John Gee Actually Talks About The Papyri - Oh My!

[pBarlow]

Calmoriah, Gee is the one with the burden of proof here. He is the one up against the ropes. He is the one who presented an all but dead missing papyrus argument many years ago, based on ambiguous evidence. He is the one who was rejected by his peers on this issue. Don't question why I reject his argument, you should wonder why they do (and no, the "they have an anti-Mormon agenda" argument won't stand up to scrutiny). There is nobody in his field of scholarship who agrees with him on this. No one. The only people who applaud him on this issue are the apologists; those who obviously have no understanding how this formula works. They simply trust him on this issue as they have trusted him on several of his other failed theories.

As far as Egyptologists with more experience and knowledge than Gee, you need to look no further than the related faculties at the University of Chicago and Brown University. But then, maybe IRR paid them all off too.

[Calm]

Calmoriah, Gee is the one with the burden of proof here. He is the one up against the ropes.

You are refusing to support your posted accusations with anything of substance then?

[pBarlow]

You are refusing to support your posted accusations with anything of substance then?

Which accusations are you talking about?

[Calm]

At the very least you need to support this one:

Gee has already published his argument for a missing papyrus, on at least two occasions. Prominent Egyptologists with more experience and knowledge than Gee, found his conclusions not only wrong, but utterly ridiculous.

Then there is this one:

He has been trying to justify his past blunders for many years now.

And this one:

He is quick to mention those who support him on irrelevant and trivial anecdotes, but I wonder why they tend to vanish whenever the meat of his apologetic is presented.

You need to deal with this:

And I wonder how many fellow Egyptologists agree with his calculated length of the JS papyri. I can think of a few who disagree

and this:

you should probably ask why Robert Ritner doesn't know about it either.

Since you don't even know what the formula is or who derived it, how can you know that Ritner is unaware of it?

There's probably more, but that should keep you busy while you fill in the gaps of your claims with some details of who said what, when and to whom and what.

[pBarlow]

This isn't an accusation, it is a fact. Gee argued that the papyri were at least 320 cm (10 feet!) in his "A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri."

And Ritner responded,

There is no justification for Gee's unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this figure to '320 cm (about 10 feet)' in Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 10 and 12. Gee presumably wishes to allow space for a supposedly 'lost hieratic text' of The Book of Abraham; his figure derives from the average length of a manufactured (blank) Ptolemaic papyrus roll

[Calm]

This isn't an accusation, it is a fact. Gee argued that the papyri were at least 320 cm (10 feet!) in his "A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri."

And Ritner responded,

I must say I'm surprised you were unaware of this.

Since this is irrelevant to his calculations that he gave in the presentation, this is hardly a demonstration that anyone has disagreed with him on these. This is all that I'm concerned about in this thread.

What I find very interesting is that someone who did not attend the conference and has only very little information on what Gee presented...and according to Gee he has not published the material before IIRC...is able to draw such sweeping conclusions on what Gee presented.

Why in the world is the assumption being made that Gee's argument is nothing new (especially since Gee himself has never made the claim that any position he's taken is his complete and final one) and can therefore just be dismissed by pointing to one or two past critiques without providing further and more complete analysis of the here and now of his position.

I also find it fascinating that so much effort is being poured into discrediting a position that Gee summarized as ""You cannot prove the Joseph Smith Papyri contained the Book of Abraham, and you can't prove that they didn't." (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695197317,00.html)

[e=mc2]

Cal, Cal, CAL! NONe of this should surprise us, since the great Fawn Brodie taught how to read minds back in the 1940's, and critics learned that lesson well........

[Olavarria]

Since this is irrelevant to his calculations that he gave in the presentation, this is hardly a demonstration that anyone has disagreed with him on these. This is all that I'm concerned about in this thread.

What I find very interesting is that someone who did not attend the conference and has only very little information on what Gee presented...and according to Gee he has not published the material before IIRC...is able to draw such sweeping conclusions on what Gee presented.

Why in the world is the assumption being made that Gee's argument is nothing new (especially since Gee himself has never made the claim that any position he's taken is his complete and final one) and can therefore just be dismissed by pointing to one or two past critiques without providing further and more complete analysis of the here and now of his position.

I also find it fascinating that so much effort is being poured into discrediting a position that Gee summarized as ""You cannot prove the Joseph Smith Papyri contained the Book of Abraham, and you can't prove that they didn't." (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695197317,00.html)

It seems to me that the critics claim that they can prove that the none of the original JSP contain the BoA.

The more missing papyri the weaker their case.

