153 replies to this topic

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 31 October 2009 - 12:31 PM, said:

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.

Sorry, that's not within the realm of my stewardship, although I understand that Professor Gee is planning a visit to SLC in advance of Chris Smith's date with the papyri in order to confirm his previous winding length measurements and fully document the methodology employed.  

So you have something to look forward to!

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 31 October 2009 - 12:47 PM, said:

Sorry, that's not within the realm of my stewardship, although I understand that Professor Gee is planning a visit to SLC in advance of Chris Smith's date with the papyri in order to confirm his previous winding length measurements and fully document the methodology employed.  

So you have something to look forward to!

That is excellent news Will.

You know, despite all the polemics, vitriol, incendiary rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, I really would like to come to agreement on the basic measurements. I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I've been working on this issue for the last several months and have been looking forward to Chris' examination date. I have invested a great deal of my personal time on this matter and want to see that the research is carried out properly. I think it would be a real shame to wind up with different people claiming different measurements and casting aspersions on the other parties. Simple measurements with a ruler are not something we should be arguing about!

I have learned some things during the course of my study that I think anyone who examines the papyri should be aware of. For example, you cannot determine winding lengths to any reasonable certainty or accuracy by guessing at crease marks or features of the lacunae. There is, rather, a completely objective mathematical way to do this. Additionally, there are certain fundamental measurements and key length scales that ought to be established and confirmed before a conclusive length determination can be made. I would like to work with Prof. Gee in this regard and would be happy to share my results with him if he's interested in a collaboration. I think it would serve everyone's interest if he and Chris took the same set of measurements and came to an agreement in this regard.

[Chris Smith]

Mortal Man, on 31 October 2009 - 01:38 PM, said:

I would like to work with Prof. Gee in this regard and would be happy to share my results with him if he's interested in a collaboration.

Agreed.  Perhaps Dr. Gee should contact us so we can chat about methodologies and make sure we're all at the top of our games when we view the papyri.

[calmoriah]

Chris Smith, on 31 October 2009 - 02:02 PM, said:

Agreed. Perhaps Dr. Gee should contact us so we can chat about methodologies and make sure we're all at the top of our games when we view the papyri.

Perhaps it would be best for you and Mortal Man to outline your ideas of proper methodology and the reasons for those choices first to send to Prof Gee rather than him contacting you to discuss it. Since neither of you have specialized in such things or even in related areas of Egyptology (unless I've not paid close enough attention which is certainly possible) it seems to me the default position is much more likely to be one that Prof Gee is already aware of the appropriate methods of measurements since this is part of his speciality and one he's been working in for years and the best approach therefore is for you two to present your own arguments for a certain approach rather than expecting some sort of collaboration up front to come up with some sort of combined effort.

I would not expect a cardiac surgeon to assume that someone not in the field--no matter how gifted or educated in another area--can contribute to his specific field of research until after that person has presented his 'credentials' (to demonstrate that his contributions will be more than just relaying the ideas of someone else that does work in the field) as well as his ideas that he believes will contribute something over and above what the surgeon already is aware of, especially if those concepts are gleaned from readings of the standard references in the field.

I am not saying that either of you do not have something to contribute, I'm just saying expecting Prof Gee to accept it based on discussions on a message board where he would have to devote considerable time in reading several threads made over the years is expecting somewhat too much. If you truly believe you have something new to inform him about, it seems to me you should be wiling to do the major work of preparing it in a simple, concise form that would be the least time and resource consuming for the good Prof.

Edited by calmoriah, 31 October 2009 - 03:13 PM.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 31 October 2009 - 01:38 PM, said:

That is excellent news Will.

You know, despite all the polemics, vitriol, incendiary rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, I really would like to come to agreement on the basic measurements. I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I've been working on this issue for the last several months and have been looking forward to Chris' examination date. I have invested a great deal of my personal time on this matter and want to see that the research is carried out properly. I think it would be a real shame to wind up with different people claiming different measurements and casting aspersions on the other parties. Simple measurements with a ruler are not something we should be arguing about!

I have learned some things during the course of my study that I think anyone who examines the papyri should be aware of. For example, you cannot determine winding lengths to any reasonable certainty or accuracy by guessing at crease marks or features of the lacunae. There is, rather, a completely objective mathematical way to do this. Additionally, there are certain fundamental measurements and key length scales that ought to be established and confirmed before a conclusive length determination can be made. I would like to work with Prof. Gee in this regard and would be happy to share my results with him if he's interested in a collaboration. I think it would serve everyone's interest if he and Chris took the same set of measurements and came to an agreement in this regard.

Wow!

You're making my head spin with this split personality thing.  First I'm a liar with no credibility, and now it's "let's all be friends and hold the ruler together."  

It's hard to keep up.

