11 ms·

Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

150 points by samclemens 7y ago

ctdonath 7y ago
The founder of Hobby Lobby has an amazing collection of historic religious texts (I've seen them). The retail chain does not.
- simonklitj 7y ago
  Which ones? Primarily Christian?
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    Mostly Christian, yes. There are some Jewish relics, and a few other items. Much of the collection is very old/rare, seriously museum-level content & quantity. Content includes: Gutenberg Bible, first-printing King James Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, metal-imprinted Torah, famous misprints ("thou shalt commit adultery"), jewel-encrusted Bible given by Yassar Arafat, bible illustrated by Salvador Dali, and lots of ancillary relics I don't recall at the moment. If you get a chance to view the traveling museum, do so (regardless of your inclinations).
    - simonklitj 7y ago
      Oh, wow! Thanks. Would seriously love to see that.
- totalperspectiv 7y ago
  Is his name L Bob Rife?
  - taneq 7y ago
    I just wanna try using Reason.
- commandar 7y ago
  FWIW, and with minimal snark, they literally went all the way to SCOTUS to blur the line between the two.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That’s not quite the correct framing. The RFRA allows a “person” to sue the government where a law impinges on the person’s “exercise of religion.” Hobby Lobby involved two separate issues. One, does “person” for purposes of the RFRA include a corporation? The Court answered yes, that’s the usual meaning absent contrary intent. Two, is a privately held for profit corporation a “person” capable of "exercising religion?" DHHS conceded that non-profit corporations were capable of exercising religion. (The dissent did not dispute that either.) So the Court's decision was a straight-forward application of that concession, based on finding no reason why a for-profit corporation should be treated differently.[1] The underlying principle therefore wasn’t “blurry." Corporations have separate assets from their owners. But they are controlled and operated by people for various purposes. The government cannot use the fact that the inanimate entity lacks rights in order to indirectly impinge on the rights of the people who legally own and operate the corporation. That basic principle wasn't disputed by either DHHS or the dissent. The only issue was whether for-profit corporations should somehow be treated differently than non-profits. And that general principle is clearly correct. Thought experiment: can Donald Trump issue an executive order requiring Google to post in its front page a banner encouraging people to vote for him? If not, why not? Whose rights are violated? [1] I actually disagree with the DHHS's concession. Corporations can't "exercise religion." For this particular case the distinction ends up being academic, because that just means that the owners are the ones who should have brought the RFRA suit, not the corporation. The owners of Hobby Lobby definitely can exercise religion, and regulating a corporation they have the right to control can be an infringement of that right. As Kennedy noted in concurrence, the holding of the case is narrow.
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      And how does the law go with regard to participation in criminal activity by a privately held corporation?
- mey 7y ago
  https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-artifacts-trnd/index.html https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-arti... The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Was the founder just using the company as a front to collect dubiously legal artifacts perhaps? Basically as a way to insulate himself behind his company in case some irate government came looking for them.
    - mey 7y ago
      Considering the relation between Hobby Lobby (father) and the Museum of the Bible (son), I would be shocked if there was any corporate veil left intact on the Hobby Lobby side. It is a private entity, so not sure the shareholders have much desire to complain about the running of the organization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scanda... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      Don't they have a status of "closely held"? As in - they definitely should be liable for criminal actions in the name of the company. Otherwise it's not "closely held"
LegitShady 7y ago
This clickbait headline should be a bannable offense on HN
- mcphage 7y ago
  How is this clickbait?
  - sigzero 7y ago
    Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? "An investigation found that Bible fragments in a museum started BY THE OWNERS of the arts-and-crafts chain had been illegally taken from the university."
    - jacobush 7y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21322892&goto=item%3Fid%3D21319460%2321322892 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21322892&goto=item%3Fi...
    - lghh 7y ago
      According to them, and the case they got to the Supreme Court, the difference between the owners and the org itself is nearly non-existent.
    - empath75 7y ago
      > The Egypt Exploration Society began an investigation in June after a director of the Bible museum released a redacted copy of a 2013 contract between the professor, Dr. Dirk Obbink, and Hobby Lobby stores for the sale of six items, including four thought to be from the Oxyrhynchus collection. The contract is with the company. The company gave it to the museum.
    - mcphage 7y ago
      > Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? If Hobby Lobby (the company) can't fund birth control because it offends THE OWNERS, then I'm not sure that THE OWNERS really consider the distinction between the two as strong as you do.
romaaeterna 7y ago
The Obbink stuff has been on slow boil for a few years now. Part of the problem is that even ancient papyri texts aren't actually worth anything, unless they are really famous, but they are getting caught up by all the export regulations for gold and jewels (sometimes under new interpretations of law). Obbink has made some poor decisions, but I feel that the rules have changed on his watch. Also, while "Hobby Lobby" is a fun way to denigrate the people involved here, they are actually behind the Bible Museum in D.C., probably the most important Biblical antiquities collection in the world, and were purchased for museum display. That said, the museum acquisition team has run into export issues before, and their team was caught buying items from Saudi Arabians without a proper chain of custody (and therefore likely looted), and shipping it back to the US under false pretenses. Not good, but a big part of it is that they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms. (I wish I could read this article, but my usual NYT tricks aren't working.)
- Jun8 7y ago
  +1 When random comments on HN carry more journalistic heft than NYT articles titled like Reddit posts we have a problem!
