Three things

[_William Schryver]

Will,

The increase in the thickness of the papyri during the later Greco-Roman period, as indicated by the source you reference, was due to the introduction of the use of a pen as the writing instrument.

The JSP are written with a brush, and on a very thin papyrus stock, hence the fragility of the portion that was removed from the Horos scroll and mounted in glass.

In other words, the Joseph Smith Papyri do not meet the criteria of those papyri that were written on thicker stock during the later Greco-Roman period. Remember, the JSP date to around 250 B.C.

The source actually indicates that there was a general increase in papyrus thicknesses during this period, not that only papyri written on with Greek-style pens exhibited such an increase. Indeed, unless the manufacturers of papyri consulted their buyers ahead of time in order to determine what kind of writing implement was to be used, it wouldn't make much sense to expect the choice of implement to affect papyrus thickness. In any case, I actually agree that the Hor papyrus was unusually thin stock compared, for example, to the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will recall that my estimate of its thickness at about .25 mm is based on actual measurements, not on mere speculation about what thickness we would expect. this discussion about typical Ptolemaic thicknesses is only intended to show that Gee's numbers are far, far removed from what was typical for the period.

Best,

-Chris

Sorry, Chris.

You're wrong on this one.

Dead wrong.

And you have no evidence that proves otherwise, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Not that I believe you'll ever admit it, or that your receptive audience here will ever admit it. That, of course, is a given.

But where it really matters, you've actually already been proved wrong. And if you stick to this argument, you'll just continue to be on the wrong side of the data. So go ahead if you'd like. I actually want to strongly encourage you to publish on this subject, using the arguments you have used here. In fact, I beg you to not change your mind.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sometimes, Will, I can't help but wonder just how serious you are. Your last post above was one of those moments. I have already been proven dead wrong? I have no evidence that proves otherwise? I will never admit it?

Sorry, when did we make the transition into the land of Narnia? If and when you provide actual evidence that I am wrong, I will gladly evaluate its strength and make any admissions that are necessary. In the meantime, all we have are your promises that some crippling refutation is forthcoming.

Incidentally, you were right about one thing. Chap's analysis did include "at least one incorrect assumption." According to Hoffmann, "[Chap's and my method] would be the formula for the entire length. Actually, however, 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 length." Thus the length is actually shorter than Chap and I have estimated. (This is the reason for the difference between Hoffmann's fomula and mine, by the way. Parentheses in the Hoffmann quote are in the original.)

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Everyone,

The other day I received exact-size photocopies from the BYU Studies publication of the papyrus photographs. JSP I and XI are published, according to the caption, in "actual size". JSP X is reduced, but the original dimensions are given, so a few minutes ago I blew it up to the stated size. To my surprise, these images provide measurements much closer (though not identical) to Gee's figures. (A very preliminary measurement shows the first wrap to be about 10 cm and the last to be about 9.1 cm.) I am suspicious of the dimensions of the photos, though. Michael D. Rhodes' dimensions for JSP I match the Improvement Era photos. They do not, however, match the BYU Studies photos, despite the claim of "actual size". Rhodes' numbers indicate that the vignette should be about a centimeter bigger in both directions. Similarly, the Improvement Era photos' margin-ruler indicates that JSP X is about 12 inches long. The BYU Studies measurements make it twelve and a half. Thus it seems that BYU Studies may make the first wrapping too small, and very probably makes the last wrapping too big. I am wondering if perhaps here is where Gee got his measurements.

If the photos and their captions are taken at face value, then plugging my preliminary figures for them into Hoffmann's equation gives 285 cm (about 9 1/2 feet) of missing papyrus and an S value of about .13. Still not 41 feet, but substantially longer than either of the other two sets of photographs (one of which includes rulers) seem to indicate.

In any case, I still fully expect my previous findings based on the Larson and Improvement Era photographs, as well as on the statement of Gustavus Seyffarth, to be vindicated by an examination of the originals. If the Church refuses me admission to see them it will be a great personal disappointment.

Best,

-Chris

[_Yoda]

Sorry, when did we make the transition into the land of Narnia?

LOL! This post made my night!

[_William Schryver]

Hi Everyone,

The other day I received exact-size photocopies from the BYU Studies publication of the papyrus photographs. JSP I and XI are published, according to the caption, in "actual size". JSP X is reduced, but the original dimensions are given, so a few minutes ago I blew it up to the stated size. To my surprise, these images provide measurements much closer (though not identical) to Gee's figures. (A very preliminary measurement shows the first wrap to be about 10 cm and the last to be about 9.1 cm.) I am suspicious of the dimensions of the photos, though. Michael D. Rhodes' dimensions for JSP I match the Improvement Era photos. They do not, however, match the BYU Studies photos, despite the claim of "actual size". Rhodes' numbers indicate that the vignette should be about a centimeter bigger in both directions. Similarly, the Improvement Era photos' margin-ruler indicates that JSP X is about 12 inches long. The BYU Studies measurements make it twelve and a half. Thus it seems that BYU Studies may make the first wrapping too small, and very probably makes the last wrapping too big. I am wondering if perhaps here is where Gee got his measurements.

