The snideness is getting pretty thick in here, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation before it gets the best of me. I'll report back if and when I've taken further measurements.
No one is being snide, but your argument is crumbling. I suppose that claiming everyone is nasty is an attempt to seize the high ground, but it doesn't look very persuasive given your history on this and other topics.
There are people here who know far more math and the necessary modeling than you do. You might try learning from them.
Take a deep breath. The Church can still be false if there was extra scroll. :-)
This began to be alarming. It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves? - Gilbert K Chesterton, "The Paradoxes of Christianity," Orthodoxy (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908).
Our readers should understand (and I must give credit to David Keller, again, for providing me with these figures â?? I confess to relying on others to crunch the numbers in this discussion) in order to achieve a papyrus thickness of 500 microns, Geeâ??s measurements for the windings must be incorrect by 1.9 cm! In order to achieve a papyrus thickness of 800 microns, his measurements must be incorrect by 3 cm!
That, my friend, is a serious order of error that you are alleging.
And also:
Quote
The Gee measurements indicate a papyrus thickness of 53 microns. Known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus from both the New Kingdom period (Cerny) and the Greco-Roman period (the Herculaneum Micro CT scan measurements of several scrolls) are as thin as 100 microns. Until Geeâ??s measurements are shown to be incorrect, I donâ??t see how it is â??implausibleâ? to believe that papyrus could have been manufactured to a ~50 micron thickness. And were his measurements to be â??correctedâ? by future, more precise, measurements, youâ??re still facing the reality that his measurements must be incorrect to an almost implausible degree: 2 â?? 3 cm!
To which Christopher Smith replied: _____________________________________
So Chris, I ask you: Are you suggesting that Professor Gee's measurements are incorrect to such a pronounced degree? Have your measurements to date indicated such a possibility?
Take a deep breath. The Church can still be false if there was extra scroll. :-)
Hmm.
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic." - Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011
"This is it folks, the high point of apologetics for the year. The church pumps millions into FARMS and its PR dept for this." - "Heresy," on a nameless board, August 11, 2011 - after reading the Deseret News piece about my Kinderhook plates presentation
But, I am joking to make a quite serious point--Chris is insisting far too much on a losing point. This isn't a hill worth dying on. (Those who have followed the discussion elsewhere will understand why he is reluctant to lose face on the issue, given the amount of crowing and posturing that has gone on.)
This doesn't prove the Church is true or false. It merely proves that the eyewitness accounts about the scrolls are accurate, and also provides validation for an Egyptologial formula for scroll rolling. (I always believed there were more scrolls because there are witnesses who said so, and why would they lie? At the time, it had no apologetic interest on one side or the other. It's the sort of incidental detail that is likely to be accurately reported.)
And, it proves John Gee isn't a completely incompetent hack or liar on this point. (Those concerned can rest assured, however, that he could certainly be an incompetent hack or liar on every other point.)
I suspect, actually, that that was the whole point of the exercise in some minds--discrediting Gee.
This began to be alarming. It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves? - Gilbert K Chesterton, "The Paradoxes of Christianity," Orthodoxy (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908).
(I always believed there were more scrolls because there are witnesses who said so, and why would they lie? At the time, it had no apologetic interest on one side or the other. It's the sort of incidental detail that is likely to be accurately reported.)
This is a great point.
Critics don't like the Haven and Blanchard quotes (and others) that speak of the long roll. The want to diminish their reliability on the basis of the fact that these were young women who probably weren't really paying close attention to what was going on. I find that attitude condescending and naive. In fact, when you stop to consider what kinds of things an 18-year-old woman would most notice in such an experience, it would be the kinds of elements we read in Haven's account: the length of the roll and the nature of the illustrations on the papyrus itself.
Lurks in shadows unlit by the fiery gaze of the SCMC
Banned
2,098 posts
Posted 13 May 2009 - 09:55 PM
On the up side, I'm here now thanks to our wise and benevolent moderators.
On the down side, I now have no attachment panel at all.
I'll give it a few days, as Hermes suggests, and then perhaps look at a photobucket workaround.
Edited by Mortal Man, 13 May 2009 - 10:12 PM.
What they don't teach in Sunday school "We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death. We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." -- Gibarian
On the up side, I'm here now thanks to our wise and benevolent moderators.
On the down side, I now have no attachment panel at all.