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- js2 7y ago
  The headline is factually correct. The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores, not between him and the museum, which didn't yet exist. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads: "Thirteen fragments from the collection were found in the Museum of the Bible, a Washington institution founded by Hobby Lobby’s evangelical Christian owners, the Green family." So the headline is correct and the article provides additional details. Also, I don't see what the worth of the texts has anything to do with it. Here's the statement from the EES: https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-papyri https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-... "These texts were taken without authorisation from the EES" is theft regardless of the value of those texts. Edit: if this article has any bias, I don't see it. It is short and filled with facts. I has a dozen links to sources. It implies that the Museum of the Bible could do a better job verifying its acquisitions, but it points out that other museums could too ("Museums in general have faced increased scrutiny over the origins of their prized antiquities"). Unless some facts have been left out, this seems like a good article to me and the type of reporting we should applaud.
driverdan 7y ago
> a big part of it is that they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms. This is laughable considering Hobby Lobby is run by religious bigots.
- weberc2 7y ago
  Is there anything to substantiate this, or is this a generic "Christian therefore bigot" slur?
  - ljf 7y ago
    https://rewire.news/article/2015/07/15/hobby-lobby-blocking-contraception-access-religious-liberty/ https://rewire.news/article/2015/07/15/hobby-lobby-blocking-...
    - weberc2 7y ago
      Does that article (and publication) strike you as trustworthy? Does it appear that the author and publication aspire to present a balanced perspective? Would you be persuaded if I linked to a Fox News (or similar) article on the issue?
      - cr0sh 7y ago
        You are aware that there are more articles on this topic than that singular one presented, right? This whole issue was discussed almost to literal death on various discussion boards years ago. An objective view of this issue doesn't paint HL in a good light, imho.
        weberc2 7y ago
        > You are aware that there are more articles on this topic than that singular one presented, right? Yes, I'm sure there are lots of articles, many of which are slanted to support one agenda or another and maybe a few that aspire to present a balanced viewpoint. I'm not sure what your point you're making. > An objective view of this issue doesn't paint HL in a good light, imho. Probably not, but it doesn't support the "hateful bigots" accusation. "Greedy capitalists disingenuously hiding behind religious rights" at worst.
ReggieJJJ 7y ago
It seems extremely prejudicial and even driven by a bigoted and hateful motivation to emphasize the purchaser of the fragment when the story is really about the person who is accused of illegally taking and selling the fragments. It would be like writing the headline like this "Oxford is Officially and International Illegal Historical Artifacts Dealing Organized Criminal Enterprise." if one were to have a bigoted bias against Oxford. When one takes a step back the far worse villain then Hobby Lobby, is definitely Oxford, which was apparently complicit in this type of activity by way of insufficient controls to prevent it. But even that would be ridiculous in many ways, but not as ridiculous as blaming the other victim Hobby Lobby, that was defrauded by the Professor who also used Oxford's credentials and authority to make the sale.
- skywhopper 7y ago
  You are suggesting here that when purchasing such artifacts for a major museum collection, that the Hobby Lobby/Bible Museum owners have zero responsibility to verify the provenance of the artifacts and the legality of their sale. All they have to do is just not ask any probing questions, and they should be able to claim that "we didn't know they were stolen!" Sorry, but that's outrageous.
  - ReggieJJJ 7y ago
    It is not rational or logical that the burden of "provenance" is placed on the purchaser if they are willing to accept the risk that they are being defrauded. It is an utterly illogical and unhealthy mentality to have that one is responsible for the actions of others. Are you responsible for having purchased something that may be ripped off IP, e.g., someone else's pictures or art? I suspect you would make a quick turn about face if you were hauled off to prison/court for having purchased some artwork from someone without having "verified the provenance of the artifacts and the legality of the sale". I get it, the children of the corn are all up in arms and want to smite everyone with their self-righteous stick of indignation, but reality is that YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, not someone else; nor are you responsible for the actions of others. Again, you totally focused on blaming one of the parties/victims of this fraud, while totally avoiding the reality that the only perpetrator here is the Oxford Professor. But based on you illogic, Oxford is even far more implicated and responsible for the actions of their Professor than Hobby Lobby is for buying the artifacts that the Professor could have easily said he acquired by some other means. So let's shut down Oxford for they are guilty of having committed a devious by proxy through another. right? That's your logic, others are responsible for the actions of yet another. What a sick logic and world you imagine. You really have no idea what authoritarian communist hell you are conjuring with that utterly unhealthy false logic, do you? But you will find out soon enough when the jack boots you put in power come knocking on your door because they ran out of everyone else to blame for the crimes of others.
dsimms 7y ago
I should re-read Snowcrash. Was one of those texts the namshub of Enki by any chance?
- maw 7y ago
  Thanks. I was having a "this sounds like something out of ... out of what?" feeling about this. It's out of Snow Crash, of course!
neonate 7y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20191022121515/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/europe/oxford-professor-bible-hobby-lobby.html https://web.archive.org/web/20191022121515/https://www.nytim... http://archive.is/66GpS http://archive.is/66GpS
droithomme 7y ago
Did Oxford University legitimately acquire the ancient texts in the first place or did they steal them/acquire them from thieves, as well? What's the chain of custody on any of these? Why did Hobby Lobby return the many times stolen texts to Oxford instead of to whoever the actual owner is. And when will the stolen Elgin Marbles of the Acropolis be returned by the British Museum to Greece?
temptemptemp111 7y ago
Grabblers

