I felt that this subject was worthy of another thread. Over on the Dartagnan-Charity back-and-forth, mention was made of some arcane process for "estimating" the length of a scroll for which one only has a fragment:



I.e., scholars studying ancient manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, can use a process by which a mere fragment is analyzed in order to determine the full length of the scroll.

I found a website which describes the process:

Click

I am just curious: does Gee's theory about the Book of Abraham papyrus square with this stuff? Or is he just pulling yet another "fast one"?

Nice legwork there scratch.

I feel like an idiot now because I couldn't figure out what specific formula Gee was referring to - and I own this book.

I still wonder why he doesn't respond to anyone's request when asked what his source was. I wonder if this is what he is referring to.

In any event, it seems that the only person who has applied this to the Joseph Smith papyri is Gee himself , which is hardly reassuring. I'd like to see if the guys at U of Chicago would be interested in testing it this way. Even Klaus Baer was satisfied that the original length wasn't much more than what is extant. Gee will really have to have a good argument to justify extending it to twelve feet.

I suspect he is simply trying to force the evidence to meet his own expectations, the same way he did with the KEP and his riduculous "over run" argument. After all, this missing papyrus theory of his is really one of those things that will either make or break someone's credibility. So I can understand why he is dead set on trying to prove it.

It seems that this process relies on a few different factors. Some of these factors involve the physical appearance of the fragments, while one important factor is the content of the text itself. Fragments can be matched on the basis of content that matches.... In determining the overall length of a scroll, I can't see how matching fragments through context would matter. This would seem to be useless in the case of Abraham, where the pieces represent distinct texts. The important issue is whether the middle or outer parts of the scroll have been preserved. Clearly the middle parts of the Abraham papyri have been preserved. Of course, the material reconstruction of a scroll may be confirmed or proved incorrect by judging against three criteria: 1) the width of columns of text (doesn't seem to work for Abraham papryi), 2) division of the sheets, i.e. number of columns per sheet (also doesn't seem to work for Abdraham papyri), 3) the original diameter of the manuscript (The reconstruction is called into question if its diameter is larger than its height). In the case of Abraham papyri, it seems to me that it would take a really long proposed text length to do that, but I am guessing here.

Frankly, what would matter most, as far as I can tell, is the usual length of these types of documents. I would imagine that this factor would be the most reliable guide.

I have to admit this is just preliminary guess work. I would love to hear what Gee had to say.

Hey Mr. Scratch,

Thanks for the reference. The truth is that charity doesn't know what Gee was talking about either. Nobody at MADB took sufficient notes for us to reconstruct the process. And Gee has not answered my emails requesting his source.

I guess the next step is to check the sources in your DSS book and to find out the details of the process, then to apply it to the Book of Abraham.

-Chris

Yeah, I don't really know enough about the BofA papyrus to make a judgment on whether Gee is fudging the data or not, though there are a number of things surrounding this whole affair that ought to make one skeptical. First is the thing you noted: i.e., that both Gee and his TBM acolytes are so cagey about offering up the source. Second, was it not Hugh Nibley who first floated the theory that the Book of Abraham papyrus is only a small portion of a much longer scroll? And if so, why haven't these "scroll estimation" techniques been applied until now? (Or have they?) Something is quite fishy about what Gee is up to. Perhaps California Kid or Paul Osborne might weigh in on this? Or Metcalfe?

Yeah, what this leads me to suspect is that Gee may have just been "guessing." That is, he didn't know for certain about these methods, could not supply sources/refs., etc., but went ahead and posited the theory anyways. Regardless, there is something very, very suspicious about a scholar who's unwilling to share sources.

I put together this illustration to help better picture what is going on here. At least from what I understand.



I am assuming these are the damage points Gee is using. The distance between these points tells us the circumference of the scroll, which would be roughly 10 cm, or a little less than 4 inches. What I am trying to figure out now is how he goes from here and reaches a 12 foot conclusion for its length.

It seems to me that the size of the stick used in the scroll should be factored in to determine the length. But we do not have this information. A really thick stick would mean less required text for any given distance between points.

Here is an example of a scroll stick, called the umbilicus. This one is 2cm in diameter, which would provide an immediate circumference of 6cm or so:



I think Gee is operating under the assumption that no umbilicus was used to roll up the papyrus.

