The Length Of Hor's Scroll

[Olavarria]

Farms Review volume 20, number 1

According to Grandmaster Gee, Friedhelm Hoffman developed a formula in calculating the amount of material missing from the end of a papyrus.

S=the average difference between he winding measurment

E=the length of the last winding

Z=theoretical length of the missing potion

Z=((E to the second power-6.25)/@S)-E to the second power

If you apply this to the Hor Scroll you get 41 feet of missing papyri

Now whether or not a BoA was attached to the Hor BoB, no one can say for sure. Missing papyri can't be translated.

Can anyone provide me with an refutation of this calculation and its conclusion that the Hor Scroll was more than 41 feet long? I think it would be neat to hear the othersides view on this.

[Chris Smith]

Farms Review volume 20, number 1

According to Grandmaster Gee, Friedhelm Hoffman developed a formula in calculating the amount of material missing from the end of a papyrus.

S=the average difference between he winding measurment

E=the length of the last winding

Z=theoretical length of the missing potion

Z=((E to the second power-6.25)/@S)-E to the second power

If you apply this to the Hor Scroll you get 41 feet of missing papyri

Now whether or not a BoA was attached to the Hor BoB, no one can say for sure. Missing papyri can't be translated.

Can anyone provide me with an refutation of this calculation and its conclusion that the Hor Scroll was more than 41 feet long? I think it would be neat to hear the othersides view on this.

Her Amun,

MADB blocks links to Mormon Discussions, but I've bumped the thread you're looking for to the top over there so that I don't have to try to circumvent the link blocker in contravention of board rules.

If you head over there and read the thread titled "The Missing Papyrus Equation" I think you'll find that Gee's figures are physically impossible and that the equation actually shows there were only about three feet of missing papyrus at the end of the roll.

Best,

-Chris

P.S. - Thanks for pointing out that this had been printed in the latest FR.

[Olavarria]

Her Amun,

MADB blocks links to Mormon Discussions, but I've bumped the thread you're looking for to the top over there so that I don't have to try to circumvent the link blocker in contravention of board rules.

If you head over there and read the thread titled "The Missing Papyrus Equation" I think you'll find that Gee's figures are physically impossible and that the equation actually shows there were only about three feet of missing papyrus at the end of the roll.

Best,

-Chris

P.S. - Thanks for pointing out that this had been printed in the latest FR.

Hmmm, the main problem with your "3 feet" has when compared to Gee's "41 feet" is that you are working with pictures of the papyri whereas Gee is working with the actual papyri themselves. Its like when Gee erroniously* tried to analyze the ink of the KEP with pictures.

*I do belive his was an honest mistake in methodology,just as you are making an honest mistake in methodology

[Rommelator]

I know that Chris has been looking for the source Gee provides for his calculations. In the footnote this is the source Gee cites:

Friedhelm Hoffman, "Die Lange des P. Spiegelberg," in

Acta Demotica: Acts of Fifth International Conference

for Demotists (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori,

1994), 145-55.

Hope that helps.

[Chris Smith]

Hmmm, the main problem with your "3 feet" has when compared to Gee's "41 feet" is that you are working with pictures of the papyri whereas Gee is working with the actual papyri themselves. Its like when Gee erroniously* tried to analyze the ink of the KEP with pictures.

*I do belive his was an honest mistake in methodology,just as you are making an honest mistake in methodology

When the LDS church allows critics access to the actual papyri, I'll let you know.

In the meantime, there's no way Gee is measuring the distance between wraps to the nearest hundredth of a centimeter (the thickness of a piece of paper). And even if he were, his figure of between .033 and .05 cm for the average difference between winding lengths is not physically possible. The theoretical lower limit for S, assuming it were as tightly rolled as theoretically possible, would be 2 * T (where T is the thickness of a sheet of papyrus). Papyrus thicknesses varied, but the best I've been able to determine is that they ranged between .02 and .1 cm. If the Hor papyrus is at the lower end of this scale, the best we could get is an S of .04, which is within Gee's range. But that's a theoretical possibility. When you're working in the real world, there will always be some space between wraps. There's simply no way that the average distance between wraps is as low as Gee says it is.

In any case, my measurements differ from Gee's by several orders of magnitude. If the scale provided in Larson's book is even close to correct, then Gee's calculations are rendered seriously problematic. What's more, what I am measuring is not just an absolute distance. It is a relative distance: the difference between wraps. All that is required for my calculations to problematize Gee's is that the scale in Larson's photos be consistent, not that it be exact.