I'll give it a few days, as Hermes suggests, and then perhaps look at a photobucket workaround.
Try now. I think I found the error some where having with uploads. Let me know if it works.
In response to queries forwarded to several collection directors and conservators around the world, I received overnight a reply from Professor Reinhold Scholl of the University of Leipzig, whose collection of 5000 papyri is world reknown.
Professor Scholl reports on the thickness of ten specimens of Greco-Roman papyri in the collection:
1. 0.20 mm
2. 0.41 mm
3. 0.15 mm
4. 0.12 mm
5. 0.22 mm
6. 0.17 mm
7. 0.27 mm
8. 0.26 mm
9. 0.18 mm
10. 0.20 mm
Average: 0.218 mm
(Courtesy of Professor Reinhold Scholl, Director, Papyrus and Ostraca Collection of the University Library Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.)
Lurks in shadows unlit by the fiery gaze of the SCMC
Banned
2,098 posts
Posted 19 May 2009 - 08:56 AM
William Schryver, on May 19 2009, 07:19 AM, said:
- New Development -
In response to queries forwarded to several collection directors and conservators around the world, I received overnight a reply from Professor Reinhold Scholl of the University of Leipzig, whose collection of 5000 papyri is world reknown.
Professor Scholl reports on the thickness of ten specimens of Greco-Roman papyri in the collection:
1. 0.20 mm
2. 0.41 mm
3. 0.15 mm
4. 0.12 mm
5. 0.22 mm
6. 0.17 mm
7. 0.27 mm
8. 0.26 mm
9. 0.18 mm
10. 0.20 mm
Average: 0.218 mm
(Courtesy of Professor Reinhold Scholl, Director, Papyrus and Ostraca Collection of the University Library Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.)
Thanks for sharing this with us Will.
It would be helpful to get the S factors for these specimens as well. That would give us an indication of how the apparent thickness (wrinkling etc.) relates to the physical thickness.
Edited by Mortal Man, 19 May 2009 - 10:26 AM.
What they don't teach in Sunday school "We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death. We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." -- Gibarian
Thanks for sharing this with us Will.
It would be helpful to get the S factors for these specimens as well. That would give us an indication of how the apparent thickness (wrinkling etc.) relates to the physical thickness.
Nicholson and Shaw tell us in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology that traditional papyrus was "pressed in presses" or by using heavy rollers, thus producing a very uniform product; very fine and very thin. (see pp. 233 - 234).
What evidence do you have that there was any appreciable "wrinking, etc." when a papyrus of 120 microns in thickness (the equivalent of modern butcher paper) was rolled up around its umbilicus? A material that thin could quite easily be wrapped to a great tightness, just as rolls of paper are today.
Lurks in shadows unlit by the fiery gaze of the SCMC
Banned
2,098 posts
Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:18 AM
William Schryver, on May 19 2009, 11:59 AM, said:
Nicholson and Shaw tell us in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology that traditional papyrus was "pressed in presses" or by using heavy rollers, thus producing a very uniform product; very fine and very thin. (see pp. 233 - 234).
What evidence do you have that there was any appreciable "wrinking, etc." when a papyrus of 120 microns in thickness (the equivalent of modern butcher paper) was rolled up around its umbilicus? A material that thin could quite easily be wrapped to a great tightness, just as rolls of paper are today.
I am trying to gather evidence so that we don't have to rely on assumptions.
Papyrus is rolled or pressed to get the water out, but the process leaves some residual moisture in the material. Thus, some drying occurs over the centuries, which causes shrinkage and wrinkling (just like people). We know that ancient scrolls have wrinkles in them and are more brittle than fresh papyrus.
Do each of the samples you mention above have uniform thickness, as quoted, or is there some variation? What is the variation within a scroll compared to the variation between scrolls?
"Thickness will vary depending upon requirement as will overall sheet weight per unit area. As a guide, nominal thickness of this product range would vary between 0.2 â?? 0.5mm in single ply, with a weight of approximately 80g/m2, depending upon thickness and density required. Multiple laminates can also be constructed, depending upon Customer requirements."
I'll bet if you rolled up ten of their 0.5 mm sheets and put them in the desert for two millennia, you'd get a range of thicknesses similar to your ten specimens above. The numbers you've reported may say more about the aging process than they do about manufactured thicknesses.
