Missing Papyrus

[_William Schryver]

To Whom It May Concern,

I have posted a paper in the School of the Pundits on the MAD board. (See here.)

It is entitled Missing Papyrus - Calculating the Length of the Lost Scroll of Horos.

If I knew Chap's in real life identity, I would have gratefully acknowledged his contributions to the genesis of this paper.

I'm sure none of you will find it persuasive, so I suppose this thread is being launched simply to provide you with an unmoderated place to deride me and my vulgar pretensions.

Have at it ...............
.
.
.
.
==================

[_Kevin Graham]

Critics of the church, employing a variety of arguments, insist that the extant papyri are what Joseph Smith believed to be the source of his translation of the Book of Abraham.

Actually, the LDS Church believed this and most members continue to accept it. Critics simply accepted what the Church already mantained.

Most LDS scholars and apologists have long argued that such a conclusion is unwarranted by the evidence, and that the vast majority of original Egyptian textual material has been lost or destroyed.

Nibley started this argument out of necessity, not because it was supported by evidence. His own teacher, Klaus Baer, said the roll couldn't have been much longer than what was extant.

Desperate ad hoc arguments by the apologists at BYU are beside the point. The Church has canonized the text and placed a portion of the papyrus right at the beginning. The flippng text (Abr 1:12) even refers explicitly to the lion couch scene at the commencement of this papyrus.

Moreover, most of the "historical" eyewtness testimony used by the apologists, actually does more to support the "crtical" position when understood properly. Just about everythng decribed can be shown to correlate quite well with the extant papyri.

And even if we say the KEP was just a lame attempt by confused scribes to "try their hand" at revelation, the EAG, which Joseph Smith was involved in, clearly references portions of the extant papyri.

Will is trying to squeeze lemonade from a turd again while blowing smoke.

I just love how he tries to present himself as some kind of intellectual providing ground breaking material.

[_Kevin Graham]

This means that, contra Robert Ritner and others, Professor John Gee is correct in his claims concerning a large quantity of missing material from the collection of papyri originally in the possession of Joseph Smith.

LOL! That's what this means huh?

Maybe it just means that someone with no relevant training, with the help of three or four other notorious apologists, says it must be true.

That doesn't necessarily make it true, now does it?

And just where exactly is this "paper" going to be publshed. I pray to God it is FARMS.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks, William, for the posting. Takeaways from this paper:

1) Gee's measurements require a papyrus thickness significantly thinner than known examples from even the New Kingdom period, let alone the Greco-Roman period from which the Hor papyrus dates. This is consistent with what Chap and I previously argued, but not with what William previously argued. Thus it is very likely that Gee's measurements are inaccurate.

2) William has not taken any measurements of the papyrus, nor has anyone yet attempted to confirm Dr. Gee's measurements from the original. Thus the only numbers we really have to work with remain Gee's measurements and my and Mortal Man's measurements from the various sets of photographs.

A few points of critique:

1) William's estimates of the papyrus length are based solely on the highly questionable assumption that the papyrus is consistent with New Kingdom papyri rather than with papyri of the Greco Roman Period. There is no reason to accept this assumption except that the missing papyrus theory requires it.

2) William acknowledges contributions from his fellow apologists but not from critics, who evidently are not important enough to have their contributions to this discussion acknowledged. This despite the fact that he uses references I and others here provided over the course of our discussion, and relies on an understanding of the issue that he obtained from the critics.

3) He assumes that the change in circumference between two wraps (Will's "Delta C", Hoffmann's S-value) can be directly derived from a measurement of papyrus thickness taken with a micrometer. This assumption requires that there is no air space or "breathing room" between papyrus layers. If he really wants to draw comparisons to New Kingdom papyri, he should measure New Kingdom S-values directly rather than deriving them from micrometer measurements. Or, at the very least, he should verify his assumption by checking it in several specific cases.