Anyway, that's my take.

Rom,

Thanks much for the reference!

Best,

-Chris

[Ipso Facto]

If Smith is correct in his criticisms (not just on this thread, but in an earlier thread on this same topic), it would seem that Professor Gee is either:

1) incredibly inept

OR

2) intentionally deceptive.

I find either option very disturbing. I mean, doesn't he have fear of seriously jeopardizing his professional reputation? I've been led to believe that he has bona fide credentials and is widely respected among his peers. If this is true, then why would he put that reputation and respect at risk by formally publishing a claim like this? I just don't get it.

Smith, have you corresponded with Gee on this issue? Have you made your criticisms known to him? If so, what has been his reaction? Is he really so committed to the idea of missing scroll material that he would (apparently) publicly humiliate himself by publishing such a blatant lie/error?

It will be interesting to see how other Egyptologists will react to his claims.

[John Larsen]

It will be interesting to see how other Egyptologists will react to his claims.

Yes indeed. How is Dr. Gee's work regarded in the academic community? This would be an excellent test of veracity.

[Chris Smith]

Smith, have you corresponded with Gee on this issue? Have you made your criticisms known to him? If so, what has been his reaction? Is he really so committed to the idea of missing scroll material that he would (apparently) publicly humiliate himself by publishing such a blatant lie/error?

Dr. Gee has generally declined to correspond with me, though I've made a few efforts to initiate such a correspondence. Part of this may be because some time ago on this board in a discussion of Dr. Gustavus Seyffarth's description of the Hor roll (which he viewed in the St. Louis museum in the 1860's) I called Dr. Gee's interpretation of Seyffarth's statement a blatant lie. A friend of Gee's on the board hinted that Gee was considering legal action, and then there was a bit of a fracas in which Dr. Gee issued a test of critics' Egyptological expertise, thereby implying that one must have such expertise in order to participate in the discussion. At the end of this rather frustrating brouhaha Dr. Gee and I had our one and only direct interaction over the telephone. It was a very pleasant conversation in which Dr. Gee affirmed his sincerity and I apologized to him, and he then listened as I explained my objections to his interpretation of Seyffarth and admitted that there might be some validity to it. That was the end of that, and since then he has been incommunicado to me. He undoubtedly considers me unqualified, and possibly still resents my remarks about his work.

I am inclined to give Dr. Gee the benefit of the doubt where his motives and integrity are concerned, but obviously however he came by his figures I believe they are inaccurate.

[BCSpace]

Can anyone provide me with an refutation of this calculation and its conclusion that the Hor Scroll was more than 41 feet long? I think it would be neat to hear the othersides view on this.

I would be interested in the development of the formula itself not necessarily the physical inputs. Out of mathematical curiosity I am wondering if, given the details of the problem, I would come up with a similar formula.

[Fly Fisherman]

For those like myself who are totally ignorant on this subject, I just keep going back to the fact that Gee has been studying the BOA and papyrus issue for longer than some of his critics have been alive.

No offense to Chris Smith and a few other critics who have contributed to the debate, but I get the feeling that believing that Gee is wrong and a critic is correct is like believing a first-year medical student over a M.D. with 30-years of experience. At least for me, it is a huge hurdle to get over, and that is not even taking the faith issue into account.

I am sure the critics have contributed some interesting challenges. Especially with this subject, as it seems that the subject requires a higher level of debate and understanding. One day, I will study up on the issues, but now, it is low on the list of my priorities given my hesitancy to believe that Gee is wrong.

[John Larsen]

For those like myself who are totally ignorant on this subject, I just keep going back to the fact that Gee has been studying the BOA and papyrus issue for longer than some of his critics have been alive.

No offense to Chris Smith and a few other critics who have contributed to the debate, but I get the feeling that believing that Gee is wrong and a critic is correct is like believing a first-year medical student over a M.D. with 30-years of experience. At least for me, it is a huge hurdle to get over, and that is not even taking the faith issue into account.

I am sure the critics have contributed some interesting challenges. Especially with this subject, as it seems that the subject requires a higher level of debate and understanding. One day, I will study up on the issues, but now, it is low on the list of my priorities given my hesitancy to believe that Gee is wrong.

