Three things

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Will,

Chap admits that a thickness of .05 mm will permit a ~1200 cm scroll. OK, so maybe the papyrus was really .10 mm thick (and until I see Chris prove that Ptolemaic-era papyrus was always 5x to 8x thicker than New Kingdom papyrus, I will remain unconvinced.) A thickness of .10 mm, by Chap's own admission, will permit a scroll of ~600 cm. That's about 20ft.!

I suppose there may be a difference between the thickness of the papyrus itself as measured with a micrometer and the thickness of a wrapping of the scroll as determined mathematically, since a wrapping may include some air space and the papyrus may not be a unifrom thickness all over. If so, it's the latter number (which is what Chap and I are working with) that's important for our present purposes. But on the increase of thickness of papyrus in the late period, see here. For the thickness of the DSS papyri as about .8 mm, see here.

Best,

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

At the very least, we are now looking at a situation where, using Chap's calculations, the scroll of Horos was very likely at least ~600 cm in length!

[_Chap]

Thanks a lot CK for telling me about the other thread.

The fact that this is news to me is proof that I really do avoid the MAD Board!

I am delighted by the fact that with a completely different methodology (I can do calculus, but I am trying to be as comprehensible as possible without messing up), other people have come to the same conclusion: Gee's results imply impossibly thin papyrus, and hence are ... well, impossible.

by the way, I only used the scroll of Noufianoub as an example of some of Gee's figures that did not lead to nonsensical conclusions about papyrus thickness - you may well be right about his measurements being in error there.

I liked this bit of one of your posts:

The bottom line, as I see it, is that the missing papyrus theory is having to increasingly distance itself from all the known historical evidence concerning the source of the Book of Abraham, preferring an appeal to mystery, silence, and extremely dubious Egyptological precedent to actual engagement with the nineteenth-century witnesses and manuscripts. As it continues to attack eyewitnesses and to discredit as malicious historians that disagree with its premises and conclusions, it will find itself alone in a vacuum wherein it will starve to death.

I also enjoyed the way that Mortal Man brushed aside the 'you have to use calculus' stuff. You don't - see above.

How did the Sunstone presentation that you refer to go over?

Are you planning to go into print at some stage?

[_Chap]

Before I jump on a plane:

Please remember that all the calculations we are talking about are based on the extremely unlikely assumption that the papyrus roll is tightly wound all the way to the center. Anything less extreme, and even with very thin papyrus indeed you will get much shorter lengths for the total scroll.

Zoom ....

[_William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Chap admits that a thickness of .05 mm will permit a ~1200 cm scroll. OK, so maybe the papyrus was really .10 mm thick (and until I see Chris prove that Ptolemaic-era papyrus was always 5x to 8x thicker than New Kingdom papyrus, I will remain unconvinced.) A thickness of .10 mm, by Chap's own admission, will permit a scroll of ~600 cm. That's about 20ft.!

I suppose there may be a difference between the thickness of the papyrus itself as measured with a micrometer and the thickness of a wrapping of the scroll as determined mathematically, since a wrapping may include some air space and the papyrus may not be a unifrom thickness all over. If so, it's the latter number (which is what Chap and I are working with) that's important for our present purposes. But on the increase of thickness of papyrus in the late period, see here. For the thickness of the DSS papyri as about .8 mm, see here.

Best,

-Chris

Chris,

The increase in the thickness of the papyri during the later Greco-Roman period, as indicated by the source you reference, was due to the introduction of the use of a pen as the writing instrument.

The JSP are written with a brush, and on a very thin papyrus stock, hence the fragility of the portion that was removed from the Horos scroll and mounted in glass.

In other words, the Joseph Smith Papyri do not meet the criteria of those papyri that were written on thicker stock during the later Greco-Roman period. Remember, the JSP date to around 250 B.C.

[_CaliforniaKid]

How did the Sunstone presentation that you refer to go over?

It went quite well. I had one of the largest audiences of any presentation there (excepting the plenary session, of course) and the folks who came up to me to comment on the paper seemed enthusiastic enough. Several people pushed me to get it published, and one guy was so eager to see it in print that he dragged me over and introduced me to some of the people involved in running Signature and Dialogue.

Are you planning to go into print at some stage?

Yes. My hope is to be permitted to see and measure the papyri in person before I go into print. If I am denied access, however, I suppose I'll make do with photographs.

Thanks for asking, and for all your useful contributions on this subject! By the way, if you want credit in the eventual published paper for the linear regression approach, that can be arranged. (I'm sorry it can't be done without compromising your anonymity.)

