153 replies to this topic

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 01 November 2009 - 07:18 PM, said:

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.)

I recall reading someone claim that there was "wing speckling".  Frankly, I don't know what they're talking about.  It's a freaking hand.  It looks just like the other one.  It's only become controversial because people with presuppositions are so inordinately inclined to believe such things as "wing speckling."

As for the alleged "one-sided conversations," it only seems that way to you because you refuse to notice the substantive arguments that I make.  You routinely dismiss them as "absurd," or something equivalent.  In that respect, you've begun to emulate your mentor quite well.  That's too bad, if you ask me.  But, hey, I understand how well it plays in certain quarters, so I don't really begrudge you resorting to it when the rewards are so enticing.

In any event, if you want to know why I reached the conclusion I did in respect to the question of "hand" vs. "wing tip," it's because, quite simply, it's obviously a hand and not a wing tip.  No more complex than that.

Of course, you're certainly free to have your conclusions dictated by your presupposition that Joseph Smith was just "making it all up" as he went along.

Edited by William Schryver, 01 November 2009 - 07:52 PM.

[Mortal Man]

To me it's clearly a wingtip. Isis must be present in order give birth to Horus below. Horus is gathering up Osiris' body parts to help him get resurrected.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 01 November 2009 - 07:18 PM, said:

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.)

By the way, there are several elements of the facsimiles from the Joseph Smith Papyri that are "unusual."  That's what makes them so intriguing.  They are not "common" funerary documents at all.  They're very unique in many ways.  I'm sure John Gee would love to tell you all about it, had you not burned your bridges with him so thoroughly.

Edited by William Schryver, 01 November 2009 - 07:55 PM.

[Mortal Man]

People can judge for themselves.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 01 November 2009 - 08:00 PM, said:

People can judge for themselves.

Yes, they can.  And they will.  

But I can tell you right now that all the photos I have seen (and particularly the one to which you've linked) pale in comparsion to the actual document.  I was, quite frankly, amazed at their clarity and beauty.  Especially the scroll of Semminis.  It was simply stunning!

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 01 November 2009 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm sure John Gee would love to tell you all about it, had you not burned your bridges with him so thoroughly.

I made a negative comment about John Gee a long time ago, and apologized profusely both in public and in private, both at the time and long afterward, and even had a cordial telephone conversation and a brief but cordial email exchange.  Only thereafter did he stop communicating with me.  I'm not sure what I did to burn my bridges so thoroughly, but probably having friends and acquaintances of his put negative words into my mouth on numerous occasions didn't help.

Edited by Chris Smith, 01 November 2009 - 08:37 PM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

William Schryver, on 01 November 2009 - 07:50 PM, said:

I recall reading someone claim that there was "wing speckling".  Frankly, I don't know what they're talking about....

No doubt. And you don't recall who made the claim?

In any event...

William Schryver, on 01 November 2009 - 07:50 PM, said:

It looks just like the other one.  It's only become controversial because people with presuppositions are so inordinately inclined to believe such things as "wing speckling."

Are you sure it "looks just like the other one"?

Consider a few comments I posted almost a decade ago here.

Irrespective of whether the strokes are the remnants of a hand or wing, one thing is certain: John Gee fudged the image to make it look like a hand.

This isn't about ideological obstinance, it's about scholarly integrity.

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

[William Schryver]

Brent Metcalfe, on 01 November 2009 - 09:39 PM, said:

This isn't about ideological obstinance, it's about scholarly integrity.

Yes, well, in my experience, one man's "scholarly integrity" is often another man's "ideological obstinance."

I trust you have read Lanny Bell's fairly recent article on this topic?  He doesn't appear to have any ideological dog in this race, and he sees a hand rather than a wing.

At any rate, I will likely have occasion again in the very near future to make some detailed observations of the original, in which case I will document specific reasons for which I am feel certain it is a hand, as opposed to the general impression I have expressed above.  Afterwards I will report on those observations.

In the meantime, I will only add that I have always considered your arguments (or rather, those made by Ashment which you cite) from the ZLMB thread a bit underwhelming.

Furthermore, I think you wrongly impugn Gee's intentions, as well as his "scholarly integrity."  But that is hardly breaking new ground in your case.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I encourage our readers to weigh the evidence for themselves on whether John Gee correctly represented the strokes as I discuss here.

Here are the relevant images:

Figure 1
(pJS 1 detail)




Figure 2
(Enlargement of the two sketches)




Figure 3
(Enlargement of the two sketches with guides)




Figure 4
(Blotches for bird feathers on wings and torso)




Figure 5
(John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 38)

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

[gtaggart]

Brent Metcalfe, on 01 November 2009 - 10:34 PM, said:

Hi Will,

I encourage our readers to weigh the evidence for themselves on whether John Gee correctly represented the strokes as I discuss here.

