Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:06 am

http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2019/ ... eline.html

Timeline
1903: papyrus found at Oxyrhynchus
According to the EES (24 May 2018), this is the most likely date for when Grenfell and Hunt found the papyrus at Oxyrhynchus.

Early 1980s: preliminary dating to 1st century
According to the EES (24 May 2018), this is when Dr Revel Coles provisionally dated the papyrus to 'I/II' (i.e. first or second century CE), but without identifying it.

2011: papyrus identified as Mark
According to the EES (24 May 2018), this is when ‘a researcher working for Professor Obbink’ identified the papyrus as the gospel of Mark.

2011: Obbink shows the papyrus to Carroll and Pattengale
According to Dr Jerry Pattengale (28 June 2019), in 2011 Dr Dirk Obbink showed four papyri to Pattengale and Scott Carroll in his rooms at Christ Church, Oxford, which later became part of a purchase agreement (see below, 17 Jan. 2013). On 1 Dec. 2011 Carroll tweeted that P. Rylands 457 (P52) was no longer the earliest known NT manuscript.

1 Feb. 2012: the Wallace-Ehrman debate
In the debate Professor Dan Wallace states:
The oldest manuscript of the New Testament is now a fragment from Mark’s gospel that is from the first century. How accurate is the dating? Well, my source is a papyrologist who worked on this manuscript, a man whose reputation is unimpeachable. Many consider him to be the best papyrologist on the planet. His reputation is on the line with this dating and he knows it. But he is certain that this manuscript was from the first century.
Wallace goes on to say, later on in the Q&A:
I’m afraid I can’t tell you [the extent of the manuscript or who dated it], and the reason is because this whole project is rather hush-hush right now until the publisher comes out a year from now. I can tell you the publisher is E. J. Brill, and so it’s a reputable publisher, and I’ve been sworn to secrecy on the rest of the data.
Later Wallace states (23 May 2018) that, just prior to the debate, a representative of the purchaser ‘urged me to make the announcement at the debate’ and assured him that the date was reliable. He adds that ‘at some point along the line’ he learnt that the representative already knew that the source of the date was not as certain as all that, and ‘that the rep knew, two weeks prior to the debate, that the papyrologist had changed his views. But I was told none of this.’

Pattengale (28 June 2019) identifies this representative as Scott Carroll. In Carroll’s version of the conversation (29 June 2019), Carroll only mentioned the papyrus to Wallace in passing; Wallace asked Carroll for permission to make the announcement; and Carroll told Wallace that Hobby Lobby did not own the papyrus.

Later in February and March similar reports came out, stated by Carroll, Wallace, and Wallace again, with certainty about the 1st century dating, but no new information.

2012: Wallace’s NDA and inspection of the papyrus
According to Wallace (11 June 2018), in 2012 he was informed that the papyrus was being sold, and was asked by the purchaser to vet it. For this purpose, he was informed by Pattengale that the seller required Wallace to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The NDA may have happened before the debate (above), since in the debate he mentions being sworn to secrecy. However, he also says (25 May 2018) that he only got to see the papyrus later, after the debate.

17 Jan.-4 Feb. 2013: purchase agreement signed
A scanned copy of the purchase agreement was made public by Dr Michael Holmes (June 2019). The agreement is signed by Obbink and a representative of Hobby Lobby. Six items are sold in Obbink's name, including four NT papyri dated to ‘circa 0100 AD’.

6 Sep. 2013: Carroll describing new papyrus finds
In a presentation, Carroll discusses recent finds of biblical papyri and refers to ‘a first-century text of the Gospel of Mark ... that dates between 70 and 110’, and shows a list of several papyri on screen. The list seems to have some overlap with the ones listed in the purchase agreement (above) and in Obbink’s handwritten list, kept by Pattengale (see below, 24 Nov. 2017).

Carroll’s list of recent finds of biblical papyri, 6 Sep. 2013 (my highlighting)
October 2015: Carroll reports Obbink’s dating
Carroll, interviewed by Josh McDowell, states that
Hobby Lobby tried to acquire the papyrus in 2012-2013 -- Carroll wanted it to be part of an exhibit for the Vatican Library -- ‘but they delayed and didn’t.’
‘It has since been acquired, I can’t say by whom. It is in the process of being prepared for publication’, and in the publishing process ‘the most important person of note is Dirk Obbink.’
Carroll saw the papyrus twice; on both occasions ‘it was in [Obbink’s] possession’.
Obbink ‘was wrestling with dating somewhere between 70 AD and 120, 110’.

2015: Obbink’s statement to The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast reports (25 May 2018) that in communications dating to 2015, Obbink refused to discuss ‘FCM’ or the Green Collection, and told them that he was ‘not involved in the study of [the Green] collection’.