After having thought this over a bit more, I think you are more right than ever, Kevin. Charity did say, after all, that Gee was using a "formula" of some kind---i.e., relying on the curvature of the MS in order to estimate total length, right? And I don't really think that even the source I found is supplying just what, exactly, that formula might be. (Particularly without the umbilicus, as you point out.)

But was the BofA papyrus actually rolled up? And if so, why do the damage points appear at those intervals? (Perhaps this is a silly question---I would be the first to admit that I am just a dilettante with all of this Book of Abraham stuff.) Just looking at the image you've presented, Kevin, it looks to me more like the papyrus would have been folded rather than rolled, because otherwise why the damage points? Or would those result from the papyrus lying in one place for an extended amount of time (and the weight of the umbilicus would have rested on the area that is now the "damage points")?

I guess the bottom line is that there are all sorts of data which are missing from Gee's hypothesis, which only points yet again to its underlying dubiousness.

We know the material available to Joseph Smith was much larger that that at present because we have direct, primary sources from the time that mentions, in general, the extent of material that was known, irregardless of theoretical measurements. The material was far more extensive, physically, then we have at present and then that which burned in Chicago.

Nice try.

Now, look both ways before crossing the street...

Like what, for instance? I mean, like, CFR.

(My expectations are not high ... I mean, a brilliant scholar like John Gee would not be wasting his time trying to prove the length of the papyrus on theoretical grounds if there were "direct, primary sources from the time [of Joseph Smith, presumably]" that tell us how long it was? But perhaps that 'in general' dispenses Coggins from having to support any claim other than that the papyrus is, well, just damn well longer than his presumed opponents think. Whatever they do think. Or something. Anyway, CFR.)

The web's full of apologetic sources that will give you the details of what diary entries and statements made by the people who saw them or had them in their possession said regarding their size and contents. And those people had no way to anticipate the Chicago fire, the loss of those documents in other ways, or Mormndiscussions.com.

Unimpressive. Put up or shut up.

First of all, the size ofteh original collection is irrelevant since we know the Book of Abraham derived from one particular roll, in which we have its beginning, middle and a copy of its ending. All three portions of this roll refer to a man named Hor, and nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Gee is trying to argue that this particular roll must have had an attachment to it (presumably the Book of Abraham) which is why he is trying to stretch this particular roll out to twelve feet.



“Far more extensive” is a dubious claim that has since been refuted.



And virtually every historical account describes papyri which are extant. The web is full of apologetic crap. This is one of the losing points for the Church. Big time.



If it is true that we only have a fraction of the original collection, then why do virtually all evidence point to this small fraction as the source for the Book of Abraham? You actually need to be informed on this subject. I hope you don’t think you’re going to get away with blasé references to Gee and Nibley and consider your case won. These guys have made complete fools of themselves on this matter. You’d do well to distance yourself from their arguments as much as possible.

Hey scratch, the papyrus was definitely rolled up. Papyri were never folded up. This easily accounts for the damage marks being separated by the same length. Grab a roll of paper towels and then spill a drop of coke on the outside part. Let it soak in for a minute and then unroll it and you'll get the idea.

Ah, okay! I see what you're saying. This would mean that the umbilicus (supposing that one existed) would have been about 1" in diameter or so, right? I'm still at a loss as to how Gee is using any of this data to extrapolate his 12' foot length. Could it have anything to do with the "damage points"? I believe Charity mentioned something about the curvature of the MS, but what would that have to do with anything? The entire document is going to be wrapped around this 1" center.... So, how will the curvature tell us anything about the length?

Here is a guess.... :-)

If there was no umbilicus, and one started rolling, say paper towels (or something the thickness of the papyrus), Gee thinks it would take 12 feet to get the roll the size to create a four inch diameter, which would fit the "damage points," on the papyrus.

How is that?

:-)

~dancer~

TD has the right idea. At least that is how I think Gee is thinking.

Okay, I get it. Does this mean, then, that this supposed "additional 12 feet" would come before the portion of the papyrus which you posted above? Regardless, I cannot help but picture an image of Gee out in his back yard with a roll of paper towels, trying desperately to "recreate" the papyrus. Perhaps this was the "formula" he used? (Charity still hasn't bothered to supply us with that citation, I notice....)

