michael wise) to frame their exhibit in the form of the very dichotomy which was set forth by the very scholar who originally wrote the article. if that sounds confusing (and self-serving), that’s because it’s supposed to be! one of the purposes of using aliases is to disguise the origins of something to make it look objective, when in reality it is nothing more than self-citation. apparently, the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibition was circularly talked into framing its exhibit in a manner that promotes the very scholar (golb) who originally came up with the framework adopted by the museum. thus, while multiple other museums presenting other dead sea scrolls exhibits managed to see through the charade of aliases and anonymous reports that according to the new york district attorney’s office were the product of the golbs (see here and here), the administrators of the science museum of minnesota fell prey to it. and, in an attempt to justify their decision, they have claimed to be ‘the first to fully present two competing theories,’ when, as has been shown above, that is simply not the case.

this, of course, is precisely why we’ve seen no massive, negative online campaign criticizing this minnesota exhibition like we did with seattle, san diego, north carolina, and toronto. for one, norman golb, the ludwig rosenberger professor of jewish history and civilization at the university of chicago’s oriental institute, has finally been invited to speak as a part of a dead sea scrolls exhibition. that norman golb was repeatedly not invited to speak at the various exhibitions was a major point of contention for the golbs (see here and here). second, golb’s son, raphael, was arrested on 50+ felony and misdemeanor counts of identity theft, forgery, criminal impersonation, aggravated harassment, and unauthorized use of a computer in connection with his participation in an online smear campaign that attacked various museums and administrators, their dead sea scrolls exhibitions, and the scholars that participated in them (like lawrence schiffman, jodi magness, william schniedewind, david noel freedman, risa levitt kohn, bart erhman, myself, and others) because, in part, he felt the exhibitions did not adequately represent his father, norman’s, point of view regarding the dead sea scrolls. when golb was arrested on march 5, 2009, all online hostilities immediately ceased (with the exception of a few anonymous comments on a few articles a few months later). court documents recently made available to the public have shown that raphael, his father, norman golb, and his brother, joel golb, exchanged emails regarding critiques of the exhibitions and comments made about other scholars, and demonstrate that the golbs employed numerous aliases to propagate a campaign of criticism and harassment against scholars that disagreed with norman golb’s theories. thus, the combination of norman golb being invited to speak, the science museum of minnesota following a simplistic paradigm that golb created, and the indictment of golb’s son mean that criticism of the science museum of minnesota is not surprisingly lacking.

Michael Wise

Dr. Michael Wise, student of Norman Golb, is advisor to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition at the Science Museum of Minnesota.

Norman Golb

Dr. Norman Golb was Michael Wise's teacher at the University of Chicago.

this leads us to ask: why has the minnesota exhibition taken this ‘new’ approach, which they claim to be original? the answer may lie in the fact that one of norman golb’s former university of chicago doctoral students, michael wise, is listed as a ‘museum consultant’ and advisor to the exhibit. now, michael wise is a fine scholar and an excellent choice as an advisor for the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibit. he has spent his career studying the scrolls and i am certain he will be an asset to the success of the minnesota exhibition. but let us not forget that michael wise was a student of norman golb at the university of chicago. it should therefore be of no surprise that norman golb has finally been invited to speak as a distinguished lecturer at the minnesota exhibition – a demand his son, raphael, has been making anonymously on his behalf for years now. at the same time, it is unfortunate that the science museum of minnesota’s administrators have apparently (at least, accorting to the associated press’ article) bought into golb’s straw man argument that there are only two theories concerning qumran: golb’s theory and the ‘traditional’ theory.

specifically, there is a third ‘salient’ theory that essentially blends the two polar opposite approaches. it is a theory that has been researched and advanced by scholars like stephen pfann (see his articles here, where i first encountered the theory). the theory works well with the research of lawrence schiffman (nyu) and john collins (yale). i adopted this approach in my recent book, qumran through (real) time. this theory is alternatively called the ‘multi-cave’ theory, the ‘cave cluster’ theory, or the ‘multi-party’ theory (or make up your own name). but in the long run, i am convinced it will be known as the dominant theory concerning the origin of the dead sea scrolls: that different groups (including essenes, priests, zadokites, sadducees, zealots, pharisees, and/or other unknown jewish groups) hid different scrolls (including the damascus rule, the serekhs (1qs, 1qsa, and 1qsb), biblical literature, and extra-biblical/pseudepigraphical literature) in different caves or cave clusters (caves 4-5 and 7-9 immediately surrounding the qumran settlement vs. cave 1 and 2 farther away vs. cave 11 vs. cave 3, etc.) near qumran. the cave cluster theory (as pfann has dubbed it) allows for a small sectarian group (perhaps the essenes or a sub-group identifying with the essenes) at qumran to have hidden scrolls in caves 4, 5, and 7-9, while a different group (like zealots) to have hidden their scrolls in cave 11, priests (of some origin) to have hidden scrolls in caves 1 and 6, while still other unknown jewish groups to have hidden completely different scrolls in cave 3 (for example, no copies or fragments from the serekhs or the damascus rule were discovered in cave 3 with the copper scroll).

