Re: Scholarly reconstruction: Qimron v. Shanks

>I am not familiar with the case, but based on my understanding
>of the hundreds and hundreds of truly tiny fragments that make
>up the Scrolls, (some only a few letters long), any reconstruction
>is a work of enormous scholarship. Surely this had something to do
>with the claim for copyright. The ownership is clearly
>of the reconstruction, not the fragments. (Seems akin to a
>critical essay on an original book.)

To me it seems more akin to an archaeologist reconstruting a statue and claiming he is the artist.

>>Well, I just got my latest _BAR_ vol 19, #6, and on page 66 there
>>is something interestin now going on. Earlier Shanks had a case of
>>sour grapes and said he would not appeal. Now, two U.S. theological
>>professors are going to a U.S. court to get a ruling that they may make
>>a recontruction, claiming Qimron does not own the copyright.
>>
>I am confused here. Are you saying that the Qimron case makes it
>illegal for other scholars to do make their OWN reconstructions
>from the original fragments? or just that the reconstruction
>he did belongs to him?

Qimron has, according to the article, gone on record that he will sue anyone who performs a reconstruction that has seen his. If his claims that his reconstruction is what the original author wrote, then it won't be too surprising if other reconstructions come out the same way. The two scholars who are bringing it before a judge have, like thousands of others, seen Qimrons' work and would thus be challenged legally. If Qimron truly has restored the original authorship to its original expression, I don't see how it can be anything other than a factual representation of the origial author's work. Qimron works for the Ben-Gurion of the Negev University and gets paid to perform this sort of research. I'm not sure how a scholarly discovery can be protected as he desires.

Mark Fuller
<ACUS10[_at_]WACCVM.corp.mot.com> Received on Wed Oct 27 1993 - 18:26:28 GMT