The news is out that the civil case between Hobby Lobby and Dirk Obbink has been decided. The ruling is a “default judgment” in favor of Hobby Lobby for an incredible $7,085,100 plus interest. (A default judgment means that the defendant never showed up to court.) Keep in mind, this is a civil case not a criminal case. Over at the Art Crime blog, Lynda Albertson gives this list of transactions between Hobby Lobby and Obbink.
- Purchase #1 - February 6, 2010: Papyri fragments for $80,000
- Purchase #2 - February 15, 2011: Papyri fragments and other antiquities for $500,000
- Purchase #3 - July 22, 2010: Papyri fragments and other antiquities for $350,000
- Purchase #4 - November 20, 2010: Papyri fragments and other antiquities for $2,400,000
- Purchase #5 - July 20, 2011: Papyri fragments and other antiquities for $1,345,500
- Purchase #6 - March 7, 2012: Papyri fragments and other antiquities for $609,600
- Purchase #7 - February 5, 2013: Papyri fragments and other antiquities for $1,810,000
As she says, “Obbink had represented to Hobby Lobby that the 32 items he was selling came from private collectors.” I do not know which of these seven purchases was supposed to include the best-known papyrus, the first-century Mark fragment. Maybe one of our readers does?
The most unfathomable thing to me about this whole mess is still how Obbink thought he could get away with it. How does one expect to steal 32 papyri from one’s employer, sell them for millions of dollars to a very in-the-spotlight organization, and expect no one to notice? It boggles the mind.
Is he still around or has he done a bunk? Money in a secure bank or the like, aided and abetted by an official or two?
ReplyDeleteHe's living on his boat on the Thames. The UK police have apparently not pursued this; it's only the judgment of the US court against him that has occurred so far.
DeleteThanks for the info. If this is a civil US case, he probably can't be extradited. Are we expecting a criminal case? What's he done with the money?
Delete// I do not know which of these seven purchases was supposed to include the best-known papyrus, the first-century Mark fragment. Maybe one of our readers does?//
ReplyDeleteI think probably the one dated Feb. 5, 2013. The purchase agreement for that manuscript has a date of Feb. 4, 2013 for Obbink's signature, and the signature and date for Hobby Lobby is redacted. So I'm guessing that one is Feb. 5.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hzaj7vb3hgp5ko0/PDF%20of%20contract%20%2B%20list%20of%20four%20fragments.pdf?dl=0
Please rename "first-century Mark", unless it really is first century.
ReplyDeleteIt already has more than one other name: P137 and P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345.
DeleteBut its relevance to this story is that when selling this manuscript, Obbink claimed that it was 1st-2nd century.
Purchase #7, contained four (4) papyrus pieces of New Testament Gospels "identified" as Matthew 3:7–10, 11–12; Mark 1:8–9, 16–18; Luke 13: 25–27, 28; and John 8:26–28, 33-35 (the “Gospel Fragments”), which werekept by Obbink for further research and never delivered to Hobby Lobby.
ReplyDeleteIt is astonishing that Obbink still has not been charged with any crime. In a similar case (but about four orders of magnitude smaller in financial terms, and hilariously incompetently executed – the box labelled "definitely not stolen" clearly fooled nobody), the palaeontologist Dr Robert Boessenecker was arrested this week and charged with grand larceny. Perhaps Obbink is fortunate that he stole those papyri in the UK.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.postandcourier.com/news/paleontologist-robert-boessenecker-college-charleston-fossils-mace-brown/article_bfff3d26-eb74-11ee-a7ef-3f5ed7101d7d.html
If he stole the papyri in the UK, I'd have expected police action here. Perhaps they were awaiting completion of the US civil claim, I'd not be surprised if the American evidence finds its way to the UK police.
DeleteHas Roberta Mazza in particular or the EES in general ever acknowledged their continued error in the face of this saga?
ReplyDelete