 Image via Wikipedia |
| One of the dank holes from which scholarship comes |
Some of you may be familiar with the case of Raphael Golb, son of Dead Sea scholar Norman Golb. Raphael posted on various internet sites under assumed names, including under the name of one of his father's fellow scholars at NYU with whom he'd engaged in extended debate regarding the origin and authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are more details available in the article and elsewhere on the web.
Frankly, the more I read about this, the more I think everyone involved is a douchebag. I'm not sure Raphael Golb committed a crime worthy of imprisonment, though essentially sock-puppeteering on behalf of his dad's pet theories while also criticizing the traveling Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit was a dick move as was posing as another scholar.
On the other hand, it seems like there are some people who gleefully looked for an opportunity to get Golb in trouble.
The politics surrounding the scrolls, their study, and interpretation is full of crazy on a multitude of levels.
Norm Golb has maintained that his son couldn't possibly have done it, that he (Norm) had nothing to do with it if he did, and has posited the existence of a conspiracy to make him look bad. Or something.
The politics surrounding the scrolls, their study, and interpretation is full of crazy on a multitude of levels.
Norm Golb has maintained that his son couldn't possibly have done it, that he (Norm) had nothing to do with it if he did, and has posited the existence of a conspiracy to make him look bad. Or something.
So, yeah. Academia. It's awesome. I'm frankly amazed this became public, this sort of thing is usually swept under several rugs and left to fester.
And all of distracts from actual scholarship and makes it all the more difficult to evaluate various theories when you have all this nonsense going on in the background and scholars with clear theoretical axes to grind who may well have gone beyond rational and are now clinging desperately to their ideas less out of actual conviction than bloody-minded stubbornness and a desire to avoid ever having to say their arch-rival might be right.
And all of distracts from actual scholarship and makes it all the more difficult to evaluate various theories when you have all this nonsense going on in the background and scholars with clear theoretical axes to grind who may well have gone beyond rational and are now clinging desperately to their ideas less out of actual conviction than bloody-minded stubbornness and a desire to avoid ever having to say their arch-rival might be right.
It does raise interesting questions about the use of pseudonyms on the internet. If I have multiple user names at various sites, am I committing fraud? How about if I register as a celebrity and post "as" them - is that a crime or is it permissible as fair use or satire or similar?
No comments:
Post a Comment