[SolarPowered]

Gee has already published his argument for a missing papyrus, on at least two occasions. Prominent Egyptologists with more experience and knowledge than Gee, found his conclusions not only wrong, but utterly ridiculous.

I see no reason why their estimations should be dispensed with simply because Gee spoke at an apologetic conference and claims to have tapped into an Egyptological "formula" which allegedly vindicates his apologetic (a formula few seem to have understood and which no one here has been able to explain). Why not present this argument in a scholarly venue where he could be critiqued by those qualified? Is it because, as Gee has said, "who would believe it"?

And make no mistake about it, Gee's argument here is apologetic to the core. He has been trying to justify his past blunders for many years now. This is what this "formula" business is all about, and it impresses only the adherents of the faith he is trying to defend. Scholars in the field do not find his apologetic arguments impressive.

And before people start grilling me for "jumping to conclusions" based on "lack of knowledge in Egyptian," they should ask themselves why they're willing to jump to the conclusion that Gee is correct, when in fact nobody here has the Egyptological background to make that judgment.

I just find it unlikely that a group of professional Egyptologists would be so wrong on this and a renegade apologist in the field would have it right. Motives speak volumes, and often tell a story that needs to be told.

And where are all the Egyptologists who agree with Gee's theory... He is quick to mention those who support him on irrelevant and trivial anecdotes, but I wonder why they tend to vanish whenever the meat of his apologetic is presented.

Calling all critical thinkers.

Mr. Barlow,

Since you have conclusively determined that Dr. Gee's formula is wrong, I surmise that you must actually know what that formula actually is, which is something that the other posters on this thread who were at the conference didn't happen to jot down.

I am very interested in this formula. I have the mathematical background that I can probably make some sense of it. Would you please post it here so that the rest of us can understand and evaluate it?

Thanks!

SolarPowered

[T-Shirt]

This isn't an accusation, it is a fact. Gee argued that the papyri were at least 320 cm (10 feet!) in his "A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri."

And Ritner responded,

I must say I'm surprised you were unaware of this.

Oh goody, we have another, "the Book of Abraham s a fraud" cheerleader.

PBarlow, either respond to Cal's call for references or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

T-Shirt

[Chris Smith]

Calmoriah,

two of which I believe were thickness of the roll and curvature (how tightly it was wound perhaps?)

This is along the lines of what he explained to me: average height of the papyrus I think was one, and then the diameter of the gap in the middle when rolled was another-- something like that. What I don't understand is how he's obtaining these values given that the JSP are glued to backing paper. Presumably that would make things like curvature and thickness impossible to determine (though height could still be determined). Did he address this issue?

-CK

[William Schryver]

Oh goody, we have another, "the Book of Abraham s a fraud" cheerleader.

PBarlow, either respond to Cal's call for references or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

T-Shirt

pBarlow (aka Kevin Graham) has now been banned (again), so he won't be responding anytime soon.

As for Gee's formula, and the larger issue of whether or not the Joseph Smith collection of papyri was originally much larger than its extant remnants, John seemed quite confident in his claim.

Others will have to judge whether this is bravado or well-founded self-confidence, but my impression is that he's no shrinking violet when it comes to his opinions and sense of competence on issues of Egyptology.

[SolarPowered]

Calmoriah,

This is along the lines of what he explained to me: average height of the papyrus I think was one, and then the diameter of the gap in the middle when rolled was another-- something like that. What I don't understand is how he's obtaining these values given that the JSP are glued to backing paper. Presumably that would make things like curvature and thickness impossible to determine (though height could still be determined). Did he address this issue?

-CK

Is that all it is?? This isn't hard, then. If:

R2 = Outside radius of the scroll,

R1 = Inside radius of the scroll, and

P = Pitch of wrapping, in wraps per unit of distance (i.e., wraps per inch or wraps per cm),

then the length of the scroll is given by:

Length = pi*P*(R2^2 - R1^2)

If you have these numbers (you can get R2 by observing markings on the edges, or from stains or wormholes that penetrate multiple layers, or from offsetting on the back of the papyrus; R1 and P are likely reasonably consistent from scroll to scroll), then there really isn't much room here for controversy--it's simple geometry.

[Chris Smith]

Is that all it is?? This isn't hard, then. If

R2 = Outside radius of the scroll,

R1 = Inside radius of the scroll, and

P = Pitch of wrapping, in wraps per unit of distance (i.e., wraps per inch or wraps per cm),

then the length of the scroll is given by:

Length = pi*P*(R2^2 - R1^2)

If you have these numbers (you can get R2 by observing markings on the edges, or stains or wormholes that penetrate multiple layers), then there really isn't much room here for controversy--it's simple geometry.