it is worth noting that this multiple cave/multiple peoples theory will be the focus of a forthcoming documentary on national geographic channel in april. of course, the great irony is that one of dr. golb’s contributions to dead sea scrolls research is the suggestion that some (not all) of the dead sea scrolls may have come from outside qumran, an idea that is now widely accepted (despite the fact that golb’s son often intentionally mischaracterized the original theory for rhetorical purposes, claiming that those who believe there was a sectarian group living at the site believed that all scrolls came from qumran, which golb held up as a straw man argument to knock down). likewise, dr. golb was correct (imho) in his understanding of qumran as having initially been constructed as a fortress, a position that yuval peleg, i, and others have accepted and that many scholars and explorers prior to dr. golb also published, such as bar-adon, masterman, dalman, among others. however, some of dr. golb’s conclusions also appear to have been in err, like his suggestion that qumran was always a fort, or the suggestion that absolutely none of the dead sea scrolls came from qumran. thus, there is evidence that some of the scrolls may have come from qumran, and evidence that some (like the copper scroll) may have not.

of course, this entire argument is lost on the science museum of minnesota’s curator of archaeology, dr. ed fleming, who later states in the article:

“Really there is no serious evidence, in my mind,” he said.

Handwriting analysis suggests the manuscripts were written by several hundred people, too many to have lived in one location. And the texts represent more than one community’s point of view.

this is the analysis from the museum curator who, according to press and with all due respect:

received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Minnesota. Most of his research is focused on material culture of the Late Prehistoric period in the Upper Mississippi River.

according to fleming’s analysis, there were too many different scribal hands used in writing the scrolls (which, by the way, has been one of norman golb’s central arguments for decades) for all of the authors to have lived at qumran. but this assumes all the scrolls were written by sectarians at the same time! and yet, we know that the scrolls were not all authored all at the same time, but from the late third century bce down until 68 ce – a period of nearly 300 years! and, lest we forget, there is a cemetery adjacent to qumran consisting of nearly 1000 tombs. given magen and peleg’s (and everyone else’s except magness) calculation that the site was occupied form the mid-hasmonean period until 68 ce, if there were enough time to fill a cemetery with 1000 people, then probably more than a few of them could write over these many generations, thus explaining the diversity of scribal hands. if we add to the mix the fact that inkwells were found in a site surrounded by a tannery used for making parchment, animal bones and stables located on site that provided the leather, pottery of the same chemical composition as those ceramic vessels discovered in the caves with the scrolls, and, lest we forget, a bunch of scrolls discovered in caves 7-9 in the qumran settlement’s backyard and caves 4-5 right next to the site, then i’d say, with all due respect to dr. fleming, that there is perhaps some evidence to support a claim that some of the scrolls were created at qumran. further more, if after reading the scrolls, we read about a community of initiates (that is, not born into the sect, but joining from the outside) that sought to remove itself from what it considered a corrupt temple and into the desert, pooled their assets (explaining the wealth of coins found at the site and further explaining the diversity of scrolls brought from outside the site), and obsessed with ritual purity (explaining the presence of at least two miqva’ot or rital baths), then maybe we can explain why so many scrolls from so many different time periods from so many scribal hands could be found in the caves next to qumran. some were written there, some were brought to the site over the 150-200 years of its occupation, and some had nothing to do with the site.

but to dr. fleming, ‘really there is no serious evidence.’

alex jassen, on the other hand, the fine dead sea scrolls scholar from the university of minnesota whom i had the pleasure of sitting on a panel with this past december at the association for jewish studies annual meeting in los angeles, understands that were the scrolls all from disparate libraries throughout jerusalem and none from qumran, one would have an even harder time explaining the congruency of the scrolls (especially the sectarian manscripts), and the loathing of the contemporary jerusalem temple leadership and the sanhedrin in scrolls originating from jerusalem. simply put, arguing that all the dead sea scrolls come from jerusalem creates more problems than it solves.

the article states:

Jassen subscribes to a variation on this theory – that a religious group lived and wrote at Qumran but also brought manuscripts from other groups and places. When the Romans threatened their community, they hid their library in the caves.

“I think the evidence seems to be pretty strong that this is a unified collection that represents the distinct library of a community of ancient Jews who were quite devout in their observance of Jewish law and ritual,” he said.

the conclusion is, of course, that some of the scrolls originated from or were brought to qumran by sectarians, while other scrolls, like the scrolls from cave 3 like the copper scroll were placed there by other jews. there is no reason to force a choice between two equally bad extreme choices.

in sum, the curator of the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibition has apparently caved in to the demands of norman golb, who along with his student, michael wise (a consultant to the exhibition), has apparently convinced museum administrators that the exhibition should follow golb’s approach to the dead sea scrolls. these museum curators are either ignorant of the contents of previous dead sea scrolls exhibitions (as demonstrated above), or have knowingly turned a blind eye to the other exhibitions and have made false claims about the nature of their exhibition. the curator of the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibit has erroneously characterized previous scrolls exhibitions as negligent of the different theories surrounding qumran (specifically of golb’s theory), a claim that has principally been made over the years by none other than norman golb himself.

enjoy the exhibit.

