In what appears to be his first public statement in months, Dirk Obbink has denied selling EES papyri. Here is his statement
as published in the
Waco Tribune-Herald:
Obbink, who is still a professor at Oxford, denied the allegations Friday through a statement by his attorneys to the Tribune-Herald, saying he would be fully exonerated.
“The allegations made against me that I have stolen, removed or sold items owned by the Egyptian Exploration Society collection at the University of Oxford are entirely false,” he stated. “I would never betray the trust of my colleagues and the values which I have sought to protect and uphold throughout my academic career in the way that has been alleged.
“I am aware that there are documents being used against me which I believe have been fabricated in a malicious attempt to harm my reputation and career. I am working with my legal team in this regard.”
The
WT has done quite a bit of
good reporting on Obbink in the past, including his purchase of the Cottonland Castle in Waco. On that, this article notes that
Obbink’s five-year ownership of the castle started in 2014, while Hobby Lobby Stores bought the bible fragments referenced in the recent investigation between 2010 and 2013, according to the company.
The MOTB has this to say in the article
“Former employees [Scott Carroll??] who have not been associated with the museum since 2012 made the decision,” to accept the 13 Bible fragments [sic; it’s 11 right?], she said. “Since then, Museum of the Bible curators and registrars began rigorously reviewing all acquisitions and researching documentation and dealers, with special attention on antiquities, items that may originate in modern conflict zones, and agents who are now known to [have] sold items of questionable origin or authenticity.”
HT: PJW
In what appears to be his first public statement in months, Dirk Obbink has denied selling EES papyri. Here is his statement as published in the Waco Tribune-Herald:
Sounds like a pretty complete refutation of the accusations. It will be interesting to learn, if Obbink is truly innocent, how the items came to be in possession of the Museum of the Bible. Did someone else at Oxford sneak them out of the vaults and somehow get them into the hands of Scott Carroll while making it look like it was Obbink?
ReplyDeleteIn the refutation it sounds like he is denying the authenticity of the contract showing his involvement. There are no doubt many questions that would have to be answered if indeed he is innocent, but the largest one is simply how then did Carroll get all this stuff?
We know there was the 2013 contract published showing the supposed sale of the "First-Century Mark" and three others, so I would imagine that Carroll and the Green Collection had contracts on the two batches purchased in 2010.
I don't believe Dr. Carroll was still employed with the Greens/MOTB when the sales took place, at least in the case of the infamous Mark fragment and the other 3 Gospels fragments that were listed on the invoice with it.
DeleteCorrect, but he was employed when the first 11 (the items on the EES 'stolen' list) passed from Oxford to the Green Collection. My point was that since there was a 2013 contract showing a connection between MOTB and Obbink, then likely there was also a contract between MOTB/Carroll and Obbink in 2010. It will be very interesting to see if any 2010 contracts are redacted and released.
DeleteHe hasn't refuted any of the accusations. He has merely denied them.
DeleteThis is really very simple. All the Greens/Michael Holmes/MotB has to do is say whether they met with him in person or not concerning any of these fragments. The alternative is that the Greens hired an "expert" sight unseen and entered into a contract with someone who's identity they didn't know.
DeleteYou are right. "Deny" is the better word than "refute." Brent Nongbri has some interesting thoughts on Obbink's statement:
Deletehttps://brentnongbri.com/2019/10/20/a-statement-from-dirk-obbink/
MotB has already said they worked with Obbink to acquire the pieces they had from EES. How can Obbink possibly get around that? What kind of Mission Impossible or Thomas Crowne Affair level of subterfuge would have to be carried out for Obbink to not be responsible for the sale of the fragments in question? Were the agreements between not-Obbink and MotB signed in person or not? That would seem to clear this right up.
ReplyDeleteIn the movies though the criminals always confess ...
DeleteYet another EES statement has appeared, https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/missing-papyri-two-updates .
ReplyDeleteAnd the good news is Mr. Stimer is cooperating fully and plans to return the fragments he purchased to the EES.
Delete"Mr Stimer intends to make his own statement on how these texts reached his collection."
DeleteThis will be very interesting to hear.
"to accept the 13 Bible fragments [sic; it’s 11 right?]"
ReplyDeleteI think the statement is refering to all 13 bible fragments being returned to the EES from the MoTB. The MoTB claims 11 are associated with Dr Obbink and 2 where another dealer. So the number in the quote is probably correct (just confusing when added to a story specifically about Dr Obbink.