In any case, all I've done is report the results of the measurements Brian and I performed.  We attempted, to the best of our ability, to be completely and objectively scientific in everything we did.  I recorded each step of the process.  We methodically performed the measurements.  I noted the results.  We then repeated the process to confirm the first pass of results.  You don't like those results.  You're convinced they are flawed in some fashion.  Well, I can only say that I saw that coming a mile away.  

Unfortunately, it's hard to persuade a micrometer to tell you only what you want to hear.

As far as you guys joining hands with John to sing Kumbaya and measure papyri together, you're certainly free to contact him and propose such a thing.  I will not venture to predict the outcome.

[Mortal Man]

calmoriah, on 31 October 2009 - 03:09 PM, said:

Perhaps it would be best for you and Mortal Man to outline your ideas of proper methodology and the reasons for those choices first to send to Prof Gee rather than him contacting you to discuss it.

We have outlined our ideas and are prepared to share them with him; but since he quit responding to my emails, it would be necessary for a third party to contact him.

Quote

Since neither of you have specialized in such things or even in related areas of Egyptology (unless I've not paid close enough attention which is certainly possible) it seems to me the default position is much more likely to be one that Prof Gee is already aware of the appropriate methods of measurements since this is part of his speciality and one he's been working in for years and the best approach therefore is for you two to present your own arguments for a certain approach rather than expecting some sort of collaboration up front to come up with some sort of combined effort.

We're not talking about Egyptology. We're talking about measurements and mathematical calculations, which, though not terribly complicated, must be applied properly. I have "specialized in such things."

Quote

I would not expect a cardiac surgeon to assume that someone not in the field--no matter how gifted or educated in another area--can contribute to his specific field of research until after that person has presented his 'credentials' (to demonstrate that his contributions will be more than just relaying the ideas of someone else that does work in the field) as well as his ideas that he believes will contribute something over and above what the surgeon already is aware of, especially if those concepts are gleaned from readings of the standard references in the field.

I'd be happy to send him my CV upon request.

Quote

I am not saying that either of you do not have something to contribute, I'm just saying expecting Prof Gee to accept it based on discussions on a message board where he would have to devote considerable time in reading several threads made over the years is expecting somewhat too much. If you truly believe you have something new to inform him about, it seems to me you should be wiling to do the major work of preparing it in a simple, concise form that would be the least time and resource consuming for the good Prof.

I don't expect him to read anything on this message board. The "simple, concise form" has already been prepared if he's interested in looking at it.

On a broader note, I can see from Will's reponse that there is really no interest in arriving at the truth. The all-consuming desire to humiliate one's enemies appears to rule the day. I don't see this as a contest but apparently everyone else does. I suspect that the apologists on this board would be enormously dismayed if Prof. Gee agreed to our proposal, as if their favorite gladiator offered his combatants a truce, thereby spoiling a perfectly good fight.

[calmoriah]

Quote

I suspect that the apologists on this board would be enormously dismayed if Prof. Gee agreed to our proposal, as if their favorite gladiator offered his combatants a truce, thereby spoiling a perfectly good fight.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't feel that way. I've never heard any protests from anyone that I remember when critics who come to the FAIR conference engage scholars there in serious discussion, most onlookers make appreciative comments of various types in fact.

Considering what has been said about Will on this message board (whether you think he deserves it or not), it hardly surprises me he doesn't feel like or thinks it's appropriate acting as a message boy. I think he's set up to lose either way so minimum involvement is the best. If Will stays out of it, he cannot be blamed for tainting Prof. Gee's opinion or something along those lines.

I would suggest you and Chris get together first and collaborate on how you two would go about measurement. Then Chris can choose whether or not to write Prof. Gee not only about his own opportunity to view the fragments, but add in a summary of the conclusion you two have come to. Chris can ask for advice at the same time as giving it if so inclined.

Edited by calmoriah, 31 October 2009 - 08:48 PM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi cal,

Great to see you involved in these conversations, my friend—it's been too long. I trust that all is well with you and yours.

calmoriah, on 31 October 2009 - 03:09 PM, said:

Perhaps it would be best for you and Mortal Man to outline your ideas of proper methodology and the reasons for those choices first to send to Prof Gee rather than him contacting you to discuss it. Since neither of you have specialized in such things... [snip!]

For what it's worth, Mortal Man has indeed "specialized in such things."

Considerable work has already been done behind the scenes. I look forward to everyone's contributions, including Will's and John's.

Kind regards,

</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

[Chris Smith]

calmoriah, on 31 October 2009 - 08:36 PM, said:

Then Chris can choose whether or not to write Prof. Gee not only about his own opportunity to view the fragments, but add in a summary of the conclusion you two have come to. Chris can ask for advice at the same time as giving it if so inclined.