(for tickets visit the science museum of minnesota website.)

court docs detail raphael golb’s harassment of robert cargill

Raphael Golb

Raphael Golb is accused of multiple felony and misdemeanor counts of forgery, identity theft, impersonation, and aggravated harassment.

on march 5, 2009, raphael golb, son of university of chicago oriental insitute historian norman golb, was arrested on 51 felony and misdemeanor counts of identity theft, forgery, criminal impersonation, aggravated harassment, and the unauthorized use of a computer. golb’s arrest set in motion a bizarre and twisted path towards his trial, complete with motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress evidence seized during his arrest, and the use of these very motions to further attack his victims with the verbatim claims made by the very aliases he still refuses to admit being. golb claims his impersonation, forgery, and identity theft amount to nothing more than ‘satire’ and ‘free speech,’ but yet is not confident enough in his own defense to admit that he made the very ‘speech’ in question.

but for many of us, raphael golb’s arrest only marked the latest phase of a three-year old investigation into his identity and activity. the passing of time may have caused many to forget just what the golbs did that led to this point. additionally, many never really knew much of what the golbs were doing furtively, behind the scenes, to harass and intimidate their victims. everyone could read ‘charles gadda’s’ posts on the internet, but because i did not discuss the case publicly prior to golb’s arrest, many are unaware of the actions taken by raphael, joel, and norman golb behind the scenes to damage their victims, including me.

recent filings in the case of the people of the state of new york v. raphael golb have made public some disturbing emails and other communications sent by the golbs to one another detailing how they should harass and intimidate me and effectively “ruin my career.” i knew that some of this was going on, but prior to the hard evidence provided by the new york district attorney’s office in publicly available court documents, i had no idea the extent to which the golbs were determined to damage my career and me personally.

below are some excerpts from a recent court filing detailing emails sent between norman golb’s sons, raphael and joel, detailing their motives and intent to ‘harass and unsettle’ me, and to explicitly damage my career.


Excerpts from

AFFIRMATION IN RESPONSE
TO THE DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
RECOVERED VIA SEARCH
WARRANT, AND REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY
OPINION
Indictment No. 2721/2009

(pdf)

66. Defendant’s animosity towards victim Dr. Cargill also bears an eerie parallel to the Wise incident. Robert Cargill was working on his Ph.D. when he was the subject of an anonymous smear campaign by the Golb/Gadda aliases that lasted over a year. Much of this smear campaign seemed designed to prevent him from getting his Ph.D. Thus, Dr. Cargill was at a crucial phase in his academic career (working on a Ph.D.), just as Dr. Wise was at a crucial phase in his career some twenty years prior, with respect to tenure. Also, defendant’s harassment of Dr. Cargill included insinuations that he had copied another’s work.

Defendant’s intent to harass Dr. Cargill is evidenced within email communications:

78. The harassment count as to Dr. Cargill differs from the harassment counts as to Drs. Schiffman and Goranson, because the defendant did not impersonate Dr. Cargill. Since the defendant did impersonate Drs. Schiffman and Goranson, it is reasonable to infer that one motivation for the impersonation was to harass them. With respect to defendant’s actions towards Dr. Cargill, email evidence assists in showing the defendant’s intent to harass Dr. Cargill. For example, on January 19, 2008, there is an email discussion between Golb/Gadda alias Robert Dworkin and his brother Joel Golb, about a proposed email to Professor Carter, Chair of the UCLA department in which Robert Cargill and his Ph.D. advisor Dr. Schniedewind worked. Joel Golb takes issue with some proposed language that reads “…my intent in writing to you has not been to harm Mr. Cargill’s academic career prospects”. Joel Golb writes: “Clearly, for all who read this, one of the purposes of Dworkin’s devastating letter will be, precisely, to destroy the career prospects of a really nice guy” [emphasis added].

79. Further discussion regarding a similar proposed email to Professor Carter took place on March 13, 2008. On March 13,2008, Joel Golb writes that he approves of the proposed email, and writes that it “will merely serve to harass and unsettle a bit… ” (emphasis added).

80. On March 15, 2008, in an email between Joel Golb and Golb/Gadda alias Jesse Friedman, about Drs. Cargill and Schniedewind, Joel Golb indicates the possibility that “both their careers may well be ruined.”

81. Multiple emails were indeed sent to Professor Carter from Golb/Gadda aliases complaining about Dr. Cargill and his Ph.D. project. Dr. Cargill’s apparent Christian background is attacked, and he is even accused of copying someone else’s work. On January 18, 2008, and several times thereafter, emails were sent to Professor Carter and multiple other UCLA email accounts from Golb/Gadda alias Don Matthews. On February 8, 2008, and several times thereafter, emails were sent to Professor Carter from Golb/Gadda alias Emily Kaufman, with multiple UCLA employees copied. On February 9, 2008, and at least one time thereafter, emails were sent to Professor Carter from Golb/Gadda alias Steve Frankel, with multiple UCLA employees copied. On March 19, 2008, an email was sent to Professor Carter from Golb/Gadda alias Joshua Reznick, with multiple UCLA employees copied.

82. From the period of June 2007 to June 2009, Golb/Gadda aliases Steve Frankel, Carlo Gadda, Don Matthews, David Kaplan, Emily Kaufman, Jesse Friedman, and Robert Dworkin sent dozens of emails to hundreds of “ucla.edu” recipients, as well as other individuals, all attacking Dr. Cargill. The volume of defendant’s alias creation, and his planning with others, speaks to the deliberate intent in conducting defendant’s operation.

83. Defendant’s pattern of conduct, and surrounding facts, further indicate that defendant’s motives were less than innocent. For example, the campaign surrounding Dr. Schiffman was clearly designed to damage his career based upon the content. The impersonating emails crafted by the defendant even specifically indicated that Dr. Schiffman’s career was “at stake”. Such conduct as to Dr. Schiffman is relevant as to defendant’s intent as to Dr. Cargill.