Here are the relevant images:

Figure 1
(pJS 1 detail)




Figure 2
(Enlargement of the two sketches)




Figure 3
(Enlargement of the two sketches with guides)




Figure 4
(Blotches for bird feathers on wings and torso)




Figure 5
(John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 38)

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

Brent,

As you make your case against Gee, do you think it might be fair to tell your audience that virtually the same images you included in your post, Gee included on page 38 of his Guide? Would your audience like to know that the "blotches" you point out in your post are obvious in Gee's book on page 38 as well? Would your audience like to know that the bird in your Figure 6 in your ZLMB post is very much like the bird from the Book of the Dead that Gee includes on the same page as the other images?

So if Gee was fudging, what exactly was he fudging? I mean, helly belly, even in your Figure 5, you want us to believe Gee is "fudging" the strokes when in fact he places those strokes next to a photo of the "blotchy" fingers, so anyone with eyesight can see what he has done. On the same page that figure comes from in his book (page 38 of his Guide), he has a bird much like the bird you're so exercised about. Talk about hiding the ball in plain sight! Please. If there's any fudging going on here . . . well, I'll leave that for the readers to decide.

Greg

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Greg,

After all these years you never fail to leave me bewildered.

So in what way do you believe that John Gee correctly represented the strokes here...

Figure 5
(John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 38)

I look forward to your incisive analysis.

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

[William Schryver]

Brent Metcalfe, on 01 November 2009 - 11:25 PM, said:

So in what way do you believe that John Gee correctly represented the strokes here...

Figure 5
(John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 38)

His intent is actually quite plain to one not motivated to find fault where none is to be found.  He was simply trying to emphasize that there appear to be four distinct lines representing fingers.  That's also what I believe.  In fact, I don't believe this photo is entirely representative of the original document.  Unfortunately, I did not specifically look at the locus with this controversy in mind, but I will make a note to do so when I return to SLC between now and the end of the month.

That said, (as Greg correctly notes) had Gee intended to deceive readers in any way by "connecting the dots," then why would he have placed the photo containing the "dots" directly beside the one where he is trying to illustrate the finger strokes?

Hello?!  Anybody home?

Your allegations are entirely without merit.  And your continuing imputation of ill-intent on the part of Professor Gee is entirely unfounded, and is more a reflection on you than it is on him.

At any rate, I may have more to report on this question between now and Thanksgiving.

Edited by William Schryver, 02 November 2009 - 07:53 AM.

[Chris Smith]

For once, I'm inclined to agree with William.  I see Gee's drawing as his proposed reconstruction, not as a misrepresentation of the photograph.  It's not unlike Ed Ashment's reconstruction, although Ed's use of a different ink color for reconstructed portions helped clarify what he had added and what was original.

But, I can't help but notice that the finger Gee extends to connect the two dots does not appear to be the right angle, even if it can be shown that the papyrus is damaged here (which possibility I do not discount).  I think that for one to get a viable reconstruction, one would need to make the dots belong to two separate fingers.

And since I'm an equal opportunity critic, I've always found the way Ashment restored the head of the ba bird to be a bit odd.  He seems to make the mouth into the eyes, the chin into the mouth, and the beard into the neck. The result is a very funny looking head.

Edited by Chris Smith, 02 November 2009 - 05:20 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 02 November 2009 - 08:13 AM, said:

For once, I'm inclined to agree with William.  I see Gee's drawing as his proposed reconstruction, not as a misrepresentation of the photograph.  It's not unlike Ed Ashment's reconstruction, although Ed's use of a different ink color for reconstructed portions helped clarify what he had added and what was original.

But, I can't help but notice that the finger Gee extends to connect the two dots does not appear to be the right angle, even if it can be shown that the papyrus is damaged here (which possibility I do not discount).  I think that for one to get a viable reconstruction, one would need to make the dots belong to two separate fingers.

And since I'm an equal opportunity critic, I've always found the way Ashment restored the head of the Horus hawk to be a bit odd.  He seems to make the mouth into the eyes, the chin into the mouth, and the beard into the neck. The result is a very funny looking head.

This is truly a red letter day!  And right on the heels of a long and pleasant chat with Don Bradley last night.  Man, I'm feeling so much good will right now I might just have to hit my thumb with a hammer to restore my equilibrium.

Anyway, you're up bright and early.  For a Californian.  Must be that extra hour you got yesterday, eh?

