The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[Guest]

So, you cut off a small piece of papyrus and put it on a metal plate. Then you use the ECD. Does that work?

I get the point about a repeatable measurement, but I have to hand it to Will for coming up with a creative way to get results.

ETA: I see DrW already edited his post to include this possibility.

Hello Kish,

For clarification, the possibility of placing papyrus on a conductive metal plate to make a ECD measurement was included in my original post of Nov 13 as an ETA just after midnight EST.

In any case, if one were allowed to cut off a piece of the papyrus for making an ECD measurement, as you seem to be suggesting, one could certainly use a micrometer on said scrap of paper.

Assuming the papyri were in the condition described in Ben's post above (glued onto a backing and preserved in a mylar cover) then the use of an ECD might become a bit more reasonable.

Aluminized Mylar has a extremely thin, vapor deposited, aluminum coating that might well serve as the conducting surface needed for ECD. However, if the specimens were in a mylar sheath or cover, it is unclear how one would sort out what electromagnetic effects were due to the polymer on which the aluminum was coated, what was due to the backing, and what was due to papyrus.

As Gadianton correctly pointed out, any application of a standard ECD to this kind of measurement, on this kind of layered dielectric / conducting material would require a great deal of calibration.

Again, I could find no published standard method for this kind of application. If anyone here knows of such a published method, I would appreciate the reference.

[_Shulem]

Having said this, I personally think that the whole debate is something of a waste of time. No matter where we end up, it won't actually change anyone's opinions. Perhaps it is a safe battleground because no matter what comes out of it, it doesn't force anyone to change their minds.

I agree with you completely on this point, Benjamin. The length of the papyrus isn't really that important and I'm afraid too much time and energy has been invested on this single point.

What's important though is EXACTLY what Joseph Smith is quoted as saying. What's important is what Oliver Cowdery is quoted as saying and others who were directly involved with the translation process and the production of the Book of Abraham. That's what's important. What came out of Joseph Smith's mouth is the single most important element in this whole saga. The buck stops with Smith and understanding what he said and how he said it is what matters most.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The papyrus could've been a mile long. It's a complete and utter non sequitur. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Book of Abraham that corresponds with ancient writings that were written by ancient Egyptians that were written on scrolls. Furthermore, what we do have puts to rest, forever, Joseph Smith's 'translating' abilities in that he was spectacularly wrong.

To say exposing the papyrus to measuring or testing or micrometers won't change anyone's mind is true. Because there's nothing there that will correspond with the Book of Abraham.

That's why it's so important we have the missing Schryver Essay for study. When we have LDS luminaries state AND THEN THEIR REMARKS ARE PRINTED BY THE CHURCH:

"Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the 'translation documents' of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates."

If Benjamin McGuire does, indeed, have this essay handy it's his responsibility to bring it forth to the academic world for study. Anything short of that, then I, unfortunately, question his commitment to ancient Book of Abraham studies, micrometers aside.

- Doc

[_Shulem]

While I admit that I may not be particularly in line with mainstream LDS views, I think that there is no question that there is some religious appropriation going on here. That is, Joseph Smith is re-purposing the facsimiles for use with his Book of Abraham text. In that sense, I don't, for a minute, believe that Joseph Smith was creating (or even working towards) some sort of original Egyptian document (although he and his associates might have come to believe that this is what they were doing). Nor do I think that this is significantly different from any other religious group (or even non-religious groups) doing the same sort of thing.

First, I'm glad you're not in line with mainstream LDS views. The recent Essay indicate that mainstream LDS views are making major changes as the LDS position hammers things out.

Right, we can agree that Joseph Smith took liberties and "religious appropriation" of varying degrees is clearly manifest in the makings of the Book of Abraham.

The best way to understand what Smith and his associates thought they were doing is by reading what they said about what they thought they were doing. I've spent countless hours analyzing statements made to that effect. I've carefully studied the words of Joseph Smith and those with whom he worked. That is the best way to get inside his mind and have a working understanding of his thoughts. As a man thinks, so is he.

It's reasonable to expect that a self proclaimed prophet, seer, revelator, translator, and the mouthpiece for God here on earth is a cut above the rest of the religious world. One would expect the Spirit speaking through him wouldn't make too many mistakes.

Right.

[_Physics Guy]

I also thought ECD was a bizarrely overpowered approach to measuring the thickness of papyrus, but it does offer the advantage of not having to touch the papyrus to measure its thickness, so if the Church insists on protecting the papyrus from contact, then ECD might actually be a sensible method. As DrW suggested, lay the papyrus inside its mylar envelope onto a metal plate, and just apply the kind of ECD device that is used to measure paint thickness nondestructively. If you can independently measure the thickness of the mylar envelope, then you can get the thickness of the papyrus.

