tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post44884367711465..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Lingering Questions about First-Century MarkP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-92040668354858979222019-10-24T12:50:13.013+01:002019-10-24T12:50:13.013+01:00"I saw it for the first time last week.”
Thi..."I saw it for the first time last week.”<br /><br />This is interesting when compared with his account in the Christianity Today piece,<br /><br />"As we were about to leave Obbink’s office, he stood and said, “I have something you two might like to see.” He pulled out a manila filing envelope and opened Pandora’s Box. He showed us four 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.<br /><br />Obbink said that three of the pieces dated from the second century (AD 100–200). Then he pointed to key letter markings in the Mark fragment: the epsilon (e), upsilon (u), and tau (t). He was convinced, he said, that it was extremely early: “very likely first century.”<br /><br />No mention of seeing an "image" and one can't be faulted for thinking he was referring to the actual manuscripts. sp1ke0kill3rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02061770610850492018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53552474556219979062019-07-08T11:49:43.626+01:002019-07-08T11:49:43.626+01:00Brief answers, proposed to your questions:
1. the...Brief answers, proposed to your questions:<br /><br />1. the Seller is identified as Dirk Obbink. The University were not involved at all in the sale (whether in legal fact, or in any reconstruction of the ostensible 'facts' as presented to Pattengale and Carroll). Obbink has rooms in Christ Church, which is a college of the University.<br /><br />2. Purely hypothetical, since Obbink has made no statement on the matter. But payment of a large amount of money in 2013, when the items purchased are not expected to be delivered for a number of years (potentially extendable), could form a substantial enought reason. That and the opportunity to sell other items on very favourable terms in the meantime.<br /><br />3. For the University, there are clear issues of public interest where there have been allegations of dishonesty and serious breaches of academic standards and ethics against a University professor, by a persons of undisputed standing within the academic community (as Michael Holmes undoubtedly is). But nothing yet has been proved or admitted. Indeed it has yet to be established whether there might be criminal legal charges; and if there were to be a police investigation, any action by the University would likely be deferred until that was completed. Tom Hennellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89983500428313515702019-07-08T11:02:35.930+01:002019-07-08T11:02:35.930+01:00Trusteeship by a group of dispersed people for an ...Trusteeship by a group of dispersed people for an organisation based in London for a collection at Oxford - however geography is not the issue. The possible issue is that the lack of oversight that has resulted in the current situation where people are wondering if any papyri are missing and if somebody nearly got away with selling other papyri Matthew Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02382402785261355659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17589905304292777472019-07-08T06:12:19.514+01:002019-07-08T06:12:19.514+01:00Suppose, for the sake of argument, it was "so...Suppose, for the sake of argument, it was "sold" for the write off. Note Patengale said they were sold for a fraction of their value. Why? Assume for the sake of argument, that these items are bought, at a discount(a fraction of their value) evaluated at their real value once sold. Would it require the buyer to take posession if he was using it for a write off?<br />This occured to me while reading Moss, Baden's piece<br />https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-museum-of-the-bible-exploits-jewish-traditionand-saves-its-evangelical-christian-donors-millions<br />sp1ke0kill3rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02061770610850492018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40201124402463645882019-07-07T04:01:43.234+01:002019-07-07T04:01:43.234+01:00Well besides the required disclosures that are mis...Well besides the required disclosures that are missing that I explicitly identified, I think the interesting takeaway, if I may be permitted to overuse the word, is the size (here the lack of it) of the numbers. Page 22 of the report shows total EES income for 2018 of about 353,000 pounds. Sounds like this was a fraction of what FCM was "sold" for. On the other side of the ledger total expenses for the year were about 401,000 pounds. Presumably this means that for his expertise as an Editor Dirk Obbink received this (running hands under Italian chin). So in total, a fragment (so to speak) of the value of EES inventory was "sold" for more/much more than EES income for a year. <br /><br />Compare to the other side, Hobby Lobby, a private company with estimated annual income of 5 billion.