84. As previously indicated, there is no legal requirement that harassing communication must be made directly to the victim. In fact, it is apparent that this type of harassment, when made indirectly to the victim through dozens of communications with hundreds of the victim’s colleagues, can be more harassing than direct communication with the victim. Defendant knew that these emails would ultimately affect Cargill in a manner designed to harass and alarm him. In fact, sending emails to third parties is more offensive than sending emails directly to Dr. Cargill. If Dr. Cargill received direct harassing emails from any of defendant’s dozens of aliases, he could simply delete the email, and block each successive sock puppet email account. It would be easier for Dr. Cargill to block the email accounts than it would be for the defendant to keep creating new accounts. However, Dr. Cargill cannot block or delete emails sent to dozens or hundreds of his associates. Rather, he is forced to field question after question from others about the negative content of the emails. Notably, this pattern of attack was taking place at a crucial period during Dr. Cargill’s academic career, and it attacked the basis of Dr. Cargill’s Ph.D. project.

85. In sum, the inference from the totality of defendant’s conduct is that the defendant maliciously spread false information with the intent to harass, annoy, alarm, defraud, deceive, and injure.

=== END TRANSCRIPT ===


the above speaks to the specific motive and intent to do harm to me and damage my career. in fact, the intent to do damage is quite explicit. after living through that experience, and after coupling golb’s sons’ activities with the signed letters from the hand of norman golb, it appears that they were all in it together. dr. golb would write formal letters of complaint and appear above the fray, while the sons would attack me relentlessly online using aliases in coordination with norman golb.

having contacted the director of the oriental institute directly, and having corresponded with the general counsel‘s office of the university of chicago about dr. golb’s activities, and with no real action being taken to investigate norman golb’s ethical and professional behavior in this matter, i must assume that the university of chicago has full knowledge of these proceedings, and is tacitly endorsing them. either that, or they are culpable of negligence in this matter, in that they have as of yet taken no action to stop golb, or even to investigate the matter.

again i must ask: is this the kind of behavior tolerated or promoted by the oriental institute? by the university of chicago?

the bigger question is: are the premeditated and well-coordinated deeds of norman golb and his sons actionable in civil court?

highlights from raphael golb’s initial police interview

Raphael and Norman Golb

Raphael Golb and his father, University of Chicago historian Dr. Norman Golb. Raphael Golb is charged with multiple felony and misdemeanor counts of forgery, identity theft, impersonation, and aggravated harassment of several Dead Sea Scrolls scholars.

the following are some of the more noteworthy statements made by raphael golb during his police interview immediately following his march 5, 2009 arrest.

I WON’T ANSWER WHETHER I HAVE POSTED ANY ARTICLES ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. I WON’T ANSWER BECAUSE I THINK SCHIFFMAN IS OUT TO GET MY FATHER. HE MIGHT SUE ME.

so… you won’t answer, because if you do answer the question truthfully, you might get sued. got it.

THE CONFERENCES ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE USUALLY MONOPOLIZED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE SAME VIEW AS SCHIFFMAN.

really? schiffman’s view of a zadokite/sadducean origin of the scrolls was/is commonly held by the majority?? methinks raphael is mistaken. for a long time, dr. schiffman’s view was very much a minority view. only recently has scholarship come to embrace his theories about the scrolls, but still many do not.

AM I ANGRY AT DR. SCHIFFMAN? I’M MY FATHER’S SON.

truer words have never been spoken.

I’M ESPECIALLY ANGRY WITH DR. SCHIFFMAN IF HE FILED THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. I FIND THE GUY A BIT NAUSEATING TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.

yeah, that’s not gonna help you with the whole ‘motive’ thing…

I THINK I MIGHT ONCE HAVE POSTED A REMARK ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS USING MY OWN NAME, A LITTLE REMARK ABOUT A MUSEUM EXHIBIT OR SOMETHING.

ya, maybe once. maybe just once.

THERE’S BEEN A WHOLE SERIES OF MUSEUM EXHIBITS ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS WHERE THEY’VE BEEN EXCLUDING THE VIEWPOINT OF SOME. DR. SCHIFFMAN KEEPS APPEARING AT THESE MUSEUM EXHIBITS, SPEAKING AT THEM, GIVING LECTURES AT THEM. MY FATHER HAS ATTACKED THEM IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE ORIENTAL WEBSITE.

again, not gonna help you with the whole ‘motive’ thing, raphael. dr. schiffman keeps getting invited to speak as a distinguished lecturer, but your dad doesn’t. sounds like a retributive motive to me. at least you acknowledge that your own father is ‘attacking’ museum exhibitions. so thanx for that.

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE EXCLUDED MY FATHER FROM THESE MUSEUM EXHIBITS.

once again, thanx for openly declaring (apparently) at least part of your motive.

I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I HAVE POSTED BLOGS ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS USING NAMES OTHER THAN MY OWN, FOR FEAR OF LAWSUITS.

at this point, i feel raphael golb does not realize that the answers he is giving aren’t helping him. he doesn’t want to answer because he’s afraid he’ll get sued. that’s why he used aliases – because he knew what he was doing was wrong and he would be sued for it. well, guess what raphael….

