In yet another fascinating video unearthed by David Bradnick, “Seeking Sappho,” we see Oxford Professor Dirk Obbink at work on the Hobby Lobby (Green Collection) Sappho fragments:
There are several strange features of this video. First, some of the footage is the same as that which is included in a promotional video released in 2013 for the “Ancient Lives” project. Second, there appears to be some chronological confusion. At the 3:45 mark in the video, the first appearance of the London Sappho fragments is placed in spring of 2015, which cannot be right, as the London fragments had been publicly revealed already in 2014 (full chronology here). But that is just the beginning.
In one segment, the Green Collection Sappho fragments seem to be in the papyrology rooms of the Sackler Library, quite far from their new home in Oklahoma (or is it Washington, D.C.?). The film editing is choppy and odd, but it does seem that the plate of Green fragments was with the scholars at Oxford. I wonder when that visit took place? Watch the clip at about 6:37-7:07:
Finally and most alarmingly, there is a segment that, according to the captions of the video, seems to have been filmed at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. Professor Obbink works on the Green fragments. The item to the right of them looks like a photograph of the London fragments:
What is alarming is when the camera angle shifts, we see in the lower right corner of the frame what appear to be two tin boxes of exactly the kind that are used to house the unpublished fragments from Grenfell and Hunt’s Oxyrhynchus excavations for the Egypt Exploration Society:
For the purposes of comparison, here are a couple images of this type of box back at Oxford (note the latches):
So, if the caption of the Sappho video is accurate, and if it’s right that the tin boxes in the video are from the EES (big “if”s, I know), it raises the question of what exactly these boxes were doing at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., which opened in 2017.
I would tend to think the caption in the Sappho video is simply a mistake, as the microscope at the desk looks much like those in use at the Sackler and the wood panels in the background also look like those in the Sackler. But that would again raise the question of when the Green Collection Sappho fragments would have made the trip from the US to Oxford. I wonder if any Museum of the Bible staff could clarify?
Lots to ponder with this video (and thanks again to David Bradnick for digging it up). I encourage people to watch the whole video here.
Courtesy of David Bradnick, here are a few more examples of mummy masks and other cartonnage associated with the Green Collection (I have been keeping a record of mummy masks in the Green Collection here). I note that the two videos from which these screenshots were taken date from the time after the exit of Scott Carroll from the Green Collection. The first video is a lecture by Jerry Pattengale given at Oral Roberts University in January 2013 in association with the “Sacra Pagina” exhibit of Green Collection items. At several points, “discoveries” from cartonnage are mentioned. The following graphics show some items from the Green Collection’s cartonnage (the mummy mask shown here is one I have not seen before):
Also included in this first video is a listing of academics participating in the Green Scholars Initiative, including Professor Dirk Obbink:
Assuming that the two masks shown here belong to the Green Collection, I count at least eight masks associated with the Green Collection that have been publicly displayed. When I asked Mike Holmes at an SBL session in November 2019 about the number and the source of the mummy masks in the Green Collection, he replied that there were eight masks, of which four were purchased from Dirk Obbink. Josephine Dru (former curator of papyri at MOTB) was present in the audience and remarked that eight masks seemed like a low estimate to her and may not take note of items that were purchased but never delivered. There is probably more to be learned about the mummy masks in the Green Collection.
In my last post on the new information regarding the origin of Hobby Lobby’s Sappho papyrus fragments, I noted some parallels with the claimed mummy mask origins of a papyrus fragment of Paul’s letter to the Romans (now known to have been stolen from the Oxyrhynchus collection). Recall again Steve Green’s description of the fragment from the CNN interview on 18 January 2012:
“This [fragment] has just been discovered within the last 48 hours. Ah, Dr. Scott Carroll, who is a Bible expert that we have been working with was at Baylor and discovered this…This is in part of the acquisitions that we have, that we have, ah, uh, in uncovering layers of papyrus and as we’re pulling layers away, all different kinds of texts show up, and this happens to be, is, as Dr. Scott Carroll has identified it, the oldest portion of the book of Romans known, dating to middle second century.”
As I said, Mr. Green’s statement and one of Scott Carroll’s FB posts very much give the (false) impression that that the Romans papyrus was extracted from a mummy mask at Baylor probably on 16 January. I thus wondered whether the stolen Oxyrhynchus Romans made an appearance that day at Baylor.