Best,

-Chris

[_William Schryver]

Before I jump on a plane:

Please remember that all the calculations we are talking about are based on the extremely unlikely assumption that the papyrus roll is tightly wound all the way to the center. Anything less extreme, and even with very thin papyrus indeed you will get much shorter lengths for the total scroll.

Zoom ....

Chap,

First of all, I thank you very much for providing an understandable rendition of the mathematics involved. That was extremely helpful to me, personally.

Now, I will not elaborate in this forum, but I will in the next few days write up the results of my focused research from the past few days. I will briefly summarize by saying that, although Chap's calculations are absolutely correct in theory, the conclusion that has been drawn from those calculations is, for lack of any more precise term, wrong on account of the fact that there was at least one incorrect assumption (and its accompanying value) that factored into the result.

Indeed, using Chap's fine calculations and correct data for every variable, the formula returns a scroll length value of ~600 cm -- considerably longer than the length necessary to satisfy the evidence from eyewitness testimony of the scrolls. And, bear in mind, Gee has never argued that the scrolls were ~1200 cm long, only that Hoffmann's formula returned that value for his (Gee's) measurements of the winding lengths. Gee is satisfied with nothing more than a 13ft. length for the scroll of Horos.

I will, as I said, elaborate in the near future in the more disciplined venue of the School of the Pundits on the MAD board.

Bottom line: the evidence for a considerably longer roll of Horos than is represented by the surviving fragments is not only viable, but stronger than I ever previously imagined.

John Gee is neither inept, nor a liar.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Will,

The increase in the thickness of the papyri during the later Greco-Roman period, as indicated by the source you reference, was due to the introduction of the use of a pen as the writing instrument.

The JSP are written with a brush, and on a very thin papyrus stock, hence the fragility of the portion that was removed from the Horos scroll and mounted in glass.

In other words, the Joseph Smith Papyri do not meet the criteria of those papyri that were written on thicker stock during the later Greco-Roman period. Remember, the JSP date to around 250 B.C.

The source actually indicates that there was a general increase in papyrus thicknesses during this period, not that only papyri written on with Greek-style pens exhibited such an increase. Indeed, unless the manufacturers of papyri consulted their buyers ahead of time in order to determine what kind of writing implement was to be used, it wouldn't make much sense to expect the choice of implement to affect papyrus thickness. In any case, I actually agree that the Hor papyrus was unusually thin stock compared, for example, to the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will recall that my estimate of its thickness at about .25 mm is based on actual measurements, not on mere speculation about what thickness we would expect. this discussion about typical Ptolemaic thicknesses is only intended to show that Gee's numbers are far, far removed from what was typical for the period.

Best,

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

Now, I will not elaborate in this forum, but I will in the next few days write up the results of my focused research from the past few days. I will briefly summarize by saying that, although Chap's calculations are absolutely correct in theory, the conclusion that has been drawn from those calculations is, for lack of any more precise term, wrong on account of the fact that there was at least one incorrect assumption (and its accompanying value) that factored into the result.

Indeed, using Chap's fine calculations and correct data for every variable, the formula returns a scroll length value of ~600 cm -- considerably longer than the length necessary to satisfy the evidence from eyewitness testimony of the scrolls. And, bear in mind, Gee has never argued that the scrolls were ~1200 cm long, only that Hoffmann's formula returned that value for his (Gee's) measurements of the winding lengths. Gee is satisfied with nothing more than a 13ft. length for the scroll of Horos.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You wondered about the veracity of the Church on account of plural marriage? Where did you mention that? A link would be nice. Also: "struggling" when you are a kid hardly counts, Loran. Unless you don't feel that you've evolved--intellectually speaking--since that time.

I have done deep, philosophical searches within my own soul on a number of issues, but I'm afraid its probably the case that I approached these issues from a different bias than someone such as yourself.

1) Where is your link, Loran? You claimed that you mentioned this stuff on the board.
2) *What* "deep, philosophical searches"? You are/were claiming that you seriously questioned the veracity of the Church. Well, did you? Or, is this evidence that you're incapable of engaging in "deep, philosophical" thinking as far as the Church is concerned?

I also have a testimony of the Gospel, which means that, no matter what the issue, approaching any issue from the position that the Church or Gospel as a system could ultimately be wrong would involve being dishonest and disingenuous to myself at the outset even though I did not at that time have the answer to any specific question.

Well, then, you have never approached the question of the Church's truthfulness with intellectual honesty, Loran. No wonder you seem to anxious to prove to everyone how smart you are. The basic focus in your life has never undergone serious scrutiny (by your own admission!), so of course you doubt your own intellectual veracity.