Now that's a standard of truth we can all hang our hats on!

[USU78]

When the LDS church allows critics access to the actual papyri, I'll let you know.

This is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see, if such is available, a reference to an actual refusal of access to scholars to the JS Papyri.

I would, moreover, like to point out that such arguments from silence (as I believe this one to be) are highly suspect and not worth much deference.

[Chris Smith]

This is an interesting assertion. I'd like to see, if such is available, a reference to an actual refusal of access to scholars to the JS Papyri.

I would, moreover, like to point out that such arguments from silence (as I believe this one to be) are highly suspect and not worth much deference.

The impression that critics are not permitted access to the papyri is actually one that I've gotten from Gee and Hauglid as much as from the critics, though I don't care to go digging through their works and/or posts to find the specific comments that led me to draw that inference. Don Bradley quipped to me in an email that "Gee likes to claim that getting to see the JSP is tougher than passing the sentinels at the celestial gate," but he hopes, like you, that this is just smoke. My request for access is pending, so I'll let you know how it goes.

[Olavarria]

All that is required for my calculations to problematize Gee's is that the scale in Larson's photos be consistent, not that it be exact.

Big if.

Look the statute of liberty is only a few inches tall.

[Rommelator]

For those interested:

The FAIR Wiki has a new page on this subject. Some of us on the FAIR email list contacted Gee about this, and here is what he said in return.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/S...missing_papyrus

[Chris Smith]

Thanks, Rom. just a few thoughts.

1) Dr. Gee said that "Critics have thus far not challenged the formula itself". That's not entirely true. I derived what I believed was the correct formula, which differed a little from Gee's. I then found an Egyptological article that utilized the formula I had derived. I do not yet know the mathematical derivation of Hoffman's formula, but when I do I will be able to check its assumptions more closely. In any case, the two formulas (mine and Gee's) produce results on the same order of magnitude, so I do not expect this to play a critical role in my critique.

2) I intend to check my measurements from the Larson photos against the Rhodes photos once I get home on Thursday and have access to my copy of the Rhodes book again. Rhodes' editors did not utilize a consistent scale, but they do provide information that should make it possible to calculate the scale of each individual photo. If I can do this successfully, it should help control for distortion. I have not yet sprung for the new edition of Nibley's book, which is supposed to contain images of the papyri. Does anyone know if it says what the scale of the images is? I also have never gotten a copy of the Improvement Era article in which the papyri were originally published. Does anyone know if the scale is indicate there? These are directions in which I will investigate further.

3) I have requested an application to see the original papyri, though I've not heard back on my request and living far away doesn't make it any easier.

4) Dr. Gee does not seem to understand what I did with the lacuna. After measuring the lengths of the wraps on either side of the lacuna, I concluded that of a physical necessity the wraps in the lacuna had to be between those lengths. Their exact lengths are mathematically irrelevant so long as we know the number of missing wraps (as Gee admits) and the range of their lengths, which we do.

5) Dr. Gee's statement that "Critics who have challenged the conclusions I have drawn have done so only on the basis of the photographs found in Chuck Larson's book" is not entirely correct. I have made an argument that Dr. Gee's measurements are physically impossible and lay claim to an unrealistic degree of precision.

6) Dr. Gee states, "I do not think that it is practical, possible, or desirable to measure in any units smaller than a millimeter." This is a fascinating statement since Gee's measured S-value (at least according to his FAIR talk, as I've not yet gotten a copy of the FARMS article) is between 3 and 5 tenths of a millimeter.

7) Dr. Gee claims that his formula makes sense of the historical evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have repeatedly demonstrated here and elsewhere.

Best,

-Chris

[Rommelator]

Chris:

Did you plug in your numbers in the formula used by Gee or only the different one that you found? What was your result?

Similarly, what do you think of the complications of using photos as was detailed by Gee and how do you think that could have effected your results?

[Chris Smith]

Did you plug in your numbers in the formula used by Gee or only the different one that you found? What was your result?

Both. The results were quite similar, but not exactly the same.

Similarly, what do you think of the complications of using photos as was detailed by Gee and how do you think that could have effected your results?

I am not persuaded that perspective or lens distortion would occur in any significant manner in the course of document photography, which is done from up close and is not done with a wide-angle or telephoto lens. However, I am sensitive to the possibility that there might be problems with Larson's scale as a result of his editorial conventions. I intend to take measures to check his photos against others and to measure the originals if permitted to do so.

