The Missing Papyrus Equation

[_TAK]

There are texts that long, but I don't believe they are typical, no.

One thing I don't believe I've mentioned to this point is that the height of the Book of Breathings roll is significantly smaller than the standard height for that period. Just another indication that it was not designed to be a large roll or to accommodate a lot of text.

Thanks! It occurs to me that 41 feet rolled up would be awfully large around and heavy?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks! It occurs to me that 41 feet rolled up would be awfully large around and heavy?

TAK,

You have to remember that Gee is extrapolating from the known outer circumference of the roll, which he puts at 9.5 cm. So no, at least according to his calculations the roll would not be particularly large. It would, I imagine, be quite heavy. we're talking about a roll wound more tightly than physically possible, so it would have to be quite dense.

[_TAK]

Thanks! It occurs to me that 41 feet rolled up would be awfully large around and heavy?

TAK,

You have to remember that Gee is extrapolating from the known outer circumference of the roll, which he puts at 9.5 cm. So no, at least according to his calculations the roll would not be particularly large. It would, I imagine, be quite heavy. we're talking about a roll wound more tightly than physically possible, so it would have to be quite dense.

Well who knows.. if the gold plates could be man handled by Lucy Smith, maybe the roll was magically lite too~

[_Doctor Steuss]

There are texts that long, but I don't believe they are typical, no.

One thing I don't believe I've mentioned to this point is that the height of the Book of Breathings roll is significantly smaller than the standard height for that period. Just another indication that it was not designed to be a large roll or to accommodate a lot of text.

According to "Historical Papyrus" by Jimmy Dunn (at www.touregypt.net), papyrus "was limited to a standard size running 47 cm in length at the most (29-33 cm on the average)..." He then goes on to state that "[f]or longer documents, these pages were joined to create a papyrus roll (scroll). In fact, papyrus sheets were usually not sold individually, but in rolls (of about 20 sheets), with the fibers running in the same direction, except for the end sheets, which were reversed in order to add stringth.”[sic]

So basically, if we take the typical scroll selling dilly of 20 sheets and times that by 47 cm, we get almost 31 feet (each additional sheet would add an additional foot and a half). So, it seems the "typical" length of a scroll would be around 30 feet (at least as far as they were commonly sold) using a length of 47 cm. If the "average" of 31 cm is used, the figure for a 20 sheet roll then becomes about 20 and a third feet (so in order to get 40+ feet, the number of sheets would need to be doubled).

Not that any of this matters, I just felt like doing some simple math so I could feel smart (because I don’t bloody understand the junk in your OP).

On a related (and unrelated) note, according to a couple websites (that I stumbled upon while trying to find the average scroll length), the longest scroll ever found was 133 feet (must have been an ancient Kerouac).

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks, Steuss.

Gee provided similar figures to yours for the average roll size. Dr. Ritner, however, pointed out that these are just the lengths of typical manufactured rolls, before they have been cut up into individual documents.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Thanks, Steuss.

Gee provided similar figures to yours for the average roll size. Dr. Ritner, however, pointed out that these are just the lengths of typical manufactured rolls, before they have been cut up into individual documents.

Out of nothing more than pure curiosity, does Ritner happen to give the average lengths of typical documents (after the cutting of manufactured rolls) -- or do you know a source that does? I couldn't really find anything on scroll lengths other than what I posted above.

Thanks G-funk,
Stu

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here is what Ritner says:

"The original width of the papyrus was correctly estimated by Baer as being about 150-55 cm, allowing for textual restorations and the now lost Facsimile 3."

And in a footnote,

"There is no justification for Gee's unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this figure to 320 cm (about 10 feet) [...]; his figure derives from the average length of a manufactured (blank) Ptolemaic papyrus roll-- not comparable, individual documents cut from such a roll."

He does not suggest an average length for individual documents, and I'm not aware of anyone who has offered such a figure. In any case, we'd probably need to look at the average lengths of funerary documents during a particular time period rather than of all Egyptian documents everywhere. (My books are at home, or I'd check Rhodes to see if he gives any useful information on that count.)

[_squawkeye]

Instead of worrying about the length tell us which parts were personally written on by Abraham and Moses.

[_Trevor]

Instead of worrying about the length tell us which parts were personally written on by Abraham and Moses.

The parts that never existed.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Dr. Gee has responded:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraha ... ng_papyrus

My thoughts on Gee's rejoinder:

1) Dr. Gee said that "Critics have thus far not challenged the formula itself". That's not entirely true. I derived what I believed was the correct formula, which differed a little from Gee's. I then found an Egyptological article that utilized the formula I had derived. I do not yet know the mathematical derivation of Hoffman's formula, but when I do I will be able to check its assumptions more closely. In any case, the two formulas (mine and Gee's) produce results on the same order of magnitude, so I do not expect this to play a critical role in my critique.

2) I intend to check my measurements from the Larson photos against the Rhodes photos once I get home on Thursday and have access to my copy of the Rhodes book again. Rhodes' editors did not utilize a consistent scale, but they do provide information that should make it possible to calculate the scale of each individual photo. If I can do this successfully, it should help control for distortion. I have not yet sprung for the new edition of Nibley's book, which is supposed to contain images of the papyri. Does anyone know if it says what the scale of the images is? I also have never gotten a copy of the Improvement Era article in which the papyri were originally published. Does anyone know if the scale is indicate there? These are directions in which I will investigate further.

3) I have requested an application to see the original papyri, though I've not heard back on my request and living far away doesn't make it any easier.

4) Dr. Gee does not seem to understand what I did with the lacuna. After measuring the lengths of the wraps on either side of the lacuna, I concluded that of a physical necessity the wraps in the lacuna had to be between those lengths. Their exact lengths are mathematically irrelevant so long as we know the number of missing wraps (as Gee admits) and the range of their lengths, which we do.

5) Dr. Gee's statement that "Critics who have challenged the conclusions I have drawn have done so only on the basis of the photographs found in Chuck Larson's book" is not entirely correct. I have made an argument that Dr. Gee's measurements are physically impossible and lay claim to an unrealistic degree of precision.

6) Dr. Gee states, "I do not think that it is practical, possible, or desirable to measure in any units smaller than a millimeter." This is a fascinating statement since Gee's measured S-value (at least according to his FAIR talk, as I've not yet gotten a copy of the FARMS article) is between 3 and 5 tenths of a millimeter.

7) Dr. Gee claims that his formula makes sense of the historical evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have repeatedly demonstrated here and elsewhere.