Dr. Gee doesn't respond to my emails, either.

[calmoriah]

I am confused, very easy to do in this subject. Both Chris and Mortal have had previous conversations with Prof Gee which the professor has apparently terminated and won't respond to you any more for some reason (known, unknown?).

Why would you think a collaboration would occur under those circumstances?

How did you suppose that Prof Gee would find out about the offer in the first place to contact you about it (though now it makes much more sense why you two feel that Prof. Gee should contact you rather then the other way around)?

Apparently Brent is aware of the value of the work you two can give and could give a decent 'testimonial' for it (so to speak), is he on 'talking' terms with the Professor (he appears to be on first name basis so there is hope, ) or at least not on "no talking" terms? Perhaps he could act as middleman without the suggestion of possibly tainting the results against Chris and MM that would likely haunt Will's efforts. Perhaps that is what Brent means about "considerable work behind the scenes"....? If so, I look forward to hearing about the result.

PS: due to the length of these conversations over time, I fully admit to losing track of who knows what or who and how even if I've read every post in every thread on the subject. It is not currently a subject that interests me enough to make cliff notes of the dialogue even if that is a wise idea before I add any comments.

PPS to Brent: life is actually going quite well with me and mine, I am pleased to say. Hope the same can be said for you and yours.

PPPS: Sorry if there are typos, besides doing my usual of refusing to use my glasses for reading, I am using the much smaller screen of my husband's computer, my daughter having trashed my own a bit ago.

Edited by calmoriah, 31 October 2009 - 10:52 PM.

[DonBradley]

Mortal Man, on 31 October 2009 - 01:38 PM, said:

I would like to work with Prof. Gee in this regard and would be happy to share my results with him if he's interested in a collaboration. I think it would serve everyone's interest if he and Chris took the same set of measurements and came to an agreement in this regard.

Amen!  I hope there will be cooperation among scholars on matters of measurement.  As you say, it would be in everyone's interest to at least be able to agree on the fundamental data informing the discussion.  Without that, people will simply talk past one another, with little possibility of meaningful dialogue on other issues.  I wish I had anything useful to add on this topic, so I could help us all move beyond this measurement impasse.

I wonder if a disinterested party could also take measurements?  Anyone already involved in the present discussion will probably not be seen as disinterested, but there might be some who could be.  Michael Rhodes, for instance, is LDS and therefore clearly not against the Book of Abraham; but his own way of making sense of the book doesn't rely on missing papyrus, correct?  So I would imagine that everyone would agree measurements made by Rhodes would done in an unbiased way.  And if he also used measuring techniques informed by all participants in the present discussion....  Wishful thinking?  Or can we drag Michael Rhodes to Salt Lake? ;-)

Don

[William Schryver]

DB:

Quote

Michael Rhodes, for instance, is LDS and therefore clearly not against the Book of Abraham; but his own way of making sense of the book doesn't rely on missing papyrus, correct?

I found this statement quite interesting. I, of course, have made it quite clear for years that I believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation; that he almost certainly never knew what Egyptian text corresponded to that revelation; that it is possible, in my mind, that God may simply have used the papyri as relics to serve as a "catalyst" for the revelation he gave to the Prophet. This, of course, is more or less identical to what Mike Rhodes thinks on the topic. As far as my having written a paper about the length of the missing portion of the scroll of Horos, it came about almost by accident, as I was not previously interested in that particular angle on the issues. Nevertheless, I was convinced that the contemporary witness testimony was being unfairly maligned by the critics, and that there were indeed indications that there had been a scroll of significant length even after the mounted fragments had been removed.

After re-reading John Gee's FARMS Review article where he first mentioned the Hoffmann formula for calculating the length of the scroll from the winding measurements, it occurred to me that the key was knowing how thick papyrus really was. Thus was set in motion the chain of events that have led to me making this post on a bright sunny Sunday morning.

Let it be known, henceforth and forever, that I couldn't care less if there was a long scroll or not! Knowing for certain that the scroll of Horos was only about 4 feet long when the men in Kirtland first pulled it from its encasing tube would have zero effect on my view of the Book of Abraham as scripture. Zero. I have simply followed the evidence where it has led. In my judgment, the evidence is persuasive in this particular case: there was a lot more to the scroll of Horos than the critics want us to believe. This latest measurement of the thickness of the papyri is yet another piece of evidence that suggests there was a long roll.

Whether there was an Abraham text on that missing portion of scroll is something we can never know; I have never conjectured otherwise. One will search in vain on this thread for any evidence that I have even hinted at such a thing.