I NEVER PRETENDED TO BE LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN, I NEVER OPENED AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME, I NEVER SENT EMAILS PRETENDING TO BE HIM. I NEVER AUTHORED A BLOG ACCUSING DR. SCHIFFMAN OF PLAGIARISM. I READ IT, BUT DIDN’T WRITE IT.

um… yeah, about this statement: perhaps we can read the emails described here (see section 19-32 on p. 8-11). now, would you like to rethink your previous statement?

I DIDN’T OPEN AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF STEPHEN GORANSON. I THINK I KNOW WHO HE IS – SOMEBODY SMEARING MY FATHER. I THINK HE IS A VERY SAD CASE. I DON’T THINK HE HAS AN ACADEMIC POSITION.

ok. here’s a little constructive criticism, rapha. when under arrest for aggravated harassment against someone, it’s probably not a good idea – while in the midst of your denial – to make fun of the victim. just my two cents worth, but you can have that advice for free. seriously, do you really believe someone’s worth and value rests upon whether or not one holds an academic position like daddy?

for the record, i met stephen goranson this past march at duke. he is a wonderful, kind, and quite humble man, and an excellent scholar. likewise, he is well respected at duke by the faculty. golb’s attacks on goranson were part of the reason i went public with my data. the attacks were undeserved. yet, even while he was under arrest, raphael golb still found the time to rip his victim. unbelievable!

I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I HAVE EVER OPENED UP EMAIL ACCOUNTS IN NAMES OTHER THAN MY OWN. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO MY NICKNAMES. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I BLOGGED UNDER THE NAME CHARLES GADDA.

and why is that again?

FAMILY MEMBERS PROBABLY DON’T WANT PEOPLE MAKING FUN OF THEIR PARENTS, POSTING THINGS ON THE INTERNET.

i’m guessing the same goes for scholars, advisors, and colleagues.

ROBERT CARGILL COMPLAINED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO TO GET MY FATHER’S ARTICLE ABOUT HIS FILM REMOVED FROM THE WEB SITE. HE WAS ATTACKED. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I DID ANY BLOGS ABOUT ROBERT CARGILL.

oh goodness, where to begin? yes, i did write to the university of chicago. yes, they removed norman golb’s critique of my unpublished script. yes, the university’s legal counsel knew that despite golb’s claims, there was no way on earth citing the marginal notes of a grad student’s unpublished script would meet the criteria for ‘fair use,’ especially in the face of two separate warnings that no portion of the script may be reproduced. the university lawyers knew they were vulnerable and made norman golb remove his critique, which violated copyright. and again, you are probably right about getting sued if it’s proved that you spammed my ucla faculty to suggest that they not grant me my ph.d. because i didn’t agree with your father’s conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY I DON’T LIKE PEOPLE WHO SMEAR MY FATHER, WHO PLAGIARIZE MY FATHER, WHO MISREPRESENT HIS VIEWS. IT’S VERY FRUSTRATING.

again, this speaks to motive.

IF I HAD AN INTEREST IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SCANDAL, IT WOULD BE MUSEUM EXHIBITS.

like this and this and this and this and this?

I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO HOW MUCH I KNOW ABOUT THE INTERNET. I DON’T KNOW WHAT AN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS IS.

let me answer for you. at the beginning, you didn’t know the difference between an ‘ip’ and a ‘teepee.’ you had no idea that yahoo emails stored the ip address in the header, while gmail (where you’d eventually migrate) did a better job of disguising the ips. at the beginning, you didn’t know about the ip address at your home, and you didn’t know about ip ranges at the bobst. you didn’t know that you could be tracked until some bloggers spelled it out for you. you’d respond with ridiculous comments about three friends sharing a computer around a table. remember that? i do. you didn’t know about vpn and dynamic ip addresses until it was too late and i already had your ip addresses.

there’s something to be said for non-retaliation and silence. you didn’t know what i was doing. ironically, for the first year of your attacks against me and others, all i did was ‘write it all down.’ non-engagement does not mean disinterest. non-retaliation does not mean ignorance, apathy, or impotence. there is tremendous power in non-retaliation. methinks you’re beginning to understand that now.

MY BROTHER IS JOEL GOLB. HE HAS A SNAFU EMAIL ACCOUNT.

well, this helps. again, we appreciate you bringing your brother joel into this, since i left him out.

I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO WHETHER I DID IT FOR MY FATHER. I DON’T WANT TO BE SUED BY LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN.

um, i don’t want to say it again, but failing to answer for fear of a civil suit says much about your motives.

I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH JOEL GOLB AND MY FATHER ABOUT THESE BLOGS.

uh oh. you mean like this? (see section 72-82 entitled ‘potential involvement of others’) are you really admitting that your father and brother knew about this? they were in on it?

I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER WHETHER THE CHARLES GADDA ALIAS IS ME. IF IN THEORY I WERE CHARLES GADDA…

this is just rich. i’ll say nothing more.

THEY WOULD SAY THAT MY FATHER IS DOING IT OR ASKING ME TO DO IT. MY FATHER CERTAINLY NEVER ASKED ME TO DO ANYTHING OF THE KIND. NOR WOULD HE ENCOURAGE ME OR APPROVE OF ME DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

um, i’m guessing this (see section 72-82 entitled ‘potential involvement of others’) is going to cast some doubt on this statement.

PETER KAUFMAN – IS THAT THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO PUBLISHED THE ARTICLE ABOUT SCHIFFMAN ON THE NOW PUBLIC BLOGSITE? I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHETHER I OPENED AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME.

and probably for good reason.