I now notice something that I should have noticed earlier. The Oxyrhynchus Romans papyrus does indeed appear to have been among those present at the Baylor event on 16 January 2012. The papyrus shows up in a sequence of photographs of the event presented by the Christian apologist Josh McDowell in one of his talks shortly after the Baylor event (a video of McDowell’s talk was first flagged by Brice Jones in 2014). In the course of giving a list of items discovered at Baylor that day (at about the 30:50 mark in the video), McDowell mentions “Sapphos [sic], some you know the great writer Sapphos [sic]” (were the Sappho fragments identified as such on the spot at the event?) and then displays a series of images on the screen. At the 31:11 mark (slide 59), a partial picture of a fragmentary papyrus appears briefly. Despite the poor quality of the still image from McDowell’s video, I feel safe in saying that it is certainly the same papyrus as the stolen Oxyrhynchus fragment Steve Green showed on CNN:
If the Romans fragment was indeed already between glass panes at the event, it’s unclear how exactly it was supposed to be “discovered” on that day. But it’s also not totally clear how many steps of the extraction “process” took place at the event. At one point, McDowell describes what was going on, saying, (31:00) “…and you just peel away. And then of course we put ’em, we put ’em in between paper towels; you dry it, and then we put ’em into glass to protect ’em.” Were “extracted” items also mounted that day at Baylor?
In addition, some of Scott Carroll’s comments at the beginning of the video of that Baylor session now take on a rather different significance (at about the 1:30 mark in the video). As he holds the mask that will be dismantled, Carroll says:
“This will have, because this dates, and we know from artistic evidence and all, um, to the early Christian period, and we know it comes from the region where they use papyri, we also are very certain that there’s Greek papyri that’s in here. And I’ve done some probing, um, as well, to, to see, and we work with different things to try to do this without destroying the mask, and I can tell you, that, uh, we’re in for some interesting things today.”
Mike Holmes of the Museum of the Bible has released some intriguing new information about the Sappho papyrus fragments owned by Hobby Lobby. I posted Mike’s statement here.
There really is a lot to unpack with this situation. I want to focus now on the timeline of events around mid-January 2012, because some pieces seem to be falling into place with regard to the early history of the Green Collection and the practices of Scott Carroll and Oxford University Professor Dirk Obbink.
So, we can say that the Green Collection Sappho fragments appeared publicly for the first time on 16 January 2012 when Scott Carroll dismantled a mummy mask at Baylor University, an event that was recorded in the now (in)famous video that was uploaded to YouTube on 19 May 2014.
The implication for a viewer of the video is that these Sappho fragments were among those extracted from the mask, but in his statement Mike Holmes noted that this seems highly unlikely, because of the existence of a photograph (provided to MOTB by Professor Dirk Obbink) of a chunk (or perhaps “pad”?) of non-mummy-mask cartonnage apparently bought from Yakup Eksioglu (a.k.a. MixAntik) that appears to show one of the Hobby Lobby Sappho fragments also visible in the damp clump of pieces at Baylor in 2012 (the connection here between Dirk Obbink and MixAntik definitely cries out for further elucidation, but that is not my goal here [[Update 30 January 2020: See Paul Barford’s reflections here.]]).
As I said, this piece of cartonnage does not appear to be part of a mummy mask. Furthermore, the bulk of the visible material extracted by Scott Carroll from the mask on 16 January 2012 looks at first glance to be considerably older–late Ptolemaic or very early Roman–than these Sappho fragments, which are assigned to the 2nd or 3rd century CE.
It is possible that more than one piece of cartonnage was dissolved that day at Baylor, but I don’t see any strong evidence of that in the video. As I said, the editor of this video seemingly wants to give the impression that the Sappho fragments came from the mummy mask.
But there is more. First, I need to thank Candida Moss for having the foresight to create a record of Scott Carroll’s facebook posts from 2012 relating to his collecting activities and for sharing these with me. Here are two sequential posts from early 2012:
So, freshly back from a trip to Oxford in early January 2012, Scott Carroll comes to Baylor on 16 January 2012 with a mummy mask that he dissolves. Two days later, 18 January, he strongly implies that he recovered papyrus fragments of Homer, Euripides, Thucydides, along with “the earliest-known text of Romans” and “numerous large sections of the most-illusive and valuable of all Greek works–the lyricist SAPPHO!!” from that mask.
