truth dancer wrote:I recall several conversations concerning the length of scroll but do not know what is the current apologetic response, any idea how this information is "refuted"?
Any apologists around?
Here is Gee's response to CK's criticisms (with which mine were associated). You will see that:
(a) He has not considered the problem of papyrus thickness at all. That appears to be a consequence of the fact that he calculates the [maximum possible, under most favorable conditions] length of 'missing papyrus' by just plugging the numbers into the formula he uses. His method does not bring to light the strikingly large number of layers that would have to be crammed into the diameter of the scroll to make sense of his measurements, interpreted as he interprets them.
(b) His major defensive position is that the conditions under which the photographs were taken (and hence their scale) are not precisely known. But as I point out above, quite large uncertainties in the scale are not enough to save Gee from the physical implausiblity implied by his results - i.e. papyrus thinner than the thinnest paper commonly now produced.
The issue of the formula being correct or not (or even 'in print for X years') is now dead: the 'brute force' calculation method used in my post outflanks that defensive line.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraha ... ng_papyrusSome internet critics have recently claimed, based on measurements made of the papyri from photographs, that this calculated size is too large. That they would want to deny that there is a large amount of text unaccounted for his understandable, since they cannot then claim that we have the papyrus from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, which does not match the Egyptological translation of it.
We asked Dr. Gee if he would care to address these issues. The following is his reply, lightly edited for clarity, and published here with his approval.
Answer
Is the formula correct?
In August 2008 I asked Hoffmann if he still stood by his formula. He could see no reason not to, the math was correct. (I checked the math too; he is correct.) So the formula holds up.
When I first did the math, I checked both the measurements and the formula and its derivation. Critics have thus far not challenged the formula itself, either because if they understand math they can verify its correctness, or if they do not they are incapable of correcting it.
The measurements
If the formula cannot be critiqued, this leaves only the measurements to be questioned. I have access to the originals of the Joseph Smith Papyri. 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.[2]
Larson's photographs
To understand the problem facing critics who would use Larson's photographs, we need to know how he obtained them. When the Joseph Smith Papyri were on display at BYU about 1970, some photographs of them were taken and placed in the BYU Special Collections. Special collections does not have the technical details of the photographs;[3] they do not even know for certain which year they were taken. Larson arranged to borrow these photos and was allowed to do so on condition that no copies were made. Larson violated his agreement.[4]
Photographic distortion
All photographs are subject to a number of distortions:
Perspective distortion is influenced by the angle of view of the camera and the angle of view at which the photograph is viewed. The angle of view of the camera is dependent on the distance of the camera to the object and the focal length of the lens on the camera. Neither of these is known for the original photographs that BYU took as no technical details about the photographs are known. This is compounded by the process used to duplicate the photographs when Larson made his copy, which involves taking a picture of the photograph introducing another set of variables where neither the distance of the camera to the object nor the focal length of the camera lens is known.
Lens distortion is primarily a factor of the lens of the camera involved. Since the technical details of the BYU photographs are not known, the lens and its type are not known, nor is the type of distortion that they will produce. One can correct for lens distortion only if one knows the details about what needs to be corrected.
"Doctoring" Photos
Joseph Smith Papyri I, X, and XI have been physically separated since the 1840s at latest. They were mounted on paper at that time. They were stored in frames and now the individual fragments are encased in one of the standard papyrological encasings. Any picture including those in Larson's book showing them joined has been doctored or altered from how the papyri are presently. What we do not know in any given case is the extent of the doctoring or the process of stitching the photographs together that has been used. It is at this juncture that the distortions in the photographic process can also come into play again as distortion from the lens and perspective can make portions that should match up not match up and the photographs must be further distorted (perhaps by scaling or other means) to make them meet.. How are the photographs made to fit together? We have no details.
Distortion can enter in at every step at the photographic process, in taking the photo, in copying the photo, in printing the photo, in stitching the photo. It does not have to be intentional but the phenomenon are very real and adversely affect any measurements taken from photographs. This means that the measurements from photographs are not necessarily intentionally dishonest but are nonetheless dishonest.
Potential sources of error in measurement
There is a lacuna (or gap) in the middle of the roll that eliminates about half a column of text. Because we have other copies of the text we are confident in the general amount missing. Although it could be theoretically calculated, and we know the number of rollings missing, it would be folly to base anything on the measurements of the lacuna. The lacuna and any partial measurements involving lacunae were dropped from the evaluation which I made.
How will this affect the data? One of the numbers required by the formula (S) is an average. All the measurements that make up this average are within 2 mm. of each other so the range of measurements is small. Since the lacuna falls in the middle the preserved papyrus fragments, the measurements cannot be less than the smallest measurement. It will be larger than the largest measurement only if there is a fold in the scroll (which seems unlikely). I do not think that it is practical, possible, or desirable to measure in any units smaller than a millimeter. Any average based on this data will be within the 2 mm range with or without the measurements of the lacuna. It will not adversely affect the data.
Given the inherent error in measurement, there is an error factor of ±0.5 foot.
Alert readers will also have seen that the criticisms leveled at the argument were anticipated in the article.
Length of scroll versus contents
What I find amazingly silly in this discussion is that while the calculated length of the scroll does account for all the known historical data (whereas those who argue against it cannot account for all the known historical data), it does not tell us what was on the scroll. If the critics were honest they would simply say that the length of the scroll does not prove that the Book of Abraham was on it. This is true. I have no problem with that. It also does not prove that the Book of Abraham was not on it.
Since, to the best of our knowledge, the missing portions were destroyed in the Chicago Fire in 1871 and we have not been able to find a copy of the scroll (and I have been through all of Seyffarth's papers in two archives looking for a copy), there is no possible way at this point to determine what was on the scroll. An honest scholarly assessment would simply say that we do not have enough information to determine what was on the part of the scroll that we do not have.
Conclusion
Individuals can believe whatever they want to about what was on the interior portion of the roll of Horos, and that will be their belief. We have reached as far as scholarship can take us and after that point our assumptions and presuppositions and beliefs plainly take over. However, until someone demonstrates that either the formula is in error, or there is a source of error in the measurements of the original papyri which is unaccounted, the approximate size of the original Joseph Smith papyri is on solid scientific ground.
Endnotes
1. [back] Friedhelm Hoffmann, "Die Lange des P. Spiegelberg," in Acta Demotica: Acts of Fith International Conference for Demotists (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori, 1994), 145–155.
2. [back] Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Inst for Religious Research, 1992).
3. [back] Tom Wells [photoarchivist] BYU Special Collections, oral communication to John Gee, 11 December 2008.
4. [back] Chad Flake, oral communication to John Gee May 1992
One point from Gee's response. He says:
Individuals can believe whatever they want to about what was on the interior portion of the roll of Horos, and that will be their belief.
I beg to differ. They cannot have beliefs about the interior portion of the scroll that are gross physical implausibilities, as Gee's appear to be. Not in the real world, anyway.
Of course the obvious way to put an end to this is for the CoJCoLDS to let some non-LDS Egyptologists have access to the papyri, or even to publish good photographs on a consistent scale (though as CK points out some of the photos already published do include a ruler).
But I suppose the papyri are sacred, though not secret.