If the photos and their captions are taken at face value, then plugging my preliminary figures for them into Hoffmann's equation gives 285 cm (about 9 1/2 feet) of missing papyrus and an S value of about .13. Still not 41 feet, but substantially longer than either of the other two sets of photographs (one of which includes rulers) seem to indicate.

In any case, I still fully expect my previous findings based on the Larson and Improvement Era photographs, as well as on the statement of Gustavus Seyffarth, to be vindicated by an examination of the originals. If the Church refuses me admission to see them it will be a great personal disappointment.

Best,

-Chris

Well, well, well ... now we're getting somewhere.

So, let's see ... according to Chris, we're now up to almost 300cm or 10 full feet of missing scroll!

But only if we accept your measurement of 9.1 cm for the last winding, as opposed to Gee's published figure of 9.5 cm. If Gee's measurements are correct (incidentally, Gee used the originals, not photocopies) then I figure your result will be in excess of 500cm.

Still, we're making some real progress towards a reasonable estimate of the original length of the Horos scroll.

We've now reached the point where one can reconcile the calculated scroll length with the contemporary eyewitness reports.

Not to mention that 300cm of papyrus is a whole bunch of missing material.

Since I estimate the percentage of what you're willing to admit vs. what is justified by the evidence is right around 50%, I figure my proposed 600cm is all but confirmed in the eyes of objective observers.

[_CaliforniaKid]

William,

As I pointed out, the dimensions given by the BYU Studies captions for JSP X do not match the Improvement Era photographs, which actually have a ruler in the photograph itself. There also may be a problem with the size of the initial vignette in the BYU Studies photographs. We still have two other sets of photographs that corroborate my estimate, as well as the statement of Gustavus Seyffarth. So perhaps you should put your victory dance on hold. Cheers,

-Chris

[_William Schryver]

William,

As I pointed out, the dimensions given by the BYU Studies captions for JSP X do not match the Improvement Era photographs, which actually have a ruler in the photograph itself. There also may be a problem with the size of the initial vignette in the BYU Studies photographs. We still have two other sets of photographs that corroborate my estimate, as well as the statement of Gustavus Seyffarth. So perhaps you should put your victory dance on hold. Cheers,

-Chris

In any event, let's make sure to reject out of hand the several-times-confirmed measurements done by the one man on the planet who has spent more time with the original papyri than any other.

That's really logical.

Of course, Gee is a long-since-proven-to-be bumbling fool, a laughing-stock in the Egyptological community, and an embarrassment to scholars everywhere. Especially those found here in Shadyville.

Here's how John describes the process he went through:

The size of Horos's scroll at first seems excessive, even though it is not unheard of. When I first plugged the numbers in a few years ago and got the result, I checked the measurements and then checked them again. Then I checked the formula again. Then I rechecked the formula's derivation. Then I rechecked the assumptions behind the formula. Then I simply dismissed them and went back to the standard roll length. I had always assumed that the Semminis roll would be the longer one since the Book of the Dead is a much longer composition than the Document of Breathings Made by Isis and my initial estimates of the length of the Semminis roll, based on the length of the text preserved and the percentage of the Book of the Dead preserved, had been almost twenty feet. It was only after plugging the numbers from the other Joseph Smith Papyri into the formula that I realized that the formula does give reasonable results. I have since realized that having a long roll of Horos brings all the nineteenth-century eyewitnesses into agreement.

Sounds like a bumbling fool, without a doubt ...

[_CaliforniaKid]

Dr. Gee has not accurately represented the other evidence on the subject. I see no reason to assume he has done so here.

[_William Schryver]

Dr. Gee has not accurately represented the other evidence on the subject. I see no reason to assume he has done so here.

Oh, geez! <sigh>

Now we're back to: Gee is a liar.

What part of the above paragraph prompted your comment?

[_Dr. Shades]

Will:

Even if the papyrus scroll is as long as you say it is, what's the likelihood that Abraham would've begun writing his account in the center of the scroll, leaving room on the right and left edges for an anticipated Book of Breathings that would be written there 2,000 years later? And what's the likelihood that the Hor embalmists would've used a 2,000 year old scroll with pre-existing writing on which to pen the Book of Breathings instead of starting out with a brand-new empty scroll?