Invoice for the sale of First-Century Mark (and more)

I pass along here (with permission) an email I and the other members of the First-Century Mark panel just received from Mike Holmes. Brent Nongbri has already posted this, so be sure to see his website and the comments there, too.

Dear Bart, Roberta, Brent, Jill, and Elijah,

I am sending you this note because (1) we are all members of the SBL panel scheduled to discuss P.Oxy. 5345, otherwise known as “1st c. Mark” (FCM), at the SBL Annual Meeting in November, and (2) earlier this year I acquired some additional information regarding this document—information that I feel obligated to communicate to you, in your capacity as fellow panelists.

You will recall that in the aftermath of the publication of P.Oxy. 5345 in mid-2018, one of the lingering questions centered around the role of the Green Collection (owned by Hobby Lobby Stores) in the matter. Given that the Egyptian Exploration Society (EES) repeatedly (and rightly) affirmed that the fragment has never been for sale, why did representatives of the Green Collection seem to think that the Collection had acquired the fragment?

The answer is relatively straightforward: Prof. Dirk Obbink sold it and three other allegedly early Gospel fragments to the Green Collection, the result of negotiations that began in early 2012 and continued into early 2013, when a purchase agreement was executed.

Accompanying this email is a file containing two items. The first is a redacted copy of the purchase agreement between Prof. Dirk Obbink and Hobby Lobby stores, which documents the sale of four Gospel fragments—one each of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each allegedly dated “Circa 0100 AD.” The second item is a photograph of a list written by Prof. Obbink himself (and in the photograph held down by his fingers) that specifies the contents of these four fragments: Matthew 3.7-10, 11-12; Mark 1.8-9, 16-18; Luke 13.25-7, 28, and John 8.26-8, 33-5. The two items together document the fact of the sale and the identity of the items sold.

In the agreement Obbink clearly asserted (in item 1) that he was the owner of the property described therein. The fragments in question, however, were and remain the property of EES. This is certainly the case in regard to the Mark and Luke fragments, which were published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 83 (2018) as P.Oxy 5345 and P.Oxy 5346, respectively. It is almost certainly the case in regard to the Matthew and John fragments: an EES representative has confirmed to me that EES also possesses fragments of Matt 3.7-10, 11-12 and John 8.26-28, 33-35.

It is worth noting that the Green Collection, though having received title to the fragments (see point 10 of the purchase agreement), never took physical possession of the fragments. Instead, in accordance with other terms of the agreement (see points 10.1-10.2) the fragments were left in Obbink’s custody for research and publication (the intended venue of initial publication being specified in 10.3).

It seemed advisable to consult with the EES about the FCM matter before sharing the information mentioned above more widely, so earlier this month I met in London with representatives of the EES and discussed with them its significance and implications. I am now sharing it with you. You, in turn, are free to share with others or post in your blog (a) the information contained in this letter, and (b) the accompanying document.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best wishes,

Mike

I’ll try to keep my thoughts as brief as possible.

1. It seems that Obbink was selling items without the knowledge or consent of the Egypt Exploration Society (EES). Admittedly, the EES say that none of the unpublished fragments are first-century, but neither were the Mark and Luke fragments, despite appearing as such on the invoice.

2. Dan Wallace revealed last year that his non-disclosure agreement (NDA) was at the request of the seller, so Obbink appears to have been the one who requested that Wallace sign a NDA.

3. This particular invoice is numbered 017. Does that mean Obbink had made 16 other sales before this? I think it would be wise initially to treat all items sold by Obbink while he had access to the Oxyrhynchus Collection as suspect. It could be that these four fragments were the only things he ever allegedly sold that came from the Oxyrhynchus collection, but there could be more. One thing about which I would be curious is whether Obbink sold papyri to anyone else.

4. I think if I were buying things, and I decided to work with someone of Obbink’s stature with the kinds of genuine credentials he has, and that person was who offered to sell me something, I don’t know that it would have even occurred to me not to trust him or her about whether or not the item(s) had a clean provenance. Yes, hindsight’s 20/20, and yes there is an element of taking responsibility for your actions, but what it looks like to me is that the Greens were indeed trying to do that by going through a well-credentialed and respected Oxford scholar, and their biggest fault in this specific situation was that they may have trusted the wrong person.

5. It looks like the evangelicals were telling the truth here. It seems to me that some of the people who suggested or otherwise accused the Greens, Scott Carroll, Dan Wallace, etc. of lying when compared to statements made by the EES and others might owe some apologies. Such reactions probably stem from the same cause of all this (if I’m right on point 4, above), that it is unthinkable that someone from the EES could be telling anything other that the truth. If anyone does need to apologise, I hope they have the integrity to do so.

Here is the full PDF that Holmes sent.

[Updated for typos and things]

Update: The EES have issued a statement here in which they confirm that Holmes did approach them earlier with this information. Some points of interest (quoted from their statement):

"The four fragments listed in the photograph do fit with catalogued EES texts because the combinations of surviving verses on the front and back of the fragments are distinctive. The Mark and Luke must be the texts published recently as P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 and 5346. The Matthew and John fragments are currently being prepared for publication."

and

"We are grateful to Professor Holmes for sharing with us in advance the newly revealed contract and photograph, and we are working with him to clarify whether the four texts in the photographed list, or any other EES papyri, were sold or offered for sale to Hobby Lobby or its agents, and if so, when and by whom. This may take some time, and unless and until new evidence emerges, there is no more we can say."