<br /><br />A potentially bigger problem for EES than lack of full disclosures in their public audit report is their status as a British non-profit. One requirement of a non-profit is that they do not allow any individual to significantly profit from their organization. <br /><br />Perhaps it would have been best here for everyone if in exchange for a significant contribution from Green (to EES or a related non-profit) EES let Green borrow FCM for a limited MOB (Museum of the Bible) exhibit. The purpose of EES is to educate/entertain the PUBLIC and even though MOB has an agenda, that is largely what they are doing. <br />JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74755102883806239472019-07-06T23:44:38.215+01:002019-07-06T23:44:38.215+01:00Re. question 3: the University has issued a short ...Re. question 3: the University has issued a short statement, included in a recent article by Candida Moss, https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-oxford-scholar-dirk-obbink-secretly-sell-bible-fragment-to-hobby-lobby-family . They appear to have taken no further action to date. Also, I did some hunting on the web. It turns out Mr Obbink is a charity trustee, for both Christ Church College and Cathedral in Oxford and for a charity related to antiquities, The Herculaneum Society: see https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1104632&subid=0 . He's featured on their website, http://www.herculaneum.ox.ac.uk/about-us/trustees . Maybe someone should ask them if they still consider him to be a good fit for the role. There doesn't seem to be any statement on their website, unless it's in a members-only area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76577557478898653232019-07-06T22:22:05.565+01:002019-07-06T22:22:05.565+01:00Brent asked a question about Term 10.5 Completion....Brent asked a question about Term 10.5 Completion. It appears to be related to Term 10.1 Research - probably related to 10.3 Publication Rights made in the Bill Green Papryi Series. I don't see it not being able to ever deliver. From a contract point of view makes total sense. I personally would be more concerned if this Term were not in the contract.<br /><br />I have a few questions/comments myself (not sure if they have been asked):<br /><br />1) Who is the SELLER? Is it DO or DO on behalf of the University. A university and Dealer Information address are given (I understand some Professors live on campus).<br /><br />2) Why would a highly esteemed Professor apparently sell something that clearly he cannot deliver on. The date on the contract is made after the Ehram/Wallace debate.<br /><br />3) If it's true that a person was selling property that does not belong to him how could the University still employ that person? In this case, the items were listed as items sold as #17....why such good book-keeping?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13384346256713781722019-07-04T21:57:44.061+01:002019-07-04T21:57:44.061+01:00If I remember rightly, some link also between Dr. ...If I remember rightly, some link also between Dr. Obbink and the dealer described here: http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2014/11/mixantik-and-his-connections-with.html<br /><br />was mentioned in passing by Dr. Mazza while giving a talk at SBL in 2017 (albeit in a positive light). It would be interesting to know how close and of what sort that connection was/is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76446821799182916732019-07-04T21:21:43.400+01:002019-07-04T21:21:43.400+01:00It's been noted previously, just not here, tha...It's been noted previously, just not here, that Obbink was Linked (so to speak) with one Mahmoud Elder: https://twitter.com/candidamoss/status/1143614786757898240<br />"More<br />5/ According to its incorporation docs (dated Oct 31 2014) Castle Folio was jointly and equally owned by Dirk Obbink and Mahmoud Elder. Elder was the director and Obbink had no "officership" role which is why the connection is not obvious."<br /><br />Could the Elder have had Middle Eastern connections? Regarding "42", that is the answer to the question of FCM, but what is the question?<br />JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26008002637830662672019-07-04T20:27:01.504+01:002019-07-04T20:27:01.504+01:00Oxford University has had possession of the papyri...Oxford University has had possession of the papyri since the beginning, basically. The EES offices are in London.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55774896871721924472019-07-04T20:25:30.723+01:002019-07-04T20:25:30.723+01:00The chronological problem is a bit overstated: as ...The chronological problem is a bit overstated: as far as I understand it, cartonnage kept on being made out of papyrus (and linen, etc.) for a long time, but sometime early in the Roman period, they stopped making mummy masks out of cartonnage. "Industrial" papyrus cartonnage doesn't raise chronological issues.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60397910145358893072019-07-04T12:22:45.827+01:002019-07-04T12:22:45.827+01:00"Roberta Mazza is a Trustee of The Egyptian E..."Roberta Mazza is a Trustee of The Egyptian Exploration Society" - is it possible that while running her own blog discussing all sorts of matters concerning the trade in antiquities Mazza and the other EES trustees have been asleep at the wheel when it came to guarding the antiquities they have been entrusted with?Matthew Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02382402785261355659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12712618400600607862019-07-04T12:06:23.874+01:002019-07-04T12:06:23.874+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Twinklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06577636345844528720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28607920026204365232019-07-04T09:51:28.894+01:002019-07-04T09:51:28.894+01:00What is interesting with that annual audit report?...What is interesting with that annual audit report? Can you specify what to look at in that report? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77323420558222954632019-07-04T09:03:18.104+01:002019-07-04T09:03:18.104+01:00I like this theory. It explains the (stupifying) l...I like this theory. It explains the (stupifying) lack of interest in documenting the archival aspect of the material extracted from each "mummy mask". They know it is a false provenance so are not bothered, and indeed an archival analysis might well turn up significant chronological problems. Once extracted the pieces can be shuffled around and treated as random individual papyri - which is basically what we see happening.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85533412713333310822019-07-03T20:30:14.678+01:002019-07-03T20:30:14.678+01:00Definitely Palmolive. It is also interesting to no...Definitely Palmolive. It is also interesting to note that, as I read Dr. Pattengale's article, other persons dismantling cartonnage in recent years all seem to have gotten the idea (and the cartonnage?) from the same Oxford professor in question. As with so many other things in this whole mess, if that is how the leading papyrology expert says you ought to recover texts, who would question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78242476651230610352019-07-03T19:27:38.082+01:002019-07-03T19:27:38.082+01:00Don't forget the Palmolive (or was it some oth...Don't forget the Palmolive (or was it some other brand of detergent?).<br />Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49817979938147565252019-07-03T19:25:39.284+01:002019-07-03T19:25:39.284+01:00That is good. That is good. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8694874297348021222019-07-03T16:03:13.647+01:002019-07-03T16:03:13.647+01:00It seems as though American Evangelicals are reluc...It seems as though American Evangelicals are reluctant to criticize American Evangelicals here and I can appreciate that. I especially understand not wanting to even mention Billionaires since no one wants a billionaire as an enemy. <br /><br />Maybe we should direct our attention overseas to resources that are yet untapped. Roberta Mazza is a Trustee of The Egyptian Exploration Society (EES):<br /><br />https://www.ees.ac.uk/Pages/FAQs/Category/board-of-trustees<br /><br />Seems like she would be a good person to ask, especially since EES is a British Public charity.<br /><br />I also note with interest the annual audit report of EES:<br /><br />https://www.ees.ac.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=8ab54493-1ec9-4525-bda3-97871e9f25e2<br /><br />For those not possessing CPA certificates, audit reports normally require disclosure of related party transactions and possible illegal actions related to the organization. Were there transactions (in fact or at least appearance) between Dirk Obbink, Senior Editor of EES, and Dirk Obbink Capitalist, and were they illegal? What about between EES and he who shall not be named? <br /><br />When an auditor notes or becomes aware of serious deficiencies in Internal Controls of the entity being audited they are also required to issue a Management Letter identifying the issue. It would appear that EES had serious deficiencies regarding Inventory control.<br /><br />JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84899629580221586322019-07-03T03:56:32.275+01:002019-07-03T03:56:32.275+01:00Conspiracy Theory #42:
Large numbers of Biblical...Conspiracy Theory #42: <br />Large numbers of Biblical and Classical papyri are excavated illegally in Egypt, and then smuggled out of the country, say, to a dealer in Turkey or some such place. Once a buyer is found, the papyri are packed into cartonnage - that is, added to the insides of existing 'mummy masks,' used to make fake ones, or when time and supplies are short, pressed haphazardly into various shapes to mimic 'industrial cartonnage.' The cartonnage is shipped without arousing suspicion, to be unpacked and dissolved by the recipient, say, in Oxford or some such place. The papyri can now be published, sold, slipped into a collection, etc, and if pressed, photographic evidence could be produced of their having been removed recently from 'seemingly-worthless cartonnage' picked up on the antiquities market. <br />Provenance questions on the cartonnage itself would remain, of course, and the world would be left to wonder why the valuable-texts-to-junk ratio for cartonnage has magically skyrocketed in recent years, why Biblical texts are appearing at all given the consensus date range for such cartonnage, why some fragments seem to have more than one origin story, and why respected scholars seem to have no interest at all in the preservation of 'ancient' artwork... But then, on the other hand, maybe no-one would notice...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-80541145983693248412019-07-02T13:47:20.650+01:002019-07-02T13:47:20.650+01:00Here's "The ‘FCM’ scandal: a timeline&quo...Here's "The ‘FCM’ scandal: a timeline"<br />http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2019/07/first-century-mark-timeline.html<br />by Peter Gainsford<br /> Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75765927189364822702019-07-02T11:41:21.467+01:002019-07-02T11:41:21.467+01:00I admit that Pattengale leaves some need to read b...I admit that Pattengale leaves some need to read between the lines here, as he does at many points throughout the article. He doesn't flatly accuse Trobisch of anything unethical. But he does allege that Trobisch made a particular assertion that was not true. I have a strong suspicion that Trobisch (the director of the Green Collection) was well aware of the existence of the same purchase order that Michael Holmes knew of (note that Pattengale doesn't claim that Holmes only recently discovered the invoice, but that he waited to go public until he had enough evidence). And not only must he have known of the purchase order's existence, but there must have been many internal discussions about FCM and the process by which a sale that had at one point been made came to be reversed or nullified, discussions that would have to have involved Trobisch.