“This [fragment] has just been discovered within the last 48 hours. Ah, Dr. Scott Carroll, who is a Bible expert that we have been working with was at Baylor and discovered this.” When the surprised CNN host asked him, “How…how did you get this?” Mr. Green responded:
“Well, um, this is in part of the acquisitions that we have, that we have, ah, uh, in uncovering layers of papyrus and as we’re pulling layers away, all different kinds of texts show up, and this happens to be, is, as Dr. Scott Carroll has identified it, the oldest portion of the book of Romans known, dating to middle second century.”
Mr. Green’s statement and Carroll’s FB post strongly imply that the Romans papyrus was extracted from a mummy mask, at Baylor, within 48 hours of 18 January. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Green thought this fragment of Romans was extracted from the mummy mask in the YouTube video.
But we now know that this fragment did not come from cartonnage and in fact was stolen from the Oxyrhynchus collection and is alleged to have been sold to Hobby Lobby by Professor Dirk Obbink. Yet, Carroll seems to have presented the fragment as having been obtained from the mummy mask at Baylor.
From his Tweet, it seems that Scott Carroll makes the same claim for the papyrus fragments of Sappho, some of which appear as a wet clump in the Baylor video from 16 January. Did the stolen Oxyrhynchus Romans papyrus also make an appearance that day?
Back in 2012, just after Steve Green’s interview on CNN aired, the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog made a post about the new Romans fragment (thanks to the commenter Aractus for drawing my attention to this). In the comments section, there were several posts that were somewhat skeptical of the story Mr. Green presented and some posts that were wary of the travelling “Passages” exhibit and the need to pay to see the Green Collection manuscripts. But one commenter, posting anonymously on 22 January 2012, offered the following defense of Mr. Green:
“Well, I was there when we ‘harvested.’ For people who are on a blog that says to be ‘evangelical’ I must say that the responses are saddening. It was something for the general public. The BBC has actually filmed a similar ‘event.’ And, yes, publications will follow. No need for demeaning people or spouting about ‘having to pay.’ The public comes with hundreds of thousands at the time. There actually will be a showing in the Vatican for several weeks (with the pope seeing it on Feb 29). Just let it be. Isn’t the whole point that the Word is made attractive to the world? Why make it a ‘liberal thing.’ Never forget your goal.”
So, it seems that at least one person claims to have seen the stolen Oxyrhynchus Romans papyrus “harvested” from a mask. (Sidenote: This is the second reference to a mummy mask dismantling filmed by the BBC in early 2012: Does anyone know where to get this footage?)
We are left to ask: How is it that the Romans papyrus (likely datable to the 3rd or 4th century CE) and the Sappho fragments (usually assigned to the 2nd or 3rd century CE) are said to have come out of a mummy mask that seems to be Ptolemaic? It would be great if Scott Carroll or one of the several people present that day at Baylor could speak up and shed some light on what exactly transpired. It was troubling before the latest revelations. Now it is even moreso.
Mike Holmes of the Museum of the Bible has just released some new discoveries from the Museum’s ongoing provenance research to me and several other people via e-mail. There are several important revelations. Especially important are 1) a stunningly sharp observation by MOTB curator Brian Hyland and 2) the news that Yakup Eksioglu (“Mixantik”) appears to be the source of the Hobby Lobby Sappho fragments. I post Mike’s text below:
The Hobby Lobby Sappho fragments: some additional information
Michael Holmes, MOTB
Last summer, in response to a question from Roberta Mazza, I informed her that Sappho material was not listed as a specific item on any invoice in museum records, and that it was not at that time possible to identify the seller of the Sappho fragments in the Green Collection. Since then, MOTB curators, in keeping with the Museum’s commitment to research and make available provenance information on artifacts in the Museum Collection and in collections curated by the Museum (see: https://www.museumofthebible.org/collections/provenance), have continued to research the HL Sappho fragments. In recent months, it has been possible to verify some additional information about them. Working in reverse chronological order, I will mention two known points, which will provide context for presenting some additional information.
1. In 2014, images of the HL Sappho fragments were published in an article in ZPE (Bd. 189, pp. 1-28).
3. Brian Hyland, an MOTB curator, pointed out to me that about one-third of the HL Sappho fragments are visible in a video filmed at Baylor University on January 16, 2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gwgGcpD1M; this is the well-known video of Scott Carroll dismantling a mummy mask). One example of a visible fragment: in the published ZPE image of the fragments, the small fragment just to the right of the label “Sa.16.5” can be seen at the 6:35 mark of the video.