Interesting, SP. I hadn't thought of deriving these numbers from stains/wormholes/etc. But I think your equation may be oversimplified. I'm gonna have to think on it a bit more, but first I need some clairifcation. When you say "wraps per unit of distance" are you referring to wraps per unit of the radius? Or to the length of an individual wrap? If the latter, then the number would get smaller as you move toward the center of the roll.

I also question whether the tightness of wrapping would remain consistent all the way to the middle.

[SolarPowered]

Interesting, SP. I hadn't thought of deriving these numbers from stains/wormholes/etc. But I think your equation may be oversimplified. I'm gonna have to think on it a bit more, but first I need some clairifcation. When you say "wraps per unit of distance" are you referring to wraps per unit of the radius? Or to the length of an individual wrap?

It's "wraps per unit of radius." Conceptually, if you had the roll, and could see the wraps at the end, take a ruler and count how many wraps there are in one inch or one centimeter.

(And it's not "oversimplified." It is merely exactly what the geometry is. )

If the latter, then the number would get smaller as you move toward the center of the roll.

It is the former, not the latter, and the formula correctly accounts for the change in the length of a wrap as the radius varies.

I also question whether the tightness of wrapping would remain consistent all the way to the middle.

That is a valid concern. The formula assumes that the pitch of the wrapping is constant. I would expect that, while there might be some minor variation in pitch, it will generally be consistent enough that this formula still gives a good approximation of the length. (That is, "approximation" if there is variation in pitch. Otherwise, the formula is exact.) I am open to being proven wrong on that question.

[noel00]

pBarlow (aka Kevin Graham) has now been banned (again), so he won't be responding anytime soon

I can't understand why he is banned (again!!) Wil you write over on MDB and are never banned. What makes KevinG so special. Is he getting to close to the bone?

Also, if there was a longer BOA papyri, why did the scribes "practice" with the symbols from the BOB rather than the now "missing scroll"?

[Kevin was banned Aug or Sept 2006for something else, not his posts on this thread. His banning is permanent, however, so he remains banned in all his incarnations. Anyone that wants to discuss things with Graham can find him elsewhere on the internet. No more mentions here, please. ~mods]

[selek]

I can't understand why he is banned (again!!) Wil you write over on MDB and are never banned. What makes KevinG so special. Is he getting to close to the bone?

Also, if there was a longer BOA papyri, why did the scribes "practice" with the symbols from the BOB rather than the now "missing scroll"?

Two quick possibilities, Noel00:

First, that your interpretation of what the KEP is/are is erroneous.

Second, that having interpreted the relevent portions of the longer scroll to create the BoA, they were moving on to the records contained in the other papyrus records.

[SolarPowered]

Also, if there was a longer BOA papyri, why did the scribes "practice" with the symbols from the BOB rather than the now "missing scroll"?

CFR that the scribes were "practicing." As far as I know, they left no record whatsoever explaining what they were doing, and thus any speculation about what they were doing is exactly that--speculation.

[juliann]

I concluded that I'm fairly certain Egyptologists would still consider Joseph Smith's interpretation of facsimile 1 "off base".

Of course they do. But here is your problem...they don't agree with each other, either. I had dinner with Gee. He not only is very, very witty...he is talking about things you don't even know are on the map. And that is what makes the criticism so juvenile, you don't even know what is being used by Gee or others.

[Calm]

Calmoriah,

This is along the lines of what he explained to me: average height of the papyrus I think was one, and then the diameter of the gap in the middle when rolled was another-- something like that. What I don't understand is how he's obtaining these values given that the JSP are glued to backing paper. Presumably that would make things like curvature and thickness impossible to determine (though height could still be determined). Did he address this issue?

-CK

He did not as far as I remember...and it did occur to me at that time, but not having taken notes and also from time to time making comments to my companion as well as comments of Gee's setting off my own train of thought (including one wistful brief trip down memory lane about my calculus classes), I may have missed it.

It was, however, much more complicated than SolarPowered's equation---that is what first popped into my mind at the time and I was trying to see how the equation might be an expanded version of it, but the equation was up on the screen way too short (the equation covered the whole screen with I'm guessing over six lines of multiple terms, the simplified version had as the numerator three terms, but I can't remember any operation save one exponential one on E and I can't remember what E stood for anyway and the denominator is a total blank for me--I was never that good at memorizing formulas until AFTER I understood what they actually meant). It's been too long since my math days to see the shorthand of any possible derivation just by looking at the shortened version so unfortunately I can't confirm or deny that SP is on the right track.

