Sunday, August 29, 2010

Did Dr Robert R Cargill Go Behind Norman Golb's Back?

On June 3, 2009, an e-mail was sent from the University of Chicago's Office of Legal Counsel.  It was written by Russel J Herron of the Office of Legal Counsel to Robert Cargill.  This was in response to an e-mail of June 1, 2009 from Robert Cargill to professor Gil Stein, Director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.  In that e-mail, Robert Cargill asked Professor Stein to remove Professor Golb's article: 'The so-called "Virtual Reality Tour" at the 2007 San Diego Scrolls Exhibit' from Professor Golb's web page on the University's web site.

Now without getting into the detail of why Cargill wanted to remove this article, Cargill's behaviour as an academic, was disgraceful.  It appears that Cargill did not first communicate with Norman Golb about Golb's Article, as an academic should, but went behind his back to Professor Gil Stein. He also sent what appears to be a similar e-mail, dated June 2, 2009 to Professor Theo van den Hout of the Oriental Institute, again ignoring Norman Golb.

The e-mail dated June 3, 2009 from the Office of Legal Counsel, is addressed to Robert Cargill.  It opens: Dear Mr Cargill.  This leaves me wondering exactly when did Robert Cargill receive his Ph.d, a date that is notably absent from here  In fact it appears that Dr Cargill always has had a Ph.d. laughably even from birth, and from when he accepted the J. P. Sanders Ministerial scholarship to attend Pepperdine University, and when he travelled extensively through Europe, Central and South America, and the Middle East.  Its a way of speaking, but it is not the truth. If the Office of Legal Counsel is correct, Robert Cargill did not have a Ph.d as at June 3 2009.    

Friday, August 06, 2010

The Official Blog of Dr. Robert R. Cargill UCLA (August 6, 2010) - Blood Runs Thicker Than Water

Anonymous wrote: "I believe Golb was right to decline a plea offer." You didn't bargain for that, did you Cargill! 

And you didn't bargain for this comment: "The principles at stake here are simply too important." - principles you and Schiffman would just not understand.

When Cargill campaigns on rights for homosexuals, he receives ready pats on his back.  But he "stomps" over the rights of Raphael Golb, "with big thick boots", and, in effect, pronounces him guilty before trial.  Yet more inconsistency in his character!  He just cannot resist repeating the ridiculous charges and his infamous "who is charles gadda".
(I doubt that Arnold will pass the bill that you so crave. It would add considerably to a mounting tax deficit.)  He bleats that he is a victim.  He is no victim.   Cargill knew what the score was. But he has created a victim.  Who fanatically collected all the data, helped by Gibson?  Wouldn't that have been sufficient to satisfy yours and everyone's curiosities?  You then might be known as the man who revealed to the world who Charles Gadda was. No. It didn't stop there. You had to pass it to the legal authorities, who as we know, don't miss a chance to be on the make.  You are vengeful, as are Gibson and West (on the right) who support you.  You are part of a vengeful culture (Gibson's anonymous mocking of Bishop N T Wright under the psuedonym N T Wrong, supported by West - an academic mocking an academic.  And Gibson your friend).   Did you even try to discuss anything with Raphael Golb's aliases?  I doubt that.  There are no records of any discussions.   You probably realised all along that it was Raphael Golb, and you saw his posts as a golden opportunity of getting at the father, your rival Norman Golb, through the son.

When did this bitterness actually start?  Was it when Norman Golb wrote an article (and an Appendix) in November 2007 involving your work, which he entitled: The So-called "Virtual Reality Tour" at the San Diego Scrolls Exhibit?  Did you ever reply to Norman Golb in a normal, civil, academic manner?