UNDER THE SUPPOSITION THAT I PUBLISHED ARTICLES ABOUT CARGILL’S FILM, THAT WAS INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING ABOUT A SERIOUS MATTER INVOLVING MISCONDUCT IN THE MUSEUM BY A PROFESSOR AT UCLA.

yes, you’re a great ‘investigative reporter,’ raphael. how many ‘investigative reporters’ are arrested for forgery, identity theft, criminal impersonation, and aggravated harassment??

no wonder you’re seeking to dismiss this evidence. lol.

if you’re not guilty, why offer to plead guilty?

Raphael Golb

Raphael Golb is accused of multiple felony and misdemeanor counts of forgery, identity theft, impersonation, and aggravated harassment.

question: if you’re not guilty, why offer to plead guilty? why did raphael golb’s attorney offer a plea deal where raphael golb would plead guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges? according to the new york district attorney’s affirmation in response to the defense’s omnibus motion,  p. 2, fn 2, raphael golb’s attorney offered to have raphael golb plead guilty to all counts if the more serious felony counts were reduced to misdemeanors. apparently, the new york district attorney’s office declined.

2 Defendant’s gratuitous comment that “the People dragged their heels for more than 3 months before they indicted this matter” makes for entertaining reading, yet is inaccurate and invites a response. See Defendant’s Affirmation p. 2, par 5. First, the Criminal Procedure Law provides for speedy trial time periods, the People are well within these limits, and defendant cites no legal authority regarding his complaint of “foot dragging”. Thus defendant’s comment is without any legal basis. Second, the comment is without any factual basis. Defense counsel’s own requests to resolve this case with a misdemeanor guilty plea were one factor that helped delay the indictment. Given that defendant requested a misdemeanor plea offer, he should have been pleased that the People didn’t seek an indictment immediately. Finally, defendant is aware of the complexity of this case, voluminous search warrant material recovered on the date of arrest, and some of the results of the digital evidence examination. Thus, this matter was presented to the Grand Jury after careful consideration, planning, and preparation.

this raises the question: why did raphael golb(‘s lawyer) offer to plead guilty to lesser charges?  if you are guilty of misdemeanor counts in the case, you are still guilty! if you committed a crime, you committed a crime, whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony.

again, as the evidence continues to comes out, the truth of the golbs’ entire campaign of deception and defamation is being laid bare.

text of raphael golb’s police interview immediately following his arrest

Raphael Golb

Raphael Golb, accused of multiple counts of forgery, identity theft, aggravated harassment, and impersonation

the following is the transcript of raphael haim golb’s interview with new york police immediately following his march 5, 2009 arrest.

the following information is a portion of publicly available documents associated with the case of:

‘the people of the state of new york vs. raphael golb’ (indictment no. 2721/2009, docket no. 2009ny018004).

  • doc: people’s voluntary disclosure form
  • date: march 5, 2009
  • time: 10:46 am to 12:36 pm
  • location: n.y. co. district attorney’s office, ecab
  • substance: see exhibit b: summary of defendant’s video statement

EXHIBIT B

SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT’S VIDEO STATEMENT

A FEW MONTHS AGO, I HEARD AT A DINNER PARTY, THAT A PROFESSOR AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN, SAID THAT I WOULD HAVE LEGAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE I AM USING FALSE NAMES. I THINK HE FILED A FALSE COMPLAINT AGAINST ME.

THERE’S A CHAPTER IN MY FATHER’S BOOK, WHO WROTE THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, ABOUT LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN. IT DESTROYS SCHIFFMAN’S THEORY. IT SHOWS THAT SCHIFFMAN PLAGIARIZED MY FATHER AND THAT SCHIFFMAN MISREPRESENTED HIS THEORIES. AN ARTICLE CAME OUT ON THE INTERNET – I DIDN’T WRITE THAT ARTICLE.

SOMEBODY PUBLISHED SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET. APPARENTLY DR. SCHIFFMAN BELIEVES IT’S ME AND HE’S FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. THE REASON HE’S FILING A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME IS TO GET BACK AT MY FATHER. IT’S OUT OF MALICIOUSNESS TOWARDS MY FATHER. HE CAN’T GET BACK AT MY FATHER FOR HIS BOOK SO HE’S GETTING AT HIS SON.

I WON’T ANSWER WHETHER I HAVE POSTED ANY ARTICLES ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. I WON’T ANSWER BECAUSE I THINK SCHIFFMAN IS OUT TO GET MY FATHER. HE MIGHT SUE ME.

THERE WAS AN ARTICLE CALLED SOMETHING, SOMETHING WITH PLAGIARISM IN IT, SCHIFFMAN, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, THAT’S ALL I REMEMBER. BUT IF YOU READ THAT ARTICLE, YOU’LL SEE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SCHIFFMAN. YOU’VE SEEN THAT THEY WERE RAISED BY AN ISRAELI JOURNALIST. THIS WAS IN MY FATHER’S BOOK. EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS.