150 points by samclemens 7y ago

The founder of Hobby Lobby has an amazing collection of historic religious texts (I've seen them). The retail chain does not.

simonklitj 7y ago
Which ones? Primarily Christian?
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Mostly Christian, yes. There are some Jewish relics, and a few other items. Much of the collection is very old/rare, seriously museum-level content & quantity. Content includes: Gutenberg Bible, first-printing King James Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, metal-imprinted Torah, famous misprints ("thou shalt commit adultery"), jewel-encrusted Bible given by Yassar Arafat, bible illustrated by Salvador Dali, and lots of ancillary relics I don't recall at the moment. If you get a chance to view the traveling museum, do so (regardless of your inclinations).
  - simonklitj 7y ago
    Oh, wow! Thanks. Would seriously love to see that.
totalperspectiv 7y ago
Is his name L Bob Rife?
- taneq 7y ago
  I just wanna try using Reason.
commandar 7y ago
FWIW, and with minimal snark, they literally went all the way to SCOTUS to blur the line between the two.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s not quite the correct framing. The RFRA allows a “person” to sue the government where a law impinges on the person’s “exercise of religion.” Hobby Lobby involved two separate issues. One, does “person” for purposes of the RFRA include a corporation? The Court answered yes, that’s the usual meaning absent contrary intent. Two, is a privately held for profit corporation a “person” capable of "exercising religion?" DHHS conceded that non-profit corporations were capable of exercising religion. (The dissent did not dispute that either.) So the Court's decision was a straight-forward application of that concession, based on finding no reason why a for-profit corporation should be treated differently.[1] The underlying principle therefore wasn’t “blurry." Corporations have separate assets from their owners. But they are controlled and operated by people for various purposes. The government cannot use the fact that the inanimate entity lacks rights in order to indirectly impinge on the rights of the people who legally own and operate the corporation. That basic principle wasn't disputed by either DHHS or the dissent. The only issue was whether for-profit corporations should somehow be treated differently than non-profits. And that general principle is clearly correct. Thought experiment: can Donald Trump issue an executive order requiring Google to post in its front page a banner encouraging people to vote for him? If not, why not? Whose rights are violated? [1] I actually disagree with the DHHS's concession. Corporations can't "exercise religion." For this particular case the distinction ends up being academic, because that just means that the owners are the ones who should have brought the RFRA suit, not the corporation. The owners of Hobby Lobby definitely can exercise religion, and regulating a corporation they have the right to control can be an infringement of that right. As Kennedy noted in concurrence, the holding of the case is narrow.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    And how does the law go with regard to participation in criminal activity by a privately held corporation?
mey 7y ago
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-artifacts-trnd/index.html https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-arti... The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Was the founder just using the company as a front to collect dubiously legal artifacts perhaps? Basically as a way to insulate himself behind his company in case some irate government came looking for them.
  - mey 7y ago
    Considering the relation between Hobby Lobby (father) and the Museum of the Bible (son), I would be shocked if there was any corporate veil left intact on the Hobby Lobby side. It is a private entity, so not sure the shareholders have much desire to complain about the running of the organization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scanda... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible
  - JAlexoid 7y ago
    Don't they have a status of "closely held"? As in - they definitely should be liable for criminal actions in the name of the company. Otherwise it's not "closely held"