[Rommelator]

To everyone:

I did some measurements to see if Larson's photographs are indeed to a 78% scale as he claims. Here are my results:

1. Michael Rhodes on page 4 of his translation of the Hor Book of Breathings text notes that the initial vignette (Joseph Smith Papyrus 1) is 19 cm in length. I then measured the photographs of the papyri in the February 1968 issue of the Improvement Era, which are to scale, and got an equal measurement.

2. I then measured the photos in Charles Larson's book and came to a measurement of 14 cm for Joseph Smith Papyrus 1. I then multiplied 14 cm by 1.2820 since Larson claims his photos are at a 78% scale. This came to 17.9 cm, at least 1 cm shorter than the measurement of Rhodes based off of the original papyri. Thus, Larson's photos are not 78% to scale. They are slightly off, closer to 77% to scale by my estimates.

How this will effect Chris' measurements I will leave up to the other pundits on this board and elsewhere.

Edit: A Quick note. I may have mis-measured JSP I. I measured from the edge of the column of hieratic on the left hand side of the lion couch vignette to the furthest right edge of the papyri. This is only way that I could get 19 cm like Rhodes measured, so I think that I am right. However, take my measurements with a grain of salt nonetheless.

[Rommelator]

Both. The results were quite similar, but not exactly the same.

So then it seems that the problem lies not within the formula, but the measurements of you and Dr. Gee respectively. Who has the right measurements and who doesn't?

And this is were we come to the crux of the matter. Gee has both the Egyptological and Papyrological training and the original materials to work with, whereas you only have photos of a dubious nature and unsure scale to work with. I personally know who I am going to side with on this one.

I can't wait until the essay because available online, so that we can check Gee's numbers directly and get to the bottom of this.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks for that information, Rom. As I said earlier, the absolute scale of Larson's photos is significant (as it determines the value of E), but not as significant as the relative scale. If the relative scale of Larson's photos is consistent, then there remain serious problems with Gee's measurements. Like I said, I will do some further checking myself, as well. It sounds like the Improvement Era photos may be actual size, so I'll definitely be doing anything I can to get a copy of the relevant issue.

So then it seems that the problem lies not within the formula, but the measurements of you and Dr. Gee respectively. Who has the right measurements and who doesn't?

Exactly. To appreciate the significance of the accuracy of Gee's measurements, consider that he gives for the scroll of Noufianoub an S-value of .433 cm, an E of 7.8 cm and a missing length of 64 cm. For the Seminnis roll Gee gives S as .25 and E as 14 cm for a missing length of 365 cm. For the Hor scroll he gives an E value of 9.5 and an S value of .033 cm, with the result that the missing portion is 1250 cm long. As you can see, the crucial factor that leads to this extremely large number is not E, which in the case of the Seminnis roll is actually much larger than that of the Hor roll, even though the missing length in that case is much smaller. Rather, the crucial feature is the value of S. Since S is a divisor in this equation, the resultant missing length will approach infinity as S approaches zero. One could theoretically make the missing portion as long as one wanted by positing very small values for S. The value of S Gee gives for the Hor roll is very, very small, with the result that a roll with a circumference of only 9.5 cm is said to contain 41 feet of papyrus. Forgive my skepticism, but Gee's Egyptological and papyrological training do not incline me to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. I will retract my objections and apologize if and when his value for S is shown to be sound.

[Cold Steel]

Now whether or not a BoA was attached to the Hor BoB, no one can say for sure. Missing papyri can't be translated. Can anyone provide me with an refutation of this calculation and its conclusion that the Hor Scroll was more than 41 feet long? I think it would be neat to hear the other side's view on this.

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a scroll which is missing an end, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is missing....

[Chris Smith]

One other thing, Rom. Gee in his presentation said that the outermost wrap of the Hor scroll was 9.7 cm while the innermost wrap was 9.5 cm. He arrived at this value of S by dividing these difference between these two numbers by the number of wraps between them. My analysis found that the length of the outermost wrap was 10.1 cm, not 9.7 cm. If anything, your revelation that Larson's scale undershoots the mark suggests that my value of 10.1 cm-- which is larger than Gee's-- is too small. That means you've only aggravated the problem for Dr. Gee on this count.