MY SITUATION IS THAT I FEAR THAT DR. SCHIFFMAN COMPLAINED AGAINST ME. I FIND HIM TO BE A VERY FRIGHTENING PERSON FOR VARIOUS REASONS. HE DESTROYED THE CAREER OF MY FATHER’S BEST STUDENT, MICHAEL WISE. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND THERE WAS THIS CONFERENCE ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN NEW YORK. I DON’T REMEMBER WHAT YEAR, 1992 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WENT TO THE CONFERENCE. MY FATHER ORGANIZED THIS CONFERENCE WITH ANOTHER PROFESSOR AND IT WAS THE FIRST CONFERENCE EVER HELD ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN WHICH THEY INVITED PEOPLE WITH A DIFFERENT OPINION. THE CONFERENCES ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE USUALLY MONOPOLIZED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE SAME VIEW AS SCHIFFMAN. SO MY FATHER ORGANIZED A CONFERENCE AT WHICH PEOPLE WHO HAD DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW WOULD DEBATE THE EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME. AROUND THAT TIME STUDENT OF MY FATHER HAD PUBLISHED A BOOK WITH ANOTHER PROFESSOR IN CALIFORNIA.

THEY MOUNTED THIS CAMPAIGN. SCHIFFMAN WROTE A PRESS RELEASE. HE CONTACTED JOURNALISTS AND PUT A STATEMENT OUT ABOUT THIS BOOK OF MY FATHER’S STUDENT. SMEARING HIM, ATTACKING THE BOOK SAYING THAT IT WAS UNETHICAL AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF, WHICH IT WASN’T. THEY ACCUSED HIM OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC INACCURACIES – NOT CITING SOURCES. HE WAS ON TRACK TO GET TENURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND HE DIDN’T GET IT.

AM I ANGRY AT DR. SCHIFFMAN? I’M MY FATHER’S SON. I’M ESPECIALLY ANGRY WITH DR. SCHIFFMAN IF HE FILED THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. I FIND THE GUY A BIT NAUSEATING TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I KNOW THAT HE WOULD STOP AT NOTHING TO GET AT MY FATHER.

FOR YEARS I’VE DONE GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR MY FATHER’S NAME. IT’S FILLED WITH ALL KINDS OF SMEARS AGAINST MY FATHER FOR YEARS.

I THINK I MIGHT ONCE HAVE POSTED A REMARK ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS USING MY OWN NAME, A LITTLE REMARK ABOUT A MUSEUM EXHIBIT OR SOMETHING. MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO.

THERE’S BEEN A WHOLE SERIES OF MUSEUM EXHIBITS ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS WHERE THEY’VE BEEN EXCLUDING THE VIEWPOINT OF SOME. DR. SCHIFFMAN KEEPS APPEARING AT THESE MUSEUM EXHIBITS, SPEAKING AT THEM, GIVING LECTURES AT THEM. MY FATHER HAS ATTACKED THEM IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE ORIENTAL WEBSITE.

THESE PEOPLE ARE OBVIOUSLY DEEPLY ENRAGED AT MY FATHER AND THEY ARE VERY WORRIED. THEIR TACTIC WITH RESPECT TO MY FATHER INITIALLY WAS SIMPLY TO IGNORE HIM. THEN THEIR TACTIC WAS THAT HE WAS AN ISOLATED PERSON. HE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON, WHO WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS POINT OF VIEW.

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE EXCLUDED MY FATHER FROM THESE MUSEUM EXHIBITS. AND THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE AFRAID OF. THEY’RE AFRAID THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE OBLIGED TO STOP DOING THAT. TO START PRESENTING THE TRUTH TO THE PUBLIC THAT THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT THEORIES. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED AT THE JEWISH MUSEUM. THE JEWISH MUSEUM SAW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND THEY HAD AN EXHIBIT. I DIDN’T GO TO IT. BUT MY FATHER WROTE A REVIEW OF IT BECAUSE THEY SUPPLIED HIM WITH ALL THE MATERIAL. I BELIEVE DR. SCHIFFMAN SPOKE AT THAT, BUT I WASN’T THERE.

I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I HAVE POSTED BLOGS ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS USING NAMES OTHER THAN MY OWN, FOR FEAR OF LAWSUITS.

I NEVER PRETENDED TO BE LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN, I NEVER OPENED AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME, I NEVER SENT EMAILS PRETENDING TO BE HIM. I NEVER AUTHORED A BLOG ACCUSING DR. SCHIFFMAN OF PLAGIARISM. I READ IT, BUT DIDN’T WRITE IT.

I DIDN’T OPEN AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF STEPHEN GORANSON. I THINK I KNOW WHO HE IS – SOMEBODY SMEARING MY FATHER. I THINK HE IS A VERY SAD CASE. I DON’T THINK HE HAS AN ACADEMIC POSITION. I THINK THAT HE’S ONE OF THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MY FATHER FOR MANY YEARS GOING BACK TO THE 1990’S.

I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I HAVE EVER OPENED UP EMAIL ACCOUNTS IN NAMES OTHER THAN MY OWN. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO MY NICKNAMES. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I BLOGGED UNDER THE NAME CHARLES GADDA. WHOEVER WROTE BLOGS UNDER THE NAME CHARLES GADDA HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WRITE BLOGS UNDER THE NAME CHARLES GADDA.

FAMILY MEMBERS PROBABLY DON’T WANT PEOPLE MAKING FUN OF THEIR PARENTS, POSTING THINGS ON THE INTERNET.

ROBERT CARGILL COMPLAINED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO TO GET MY FATHER’S ARTICLE ABOUT HIS FILM REMOVED FROM THE WEB SITE. HE WAS ATTACKED. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHETHER I DID ANY BLOGS ABOUT ROBERT CARGILL.