LegitShady 7y ago

This clickbait headline should be a bannable offense on HN

mcphage 7y ago
How is this clickbait?
- sigzero 7y ago
  Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? "An investigation found that Bible fragments in a museum started BY THE OWNERS of the arts-and-crafts chain had been illegally taken from the university."
  - jacobush 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21322892&goto=item%3Fid%3D21319460%2321322892 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21322892&goto=item%3Fi...
  - lghh 7y ago
    According to them, and the case they got to the Supreme Court, the difference between the owners and the org itself is nearly non-existent.
  - empath75 7y ago
    > The Egypt Exploration Society began an investigation in June after a director of the Bible museum released a redacted copy of a 2013 contract between the professor, Dr. Dirk Obbink, and Hobby Lobby stores for the sale of six items, including four thought to be from the Oxyrhynchus collection. The contract is with the company. The company gave it to the museum.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? If Hobby Lobby (the company) can't fund birth control because it offends THE OWNERS, then I'm not sure that THE OWNERS really consider the distinction between the two as strong as you do.

romaaeterna 7y ago

The Obbink stuff has been on slow boil for a few years now. Part of the problem is that even ancient papyri texts aren't actually worth anything, unless they are really famous, but they are getting caught up by all the export regulations for gold and jewels (sometimes under new interpretations of law). Obbink has made some poor decisions, but I feel that the rules have changed on his watch. Also, while "Hobby Lobby" is a fun way to denigrate the people involved here, they are actually behind the Bible Museum in D.C., probably the most important Biblical antiquities collection in the world, and were purchased for museum display. That said, the museum acquisition team has run into export issues before, and their team was caught buying items from Saudi Arabians without a proper chain of custody (and therefore likely looted), and shipping it back to the US under false pretenses. Not good, but a big part of it is that they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms. (I wish I could read this article, but my usual NYT tricks aren't working.)

Jun8 7y ago
+1 When random comments on HN carry more journalistic heft than NYT articles titled like Reddit posts we have a problem!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
js2 7y ago
The headline is factually correct. The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores, not between him and the museum, which didn't yet exist. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads: "Thirteen fragments from the collection were found in the Museum of the Bible, a Washington institution founded by Hobby Lobby’s evangelical Christian owners, the Green family." So the headline is correct and the article provides additional details. Also, I don't see what the worth of the texts has anything to do with it. Here's the statement from the EES: https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-papyri https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-... "These texts were taken without authorisation from the EES" is theft regardless of the value of those texts. Edit: if this article has any bias, I don't see it. It is short and filled with facts. I has a dozen links to sources. It implies that the Museum of the Bible could do a better job verifying its acquisitions, but it points out that other museums could too ("Museums in general have faced increased scrutiny over the origins of their prized antiquities"). Unless some facts have been left out, this seems like a good article to me and the type of reporting we should applaud.

driverdan 7y ago

> a big part of it is that they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms. This is laughable considering Hobby Lobby is run by religious bigots.