Cargill no doubt relished reprinting the description of Raphael Golb as an "amateur religious scholar".  We know what he thinks of those.  West and Gibson think likewise.  Cargill began to throw his weight around the minute he got his unmerited Ph.d. in archaeology doing something a nerdish computer modeller could have done.   "Amateur" could mean incompetent in the field.  That Golb is not.  He is, in effect, qualified as a Scrolls scholar by taking an interest over a long period in his father's work.  Formal qualifications are no guarantee.  There is no other field where scholars can get a Ph.d. by building a pack of cards theory, citing other scholars who have built their own pack of cards theories.

Tzvee wrote about Lawrence Schiffman

" just keep in mind that now he is known worldwide as the professor who got his rival's son arrested."   Well you Robert Cargill, will be known worldwide as the professor who facilitated it, helped and encouraged by the two on the right.

Tzvee also wrote about Lawrence Schiffman

 "A good defense lawyer will be obliged to put Schiffman on trial."  May be the same lawyer will put you on trial too, Robert Cargill.  So in your own words, "to trial 'we' go", Schiffman and me.

Schiffman and Cargill broadcast here:

In his broadcast Lawrence Schiffman said “the first ‘dead sea’ scroll discovered” was from a Cairo Geniza. This was the Damascus Covenant, a medieval copy of a similar manuscript found at Qumran.  He immediately sees it linked to Qumran as its place of authorship. It is at least equally valid to say this was not of Qumran authorship. Schiffman has no evidence to link this Cairo manuscript to Qumran apart from the argument that the Damascus Covenant was also discovered at Qumran. That it was a copy of a Jerusalem manuscript is more likely, just like all the other manuscripts found (or reported) from places outside of Qumran, as at Masada.

Schiffman says the scrolls are not ‘Christian’.  But they are priestly and in opposition to ‘the seekers of smooth things’ who were the proto-‘christians’ or prophets.

Schiffman says there is a concensus that the scrolls were produced at Qumran by a sect. Actually, the movement depicted in the Scrolls appears as a sect today because modern Judaism was in effect invented post 70 CE when the Jewish literature which Schiffman relies upon was written.

I would not like to be taught by Schiffman. For a start, he didn’t let his interviewer get a word in edgeways.  He comes over as forceful and pushing.  Like Cargill, he believes absolutely in the writings attributed to Josephus.  Thus they both believe that Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, zealots, and sicarri existed before 70 CE, despite the fact that none are mentioned in the vast quantity of the Dead Sea scrolls.  The old cliche: 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is made to look ridiculous.  That they are mentioned in the writings attributed to Josephus is naively taken as evidence that they did exist.  What is one to believe, the Scrolls which have been buried for two thousand years, or the writings attributed to Josephus which have obviously been got at?  One is left with the conclusion that the Scrolls must be correct.  Pre 70 CE, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, zealots, and sicarri did not exist.  But the two orders, the priests and prophets, that Josephus originally set out to describe, did. The writers of the scrolls were the Jerusalem priests, and they were in opposition to the prophets.  Thus the Scrolls have consequences for the very foundations of Judaism, and also 'Christianity', which traditional Jews and Christians just cannot contemplate. 

Judaism was the religion of the Scrolls before approximately 70 CE.  Or to put it another way, THE RELIGION OF THE SCROLLS DEFINED JUDAISM IN THE THREE HUNDRED OR SO YEARS PRE 70 CE.  And the priests certainly had almost ALL of the OT manuscripts.

Developing with it was a prophetic form of Judaism. The NT was originally a series of prophetic writings before they were got at by Flavian editors. The letters of 'Paul' for example, were originally written by the prophet James from Rome to the prophets in Jerusalem.  They were about the Spirit and its superiority to sacrifice.  And the original NT manuscripts must have been taken from one place, probably the temple.

The Jew Schiffman and the 'christian' Cargill have allowed their beliefs to colour their views.  They will not debate with any 'unqualified' person.  Instead they blast their listeners away with torrents of words.  It is no wonder that Raphael Golb took the line that he did.  The influence of believers, Jewish and Christian, in the academic sphere continues to hinder honest research.