4) William makes the statement that "in practice the Hoffmann formula predicts a longer scroll length than the simple spiral calculation." This is incorrect. The Hoffmann formula actually predicts a shorter length than the simple spiral calculation. Hoffmann's formula actually is a simple spiral calculation, but with the innermost windings subtracted. That's because, to quote my translation of him, "the windings can not be put into practice under 2.5 cm. (The actual value permitted for all intents and purposes lies higher. I might have recommended over 3 cm.) As in the graphical reconstruction, we must subtract this innermost range from the total expanse." William's statement that "the Hoffmann formula seems to assume a thinner product of papyrus than is attested by the known examples thereof" illustrates, quite frankly, that he does not yet understand how the Hoffmann formula works. The formula involves no such assumption, but rather requires that its users input actual measurements from the papyrus itself. The reason the Hoffmann result is so implausible is that Gee inputted implausible measurements. It is no fault of Hoffmann's or of the formula itself.

5) William's summary of the eyewitness evidence of the papyri (lifted from Gee) not only conflates different time periods (namely, before the papyrus fragments were mounted and after they were mounted) but ignores some crucial eyewitness evidence, including several witnesses who were told that the mounted fragments included portions of the writings of Abraham.

To summarize:

Aside from conceding that Gee's measurements are implausible (which admittedly is progress), William's paper does not appear to significantly advance the discussion beyond what we've already debated on this and the other board.

Brent Metcalfe informs me that he intends to provide me with two more sets of (unpublished) photographs that have rulers in them, so that I can repeat my measurements and obtain more accurate figures. Assuming Brent comes through, this will allow for a much more definitive evaluation.

Peace and best wishes to William,

-Chris

[_Kevin Graham]

I got a kick out of the way Will admits "assumptions" in his argument, and yet his conclusion is definitive and absolute! Hilarous.

Chris, you really need to repost the above over in Pundits.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I just did.

But I see that William is editing his post at MADB in light of my critique, in order to eliminate evidence of his confusion about the function of the Hoffmann formula. His statement that "the Hoffmann formula seems to assume a thinner product of papyrus than is attested by the known examples thereof" has now been changed to, "The discrepancy appears to be due to the acute sensitivity to measurement errors inherent in the formula."

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here is William's full posting, reified in its present form so as to avoid further misleading editing:

[center]Missing Papyrus
- Calculating the Length of the Lost Scroll of Horos -
[color="#808080"]Version 1.1[/color]

William Schryver
The History[/center]
In 1967, the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art formally bequeathed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a quantity of ancient Egyptian papyri representing an unknown fraction of the collection of Egyptian textual material originally purchased by the church in 1835 from an antiquities dealer by the name of Michael Chandler. Chandler arrived in Ohio in search of Joseph Smith for the ostensible purpose of requesting the Prophet to translate the Egyptian writings on the papyri, which papyri had been found in conjunction with the mummified remains of four persons entombed in the area of ancient Thebes. Chandler sold the mummies and papyri to a consortium of church members for $2400.

Within a year, and in consequence of frequent handling and transport, the papyri began to exhibit signs of decomposition. In response, the most severely damaged outer windings were cut from the rolls, glued to a stiff paper backing, and permanently mounted inside glass frames.[sup]1[/sup]

According to various eyewitness accounts, the textual material consisted of:
After the death of Joseph Smith, the Egyptian material remained in the possession of his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, who, until her death in May 1856, lived with the Prophet’s widow, Emma. Shortly after Mother Smith’s death, Emma and her second husband, Lewis C. Bidamon, sold the Egyptian materials to one Abel Combs, who subsequently divided the collection. Combs sold some of the material to the St. Louis Museum, including the two rolls of papyrus, but apparently retained most of the mounted fragments. The St. Louis Museum ultimately sold the rolls to the Wood Museum in Chicago, which burned in the fire of 1871, presumably reducing the majority of the original collection to ashes. The mounted fragments passed through several hands, and were ultimately purchased by the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1947.[sup]9[/sup]

It is these glass frames and their papyri contents that were given to the Church on November 27, 1967.[sup]10[/sup] In February 1968, the Church historian’s office discovered another fragment of the papyri in its files, and likewise publicized it.[sup]11[/sup]