[e=mc2]

I also had a chance to talk with him for a few moments, and he immediately launched into showing me some hieroglyphics and commenting on some states of the languages and where the Egyptologists are...... it's not a cut and dry case whatsoever with our papyri, not by a loving long shot yet. Things are not nearing the end, they are just opening up........

[SolarPowered]

It's been too long since my math days to see the shorthand of any possible derivation just by looking at the shortened version so unfortunately I can't confirm or deny that SP is on the right track.

OK, I aways did have a bit of a problem with "show your work"...

Number of wraps = (R2-R1)*P

Average radius of a wrap = (R2+R1)/2

Note that the length of a wrap is linear WRT radius, so we can get the total length by multiplying the number of wraps by the averge length of a wrap. The average length of a wrap is:

Average length of a wrap = 2*pi*Average radius of a wrap

= 2*pi*(R2+R1)/2

= pi*(R2+R1)

Thus:

Total length = Number of wraps * Average length of a wrap

= [(R2-R1)*P] * [pi*(R2+R1)]

= pi*P*(R2^2 - R1^2)

[Calm]

OK, I aways did have a bit of a problem with "show your work"...

Number of wraps = (R2-R1)*P

Average radius of a wrap = (R2+R1)/2

Note that the length of a wrap is linear WRT radius, so we can get the total length by multiplying the number of wraps by the averge length of a wrap. The average length of a wrap is:

Average length of a wrap = 2*pi*Average radius of a wrap

= 2*pi*(R2+R1)/2

= pi*(R2+R1)

Thus:

Total length = Number of wraps * Average length of a wrap

= [(R2-R1)*P] * [pi*(R2+R1)]

= pi*P*(R2^2 - R1^2)

No, I don't mean about yours, lol. That's simple enough for even me to get. I meant Gee's stuff---though I think I have a bit of an excuse that the full equation must have been on the screen for a minute or less and the simpler one definitely less than five and probably less than 3. At least that is how I remember it, but I may have been off daydreaming for a good segment of that time so who knows.

[noel00]

"Gee then claims that the hieroglyphics were added to the BoA manuscripts later, ie not when the BoA manuscripts were originally dictated. This is important to Gee because if the hieroglyphics were recorded at the same time, Smith would have approved them. Gee reasons that the characters must have been added later because the â??hieratic characters do not line up the way the English text doesâ?66. From the pictures given in Larsonâ??s book, it does not appear that there is any such variation. Regardless, Geeâ??s argument that the English was written first and the hieratic added later is pure speculation. In fact, there are good reasons to suggest that the hieroglyphics werenâ??t added later. When the handwriting changed from W. W. Phelpsâ??s to Warren Parrishâ??s in BoA Manuscript #1, the hieratic characters also changed from Phelpsâ?? dark tint to Parrishâ??s lighter tint.67 This can be seen in the photograph Larson provides.68 The most likely explanation is that the two different authors penned the hieroglyphics as they were writing the text."

http://www.whyfaith.com/book-of-abraham-analysis#reply4

"

[SolarPowered]

"Gee then claims that the hieroglyphics were added to the BoA manuscripts later, ie not when the BoA manuscripts were originally dictated. This is important to Gee because if the hieroglyphics were recorded at the same time, Smith would have approved them. Gee reasons that the characters must have been added later because the “hieratic characters do not line up the way the English text does”66. From the pictures given in Larson’s book, it does not appear that there is any such variation. Regardless, Gee’s argument that the English was written first and the hieratic added later is pure speculation. In fact, there are good reasons to suggest that the hieroglyphics weren’t added later. When the handwriting changed from W. W. Phelps’s to Warren Parrish’s in BoA Manuscript #1, the hieratic characters also changed from Phelps’ dark tint to Parrish’s lighter tint.67 This can be seen in the photograph Larson provides.68 The most likely explanation is that the two different authors penned the hieroglyphics as they were writing the text."

http://www.whyfaith.com/book-of-abraham-analysis#reply4

"

Was that intended to be a response to my CFR? If so, it doesn't address the request, which was to provide evidence that the scribes were "practicing." Or indeed to provide any evidence that they left behind indicating what exactly they thought they were doing.

(As an irrelavant note, I point out that the quote is incorrect about "In fact, there are good reasons to suggest that the hieroglyphics weren’t added later." As has been discussed at length in this forum, it has been shown through microscopic analysis that the hieroglyphs were in fact added later.)