Latest on Pundits' Book of Abraham Thread

[_Trevor]

I just read some wise words from Will Schryver on the Pundits' thread on "Winding Measurements" of the JSP:

So, now we've transformed the assumptions concerning this question from a traditional papyrus scroll wrapped around a wooden umbilicus to a three-foot wide papyrus sheet, rolled up and stuffed in a tube.

Mmmmm ......

Not sure where to go from here.

When it becomes possible to continuously modify the parameters of the debate to meet any exigency, it then becomes a debate with no end in sight.

How long have I thought the same thing!

[_Trevor]

Now that I have gotten that out of the way, I should add that there has been what I think is a most intriguing possibility raised in the Book of Abraham discussion on this thread.

Mortal Man has pointed out that a papyrus roll, if stored in a particular type of container, would press outward against that container and thus the outward windings could appear much larger than they would be if tightly wound around the umbilicus.

Chris Smith adds at the end of the thread:

That the papyrus was in a tube is well-attested by contemporary sources. And although the use of a wooden umbilicus has been suggested, I don't think that anyone has committed themselves to that possibility. I personally think the use of an umbilicus unlikely.

Anyone who has worked on the technology of the ancient book ought to pitch in to the discussion. Unfortunately I have not spent much time on that particular topic.

[_William Schryver]

Now that I have gotten that out of the way, I should add that there has been what I think is a most intriguing possibility raised in the Book of Abraham discussion on this thread.

Mortal Man has pointed out that a papyrus roll, if stored in a particular type of container, would press outward against that container and thus the outward windings could appear much larger than they would be if tightly wound around the umbilicus.

Chris Smith adds at the end of the thread:

That the papyrus was in a tube is well-attested by contemporary sources. And although the use of a wooden umbilicus has been suggested, I don't think that anyone has committed themselves to that possibility. I personally think the use of an umbilicus unlikely.

Anyone who has worked on the technology of the ancient book ought to pitch in to the discussion. Unfortunately I have not spent much time on that particular topic.

An honest commentator would probably note that Mortal Man never made the argument until AFTER I pointed out that his measurements are not possible with a scroll wound around an umbilicus. He was essentially compelled to come up with some alternative to the previously held assumptions of the debate.

It remains to be seen whether or not his arguments can withstand scrutiny.

[_Trevor]

An honest [What the hell?] commentator would probably note that Mortal Man never made the argument until AFTER I pointed out that his measurements are not possible with a scroll wound around an umbilicus. He was essentially compelled to come up with some alternative to the previously held assumptions of the debate.

It remains to be seen whether or not his arguments can withstand scrutiny.

F*** you, Schryver. I did not start this thread to give a blow-by-blow commentary of how the entire thing progressed. I was making mention things that I found interesting. Are you an honest commentator in failing to notice that I agreed with something you said in the opening post of the thread? Give me a break.

[_Kevin Graham]

Now that Will is catching on to the fact that Cook's presentation puts his to shame, he is now trying to steal some of his lime light by claiming to have influenced him. He does this crap with everyone.

I've always said Will was a glory hound.

Notice how Will spoke with bombastic certitude in that Cook has "... this expected pattern completely reversed!"

Expected by whom?

Will operated under the assumption that the Scroll contained an umbilicus at the center. But it was an assumption without evidence. Cook and Smith now argue that it was rolled up in a tube. Why? Because that is what these measurements and calculations indicate. Unlike Will and Gee, they let the evidence steer their conclusons, not vice-versa. Despite Will's nitial pedantic rection above, these measurements are perfectly consistent with what one would expect in a tubed scroll.

Now that it has precipitated a decline in his arrogance, he is starting to slink away.

[_Kevin Graham]

An honest commentator would probably note that Mortal Man never made the argument until AFTER I pointed out that his measurements are not possible with a scroll wound around an umbilicus. He was essentially compelled to come up with some alternative to the previously held assumptions of the debate.

Uh, no. The fact is you argued against his measurements because they were too different from your beloved Gee's. That, and you were too ignorant on the matter to realize this was not necessarily "expected" as you asserted. He quickly gave you a crash course on the chemistry of papyri and explained how his arguments present no problems to those with a proper understanding of the subject matter. So much for your idiotic ranting about his "flawed methodology."

[_CaliforniaKid]

Will operated under the assumption that the Scroll contained an umbilicus at the center. But it was an assumption without evidence. Cook and Smith now argue that it was rolled up in a tube. Why? Because that is what these measurements and calculations indicate. Unlike Will and Gee, they let the evidence steer their conclusons, not vice-versa. Despite Will's nitial pedantic rection above, these measurements are perfectly consistent with what one would expect in a tubed scroll.

For the record, I have tried to avoid appealing to the existence of an umbilicus, because the eyewitnesses do not mention one. I suspect the very center of the roll was simply hollow (a la Hoffmann's statement that the wraps can't be actualize under a certain length), perhaps explaining why the center-most wrappings might have been more slack than the outer ones. I have also always operated under the assumption that the papyrus was stored on the mummy's breast in a tube, because several early witnesses report such. The only reason I had not mentioned this before was that it did not seem relevant to the present discussion.

In short, if the measurements are now militating against an umbilicus and in favor of a tube, then they are simply confirming what one might guess from eyewitness evidence.

[_Trevor]

In short, if the measurements are now militating against an umbilicus and in favor of a tube, then they are simply confirming what one might guess from eyewitness evidence.

Is it possible that storage in the manner Mortal Man writes about might mean that the scroll was little longer than the existing fragments?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Is it possible that storage in the manner Mortal Man writes about might mean that the scroll was little longer than the existing fragments?

It seems pretty clear to me that we're missing at most about a hundred centimeters, and probably substantially less than that. MM's suggestion about how the papyri were stored is simply one piece of the argument for that view, but yes, when taken in combination with other things, it points in that direction.

[_Kevin Graham]

That's good to know Chris. I always assumed there was an umbilicus, but you're right, none of the witnesses ever mentoned one.