
Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts - samclemens
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/europe/oxford-professor-bible-hobby-lobby.html
======
neonate
[https://web.archive.org/web/20191022121515/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191022121515/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/europe/oxford-
professor-bible-hobby-lobby.html)

[http://archive.is/66GpS](http://archive.is/66GpS)

------
romaaeterna
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.)

~~~
js2
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-...](https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-papyri)

"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.

~~~
mbostleman
"but it points out that other museums could too"

That's the bias right there. There is a broader problem here, but that's not
indicated in the headline. Hobby Lobby was specifically targeted in the
headline to create emotional engagement. Not the end of the world. Not a vast
conspiracy - they need to sell clicks and paper. But not totally honest
either.

~~~
TimTheTinker
That's a good point, but astute readers aren't likely to be misled by
headlines alone.

Unfortunately, headline scanning for confirmation bias of one's current
beliefs is rampant. This means (a) biased headlines will get more clicks, and
(b) such headlines do constitute a certain lack of honesty in journalism,
because of the likelihood that they will mislead many readers.

~~~
LegitShady
You don't mislead in headlines for astute readers so there isn't a point in
discussing that. You mislead in headlines for everyone else.

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

~~~
mey
[https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-
arti...](https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-artifacts-
trnd/index.html)

The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.

~~~
jandrese
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
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_scanda...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible)

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

~~~
maw
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!

------
droithomme
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?

------
ReggieJJJ
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
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.

------
LegitShady
This clickbait headline should be a bannable offense on HN

~~~
dahart
Who or what would you ban? The New York Times? The submitter who used the NYT
title verbatim, according to HN guidelines?

~~~
zamadatix
The guidelines specifically call out linkbait titles: "please use the original
title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" so in the parent comments argument
that the title is clickbait it certainly isn't "according to HN guidelines".

I'd be interested in what the ratio of users that only know portions of the
guidelines that are often repeated in comments vs those that have actually
read through the guidelines.

~~~
dahart
> The guidelines specifically call out linkbait titles:

That's true, they do. And the parent comment here claimed linkbait. The
suggested guideline is to _default_ to the original title first, and avoid
editorializing by _default_ , that's the spirit of the rule, and then if the
title is egregious, try to fix the wording to be less misleading.

There are lots of possibilities, one of them is that the submitter doesn't
know or doesn't believe the title is linkbait. One of them is that @LegitShady
has an opinion that is shared by a minority or nobody.

The problem with suggesting a ban when not editorializing titles is that it
assumes linkbait is clear and absolutely recognizable, and that everyone
agrees. Banning someone for an offense they might not be able to recognize in
advance is a draconian measure that will reduce the quality of open discussion
here. We already have mechanisms that help filter bad titles, including
article downvotes, a flagging system, and moderators that actively respond to
title wording complaints.

> I'd be interested in what the ratio of users that only know portions of the
> guidelines that are often repeated in comments vs those that have actually
> read through the guidelines.

I'd likewise be interested in what ratio of users read a comment and use
assumptions to jump to a hard conclusion that denies benefit of the doubt
without acknowledging the possibility that other causes are possible,
including their own misinterpretation.

Having read through the guidelines completely, I know that reading with
charitable interpretations and giving benefit of the doubt is in the spirit of
the guidelines. With respect to the top comment here, I humbly suggest that
banning anyone for using verbatim titles goes directly against the spirit of
HN, and the literal wording of the guidelines too.

~~~
zamadatix
Speaking of reading a comment and using assumptions to jump to a hard
conclusion: The "ratio of users" comment wasn't directed at you personally it
was directed at wondering how many are voting your comment up in the
discussion assuming "The submitter who used the NYT title verbatim, according
to HN guidelines?" is all the guidelines had to say since you made no allusion
this was simply your interpretation and not all the guidelines say about
titles.

I don't even agree with LegitShady I just find it disingenuous to disagree
purely by stating your interpretation of the guidelines as if that's all the
guidelines had to say about clickbait. It's tautological that if you disagree
your interpretation is that the guidelines disagree and it just masks the
minority opinion rather than discussion the opinion.

Personally I my interpretation is a bit stronger on changing linkbait titles
(though really you should just try to find a less linkbaity source) but
banning is a definitely overkill (even if likely to be simply exaggeration
instead of a recommendation). I probably should have included this in my
original comment to make my intent clearer.