Do you really expect me to genuflect to this recycled anti-Mormon schlock that's been long discredited by competent LDS scholarship? This is pure conjecture, and nothing more than that.. This claim is a claim, nothing more, that has never been substantiated empirically and cannot be, at this juncture, and you have conveniently danced around the wild cared here; primary sources indicate much greater quantities of material than we now have.

We do not know that the hypocephalus was the source of the BofA. That is pure conjecture; it is a theory that has been plausibly answered for a generation or more. It has something to do with the BofA to be sure, but we do not know what, you do not know what, and I do not know what. Neither Joseph or any of his associates left any mention of just what the relationship is.

Stay in the shallow end if you can't do any better than this.



U.S.D.A. prime gibberish. So you aren't conversant with the primary sources? Fine.




No, they patently do not. All we have is the Joseph Smith Papyri, 11 fragments from what is known to have been a much larger collection, the Sensen text, which is not known, (except in anti-Mormon theoretical structures) to be directly related to the BofA in a direct textual way, and the Book of the Dead fragments. Bare assertions of facts that do not exist and the confusion of theory and hypothesis with certainty bodes ill for your analysis. Eyewitnesses saw and described long rolls of papery which contained scriptural writings, papyri and writings we do not have. Your claim above is a patent falsehood. Direct, eyewitness accounts indicate much greater material existing in the nineteenth century.

How you refute direct, eyewitness testimony of the handling of empirical objects I'm not sure, but your way over stating the degree of certainty in your case to the point of disingenuity. We have only a tiny fraction of this today, and since we don't know as a matter of fact that the book of breathings was the source (indeed, Joseph never claimed it was), the critics claims, thought they may be plausible in a strictly intellectual way, cannot be conclusively be demonstrated with any degree of certainty.

Indeed, outside of anti-Mormon polemical circles, it is actually doubtful that the present papyri have a direct connection to the Abraham text. We do have facsimile 1, but that's the end of any clear connection. Contrary to your assertions, critic's claims that the BofA is a direct translation from the KEP, including entire sentences or paragraphs from single characters, has been debunked by LDS scholarship for quite sometime now.

Oh, but you didn't know that...

Quote:
And those people had no way to anticipate the Chicago fire, the loss of those documents in other ways, or Mormndiscussions.com.




They don't, and asserting and asserting that they do, over and over and over again, recycling now long discredited theories and wishful (hopeful) speculations does not make your case any stronger.

We know that there was much greater material because of direct, eyewitness accounts of that which existed, and, at the same time, the connections of the KEP to the BofA are strictly inferential, substantiated by no direct documentary evidence. There are other specific points that could be made regarding the sheer unlikelihood of our present fragments having much direct connection to the BofA, but enough for now.

Keep rearranging the deck chairs...

No probably after, which means it would be located to the left. You have to consider that the further you go to the right, or to the beginning of the roll, the more deteriorated the papyrus is supposed to be. But the problem Gee and the apologists have is obvious. We already know what the beginning, middle and end of this papyrus says. It is all about a man named Hor; nothing to do with Abraham. It would be unprecedented for there to be anything like a Book of Abraham added intermittently throughout a funerary text like this. So Gee’s only hope is to argue that the Book of Abraham was attached at the end, presumably somewhere in the extra 10 feet of missing papyrus he supposes exists.

But again, this is sad to see a scholar embarrass himself like this since the Book of Abraham explicitly states that it is connected to the “sacrifice” scene in the beginning. Even worse, the KEP demonstrate quite conclusively that all those involved in the translation, believed the extant papyrus illustrated above, was in fact the source for the Book of Abraham.

So you see it doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith originally had an entire library full of papyri. The fact is all the evidences point to this particular “fraction” of his collection, as the source for the Book of Abraham. Even if it did have a 10 foot attachment, there is no evidence the Book of Abraham derived from it.



Yes, it is funny to imagine.



Our resident idiot does many things, but providing sources for her claims simply isn’t one of them.

Do your own homework Mr. Wizard, or are you afraid that you'll get laughed out of here when we find out that most of the sources for your criticisms of the BofA come from old Jack Chick comics?

Loran, try to keep up. Charity/Gee is the one that made the claim; Scratch is just asking for her/his source.