Edited by Mortal Man, 20 May 2009 - 12:19 PM.
What they don't teach in Sunday school "We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death. We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." -- Gibarian
I am trying to gather evidence so that we don't have to rely on assumptions.
Papyrus is rolled or pressed to get the water out, but the process leaves some residual moisture in the material. Thus, some drying occurs over the centuries, which causes shrinkage and wrinkling (just like people). We know that ancient scrolls have wrinkles in them and are more brittle than fresh papyrus.
Do each of the samples you mention above have uniform thickness, as quoted, or is there some variation? What is the variation within a scroll compared to the variation between scrolls?
"Thickness will vary depending upon requirement as will overall sheet weight per unit area. As a guide, nominal thickness of this product range would vary between 0.2 â?? 0.5mm in single ply, with a weight of approximately 80g/m2, depending upon thickness and density required. Multiple laminates can also be constructed, depending upon Customer requirements."
I'll bet if you rolled up ten of their 0.5 mm sheets and put them in the desert for two millennia, you'd get a range of thicknesses similar to your ten specimens above. The numbers you've reported may say more about the aging process than they do about manufactured thicknesses.
I consider your comments above largely speculative in most respects. And, in particular, you are incorrect--or at least incomplete--on one count.
You wrote: "Papyrus is rolled or pressed to get the water out, but the process leaves some residual moisture in the material." But, according to Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, which I have quoted above, the papyrus was set out to dry in the sun after pressing in order to remove all residual moisture. (See pp. 233-234, here.).
In addition, in the course of my recent readings on papyrus production, I have noted no commentary concerning the tendency of the papyrus to shrink after production. Do you have sources that suggest this? And, if so, how do you intend to employ this fact in an argument?
Edited by William Schryver, 20 May 2009 - 08:29 PM.
For those who are interested, Brian Hauglid and I spent part of today in a private room at the new Church History Library. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers were our primary focus of attention. More to come later on that.
We also spent a considerable amount of our allotted time examining the Joseph Smith Papyri. We requested and were granted permission to make precision measurements of several fragments of the papyri. We employed a micrometer and measured two samples still attached to the thick backing paper. They measured 394 and 368 microns, respectively. We were not able, at this time, to isolate a sample containing only backing paper in order to measure it and, by subtraction, determine the thickness of the attached papyrus. But we were able to measure two samples no longer attached to the backing paper. Those two samples meaured 97 and 127 microns, respectively, about half the thickness of the "average" of Greco/Roman papyri for which I have previously been able to obtain measurements (see above for details). Combined with John Gee's initial measurement of the outermost winding of the scroll of Horos (9.7 cm), the simple calculation of a spiral returns an upper-bound length of approximately 18-25 feet for the missing portion of the scroll.
Again, more to come later ...
Edited by William Schryver, 30 October 2009 - 07:40 PM.
So... given your and Brian Hauglid's jaunt to the LDS history library can we assume that Brian agrees with your guesstimation of the papyrus length and that Brian believes that the BoAbr was recorded thereon?
If so, that would radically depart from virtually all of my personal communications with Brian.
Cheers,
</brent>
http://mormonscripturestudies.com
( 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------ The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown
given your and Brian Hauglid's jaunt to the LDS history library can we assume that Brian agrees with your guesstimation of the papyrus length
I fail to appreciate the connection (in your mind, at least) between our visit to the library and Brians opinions concerning the length of the missing portion of the scroll of Horos. Indeed, your sentence above appears to be a text book example of the principle of non sequitur.
Furthermore, I doubt that the venerable Archimedes would concur with your characterization of his formula for calculating the length of a spiral as an exercise in guesstimation. But perhaps you hold to different standards when it comes to objective mathematics.
As for Brians views concerning the potential length of the missing portion of the scroll of Horos, my impression is that he is inclined to concur with Archimedes.
Quote
Brian believes that the BoAbr was recorded thereon?
To my knowledge, neither Brian nor I have ever made any such argument. There is, of course, no way of knowing what might have appeared on a length of scroll that no longer exists.
Quote
If so, that would radically depart from virtually all of my personal communications with Brian.
Im confident that your sense of Brian Hauglids feelings and opinions on most issues is greatly distorted by the lens of your own presuppositions.
Edited by William Schryver, 31 October 2009 - 08:31 AM.