OK, I have tons of real work to do today, so I'm outta here ...

[gtaggart]

Brent Metcalfe, on 01 November 2009 - 11:25 PM, said:

Hi Greg,

After all these years you never fail to leave me bewildered.

So in what way do you believe that John Gee correctly represented the strokes here...

Figure 5
(John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 38)

I look forward to your incisive analysis.

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

Brent,

It's not really all that hard. I'm confident you'll be able to grasp my incisive analysis the second time around: You accuse Br. Gee of "fudging." I simply pointed out that someone who was in the business of "fudging" wouldn't lay out all the evidence that would prove that they were "fudging." For example, in Gee's case, he gives us the "blotchy" hand and the "stroked" hand side-by-side, among many other things*. Thus, I can see that he has completed the strokes that he obviously feels are missing from the "blotchy" hand. Why are the completed strokes missing from the "blotchy" hand? He doesn't say. Because I only have photos to work with--Gee's, Rhodes's, and Larson's--I can guess: The ink flecked off, leaving the "blotches"? There is some sort of aberration in the actual papyrus? Under magnification of the original papyrus, some sort of ink is evident? He was simply trying to show us what the strokes look like under magnification and enhanced? I really can't say without the best evidence--the actual papyrus--and more experience than I have in this area.

I can say, however, that to question Gee's integrity on the basis of the evidence you presented is unfair, uncalled for, and a cheap shot to score polemical points. I repeat, someone who's "fudging," hides the ball. Gee didn't. Incisive enough for you?

By the way, where's your ball? The Prophet's 200th birthday is long past.

Greg  

*He also gives us examples of birds on that page as well as the one on the facing page. By the way, your comparison of the "blotches" or feathers on the bird we know is a bird with the so-called "blotches" on the hand you want to be a bird wing is unconvincing: The "blotches" on the hand appear smaller than the "blotches" on the bird, and the "blotches" on the bird are much higher up on the wing than the so-called "blotches" on the hand you want to be a bird wing.

Edited by gtaggart, 02 November 2009 - 11:54 AM.

[Mortal Man]

I agree with Brent. The angle is wrong and I see no damage between the dots.

Edited by Mortal Man, 02 November 2009 - 09:23 AM.

[gtaggart]

Mortal Man, on 02 November 2009 - 09:14 AM, said:

I agree with Brent. The angle is wrong and I can detect no damage between the dots; thus, connecting them is pretty egregious.

Mortal Man,

You can't detect damage? I can--possible damage or blemishes, of course, given that I don't have access to the original papyrus. Do you?

Look just above the top "blotch" on Metcalfe's Figure 2. There is an apparent blemish or "white out" that runs from left to right, angling ever so slightly down and to the right. It appears to cut across the bottom of the top three fingers. In Rhodes's photos, the blemish appears even more pronounced and "white."

Now look at Metcalfe's Figure 4, the real bird. Note a similar blemish or "white out" in the third line from the left on the bird's left wing (the three lines represent downward feathers). Obviously, that line should have run uninterrupted, but no, there's a blemish of some sort at about the middle of the line. At least, there is no ink where there should be. The blemish even cuts into the second line from the left just a little.

Likewise, the blemish or "white out" on the finger stroke, creates at least one of the so-called "blotches" Metcalfe wants us to believe are feathers.

In fact, the more I look at the lion couch scene, the more such blemishes I discover, i.e., there is no ink where there should be ink. Take a look at Abraham's kilt. Blemishes or "white outs" in many of the lines that decorate the kilt. Look at the first layer of what the Prophet calls the "expanse," the herring-bone floor that the couch sits on. Once again, a number of blemishes or "white outs" in the lines where there should be ink. Likewise in the pillars of heaven. I guess we could call the resulting "blotches" bird feathers, but I choose to reserve that term for Metcalfe's argument.

At least that's what I see.

Greg

Edited by gtaggart, 02 November 2009 - 09:52 AM.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 02 November 2009 - 08:43 AM, said:

Anyway, you're up bright and early.  For a Californian.  Must be that extra hour you got yesterday, eh?

Actually, I couldn't sleep.  I think I may have swine flu.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for sharing your opinion. The fact that you don't always agree with me is precisely why I asked if you would proof my BoAbr transcriptions.

On Ed's depiction of the human head on the ba bird, I agree that his drawing is poor, but I don't think you're lining things up the way Ed intended, which was to match the human-headed ba bird with the human-headed canopic jar:

Here is an animated overlay:

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

[Chris Smith]

Thanks, Brent.  That's actually very helpful.