<br /><br />So, though on its own it may not appear to be a serious allegation, Pattengale does make an allegation about Trobisch. He alleges that Trobisch claimed that MOTB had positively never tried to buy the mansucript formerly known as first-century Mark. Does Trobisch remember that conversation the same way? And if so, would he want to claim that he was merely speaking in ignorance of facts he knew nothing about? And if so, would he now want to stick to that claim and say that even then in 2017 he knew nothing of any such sale or attempted sale having ever taken place (at risk of others who know that he did know those facts saying otherwise)?Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10915605825258799702019-07-02T11:39:44.702+01:002019-07-02T11:39:44.702+01:00In order better to show what led me to read that p...In order better to show what led me to read that paragraph of Pattengale's the way I did, here it is:<br /><br />//However, I discovered a cover-up was in the making. While sitting with Yamauchi at the opening gala dinner at the Museum of the Bible, this whole affair began to unravel. Yamauchi asked a simple question of David Trobisch, then curator of the Museum’s collection: “Dr. Trobisch, Scott Carroll mentioned the first-century Mark fragment. When do you expect its publication?” Trobisch responded, “That fragment was never offered to us for sale, isn’t that correct, Jerry?” I about snorted coffee through my nose, then responded, “Some things are best discussed in other settings.” Then David continued, “A researcher in Oxford, I think a graduate student, discovered an image of it in a museum collection, and it has remained there. It was just a misunderstanding.” You could have hit me with a frozen salmon. Apparently Obbink, or his alleged collectors, were unaware of filmed evidence of this rare piece—dating to the 1980s and rediscovered in 2008! Or someone stole it and just thought the chances of going undetected were worth it.//<br /><br />Notice that the way Pattengale tells this story, Trobisch did not merely claim not to be aware that HL had ever tried to buy the manuscript in question. He claimed to have positive knowledge that HL/MOTB never did try to buy it at all. Notice also that after making that assertion, Pattengale alleges that Trobisch tried to goad him into going along with that story, by saying, "isn't that correct, Jerry?". And notice that it was already at this point, and not just after hearing what Trobisch revealed next, that Pattengale became nearly so surprised as to need to decaffeinate his nasal cavity. And then notice also how Pattengale's answer to that question suggests some discomfort on his part with either going along with Trobisch's account or correcting him on the matter then and there.<br /><br />And, incidentally, why would Trobisch have chosen to answer Yamauchi's question the way he did anyway? Yamauchi didn't ask about any sale of the fragment, only when he expected its publication? In Pattengale's account it almost sounds as if Trobisch was anxious to distance his organization from the manuscript (with a greater distance than was true, we all now know), rather than simply addressing that particular question.<br /><br />And Tom, you are very perceptive to notice that the vague allusion to questions having been asked already by those scholars coming up in the next paragraph in which Pattengale describes his growing clarity about a cover-up. Notice that at least one of the scholars listed had been working under Trobisch at the MOTB up until not long before the time of that gala.<br />Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-19053517928027661162019-07-02T10:45:17.488+01:002019-07-02T10:45:17.488+01:00That is my understanding of Pattengale's accou...That is my understanding of Pattengale's account of the dinner in November 2017. Trobisch knew that the EES had identified one of their papyrus fragments as the source of the First Century Mark rumours, but did not know that the Hobby Lobby had a contract to buy it; Pattengale knew that Hobbyl Lobby had a contract to buy FCM, but did not know that EES were the true owners of the fragment, and were pressing Obbink to publish it sharpish (or as sharpish as these things are done) in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus series.<br /><br />When they put their heads together, it became clear that something was very wrong; and it seems that Trobisch then went to see Obbink to get to the bottom of what was true, and what was not. What I find puzzling though, is that although Jerry Pattengale's immediate response was that, "Roberta Mazza, Josephine Dru, Candida Moss, Brent Nongbri, Ariel Sabar, and the host of scholars associated with Tyndale House Cambridge had been asking important questions, and finally some answers were no longer opaque"; neither he, nor Trobisch, recounts having contacted these same scholars to respond to their "important questions" with the "answers that were no longer opaque." <br /><br />Did they do so at any time then? Or was it only when Michael Holmes took up the baton this year? Tom Hennellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83765018579179651542019-07-02T01:57:29.424+01:002019-07-02T01:57:29.424+01:00Anonymous, I'm not sure that I misunderstood i...Anonymous, I'm not sure that I misunderstood it. But you're right that I understood it differently than the way you characterize it.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.com