I call your assessment of the overall papyrus length a "guesstimation" because you've provided precious little information about how you took your measurements. You used a micrometer; was it digital or analog? What is the accuracy level of your micrometer?
Since the thicknesses of the average human hair is 80 microns, your measurements of the two samples seem astonishingly thin (I've handled papyrus from the era of the JS papyri and it seemed considerably thicker). How did you determine that the two samples didn't leave a portion of their former selves on the backing paper they were previously mounted on?
Which specific mounted papyrus fragments did you measure? Why were you unable to isolate the backing paper? (I mean, it was right there in front of you, correct?) And, critically, what were your measurements of the lacunae?
I'm skeptical that a formulation of papyrus length ("18-25 feet") with a 7 foot variable is an "objective" calculation that would make Archimedes proud.
My best,
</brent>
http://mormonscripturestudies.com
( 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------ The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown
Edited by Brent Metcalfe, 31 October 2009 - 11:06 AM.
Brent Metcalfe, on 31 October 2009 - 10:58 AM, said:
[font="Times New Roman"]Hi Will,
I call your assessment of the overall papyrus length a "guesstimation" because you've provided precious little information about how you took your measurements. You used a micrometer; was it digital or analog? What is the accuracy level of your micrometer?
Since the thicknesses of the average human hair is 80 microns, your measurements of the two samples seem astonishingly thin (I've handled papyrus from the era of the JS papyri and it seemed considerably thicker). How did you determine that the two samples didn't leave a portion of their former selves on the backing paper they were previously mounted on?
Which specific mounted papyrus fragments did you measure? Why were you unable to isolate the backing paper? (I mean, it was right there in front of you, correct?) And, critically, what were your measurements of the lacunae?
I'm skeptical that a formulation of papyrus length ("18-25 feet") with a 7 foot variable is an "objective" calculation that would make Archimedes proud.
The details of the methodology employed were meticulously recorded and will be reported in course of time.
A papyrus thickness of 100 - 125 microns is fully consistent with known samples of Greco/Roman papyri as attested in the voluminous collection of the foremost repository of such papyri, the Papyrus and Ostraca Collection of the University Library Leipzig in Germany, as confirmed earlier this year by Professor Reinhold Scholl, director of the collection. There are also New Kingdom papyri measured by Jaroslav Cerny that averaged 125 microns in thickness. The measurements we obtained are therefore clearly comparable to known specimens.
It was not difficult to discern that the measured samples were intact fragments (that is, they had separated cleanly from the adhesive and the thick paper to which the cut portions of the scrolls had been mounted). In fact, one of the fragments did clearly manifest residue from the backing paper and the adhesive, and it measured considerably thicker than the untainted samples. Furthermore (and you appear to have missed my point entirely in reporting the thickness of the measured samples still attached to the backing paper) the samples still attached to the backing paper measured less than 400 microns! Since the thick backing paper is clearly 2x - 3x thicker than the papyrus itself, you do the math: the thickness of the papyrus must be somewhere between 100 - 200 microns.
And finally, since you have apparently failed to comprehend the significance of the calculated range (18'-25') I reported for the "upper-bound" length of the missing portion of the scroll, I will clarify: it is based on the range of the measurements of the samples (97-127 microns). Of course, I do not believe the actual length of the missing portion of the scroll was somewhere between 18'-25' (which is merely the "upper-bound," or the maximum possible length if the scroll had been wound as tightly as possible) but most certainly it was less. Even so, a missing length only half of the "upper-bound" would be 9'-12.5', which is entirely consistent with the contemporary eyewitness testimony of a "long roll" present after the mounted fragments had been removed.
Edited by William Schryver, 31 October 2009 - 12:08 PM.
Lurks in shadows unlit by the fiery gaze of the SCMC
Banned
2,098 posts
Posted 31 October 2009 - 12:31 PM
William Schryver, on 30 October 2009 - 07:40 PM, said:
Combined with John Gee's initial measurement of the outermost winding of the scroll of Horos (9.7 cm), the simple calculation of a spiral returns an upper-bound length of approximately 18-25 feet for the missing portion of the scroll.
Did you confirm Gee's measurement of 9.7 cm for the outer winding? Perhaps you would be good enough to post a photo, including a metric ruler, showing your audience exactly where the first winding begins and ends.
What they don't teach in Sunday school "We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death. We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." -- Gibarian
0