Indeed, I think you'd be surprised to learn that none of the people associated with LDS apologetics with whom I have had frequent conversations on these questions relies on the reality of "missing papyrus" in order to make ends meet in their understanding of the origins of the Book of Abraham. For everyone I know, it's entirely a peripheral question; one with some degree of interest, but not one with much significance either way.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 01 November 2009 - 08:20 AM, said:

Whether there was an Abraham text on that missing portion of scroll is something we can never know; I have never conjectured otherwise. One will search in vain on this thread for any evidence that I have even hinted at such a thing.

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208717096

William Schryver, on 11 September 2009 - 12:47 PM, said:

Nevertheless, I do believe that there was an Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham on the scroll of Horos. Not only that, but I have come to believe that the Document of Fellowship Written by Isis had a logical relationship (in the mind of the scroll's owner) with the Book of Abraham text that I believe followed it on the scroll. I believe that it constituted (in a manner of speaking) Hor's "temple recommend."

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 01 November 2009 - 12:48 PM, said:

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208717096

Do you find it ethically challenging to misrepresent evidence, or does it come naturally?

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that I have spoken elsewhere about my theories concerning the relationship of the Document of Fellowship to the Book of Abraham.  That's why I very specifically wrote:

Quote

One will search in vain on this thread for any evidence that I have even hinted at such a thing.

I've tried to be very careful to not mix the concepts on this thread, nor in the paper I have written on the topic.

Now, as for what I wrote on that other thread?  That is precisely what I think.  I believe there is a plausible relationship between the Document of Fellowship Written by Isis and a putative Book of Abraham.

That said, my point above is that my view of the BoA would not be altered if we definitively knew that there was no Abraham text on the scroll.  Of course, we don't know that, and the evidence is overwhelming at this point that there was a considerable amount of scroll material beyond the fragments that survive.

Edited by William Schryver, 01 November 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[William Schryver]

Incidentally, when one examines JSP-I (the lion couch vignette) with the naked eye, or under magnification (I did both) it is obvious that Richard Parker (and several others) are just plain wrong when suggesting that Abraham's right hand is actually the wing of a bird!

Parker wrote, way back in 1968:

Quote

“This is a well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god, on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier…The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus who avenges his father and takes over his inheritance. The complete bird [on the right] represents Nephthys, sister to Osiris and Isis. Beneath the bier are the four canopic jars with heads representative of the four sons of Horus…”

Richard Parker, Professor of Egyptology, Brown University, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 86.

He simply must have never looked at the original papyri, although even the photos seem pretty clear on this point.  All the same, when examining the original it is obvious that one is looking at two hands, not a hand and a wing tip.

I'm just glad Lanny Bell (a non-Mormon Egyptologist) has recently shown the courage and intellectual integrity to acknowledge the obvious:

Quote

Let me state clearly at the outset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point.

Lanny Bell, The Ancient Egyptian “Books of Breathing,” the Mormon “Book of Abraham,” and the Development of Egyptology in America in Egypt and Beyond, Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies, Brown University (2008): 28.

.
.
.
Edit: Added reference for Parker quote.

Edited by William Schryver, 01 November 2009 - 02:49 PM.

[Chris Smith]

Hey Will,

Could you articulate for us what it was on the papyri that made the hand/wing issue so clear to you?  Thanks,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 01 November 2009 - 02:54 PM, said:

Hey Will,

Could you articulate for us what it was on the papyri that made the hand/wing issue so clear to you?  Thanks,

-Chris

I might.  But first answer me this: do you agree with Parker or Bell on this question?
.
.
.
(I'm leaving for a while now and won't be able to check out your response until later ...)

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 01 November 2009 - 03:05 PM, said:

I might.  But first answer me this: do you agree with Parker or Bell on this question?

I'm undecided.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 01 November 2009 - 04:03 PM, said:

I'm undecided.

Really?

Why?

Lanny Bell believes the evidence is conclusive.

And yet, apparently, you do not.

Only having seen photographs of JSP-I prior to Friday, I was still quite persuaded that it was a hand, and not a wing.  Seeing both hands under magnification (and with the naked eye, too) I was even more persuaded that there is simply no doubt about it.

So, again, on what basis do you remain "undecided"?

[Chris Smith]

Mostly because a) it would be unusual, b ) there's possible wing speckling at the edge of the fragment, c) it looks a little different from the other hand, and d) although it would be odd to have an open and closed wing on the same document, we do find this in the Ta-shere min BoD.  At the same time, I'm quite sympathetic to the arguments Bell and others have forwarded, and it does look rather more like a hand than a wing.

(I'm a bit baffled, by the way, that I am demanded to justify being undecided, but when asked to explain your own absolute certitude you avoid the question.  I only bring this up because it seems to be a pattern on your part lately to ask lots of penetrating questions but never to provide any answers.  It makes for some rather frustrating and one-sided conversations.)

Edited by Chris Smith, 01 November 2009 - 07:19 PM.