Court Rules that Obbink Owes Hobby Lobby $7m

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.

Hobby Lobby Sues Obbink for $7m

Courthouse News Service reports today that Hobby Lobby is suing Dirk Obbink for $7 million for fraud and breach of contract. The complaint details seven private sale agreements between February 2010 and February 2013 for “fragments along with other ancient objects” for approximately $7,095,100. To date, the complaint says, 32 papyri have been identified as stolen from EES and sold directly to Hobby Lobby.

It also clarifies that Hobby Lobby came into possession of all the sale items except those in the seventh lot, purchased in February 2013 for $760,000. This last sale “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 second of those should look familiar as P.Oxy. 5345, aka “First-Century Mark.” So, we now know that Hobby Lobby did pay for these fragments. Scott Carroll’s infamous Tweet was in December of 2011 and Dan Wallace announced a first-century Mark fragment in February 2012—all before Hobby Lobby bought it. We know from Mike Holmes, that negotiations for its sale started in “early 2012.” 

The complaint goes on to tell us that “On or about December 2017, Obbink informed Hobby Lobby that he had ‘mistakenly’ sold the Gospel Fragments in Purchase #7 and that they were, in fact, owned by his employer, the EES.” The fragment was published not long after, in May of 2018. Surely Obbink had finished editing it for his employer well before then. He did refund Hobby Lobby $10k of the $760k while pleading for more time to pay the rest—which never came.

A number of questions arise from this new wrinkle. The complaint says that $760,000 was the cost of the four Gospel fragments in lot 7, but the entire lot contained that and “other antiquities,” all totaling $1.81m. It does not specify what those other antiquities are or whether Hobby Lobby initially asked for a refund for those as well. The complaint is also mum about the specifics of the other fragments and antiquities sold. 

A last point: if you split $760k four ways, that could mean that “First-Century Mark” sold for around $200k. That actually seems low to me, but what do I know.

It’s safe to say we have not heard the end of this sordid saga.

HT: Hixson

6/4/21 Update: Brent Nongbri has blogged about this here. He’s followed this closer than anybody so read the whole thing. This bit in particular jumped out: “Remember that between the Museum of the Bible and the American collector Andrew Stimer, who is said to have bought 6 stolen EES fragments from a business partner of Prof. Obbink, a total of 40 pieces have been returned to the EES. Now, the EES has said that 120 papyri are missing from its collection. That means 80 Oxyrhynchus papyri remain missing.” 

Lingering Questions about First-Century Mark

I have actively tried to avoid posting too many speculative thoughts about all the new revelations and comments over the past week on the First-Century Mark (henceforth, FCM) ordeal, but a couple of questions are lingering in my mind, so I want to throw them out there. Admittedly, I have not kept up well with what people are saying on Twitter/other blogs, so my apologies if someone has already asked these questions. If anyone has, I am unaware of it and am not trying to plagiarise anyone. I'm happy to amend this post to share a link to someone else asking these questions if anyone knows of it.

1. Did Hobby Lobby pay for FCM or not? There's a Purchase Agreement that sure does suggest that they did pay money for it and other items.

If we assume that they did, in fact, pay money for it:

2. Did they get their money back at any point?

The answer to this second question leads to more questions though.

2a. If they did not get their money back, why not?

2b. If they did get their money back, on what grounds, exactly? Was it an easy process? Was it initiated by the seller when the seller first realised that there was a problem? Was it initiated by Hobby Lobby but went smoothly because everyone realised that there was some kind of problem? Did the process drag out? Were lawyers involved? What was the precise reason given for grounds to get the money back, and how easily/difficultly was this reason accepted?

I guess the thing I keep thinking about is that if you were to return a high-priced item and try to get your money back, I imagine you'd probably have to give a good reason for doing so. After all, the Purchase Agreement that Mike Holmes released reads to me like a binding contract. Even if they never actually paid money for the items in the Purchase Agreement, I would imagine that my question 2b above still applies. It seems to me that there must have been a reason given for why the agreement was broken if it was indeed broken—regardless of whether it was broken by being cancelled or by the money being returned (are there other ways to break such an agreement?). I imagine something like that is not broken easily. Then again, I don't know the legal ins and outs of how buying antiquities works.

If I'm right in my speculation that such a Purchase Agreement would not be broken easily, I would be very interested to know the answers to some of those questions I posed above.

Jerry Pattengale on ‘First-Century Mark’

Christianity Today has just published an article from Jerry Pattengale: “The ‘First-Century Mark’ Saga from Inside the Room.”

Palaeography of an invoice

One thing I’ve already seen since Holmes’ email last night (see some discussion by Brent Nongbri here and here) is a questioning of the authenticity of the First-century Gospels invoice. Some have cautioned against taking it at face value. I even had one conservative Christian ask me directly this morning if I think it is real.

I don’t have any reason to doubt that it’s real, but I also think we can quantify that a little bit. Are we not text critics? Is it not part of our job to analyze handwriting on handwritten documents? I don’t mean to make light of a very serious situation, but I do think it could be helpful to post an analysis like this. I freely admit that I am not trained in contemporary forensic handwriting analysis, so my thoughts here should not be taken as definitive. I am only analysing the letters as I would give an informal analysis on the fly if a friend asked me to describe the letters in a Greek NT manuscript. I’m pretty sure the date of the Mark fragment itself is proof that an opinion can change when something is studied in greater detail.

With that in mind, I offer this assessment of the handwriting of two samples. The first is the handwriting on the invoice where it is signed Dirk Obbink, which I designate INV in the discussions that follow. I have not used the signature line in the comparison, because it is qualitatively a different style—it is a ‘signature’ style, rather than a ‘print’ hand used elsewhere.

“INV”

The other is the handwriting of the paper note, which I designate PAP.

“PAP”

Descriptions for each letter are below the screenshots of them.

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."

United States Department of Justice announces Hobby Lobby Cuneiform Verdict

Earlier today, the United States filed a civil complaint to forfeit thousands of cuneiform tablets and clay bullae. As alleged in the complaint, these ancient clay artifacts originated in the area of modern-day Iraq and were smuggled into the United States through the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel, contrary to federal law. Packages containing the artifacts were shipped to Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (“Hobby Lobby”), a nationwide arts-and-crafts retailer based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and two of Hobby Lobby’s corporate affiliates. The shipping labels on these packages falsely described cuneiform tablets as tile “samples.”

Read the complete verdict, here.