Spring 2016: EES inventory of unpublished NT papyri
According to the EES (24 May 2018), this is when the EES decided to review NT fragments in their collection that had been identified but not published. They made this decision, they say, in response to social media discussion of the purchase of 'FCM'.

It was in the course of this review that the EES identified P. Oxy. 5345 as the ‘FCM’ being publicly discussed, and they instructed Obbink to prepare it for publication quickly.

In a later statement, the EES reports (7 Mar. 2019) that among the unpublished material they identified 20 NT papyri, 10 patristic texts, and 80 Septuagint papyri.

August 2016: Obbink steps down as general editor of the Oxyrhynchus papyri
This date is given in the EES statement of 25 June 2019.

14 July 2017: Carroll’s report made public
At this point Peter Curry posted online a transcript of Carroll’s statement in October 2015.

16 Nov. 2017: Pattengale realises there is a problem
Pattengale states (28 June 2019) that in November 2017 he realized that a serious ethical breach was being discussed at the opening gala of the Museum of the Bible. He took a photo of the people having the conversation, and he ‘immediately’ sent communications to the museum management.


Pattengale’s photo
(metadata removed)
24 Nov. 2017: Pattengale’s photo of Obbink’s list
Pattengale takes a photo of a handwritten list of four papyri, apparently the same ones listed in the 2013 purchase agreement. The handwriting matches Obbink's signature in the purchase agreement.

The photo was in the material that Mike Holmes released in June 2019. Holmes says that the hand holding the list is Obbink’s: this seems to be a misperception, perhaps coming from someone saying that the list was ‘in Obbink’s hand’ or similar, referring to the handwriting. Pattengale himself states that he took the photo (28 June 2019), and the file metadata show that the photo was taken on this date at 8.52 pm, in a residential area a few minutes from Indiana Wesleyan University, where Pattengale works.

Pattengale goes on to say that he carried the list with him for several years, and he sent the photo to the Museum of the Bible ‘before [his] retirement’ (in 2018). His motivations for taking his photos, and for his treatment of this list, are open to speculation.

The timestamp of Pattengale’s photo
May 2018: publication
The Mark papyrus is published as P. Oxy. 5345, edited by Obbink and Colomo.

23 May 2018: statement from Carroll
Scott Carroll states that
Obbink tried to sell the papyrus to the Green Collection in 2011 and 2013;
Obbink said that the papyrus was ‘in his possession’;
Obbink said it dated to the first century.

23 May 2018: statement from Wallace
Wallace states that, in 2012,
just before the Wallace-Ehrman debate, a representative of the organisation that he believed to be the owner ‘urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral’ (this representative is identified as Scott Carroll in statements by Pattengale, 28 June 2019, and by Carroll himself, 29 June 2019 -- though Carroll describes the conversation quite differently);
he had been required to sign an NDA before being allowed to see the papyrus in 2012;
someone had told him that a collection had already bought the papyrus;
the same person had told him that ‘a high-ranking papyrologist had confirmed that FCM was definitely a first-century manuscript.’
Further details were added to all of these statements in Wallace’s second statement of 11 June 2018.

24 May 2018 (currently available version dated 4 June 2018): statement from EES
The EES states that
they have ‘never sought to sell this or any other papyrus’;
they have no knowledge of the NDA that Wallace describes, and ‘Obbink too says he has no knowledge of it’;
they Obbink ‘insists that he never said the papyrus was for sale, and that while he did receive some payments from the Green Collection for advice on other matters, he did not accept any payment for or towards purchase of this text.'

11 June 2018: statement from Wallace
Wallace states:
His understanding was that the 1st century dating was Obbink's. (This corroborates that Obbink was the 'unimpeachable' papyrologist he was referring to in the 2012 debate.)
He was required to sign an NDA by ‘Jerry Pattengale, who represented a major collection that was interested in purchasing the papyrus.’ Pattengale was one of the ones who told Wallace that the papyrus was definitely for sale, and this is corroborated by Pattengale’s own statement (28 June 2019).
He was informed by Pattengale that the NDA ‘was requested by the seller’.
Wallace’s source for the 1st century dating wasn’t Pattengale, but another representative of the same collection, who is also the person who indicated that Obbink was certain of the date. Pattengale (28 June 2019) identifies Wallace’s informant as Scott Carroll.
Someone -- Wallace doesn't say who -- told Wallace that a ‘condition of the sale was that the seller ... would be free to choose who would edit it.’ That doesn’t appear in the purchase agreement made public by Holmes; but the purchase agreement shows that Obbink himself was named as the seller.
It was Wallace's understanding that the sale continued to be treated as ongoing for some years after 2012.

23 June 2019: statement from Holmes
Brent Nongbri announces that he, and other papyrologists involved in a forthcoming conference panel on the papyrus, have been sent an e-mail about the papyrus from Michael Holmes at the Green Collection. Nongbri publishes the e-mail, which explicitly gives him permission to do so.

Attached to the e-mail is a PDF file with a scanned copy of (part of) the 2013 purchase agreement, and Pattengale’s Nov. 2017 photo.

25 June 2019: statement from EES
This states, ‘We note that Professor Obbink has not been a General Editor of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri since August 2016.’

28 June 2019: statement from Pattengale
Pattengale says many things, including:
Obbink had shown the four papyri to Carroll and himself in his rooms at Christ Church in 2011.
Obbink said on that occasion that the Mark papyrus was ‘very likely first century’.
The papyri were purchased in 2013 ‘at a fraction of their value’.
It was Carroll that ‘prematurely informed Wallace that it was okay to announce’ the Mark papyrus in the 2012 debate.
Pattengale ‘recruited Wallace’ and others who were not ‘willing to vouch with any confidence for a pre-second century date on any of the pieces’.
‘[N]ondisclosure was a non-negotiable’ from the party selling the papyri in 2013.
Before the EES became aware that it possessed the ‘FCM’ being publicly discussed, ‘Obbink reported to Steve Green (chair of the Museum of the Bible’s board) and [Pattengale] that the EES gave him an ultimatum to sever all public ties with [the] museum or be fired’.
In November 2017, at the opening gala of the Museum of the Bible, Pattengale inferred from a conversation between Edwin Yamauchi and David Trobisch that illicit activity was about to be uncovered, and he took a photo of Yamauchi and Trobisch at the dinner table.
Following this incident, he communicated a version of these events to the Greens and the museum leadership.
efore [his] retirement’ from the Museum of the Bible (in 2018), Pattengale sent his photo of Obbink’s list to the museum.

29 June 2019: Carroll’s comment
In a comment on a blog post by Elijah Hixson, in the wake of Pattengale’s statement, Carroll writes:
Carroll repeats that Obbink showed him the Mark papyrus in his office in 2011, and told him that it dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century.
Carroll never signed an NDA.
He describes his conversation with Wallace in 2012 in a way that differs from Wallace’s account: he told Wallace that ‘the dating was based on the opinion of a renowned Oxford scholar’, and says that Wallace asked him if he could mention the papyrus in the debate; he told Wallace that Hobby Lobby didn’t own the papyrus, and that Wallace should use his own discretion. (In Wallace’s account, 23 May 2018, Wallace was ‘sworn to secrecy’, and Carroll urged him to make the announcement.)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Remember Jerry, It's Not A Lie If You Really Believe It's True.

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:09 pm

Signsfelt



JW:


Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2011 Scott Carroll responds
3. The basic elements of my recollection of those initial interactions have not changed since 2011. DO showed me the MK 1 papyrus on the pool table in his office. He said it had been dated to the late 1st or early 2nd c and he then went into some paleographic detail why he believed it must date to the late 1st c. It was in this conversation that he offered it for consideration for HL to buy (w/o mentioning a price). I said I would mention it to them which I did. I seem to remember mentioning it to them on occasion, but they never asked me about it or mentioned it to me. With my departure in June of 2012, I never signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Obbink offers to sell FCM to Hobby Lobby (HL) Scott Carroll F 1. As Gordon Gecko famously said, "The most valuable commodity I know of is information. Wouldn't you agree Paleo." The key to the FCM Scam/Hoax/Conspiracy is knowledge of who the actual owner is. At this point in time the only party aware that EES is the owner is Obfink. Even the actual owner, EES, is not aware that they are the owner. Only the Fake Good News seller is. That's a bad combination.
2. Regarding Scott Carroll credibility, see Ehrman.
3. Looking ahead, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2011 Scott Carroll responds
4. These are my recollections based on my brief conversation about the Mk 1 papyrus with DW. I mentioned it to DW briefly in passing. I told him that the dating was based on the opinion of a renowned Oxford scholar. He mentioned a debate, which I knew nothing of, and asked if he could mention it. I said it wasn't owned by HL so I couldn't speak for them. I told him he would have to use his own discretion. It wasn't my debate and how could I possible tell DW (who I did not know) to do something like that? And for what benefit to HL or DO? I did not have pictures of the papyrus. I do not think there could have been any way possible for DW to have seen Mk 1 before debate.
Scott Carroll tells Daniel Wallace (DW) about FCM before Wallace's debate with Ehrman. Scott Carroll F 1. Scott Carroll is morphing into Sargent Schultz. Everything is brief and he.. knows..nothing! Why would he be interested in a first century fragment of GMark? When Carroll told Green Green probably said sarcastically, "That's very interesting. What'dja have for lunch today."
2012 My Debate with Dan Wallace: Is the Original NT Lost?
This is the debate in which Dan announced that later that year (2012) a newly discovered first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark was to be published.
Daniel Wallace claims in a debate with Bart Ehrman that FCM is first century. Ehrman A 1. Ehrman deserves some criticism for making conclusions about Historical Jesus that are not supported by the evidence but other than that he is generally considered one of the best (if not the best) Textual Critics of all time and very knowledgeable regarding ancient history.
2. Ehrman's blog is prone to making inexact statements such as "first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark" (Wallace and Ehrman both knew that whatever FCM was it was not a copy of GMark, just a fragment).
3. This announcement by DW is what launched FCM into the public arena. Note that American Evangelicals are still reluctant to publicly criticize the American Evangelicals involved, Wallace, Carroll, Pattengale and especially Green. It has mainly been non American evangelicals asking questions/speculating/criticizing.
2013 The ‘First-Century Mark’ Saga from Inside the Room
Eventually, all four pieces were purchased in 2013 for a considerable sum
Obbink "sells" FCM to Green. Jerry Pattengale F 1. For his involvement with Green in general and specifically with FCM he gets a well deserved F for credibility.
2. So Oblink sells FCM, which he did not own, to Green, who also did not know that Oblink did not own, while EES, that did own it, did not know they owned it.
3. Keep in mind that the selling price was everything for Obbink and nothing for Green.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:24 pm

And actually when people are dating papyri, what they're usually doing is they're using other manuscripts that have been basically dated on a cycle of non-securely dated manuscripts. So the science here isn’t really much of a science at all, it’s just a small group of paleographers telling you what their stomach feels like.https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... -east.html
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Ya Just Don't get It

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:07 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l91ISfcuzDw

JW:

For those having difficulties following my voluminous tables (or just short attention spans), a condensed version of the chronology:

Date Summary of Evidence
Pre-recent EES has in its collection what will later become known as FCM. After a brief inspection it is cataloged as first or second century but not identified as from GMark.
2009-2010 Dirk Obbink is buying and selling items to Green that were originally owned by EES but were subsequently given by EES to non-profits.
2011 Dirk Obbink, as editor of EES, has access to EES inventory. An assistant to Obbink discovers that the fragment that becomes known as FCM is from GMark.
2011 Dirk Obbink reveals FCM to Hobby Lobby and offers to sell it to them.
2011 Scott Carroll tells Daniel Wallace (DW) about FCM before Wallace's debate with Ehrman. Carroll also told Wallace that Obbink had The Grail.
2012 Daniel Wallace claims in a debate with Bart Ehrman that FCM is first century. DW had a non-disclosure agreement swearing him to secrecy but told everything. Ironically, when the non-disclosure agreement expired and he could tell everything, he said nothing. This is now known as "The First Century Markianic Secret".
2013 Obwink "sells" FCM to Green. So a seller who does not possess it sells it to a buyer who does not want to possess it. Rumor has it it was for a Dr. Evil type sum.





Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Fragments Just Fantastic That is Really What I Think. Oh by the way Which One's Obbink's?

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:13 pm

What Did I Tell You

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2014 Oxford scholar buys historic Cottonland Castle, distressed Austin Avenue landmark
The sale was a surprise to Jeff Fish, a Baylor classics professor who has been involved in Obbink’s visits to Baylor, where he is a “visiting distinguished professor.”
“I can’t tell you how much that floors me,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”
Fish said Obbink is “the greatest papyrologist in the world,” and Fish could only speculate why he would invest in Waco real estate.
Obbink last year visited Fish’s home in Castle Heights and asked him about the castle, leading the two men to walk down to look at it, Fish said. But Obbink never mentioned it to him again, Fish said.
“He’s a very discreet person, and this is quite an example of that,” he said.
Obbink spent more than $270,000 for the property, said David Tekell, an attorney representing the seller, Clarissa Carter.
Carter and her former partner, Russell Giles, bought the 4,700-square-foot house in 2006 and began to repair it, but the project stalled when the two women had a falling-out, resulting in a legal battle that has not yet been resolved.
Giles deeded the house to Carter this summer, but still claims she is owed some of the proceeds from the sale.
Giles said in an interview Wednesday that she expects that it will take another $200,000 to restore the home, in addition to $125,000 she said she spent replacing wiring, plumbing and plaster ceilings that had fallen because of a leaking roof.
Obsink buys Castle in Waco in 2014 for at least $ 270,000 with estimated fix-up of at least $ 200,000 more. The Eagle A 1. Once again, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Didn't I say lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2. Note that at the time of Obbink's purchase the Castle had an existing legal battle which would appear to be right up Obbink's alley.
3. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Jeff Fish, a classics professor, describes Obbink and his purchase of a Castle here as "discreet".


Joseph

The Colonizing of Israel

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Luka's Fugazi

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:13 am

I'm Only Going To Ask You This One Time

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2014 Oxford scholar buys historic Cottonland Castle, distressed Austin Avenue landmark
The sale was a surprise to Jeff Fish, a Baylor classics professor who has been involved in Obbink’s visits to Baylor, where he is a “visiting distinguished professor.”
“I can’t tell you how much that floors me,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”
Fish said Obbink is “the greatest papyrologist in the world,” and Fish could only speculate why he would invest in Waco real estate.
Obbink last year visited Fish’s home in Castle Heights and asked him about the castle, leading the two men to walk down to look at it, Fish said. But Obbink never mentioned it to him again, Fish said.
“He’s a very discreet person, and this is quite an example of that,” he said.
Obbink spent more than $270,000 for the property, said David Tekell, an attorney representing the seller, Clarissa Carter.
Carter and her former partner, Russell Giles, bought the 4,700-square-foot house in 2006 and began to repair it, but the project stalled when the two women had a falling-out, resulting in a legal battle that has not yet been resolved.
Giles deeded the house to Carter this summer, but still claims she is owed some of the proceeds from the sale.
Giles said in an interview Wednesday that she expects that it will take another $200,000 to restore the home, in addition to $125,000 she said she spent replacing wiring, plumbing and plaster ceilings that had fallen because of a leaking roof.
Obsink buys Castle in Waco in 2014 for at least $ 270,000 with estimated fix-up of at least $ 200,000 more. The Eagle A 1. Once again, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Didn't I say lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2. Note that at the time of Obbink's purchase the Castle had an existing legal battle which would appear to be right up Obbink's alley.
3. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Jeff Fish, a classics professor, describes Obbink and his purchase of a Castle here as "discreet".
c. 2015 The ‘First-Century Mark’ Saga from Inside the Room
Before the EES became aware of this particular case, that the “First-Century Mark” was actually its own, Obbink reported to Steve Green (chair of the Museum of the Bible’s board) and me that the EES gave him an ultimatum to sever all public ties with our museum or be fired. His name had started surfacing in connection with other rare pieces and our museum, like the Sappho manuscripts he published, and the contract with Brill Publishers for a series. I invited him to the contract signing in Leiden and he appeared in their press release photo with our museum representatives. The sheer volume of all these new texts was raising concern. We happened to be in Oxford on the day of Obbink’s fateful meeting with the EES in London, and upon his return we sat long into the night on the patio of Oxford’s Cotswold Lodge Hotel listening to this distraught esteemed scholar. He was facing a reality that neither the EES nor we fully understood, nor could we until later—he evidently was playing both ends against the middle. . That’s how people get squashed. We simply didn’t understand the animosity.
EES tells Obdink that if he does not cease activities with The Mob (Museum of the Bible) he will be fired (by EES). Jerry Pattengale F 1. Years after Obbink's credibility has gone to sleep with the Fish, because of alleged conflicts of interest, conflicted interests and interesting conflicts, EES makes Obbink an offer he can't refuse. One of two things will be on his pool table, either his balls or only EES fragments. Strange/bizarre/macabre that after knowing/should have known that Obbink had no credibility regarding access to EES inventory and dating of EES inventory, EES limits its attempted control of Obbink to the future of The Mob. Obbink has to agree to give up all related business interests.
2. You would have thought that under the circumstances EES would have cut all ties with Obbink. As a non-profit they are not expected to be religiously forgiving.
3. Even harder to believe than a fragment of copied GMark was first century when original GMark might not even have been first century, is that when Obbink agrees to stop seeing Green, EES goes on to have him publish FCM. Perhaps this was intended as a punishment since Obbink's early assurances were that first century Mark was first century Mark and he goes on to discredit his own dating. Too bad the irony meter has been broken for the last 2,000/2,100 years (since GMark was written).


Joseph

Why The BBC acts as a Propaganda Outlet for Israel– An Insider View

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Friends of Brill BYOM (Bring Your Own Manuscripts)

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:14 am

FCM Scandal

A response from Dirk Obbink in connection with loss of more credentials:

The Friends of Herculaneum Society

Statement 15 July 2019: The Society is aware of allegations made by Prof. Michael Holmes of the Museum of the Bible against trustee Dirk Obbink regarding the supposed sale of papyri belonging to the Egypt Exploration Society (https://www.ees.ac.uk/News/poxy-lxxxiii-5345 ; https://www.ees.ac.uk/News/ees-statemen ... obby-lobby ). Professor Obbink asserts that these allegations are false, and has resigned from his role in the Society while an internal investigation is conducted.
At this point Obbink's credentials are disappearing faster than Donald Trump's lawsuits and Jeffrey Epstein's witnesses.


Epstein's Mother

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I Fool You Good

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:09 pm

The Fool On The Hill

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2014 Oxford scholar buys historic Cottonland Castle, distressed Austin Avenue landmark
The sale was a surprise to Jeff Fish, a Baylor classics professor who has been involved in Obbink’s visits to Baylor, where he is a “visiting distinguished professor.”
“I can’t tell you how much that floors me,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”
Fish said Obbink is “the greatest papyrologist in the world,” and Fish could only speculate why he would invest in Waco real estate.
Obbink last year visited Fish’s home in Castle Heights and asked him about the castle, leading the two men to walk down to look at it, Fish said. But Obbink never mentioned it to him again, Fish said.
“He’s a very discreet person, and this is quite an example of that,” he said.
Obbink spent more than $270,000 for the property, said David Tekell, an attorney representing the seller, Clarissa Carter.
Carter and her former partner, Russell Giles, bought the 4,700-square-foot house in 2006 and began to repair it, but the project stalled when the two women had a falling-out, resulting in a legal battle that has not yet been resolved.
Giles deeded the house to Carter this summer, but still claims she is owed some of the proceeds from the sale.
Giles said in an interview Wednesday that she expects that it will take another $200,000 to restore the home, in addition to $125,000 she said she spent replacing wiring, plumbing and plaster ceilings that had fallen because of a leaking roof.
Obsink buys Castle in Waco in 2014 for at least $ 270,000 with estimated fix-up of at least $ 200,000 more. The Eagle A 1. Once again, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Didn't I say lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2. Note that at the time of Obbink's purchase the Castle had an existing legal battle which would appear to be right up Obbink's alley.
3. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Jeff Fish, a classics professor, describes Obbink and his purchase of a Castle here as "discreet".
c. 2015 The ‘First-Century Mark’ Saga from Inside the Room
Before the EES became aware of this particular case, that the “First-Century Mark” was actually its own, Obbink reported to Steve Green (chair of the Museum of the Bible’s board) and me that the EES gave him an ultimatum to sever all public ties with our museum or be fired. His name had started surfacing in connection with other rare pieces and our museum, like the Sappho manuscripts he published, and the contract with Brill Publishers for a series. I invited him to the contract signing in Leiden and he appeared in their press release photo with our museum representatives. The sheer volume of all these new texts was raising concern. We happened to be in Oxford on the day of Obbink’s fateful meeting with the EES in London, and upon his return we sat long into the night on the patio of Oxford’s Cotswold Lodge Hotel listening to this distraught esteemed scholar. He was facing a reality that neither the EES nor we fully understood, nor could we until later—he evidently was playing both ends against the middle. . That’s how people get squashed. We simply didn’t understand the animosity.
EES tells Obdink that if he does not cease activities with The Mob (Museum of the Bible) he will be fired (by EES). Jerry Pattengale F 1. Years after Obbink's credibility has gone to sleep with the Fish, because of alleged conflicts of interest, conflicted interests and interesting conflicts, EES makes Obbink an offer he can't refuse. One of two things will be on his pool table, either his balls or only EES fragments. Strange/bizarre/macabre that after knowing/should have known that Obbink had no credibility regarding access to EES inventory and dating of EES inventory, EES limits its attempted control of Obbink to the future of The Mob. Obbink has to agree to give up all related business interests.
2. You would have thought that under the circumstances EES would have cut all ties with Obbink. As a non-profit they are not expected to be religiously forgiving.
3. Even harder to believe than a fragment of copied GMark was first century when original GMark might not even have been first century, is that when Obbink agrees to stop seeing Green, EES goes on to have him publish FCM. Perhaps this was intended as a punishment since Obbink's early assurances were that first century Mark was first century Mark and he goes on to discredit his own dating. Too bad the irony meter has been broken for the last 2,000/2,100 years (since GMark was written).
2016 Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark
The identification of the fragment as Mark was made in 2011 by a researcher working for Professor Obbink, then one of the General Editors of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. Professor Obbink decided he would himself prepare the text for publication. Editors are permitted, on certain conditions, to take out individual papyri from the collection for study or teaching on University premises. In spring 2016, in the light of the social media debate about possible early fragments of gospels being for sale, the EES decided to review what NT fragments had been identified in its collection but not yet published, and realised that the supposed first-century Mark was the papyrus now published as 5345. Professor Obbink was instructed to prepare it for publication as soon as practicable in order to avoid further speculation about its date and content, with Dr Daniela Colomo as co-editor; Dr Ben Henry also improved the edition at the sub-editing stage.
Oblink and a as yet unnamed assistant identify FCM as GMark in 2011 but EES, upon its own investigation, realizes FCM is from GMark in 2016. EES C 1. Obbink knew FCM was from GMark in 2011 and withheld the most important related information from both sides. He never told the owner, EES, that they owned it, and never told the "buyer", that he did not own it, had no right to market it and EES owned it.
2. Any/all NDAs on either side seem to have the sole purpose of dishonestly/illegally avoiding Provenance questions. Here the MOB would appear to be just as guilty as Obbink and already convicted regarding other artifacts. This is how the game is played.
3. Why is "The Assistant" as yet unnamed? Apparently after the discovery of the (first) century, Obbink sent him/her/it to Moscow to do investigative reporting of Vladimir Putin regarding the 20th century Super Bowl ring.
4. Even though Obbink and his stooge have known since 2011 that EES owns FCM, they apparently neglect to tell anyone except each other. On the basis of multiple Evangelicals losing the Wi-Fidelity signal from the holy spirit instructing them to follow the NDAs they signed, FCM receives so much publicity that it is front page news that EES can not help noticing. Upon EES's own investigation, rather than just asking/tying Obbink to a lie detector, they realize in 2016 that they own FCM.
5. More amazing than anything in GMark is after EES learns that Obbink has known that EES owned FCM, he led others to believe that it was owned privately and a little more investigation by EES would let them know that he indicated FCM was for sale. Instead of firing/investigating him, they instruct him to prepare FCM for publication!


Joseph

Can Ilhan Omar Overcome Her Prejudice?

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Manuscriptian Candidate

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:47 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubV3t9_CwDc

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2014 Oxford scholar buys historic Cottonland Castle, distressed Austin Avenue landmark
The sale was a surprise to Jeff Fish, a Baylor classics professor who has been involved in Obbink’s visits to Baylor, where he is a “visiting distinguished professor.”
“I can’t tell you how much that floors me,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”
Fish said Obbink is “the greatest papyrologist in the world,” and Fish could only speculate why he would invest in Waco real estate.
Obbink last year visited Fish’s home in Castle Heights and asked him about the castle, leading the two men to walk down to look at it, Fish said. But Obbink never mentioned it to him again, Fish said.
“He’s a very discreet person, and this is quite an example of that,” he said.
Obbink spent more than $270,000 for the property, said David Tekell, an attorney representing the seller, Clarissa Carter.
Carter and her former partner, Russell Giles, bought the 4,700-square-foot house in 2006 and began to repair it, but the project stalled when the two women had a falling-out, resulting in a legal battle that has not yet been resolved.
Giles deeded the house to Carter this summer, but still claims she is owed some of the proceeds from the sale.
Giles said in an interview Wednesday that she expects that it will take another $200,000 to restore the home, in addition to $125,000 she said she spent replacing wiring, plumbing and plaster ceilings that had fallen because of a leaking roof.
Obsink buys Castle in Waco in 2014 for at least $ 270,000 with estimated fix-up of at least $ 200,000 more. The Eagle A 1. Once again, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Didn't I say lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2. Note that at the time of Obbink's purchase the Castle had an existing legal battle which would appear to be right up Obbink's alley.
3. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Jeff Fish, a classics professor, describes Obbink and his purchase of a Castle here as "discreet".
c. 2015 The ‘First-Century Mark’ Saga from Inside the Room
Before the EES became aware of this particular case, that the “First-Century Mark” was actually its own, Obbink reported to Steve Green (chair of the Museum of the Bible’s board) and me that the EES gave him an ultimatum to sever all public ties with our museum or be fired. His name had started surfacing in connection with other rare pieces and our museum, like the Sappho manuscripts he published, and the contract with Brill Publishers for a series. I invited him to the contract signing in Leiden and he appeared in their press release photo with our museum representatives. The sheer volume of all these new texts was raising concern. We happened to be in Oxford on the day of Obbink’s fateful meeting with the EES in London, and upon his return we sat long into the night on the patio of Oxford’s Cotswold Lodge Hotel listening to this distraught esteemed scholar. He was facing a reality that neither the EES nor we fully understood, nor could we until later—he evidently was playing both ends against the middle. . That’s how people get squashed. We simply didn’t understand the animosity.
EES tells Obdink that if he does not cease activities with The Mob (Museum of the Bible) he will be fired (by EES). Jerry Pattengale F 1. Years after Obbink's credibility has gone to sleep with the Fish, because of alleged conflicts of interest, conflicted interests and interesting conflicts, EES makes Obbink an offer he can't refuse. One of two things will be on his pool table, either his balls or only EES fragments. Strange/bizarre/macabre that after knowing/should have known that Obbink had no credibility regarding access to EES inventory and dating of EES inventory, EES limits its attempted control of Obbink to the future of The Mob. Obbink has to agree to give up all related business interests.
2. You would have thought that under the circumstances EES would have cut all ties with Obbink. As a non-profit they are not expected to be religiously forgiving.
3. Even harder to believe than a fragment of copied GMark was first century when original GMark might not even have been first century, is that when Obbink agrees to stop seeing Green, EES goes on to have him publish FCM. Perhaps this was intended as a punishment since Obbink's early assurances were that first century Mark was first century Mark and he goes on to discredit his own dating. Too bad the irony meter has been broken for the last 2,000/2,100 years (since GMark was written).
2016 Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark
The identification of the fragment as Mark was made in 2011 by a researcher working for Professor Obbink, then one of the General Editors of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. Professor Obbink decided he would himself prepare the text for publication. Editors are permitted, on certain conditions, to take out individual papyri from the collection for study or teaching on University premises. In spring 2016, in the light of the social media debate about possible early fragments of gospels being for sale, the EES decided to review what NT fragments had been identified in its collection but not yet published, and realised that the supposed first-century Mark was the papyrus now published as 5345. Professor Obbink was instructed to prepare it for publication as soon as practicable in order to avoid further speculation about its date and content, with Dr Daniela Colomo as co-editor; Dr Ben Henry also improved the edition at the sub-editing stage.
Oblink and a as yet unnamed assistant identify FCM as GMark in 2011 but EES, upon its own investigation, realizes FCM is from GMark in 2016. EES C 1. Obbink knew FCM was from GMark in 2011 and withheld the most important related information from both sides. He never told the owner, EES, that they owned it, and never told the "buyer", that he did not own it, had no right to market it and EES owned it.
2. Any/all NDAs on either side seem to have the sole purpose of dishonestly/illegally avoiding Provenance questions. Here the MOB would appear to be just as guilty as Obbink and already convicted regarding other artifacts. This is how the game is played.
3. Why is "The Assistant" as yet unnamed? Apparently after the discovery of the (first) century, Obbink sent him/her/it to Moscow to do investigative reporting of Vladimir Putin regarding the 20th century Super Bowl ring.
4. Even though Obbink and his stooge have known since 2011 that EES owns FCM, they apparently neglect to tell anyone except each other. On the basis of multiple Evangelicals losing the Wi-Fidelity signal from the holy spirit instructing them to follow the NDAs they signed, FCM receives so much publicity that it is front page news that EES can not help noticing. Upon EES's own investigation, rather than just asking/tying Obbink to a lie detector, they realize in 2016 that they own FCM.
5. More amazing than anything in GMark is after EES learns that Obbink has known that EES owned FCM, he led others to believe that it was owned privately and a little more investigation by EES would let them know that he indicated FCM was for sale. Instead of firing/investigating him, they instruct him to prepare FCM for publication!
2016 An Illegal Archeological Dig in the West Bank Raises Questions About the Museum of the Bible
Besides funding institutions, the Museum of the Bible also reports grants to individuals — most of which are non-itemized scholarships. One grant, however, is itemized in some detail: in 2016–2017, the museum awarded $225,311 to an unnamed individual as a “research grant for Early Christian Lives, Proteus/Ancient Lives, and Imaging Papyri projects as well as establishing a research center.” All of these projects involve the Oxyrhynchus papyri, the largest group of papyrus documents from the ancient world. They consist of fragments of several hundred thousand texts from an ancient garbage dump at the site of Oxyrhynchus (modern Al Bahnasa) in Egypt. Most of the papyri were found in excavations at the site in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, conducted on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) in the U.K. The Museum of the Bible purchased several Oxyrhynchus papyri that had been gifted to American institutions in the early 20th century and later deaccessioned. However, most of the papyri from the site are still owned by the EES and housed at the University of Oxford.

The unnamed individual who received the grant from the Museum of the Bible is presumably Dirk Obbink, an American-born papyrologist currently at the University of Oxford. Obbink is the principal investigator for all of the projects named on the Form 990. Obbink’s relationship with the museum has been public for years, though the exact nature of it has never been clear. Obbink is listed as Papyrus Series editor for the museum’s publications with the prominent Dutch academic publisher Brill, and has been paid by the museum as a consultant, but in comments to Megan Gannon of Live Science in 2015, Obbink suggested that the Greens had more direct control over his work. Unlike many other collaborations, this arrangement was never made public — there is no press release on the Museum of the Bible website. It was also unusual in that the grant was made to an individual rather than an institution. (In a statement to Hyperallergic, the EES declared that “the EES has not, and has never had, any arrangement of any kind with the Museum of the Bible.”)
The MOB gives a $ 225,000 research grant to Oblink presumably to study papyri, and presumably EES papyri, after Obbink agrees to the EES demand to cut all ties with The MOB. Hyperallergic A 1. Dirk Obbink appears to currently be an Associate Professor at Oxford which presumably commands a modest salary by US standards. It looks like what he has received from The MOB in the few years to and including 2016 is a healthy multiple of that = Motive. The primary inventory of early unpublished papyri (exactly what The MOB is interested in) is owned by EES, a non-profit with minimal Internal Control over its Inventory, where Obbink has free and unsupervised access to its inventory = Opportunity. So which came first, Obbink at EES, or Obbink at the foot of The MOB?
2. As noted, after EES makes Obbink say he will cut all ties with The Mob, they give him another hit assignment of 225 large. What's EES going to do about it, make him publish another papyri he tried to sell/sold?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Timeline of First Century Mark

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:13 pm

JW:

Below is the handout for the SBL First Century Mark Session:

https://imgur.com/a/eVOIRbw

Image

We really need a conference for Skeptical Biblical Scholarship.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Post Reply