6 ms·

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

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.
  - acomjean 7y ago
    Possession of stolen goods is in fact a crime. It’s usually minor not prosecuted, but it does involve returning the stolen property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods There is also the irony of the professor stealing biblical fragments. (Thou shal not...)
  - keoeoOeo8 7y ago
    You do realize the legal perspective on this idea is hundreds of years old and influenced by Biblical views of right & wrong, yes? Someone all warmed up by contemporary political headlines raging about how reality works in a vacuum ignoring society has never really felt beholden to such views. Pretty good argument for not pretending it ever can be, despite your obvious emotional addiction to thinking it must.
  - dang 7y ago
    Since after repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our explanations and requests to stop, you keep bringing personal attacks and ideological flamewar into the threads, we've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break the HN guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ReggieJJJ 7y ago
      I get it, you're an unprincipled hack that cannot stand not hearing your favorite things to hear. You really should try to not be such a vile and horrible person. People around you suffer from what wretched of a person you are. Stop harming people and stop abusing the power you cannot constrain yourself from abusing. You are literally committing human rights abuses by suppressing free speech. Did you ever think you would achieve that goal of yours, becoming a member of the list of human rights violators?
trhway 7y ago
>>The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores >extremely prejudicial ... 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. i think laws are pretty consistent everywhere in civilized world - knowingly purchasing stolen staff is a crime, and buying ancient texts from an Oxford professor instead of buying them from Oxford doesn't really pass smell test (or like they say in legalese something like what would a "reasonable man" do)
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  That anything was stolen is a new accusation. The accusations against Obbink previously have all been impropriety-related, related to dealing with the Hobby Lobby people at all. It's rather surprising (perhaps "fantastical" ?) that all of the rumors turned up such a smoking gun after all these years. This is a case where the 80%/20% rule didn't apply, and the real answer turned out to be 150%. Here's where things stood a few months ago: https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-museum-of-the-bible-a-brief-history/ https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-muse...
  - microtherion 7y ago
    It seems to me that your link and its comments give plenty of hints that property is suspected of having been misappropriated, e.g. "The sheer volume of all these new texts was raising concern." or https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-museum-of-the-bible-a-brief-history/#comment-18641 https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-muse... Given that some of the people involved are deep pocketed and litigious, and British defamation law appears to be fairly plaintiff friendly, the participants in that discussion probably exercised extra caution.
    - romaaeterna 7y ago
      Sure, but people were thinking artifact smugglers and shady dealers and Obbink looking the other way, not theft from collections under his own care. Obbink is famous and well-known. He has published some of the most important papyri of the last decade. This is pretty brazen, if true.
JAlexoid 7y ago
Are you sure that you're not prejudiced on the side of Hobby Lobby? Because you're defending Hobby Lobby over something that they are not even accused of. It's a matter of fact that they bought it, without due diligence.

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.
- acomjean 7y ago
  Possession of stolen goods is in fact a crime. It’s usually minor not prosecuted, but it does involve returning the stolen property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods There is also the irony of the professor stealing biblical fragments. (Thou shal not...)
- keoeoOeo8 7y ago
  You do realize the legal perspective on this idea is hundreds of years old and influenced by Biblical views of right & wrong, yes? Someone all warmed up by contemporary political headlines raging about how reality works in a vacuum ignoring society has never really felt beholden to such views. Pretty good argument for not pretending it ever can be, despite your obvious emotional addiction to thinking it must.
- dang 7y ago
  Since after repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our explanations and requests to stop, you keep bringing personal attacks and ideological flamewar into the threads, we've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break the HN guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ReggieJJJ 7y ago
    I get it, you're an unprincipled hack that cannot stand not hearing your favorite things to hear. You really should try to not be such a vile and horrible person. People around you suffer from what wretched of a person you are. Stop harming people and stop abusing the power you cannot constrain yourself from abusing. You are literally committing human rights abuses by suppressing free speech. Did you ever think you would achieve that goal of yours, becoming a member of the list of human rights violators?

trhway 7y ago

>>The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores >extremely prejudicial ... 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. i think laws are pretty consistent everywhere in civilized world - knowingly purchasing stolen staff is a crime, and buying ancient texts from an Oxford professor instead of buying them from Oxford doesn't really pass smell test (or like they say in legalese something like what would a "reasonable man" do)

romaaeterna 7y ago
That anything was stolen is a new accusation. The accusations against Obbink previously have all been impropriety-related, related to dealing with the Hobby Lobby people at all. It's rather surprising (perhaps "fantastical" ?) that all of the rumors turned up such a smoking gun after all these years. This is a case where the 80%/20% rule didn't apply, and the real answer turned out to be 150%. Here's where things stood a few months ago: https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-museum-of-the-bible-a-brief-history/ https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-muse...
- microtherion 7y ago
  It seems to me that your link and its comments give plenty of hints that property is suspected of having been misappropriated, e.g. "The sheer volume of all these new texts was raising concern." or https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-museum-of-the-bible-a-brief-history/#comment-18641 https://brentnongbri.com/2019/07/03/dirk-obbink-and-the-muse... Given that some of the people involved are deep pocketed and litigious, and British defamation law appears to be fairly plaintiff friendly, the participants in that discussion probably exercised extra caution.
  - romaaeterna 7y ago
    Sure, but people were thinking artifact smugglers and shady dealers and Obbink looking the other way, not theft from collections under his own care. Obbink is famous and well-known. He has published some of the most important papyri of the last decade. This is pretty brazen, if true.

JAlexoid 7y ago

Are you sure that you're not prejudiced on the side of Hobby Lobby? Because you're defending Hobby Lobby over something that they are not even accused of. It's a matter of fact that they bought it, without due diligence.