I AM SORRY FOR DR. SCHIFFMAN IF SOMEONE OPENED AN EMAIL ACCOUNT USING HIS NAME. BUT THAT WASN’T ME. OBVIOUSLY I DON’T LIKE PEOPLE WHO SMEAR MY FATHER, WHO PLAGIARIZE MY FATHER, WHO MISREPRESENT HIS VIEWS. IT’S VERY FRUSTRATING. I MEAN HE DID IT IN HIS BOOK AND EVERYTHING. IT WAS FRUSTRATING. I WOULDN’T OPEN UP AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME.

IF I HAD AN INTEREST IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SCANDAL, IT WOULD BE MUSEUM EXHIBITS.

I WENT TO HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND NYU LAW SCHOOL AND OBERLIN COLLEGE. I’VE BEEN WRITING A BOOK ON THE FRENCH OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. I DO REAL ESTATE LAW. I LIVE AT 206 THOMPSON ST. I AM A LAWYER AND AUTHOR.

I HAVE INTERNET AT HOME. MAYBE ON OCCASION I HAVE ACCESSED THE INTERNET AT NYU. WHEN I AM AT THE BOBST LIBRARY. I AM WRITING A BOOK AT BOBST LIBRARY. I HARDLY EVER CHECK MY EMAILS AT NYU. I LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THE PLACE. WHEN I GO THERE, IT’S TO WORK ON MY BOOK. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY TIMES I’VE USED THE NYU COMPUTERS. I USE THEM BECAUSE I DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE WRITING MY BOOK AT HOME. I STORE MY BOOK ON A MEMORY STICK.

I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO HOW MUCH I KNOW ABOUT THE INTERNET. I DON’T KNOW WHAT AN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS IS.

MY BROTHER IS JOEL GOLB. HE HAS A SNAFU EMAIL ACCOUNT. MY EMAIL ACCOUNT IS RAPHAEL.G AT GMAIL.COM MY FATHER’S EMAIL ADDRESS IS N-GOLB@UCHICAGO.EDU. MY FATHER DOESN’T BLOG. I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO WHETHER I DID IT FOR MY FATHER. I DON’T WANT TO BE SUED BY LAWRENCE SCHIFFMAN. I AM NOT INVOLVED IN OPENING UP EMAIL ADDRESSES IN SCHIFFMAN’S NAME AND I AM NOT INVOLVED IN BLOGGING ABOUT SCHIFFMAN. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, JOEL GOLB IS NOT INVOLVED IN BLOGGING ABOUT SCHIFFMAN, BUT ASK HIM. I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH JOEL GOLB AND MY FATHER ABOUT THESE BLOGS. I WON’T GET INTO THE POSTING OF THE BLOGS. IT WAS NOT MY BROTHER JOEL WHO OPENED THE LARRY.SCHLFFMAN EMAIL ACCOUNT AS FAR AS I KNOW. I CAN’T SEE MY FATHER DOING IT. THAT WOULD BE PREPOSTEROUS. I’M SURE DR. SCHIFFMAN HAS LOTS OF ENEMIES

I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER WHETHER THE CHARLES GADDA ALIAS IS ME. IF IN THEORY I WERE CHARLES GADDA, THAT FACT WOULD BE USED TO SMEAR MY FATHER. THEY WOULD SAY THAT MY FATHER IS DOING IT OR ASKING ME TO DO IT. MY FATHER CERTAINLY NEVER ASKED ME TO DO ANYTHING OF THE KIND. NOR WOULD HE ENCOURAGE ME OR APPROVE OF ME DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HE MIGHT NOT APPROVE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CHARLES GADDA HAS SAID. CHARLES GADDA HAS EMPHASIZED RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLL SCANDAL. MY FATHER’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PROTECTING A THEORY. HE’S A SCIENTIST. HIS INTEREST IS IN A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM.

FRANK CROSS IS A FAMOUS DEAD SEA SCROLLS SCHOLAR. I DON’T BELIEVE I OPENED AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME. PETER KAUFMAN – IS THAT THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO PUBLISHED THE ARTICLE ABOUT SCHIFFMAN ON THE NOW PUBLIC BLOGSITE? I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHETHER I OPENED AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME.

JEFFREY GIBSON? THERE’S A WEBSITE CALLED ALIASES OF JEFFREY GIBSON. I BELIEVE JEFFREY GIBSON IS IN CHICAGO AND HE IS INVOLVED IN SOME BIBLICAL STUFF. I DIDN’T OPEN AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME

IF I WERE INTERESTED IN THIS, IT’S WITH RESPECT TO MUSEUM EXHIBITS AND NOT DR. SCHIFFMAN. I SUSPECT THERE’S SOMEONE WHO HATES HIM AND DECIDED TO GIVE IT TO HIM AND USED THE PLAGIARISM TO DO IT. THERE COULD BE PEOPLE ALL OVER NEW YORK WHO DISLIKE HIM.

I DON’T KNOW A JONATHAN SEIDEL. I DIDN’T OPEN AN EMAIL ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME, TO MY MEMORY.

UNDER THE SUPPOSITION THAT I PUBLISHED ARTICLES ABOUT CARGILL’S FILM, THAT WAS INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING ABOUT A SERIOUS MATTER INVOLVING MISCONDUCT IN THE MUSEUM BY A PROFESSOR AT UCLA.

==end of transcript==

%d bloggers like this: