Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#81

Post by mcguire »

romaaeterna wrote: post #22

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"…

As someone else pointed out, Hobby Lobby and the Bible Museum have rather close relations beginning before the Museum existed. Their acquisition techniques have also been quite sketchy since that time. (Yes, Hobby Lobby attempted to smuggle cuneiform tablets into the US as "tile samples". https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civ...)

Further, ancient artifacts have value beyond that of the cost of their materials, whether or not "gold and jewels" are involved.

"and that gets all the bigots out in arms."

Could we avoid the irrelevant ad hominum attacks?

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#82

Post by microtherion »

romaaeterna wrote: post #51
trhway wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 o…

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 sto…

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-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.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#83

Post by clubm8 »

romaaeterna wrote: post #22

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"…

>they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms.

Your post admits they broke the law.

It's not bigoted to insist rich, religious people follow the low.

The opposite in fact: it's the height of entitlement for a group that holds oversized sway on the political process to refuse to obey the few laws that exist to stymie them.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#84

Post by weberc2 »

driverdan wrote: post #58
notac wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, it wasn’t so long ago that “take the high road” was the common mantra. Turns out, even if you disagree with people or think they’re wrong, you can still behave with decorum. It makes everything more pleasant.

The only reason I replied and used the word bigot was because of the use in the original comment. Perhaps they should have "taken the high road" by not implying those who oppose Hobby Lobby's owners are bigots.

The parent observed that “Bigots oppose hobby lobby”, not that everyone who opposes hobby lobby is a bigot. You levied the unsubstantiated accusation that the hobby lobby founders are bigots. These things are not the same.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#85

Post by weberc2 »

driverdan wrote: post #60
driverdan wrote: post #26

> 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.

To add to my comment, I know this is walking a fine line and I understand if the mods delete it. My point was that the Hobby Lobby owners have their own bias against non-Christians and implying that those who oppose them are bigots is wrong.

Of course, that’s not what the parent implied, as I demonstrate in the sibling thread.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#86

Post by JAlexoid »

jandrese wrote: post #19
mey wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-arti... The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.

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.

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"

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#87

Post by mbostleman »

js2 wrote: post #27
romaaeterna wrote: post #22

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"…

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 an…

"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.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#88

Post by romaaeterna »

dang wrote: post #77
romaaeterna wrote: post #22

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"…

> and that gets all the bigots out in arms. Please edit flamebait out of your posts here. It leads to fire-meets-petrol feedback loops, nowhere more reliably than on religious topics. Your comment is fine otherwise and deserves better. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> leads to fire-meets-petrol feedback loops

You'll notice that this is, in fact, exactly what I said.

The context that I was trying to bring up -- perhaps too indirectly -- is that rather partisan people on both sides who have been having a lot of rhetoric back and forth about this on Twitter for a few years now. Obbink's Bible Museum connections have been a serious scandal. One side is outraged by Hobby Lobby's shady practices, and Obbink's cooperation with them, and the other has claimed that Hobby Lobby's practices haven't differed so much from other museums, though they have certainly behaved ignorantly from time to time. The new accusations of theft, of course, are a black eye for anyone who has defended Obbink (which includes the organization now making the accusation) if they prove to be accurate.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#89

Post by dang »

romaaeterna wrote: post #88
dang wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and that gets all the bigots out in arms. Please edit flamebait out of your posts here. It leads to fire-meets-petrol feedback loops, nowhere more reliably than on religious topics. Your comment is fine otherwise and deserves better. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> leads to fire-meets-petrol feedback loops You'll notice that this is, in fact, exactly what I said. The context that I was trying to bring up -- perhaps too indirectly -- is that rather partisan people on both sides who have been having a lot of rhetoric back and forth about this on Twitter for a few years now. Obbink's Bible Museum connections have been a serious scandal. One side is outraged by Hobby Lobby's shad…

I believe it was what you meant, but it wasn't what you said. In that gap lies internet peril. Even what you've said here by way of explanation is the sort of thoughtful and factual content that makes for much better discussion on HN.

Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts

#90

Post by TimTheTinker »

mmanfrin wrote: post #65
TimTheTinker wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're a hate-filled group That's quite a claim - by the definition of "hate", you're saying that the individuals who run Hobby Lobby "feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)". You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part -- such a conclusion doesn't follow logically. Or is there another fact that would imply hatred on t…

> You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part I personally disagree, and I disagree strongly.

You're saying that in order to enact such a policy, a person would have to feel "intense or passionate dislike" for certain people.

I don't see the logical connection between the two. Could you explain how the one implies the other?

Post reply on HN