None of these extant papyri fragments contain an Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham, a fact first pointed out by Hugh Nibley, who authored articles on the papyri which were serialized in the Church's official magazine beginning in January 1968. Nibley repeatedly emphasized that the documents did not contain the Book of Abraham, but that some of the fragments contained a text he identified as "The Book of Breathings.”[sup]12[/sup]

Critics of the church, employing a variety of arguments, insist that the extant papyri are what Joseph Smith believed to be the source of his translation of the Book of Abraham.[sup]13[/sup] Most LDS scholars and apologists have long argued that such a conclusion is unwarranted by the evidence, and that the vast majority of original Egyptian textual material has been lost or destroyed.

In 2007, Brigham Young University Professor of Egyptology, John Gee, presented evidence that the scroll of Horos was considerably longer than the three mounted fragments that survive.[sup]14[/sup] This would mean that the scroll of Horos was the “long scroll”—the one upon which the text of the Book of Abraham was found, according to the preponderance of the contemporary eyewitness testimony.

Gee’s argument employs a standard formula developed by Egyptologist Friedhelm Hoffmann.[sup]15[/sup] Hoffmann’s formula determined the outside circumference of successive windings by measuring between salient points in the lacunae. [sup]16[/sup]

[center]Plate #1

Lacunae are indicated by red outlines.[/center]

He then averaged the difference in the decreasing winding measurements in order to produce a factor he nominated “S.” Then, employing the relatively simple mathematics involved in determining the length of a spiral, he claimed to be able to reliably calculate the missing length of any substantial remnant of a papyrus scroll.

Without explicitly endorsing the accuracy of the formula, Gee used his own measurements of the winding lengths of the extant portions of the scroll of Horos and reported the result. Since this initial report, and without directly addressing the reliability of Hoffmann’s formula, critics have consistently disputed Professor Gee’s arguments concerning the likelihood of a significant amount of missing scroll material.

[center]The Formulae[/center]
The Hoffman theory utilizes a series of measurements of the circumference of successive scroll windings. The difference between each successive winding, as measured between corresponding salient points in the lacunae, is then averaged. This result (“S”) becomes the factor representing the combination of the thickness of the papyrus and the relative tightness of the winding.[sup]17[/sup]

[center]Plate #2

Corresponding points in the repeating patterns are selected for measurement.[/center]

In the case of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Professor Gee is presently the only technician to perform measurements on the original documents, with the intent of gathering data to supply the Hoffmann equation. His measurements showed seven total windings, with the initial winding totaling 9.7 cm and the final winding 9.5 cm, which ultimately produces an “S” factor of 0.03333.[sup]18[/sup]

A simpler formula is available, based on the thickness of the papyrus material in combination with the known circumference of a single winding. If the initial winding circumference is known and if a constant papyrus thickness is assumed, then the calculation of the spiral becomes a rudimentary application of mathematics.

The two formulae should be mutually supporting. The Hoffmann formula ought to accurately predict the relative thickness of the papyrus material; the spiral calculation, armed with a single accurate circumference measurement and a known papyrus thickness, ought to confirm the results of the Hoffmann formula. However, in practice the Hoffmann formula predicts a longer scroll length than the simple spiral calculation. The discrepancy appears to be due to the acute sensitivity to measurement errors inherent in the formula. (See footnote 23 below.)

The Hoffmann formula returns a missing scroll length result of ~1250 cm (41 ft.), which seems to suggest a papyrus thickness of ~60 microns.[sup]19[/sup] Known papyrus examples of traditional manufacture range between 100 – 200 microns in thickness.[sup]20[/sup] Utilizing Gee’s initial winding measurement of 9.7 cm in conjunction with the lower limit of this range, the spiral calculation returns a missing scroll length of ~750 cm (~25 ft.). Using the upper limit of the range, the formula returns a value of ~380 cm (~12.5 ft.). In either case, this range of lengths is consistent with the known eyewitness testimony of a “long roll.”