weberc2 7y ago
Is there anything to substantiate this, or is this a generic "Christian therefore bigot" slur?
- ljf 7y ago
  https://rewire.news/article/2015/07/15/hobby-lobby-blocking-contraception-access-religious-liberty/ https://rewire.news/article/2015/07/15/hobby-lobby-blocking-...
  - weberc2 7y ago
    Does that article (and publication) strike you as trustworthy? Does it appear that the author and publication aspire to present a balanced perspective? Would you be persuaded if I linked to a Fox News (or similar) article on the issue?
    - cr0sh 7y ago
      You are aware that there are more articles on this topic than that singular one presented, right? This whole issue was discussed almost to literal death on various discussion boards years ago. An objective view of this issue doesn't paint HL in a good light, imho.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        > You are aware that there are more articles on this topic than that singular one presented, right? Yes, I'm sure there are lots of articles, many of which are slanted to support one agenda or another and maybe a few that aspire to present a balanced viewpoint. I'm not sure what your point you're making. > An objective view of this issue doesn't paint HL in a good light, imho. Probably not, but it doesn't support the "hateful bigots" accusation. "Greedy capitalists disingenuously hiding behind religious rights" at worst.

ReggieJJJ 7y ago

It seems extremely prejudicial and even driven by a bigoted and hateful motivation to emphasize the purchaser of the fragment when the story is really about the person who is accused of illegally taking and selling the fragments. It would be like writing the headline like this "Oxford is Officially and International Illegal Historical Artifacts Dealing Organized Criminal Enterprise." if one were to have a bigoted bias against Oxford. When one takes a step back the far worse villain then Hobby Lobby, is definitely Oxford, which was apparently complicit in this type of activity by way of insufficient controls to prevent it. But even that would be ridiculous in many ways, but not as ridiculous as blaming the other victim Hobby Lobby, that was defrauded by the Professor who also used Oxford's credentials and authority to make the sale.

skywhopper 7y ago
You are suggesting here that when purchasing such artifacts for a major museum collection, that the Hobby Lobby/Bible Museum owners have zero responsibility to verify the provenance of the artifacts and the legality of their sale. All they have to do is just not ask any probing questions, and they should be able to claim that "we didn't know they were stolen!" Sorry, but that's outrageous.
- ReggieJJJ 7y ago
  It is not rational or logical that the burden of "provenance" is placed on the purchaser if they are willing to accept the risk that they are being defrauded. It is an utterly illogical and unhealthy mentality to have that one is responsible for the actions of others. Are you responsible for having purchased something that may be ripped off IP, e.g., someone else's pictures or art? I suspect you would make a quick turn about face if you were hauled off to prison/court for having purchased some artwork from someone without having "verified the provenance of the artifacts and the legality of the sale". I get it, the children of the corn are all up in arms and want to smite everyone with their self-righteous stick of indignation, but reality is that YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, not someone else; nor are you responsible for the actions of others. Again, you totally focused on blaming one of the parties/victims of this fraud, while totally avoiding the reality that the only perpetrator here is the Oxford Professor. But based on you illogic, Oxford is even far more implicated and responsible for the actions of their Professor than Hobby Lobby is for buying the artifacts that the Professor could have easily said he acquired by some other means. So let's shut down Oxford for they are guilty of having committed a devious by proxy through another. right? That's your logic, others are responsible for the actions of yet another. What a sick logic and world you imagine. You really have no idea what authoritarian communist hell you are conjuring with that utterly unhealthy false logic, do you? But you will find out soon enough when the jack boots you put in power come knocking on your door because they ran out of everyone else to blame for the crimes of others.

dsimms 7y ago

I should re-read Snowcrash. Was one of those texts the namshub of Enki by any chance?

maw 7y ago
Thanks. I was having a "this sounds like something out of ... out of what?" feeling about this. It's out of Snow Crash, of course!

neonate 7y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20191022121515/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/europe/oxford-professor-bible-hobby-lobby.html https://web.archive.org/web/20191022121515/https://www.nytim... http://archive.is/66GpS http://archive.is/66GpS

droithomme 7y ago

Did Oxford University legitimately acquire the ancient texts in the first place or did they steal them/acquire them from thieves, as well? What's the chain of custody on any of these? Why did Hobby Lobby return the many times stolen texts to Oxford instead of to whoever the actual owner is. And when will the stolen Elgin Marbles of the Acropolis be returned by the British Museum to Greece?

temptemptemp111 7y ago

Grabblers