I bet there would indeed be calibration issues. I reckon you could probably handle them by doing control measurements of various thicknesses of other paper or parchment or cloth inside similar mylar envelopes. You have to know the mylar envelope well to use this method, anyway. Did Schryver's team do all that properly? Perhaps they did, but if not—if Schryver's ECD experts just slapped a meter down on the papyrus frame, assuming everything would work just like measuring paint thickness—then their measurements might be worthless even though they had tons of experience in using ECD devices in routine ways.

A paper would have to go into quite a lot of detail about exactly how the measurements were calibrated. If it did that, it might be impressive and convincing. Blowing off the need to explain calibration, on the other hand, with the excuse that the measurements were performed by experts, would drop the credibility to near zero. If you're not enough of an expert to know that calibration of an unusual kind of measurement needs explaining, you're not enough of an expert to do the job right.

[_Shulem]

Because of this, the only way in which this is a problem that must be solved comes for those who believe that the facsimiles (as we have them in the wood cuts) are accurate reconstructions of an original Egyptian document and that this original document can and should be understood exclusively within the context of the LDS Book of Abraham as it now exists. Since I don't accept that premise, I don't really have a problem with changes being made to that source to make it more illustrative (in some sense) of the Book of Abraham narrative. A more relevant question (at least for me) exists over the issue of which came first. Did we get the narrative which was then illustrated by the facsimiles? Or were the facsimiles in some way inspiration for the narrative? And was the use of the illustrations in either case a way of connecting the text to the papyri? This is more or less the same question that exists about the grammar documents. Which came first, the grammar documents or the Book of Abraham narrative? And of course, there are lots of things that can help us with that question, like the Hebrew connections to Seixas and the Gibbs text. In my 2016 FairMormon presentation, I spent some time talking about translation, and the language used in translation, and how a text that claims to be a translation functions differently in an audience than a text that claims to be an original work. This was with respect to the Book of Mormon. But some of that applies here to the Book of Abraham as well.

What matters is what Joseph Smith and his associates believed about the Facsimiles and the Explanations affixed to them. That's what matters. What LDS people today think or believe is beside the point and really doesn't matter. What matters is what Joseph Smith believed because Joseph Smith is the original HORSE, Joseph Smith was and is authentic Mormonism. That's why it's so critical to read and reread what Smith said. Read it aloud. Read it an every way you can. Read what Joseph Smith said and understand his thoughts. Become one with him and meld into his world and those who were a party to his actions.

[_Shulem]

Because of this, the only way in which this is a problem that must be solved comes for those who believe that the facsimiles (as we have them in the wood cuts) are accurate reconstructions of an original Egyptian document and that this original document can and should be understood exclusively within the context of the LDS Book of Abraham as it now exists.

You've been able to see a blow up view of the printing plate wherein the head of Anubis provides new details that nobody ever could have guessed. The nose was hacked off after having been originally carved on the plate. Don't you think the nose was hacked out, Benjamin? Just look at it! You can see the jackal eye, it looks fine. You can see the jackal ear atop the head, it's there good enough. But the nose, it was removed, was it not? And if so, why?

Surely you have an opinion on this. I think you know that the original head on the papyrus in both vignettes of Facsimile No. 1 & 3 was a jackal not that of a human.

[_Shulem]

I spent some time talking about translation, and the language used in translation, and how a text that claims to be a translation functions differently in an audience than a text that claims to be an original work.

Imagine having the opportunity of listening to President Joseph Smith personally tell you about the papyrus and pointing at certain characters thereon and telling you that they constitute the actual handwritten signature of such-and-such in the Bible. Wouldn't that be a golden opportunity to test the prophet's rational?

At that juncture you have a choice. Believe the prophet or, not.

[_Fence Sitter]

Why are we talking about a measurement (thickness) of the Hor scroll that is useless to determine it's original length?


as far as I know the way to predict how long the Hor scroll was originally is to use the Hoffman formula which uses winding lengths or radiuses. Discussing how effective the thickness measurements Will might of done is irrelevant to the discussion of how long the missing section(s) was of the Hor scroll.

[_Shulem]

Why are we talking about a measurement (thickness) of the Hor scroll that is useless to determine it's original length?

Every time someone says the name "Hor" it reminds us that the name "Abraham" is no where found on Smith's papyrus.

Just keep saying, "Hor". That's whose papyrus it is.