Traditional production methods produced a very thin papyrus material, as seen in the examples cited above. However, beginning in the Greco-Roman period, Greek-style pens became popular, eventually supplanting the traditional Egyptian brushes or “rush pens.” The propensity of these pens to tear the thinner traditional papyrus prompted the introduction of a thicker product. There are samples of papyrus from the Greco-Roman period that measure up to 500 microns or more in thickness.[sup]21[/sup]

However, it is unlikely that the Joseph Smith Papyri are of the thicker variety, for the following reasons:

• The Joseph Smith Papyri date to the early Greco-Roman era, ~200 B.C.
  [color="#48D1CC"]-[/color]
• They were written using the old-style Egyptian brushes.
  [color="#48D1CC"]-[/color]
• Most significantly, the average winding length difference suggests that the thickness of the papyrus in the scroll of Horos was at the extreme low end, rather than the high, of the spectrum of papyrus thickness.[sup]22[/sup]

[center]Conclusions[/center]
[indent]

• Both the Hoffmann formula and the simple spiral calculation appear theoretically sound. The difference in results between them appears to center on the Hoffmann formula’s sensitivity to precise measurements.[sup]23[/sup]
  [color="#48D1CC"]-[/color]
• Professor Gee’s assertion that the total length of the scroll of Horos greatly exceeds the total length of the extant fragments is vindicated. Using Gee’s 9.7 cm circumference measurement in conjunction with a papyrus thickness of 100 microns—the lowest value in the range of known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus—the missing length of the scroll of Horos would have been ~750 cm, or ~25 ft.[sup]24[/sup]
  [color="#48D1CC"]-[/color]
• The contemporary eyewitness reports of a “long roll” are confirmed.
  [color="#48D1CC"]-[/color]
• Even assuming the highest value in the range of known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus (200 microns in thickness), the extant fragments of the scroll of Horos represent only 25% of the original length of the whole.

[/indent]

(I gratefully acknowledge the invaluable assistance and insights of Kevin Barney, John Gee, David Keller, Matthew Roper, Gregory Smith, and Edwin Slack.)

[center]Appendix I[sup]25[/sup]