Some of the Sappho fragments are visibly wet, giving the impression that they were being extracted from the mummy mask at the time the video images were taken—an impression that is, however, almost certainly incorrect, in light of the next point.
4A. A purchase agreement dated January 7, 2012, and signed by Yakup Eksioglu is accompanied by (i) an invoice for the following items:
“Ancient Greek-Coptic language Papyrus fragments parobably between 800- 1000 fragment Shown as in the group pictures”
“Cartonagge Masks and other cartonagge fragments Shown as in the group pictures”
and (ii) several “group photographs” of the items purchased, arranged in rows and columns. The “group photographs” clearly show the shape and general appearance of the items, but do not show enough detail to identify the contents of any particular item.
4B. A photo, shared by Dirk Obbink with Brian Hyland (via Dropbox on August 17, 2016), is a close-up image of one of the “cartonnage” pieces visible in one of the “group photographs” accompanying the invoice mentioned in 4A above. In the close-up image, the piece of “cartonnage”—more like a wad of multiple layers of stuck-together papyrus—is in the same relationship to the other pieces around it as it is in the “group photographs.”
According to its metadata, this image was taken on December 7, 2011, 3:25 a.m. In this photograph the small Sappho fragment visible in the ZPE photograph just to the right of the label “Sa.16.5” (and also visible at the 6:35 mark in the January 12, 2012, Baylor video) is clearly visible.
To summarize briefly:
The presence of HL Sappho fragments in the Baylor video definitely moves the date of the earliest “sighting” from Feb 7 to Jan. 16 2012.
The metadata on the “close up” photo apparently moves the earliest “sighting” to Dec. 7, 2011.
The HL Sappho fragments were not recovered from a mummy mask.
Eksioglu (“Mixantik”) is the apparent source of the HL Sappho fragments.
Many questions remain (including, e.g., this one: from whom did Obbink obtain the image he shared with Hyland?), and the MOTB curators are continuing their research. But for now, this note shares the additional evidence that we have been able to confirm to date; additional documentation will be available when a fuller statement is formally published.
The information that Mike and his team have shared raises a number of questions, which we will no doubt be unpacking in the coming days.
Pretty much everyone with a passing knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls will recognize the famous ad in The Wall Street Journal (1 June 1954) placed at the request of the Syrian Archbishop Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel. Mar Samuel had brought four scrolls to the US. These were some of the first scrolls that had come to light in late 1946 or early 1947–the well preserved scrolls said to have come from “Cave 1”– the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), the Rule of the Community (1QS), the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab), and the Genesis Apocryphon (1QgenApoc). Until recently, however, I was unaware that there was newsreel footage in the Sherman Grinberg Film Library of the publicity tour put on by Mar Samuel shortly after his arrival in the US in 1949. It’s fascinating to see the scrolls actually being handled and rolled out (this looks like the Isaiah Scroll being laid out on a table):
In October of 1949, Mar Samuel brought these four scrolls to the US, and they were displayed in a series of venues:
The Library of Congress in the Great Hall of the Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. (23 October – 6 November 1949) Newsreel clip of exhibit here.
The Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore (10-17 November)
Duke University (12-17 February 1950)
The Oriental Institute in Chicago (17-26 November 1950)
The Worcester Art Museum (October 1951)
There are a few other clips at the website of the Grinberg Film Library (search “Dead Sea Scrolls”). This footage (along with the similar clips at Getty Images) all relates to the display of the scrolls in Washington, D.C., but it appears there must be other records of these exhibits. In his thorough account of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Weston Fields includes this image from the display at Duke University:
It would be good to learn if there is other existing video footage of the Scrolls at this relatively early date.
In The Guardian today, Charlotte Higgins has a follow-up to her longer story on Professor Dirk Obbink. Apparently Professor Obbink bought an important 15th century manuscript at auction in 2014 and then sold it to “an overseas buyer” (at a loss) in an auction in 2019. Now, the British government has put an export bar on the item in order to give “UK buyers the chance to fundraise to purchase the item. A UK buyer would have to raise £168,750 by 13 April to save it for the nation.” The government views the manuscript as a heritage item, so ideally it would reside in a public museum or library, but this move by the government could, as the article notes, “lead to the unusual scenario of a civic institution raising funds from the public to acquire an item from a person who is suspected of wrongdoing.” Read the full story here.