[/center]
End Notes:
[sup] 1[/sup] See John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," in The Disciple as Witness, Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson (Provo: FARMS, 2000), 181.
[sup] 2[/sup] William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts Respecting the Rise, Progress, and Pretensions of the Mormons (Warren, OH, 1837), cited in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1969), 196.
[sup] 3[/sup] Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past from the Leaves of Old Journals (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1883), 386.
[sup] 4[/sup] Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842 (London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1842), 22.
[sup] 5[/sup] Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, "A Girl's Letters from Nauvoo," Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, December 1890, 624.
[sup] 6[/sup] Jerusha W. Blanchard, "Reminiscences of the Granddaughter of Hyrum Smith," Relief Society Magazine 9/1 (1922): 9; Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, Overland Monthly, 624.
[sup] 7[/sup] Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, Overland Monthly, 624.
[sup] 8[/sup] Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, 22 December 1835 in Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2/3 (1835): 234; as cited in John Gee, "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri."
FARMS Review 20 no. 1 (2008) 113–137, on-line at [url="http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=1&id=699#_edn12"]http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...p;id=699#_edn12[/url]
[sup] 9[/sup] See John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 9.
[sup]10[/sup] Jay M. Todd, "Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered," Improvement Era (January 1968): 12–16.
[sup]11[/sup] Jay M. Todd, "New Light on Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri: Additional Fragment Disclosed," Improvement Era (February 1968): 40; Jay M. Todd, "Background of the Church Historian's Fragment," Improvement Era (February 1968): 40A–40I.
[sup]12[/sup] Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," Improvement Era (August 1968): 53–63, for example, contains multiple references to the papyri as part of the Book of the Dead (pp. 55–59). Reprinted in Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 18 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 2009).
[sup]13[/sup] For example, see Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “The Fall of the Book of Abraham,” online at: [url="http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/fallofbookabraham.htm"]http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/fallofbookabraham.htm[/url]
[sup]14[/sup] See John Gee, "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," 113–137
[sup]15[/sup] Ibid.
[sup]16[/sup] Lacunae is the plural of lacuna, meaning "a blank space" or missing part of the papyrus material. Because the lacunae were formed when the scroll was still rolled together, the “missing parts” tend to exhibit repetitive patterns along the edges of the papyrus material. (See Plate #1) The total length of a single winding can be determined by measuring between common points in the repeating patterns. (See Plate #2)
[sup]17[/sup] See Plate #2 for a graphic representation of the process involved.
[sup]18[/sup] See John Gee, "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," 113–137.
[sup]19[/sup] 1000 microns = 1 mm; 10000 microns = 1 cm; 60 microns = 0.006 cm.
[sup]20[/sup] New Kingdom papyri measured by Jaroslav Cerny averaged 125 microns in thickness. (See A. Lucas, J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th Edition, (Dover Publications, 1999), 139. n. 7). The papyri discovered in the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum have been measured via Micro CT scan and average 150 microns in thickness. (See Herculaneum Archaeology, Issue 3 (Summer 2005): 5)
[sup]21[/sup] “A feature that is quite noticeable is the great thickness of certain papyri of the Late Period or Greco-Roman period. There are certainly only two layers, but the strips themselves must have been sliced very thickly. It is widely accepted that the Greek style of reed pen (which in the Ptolemaic period quickly ousted the traditional Egyptian rush pen – even, eventually, for the writing of Demotic – was likely to puncture the thinnest qualities of papyrus, and that this led to a general increase in the thickness of papyrus.” Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge University Press, 2000) 232.
[sup]22[/sup] One may justifiably wonder why the question isn’t resolved simply by measuring the thickness of samples of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Such measurements are greatly complicated by the fact that the papyri have been glued to a stiff backing paper and permanently mounted in glass frames since 1836. The understandable objections of the conservators, combined with the difficulties inherent in removing samples for measurement may prove insuperable in the near future. However, the Micro CT scan process utilized by the scientists working with the Herculaneum scrolls may yet be seen as a possible avenue for measuring the thickness of the JSP.
[sup]23[/sup]For example, if we round the Gee measurements up and down .1 cm (9.8 and 9.4 cm, respectively) the Hoffmann formula returns a result more comparable to the spiral calculation: a length of ~720 cm and a papyrus thickness of ~0.100 mm.
[sup]24[/sup] See Appendix I.
[sup]25[/sup] Thanks to Edwin Slack for preparing the data from which this table is derived, and for the derivation thereof included in Appendix II.
©2009 William Schryver, All Rights Reserved

Edit History:
Version 1.1 05/07/09 2:30pm - clarified language pertaining to the Hoffmann formula.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I admit that I haven't been following this issue very closely, but what is the apologetic explanation for the fact that even when Egyptologists had access to the complete scroll, they still declared Joseph Smith's "interpretation" to be fraudulent?

[_Kevin Graham]

Priceless...

So many gullible lurkers over there, completely clueless to the fact that its the critics who are responsible for shaping Will's presentations.

[_Kevin Graham]

I admit that I haven't been following this issue very closely, but what is the apologetic explanation for the fact that even when Egyptologists had access to the complete scroll, they still declared Joseph Smith's "interpretation" to be fraudulent?

That's the whole point to the missing papyrus theory. The apologsts would prefer that the source for the Book of Abraham be either "missing or destroyed." This is important to them because it puts the Book of Abraham back into the unfalsifiable category; with respect to Joseph Smith's ability to translate ancient documents.

So when Abraham 1:12 refers explicitly to the extant papyrus, Will argues that this particular comment was a later insertion and cannot be used to connect the canonized translation with the extant papyri.

And when the Kirtland Egyptian Papers prove that several of Joseph Smith's hired scribes, clearly believed the extant papyri were the source for the Book of Abraham, Will argues that they were just confused and that Joseph Smith cannot be connected to the project.