Missing Papyrus

[William Schryver]

If experts agreed that the papyrological evidence confirmed that the two dapple marks were intentional and not accidental, would you concur that John fudged the strokes in following image?...

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

Although this discussion is not relevant to the thread topic, I wanted to state that, based on both my recent examination of JSP I, as well as my continued analysis of the high-resolution scan thereof, Metcalfe's alleged "dapple marks" are entirely illusory.

They are, rather, the remnants of the ink stroke of the finger of a hand. Close examination of the original papyrus under magnification reveals that the gap between the finger tip and the first alleged "dapple" mark is actually where the top layer of papyrus has been lost. The space between Metcalfe's alleged "dapple marks" is also where the top layer of papyrus is lost. The second so-called "dapple mark" (the one closest to the lacuna) is clearly part of a line stroke, and the continuation of this line stroke is clearly attested to the point of the lacuna, although the bottom 90% or so of the continued line is also absent due to the top layer of papyrus being lost. Nevertheless, enough of the top portion of the line is attested to define the line representing the finger.

In short, magnified examination of the original papyri and high-resolution scans conclusively attests a finger line where Metcalfe sees "dapple marks" consistent with a bird wing.

[William Schryver]

Andrew,

I will say that you and I are quite close on our measurement for winding 1, although my preferred measurement points are closer to the edge of the roll than yours. Still, I think your selection of points is a good one, if not the best one.

My measurement of the points you selected is 10.3 cm.

My own measurement for winding 1, based on what I believe to be superior measurement points, is 10.35 cm. So, at least in that respect, we are not much in disagreement.

Just thought I'd share that with you.

I have also finished "crunching" the numbers for the hundreds of papyrus thickness measurements we performed. I will detail the results in my upcoming paper.

[Mortal Man]

Andrew,

I will say that you and I are quite close on our measurement for winding 1, although my preferred measurement points are closer to the edge of the roll than yours. Still, I think your selection of points is a good one, if not the best one.

My measurement of the points you selected is 10.3 cm.

My own measurement for winding 1, based on what I believe to be superior measurement points, is 10.35 cm. So, at least in that respect, we are not much in disagreement.

Just thought I'd share that with you.

I have also finished "crunching" the numbers for the hundreds of papyrus thickness measurements we performed. I will detail the results in my upcoming paper.

Thanks for sharing that information Will.

You'll be interested to know that I've come to agree with Prof. Gee's assertion that the windings cannot be determined to very good accuracy using published photographs.

I also now consider my analysis in the other thread to be completely obsolete (although most of the basic ideas there are still sound).

Now, if you can guess my middle name, I might tell you something more...

[Chris Smith]

My measurement of the points you selected is 10.3 cm.

My own measurement for winding 1, based on what I believe to be superior measurement points, is 10.35 cm. So, at least in that respect, we are not much in disagreement.

That's quite different from John Gee's measured value of 9.7 cm. The last time I disagreed with Gee's measurements so radically, you said the following:

As I noted in footnote #23, If we assume an error of 1/10th of a centimeter in the Gee measurements (rounding up and down to 9.8 and 9.4 cm, respectively) then the Hoffmann formula returns a value much more in accord with the spiral calculation. I am willing to concede that an error in measurement on that order is possible. We are, after all, talking about tenths of a centimeter.

But you're going to have to establish the fact that Gee was absolutely inept in order to create an inaccuracy sufficient to shrink the length of missing papyrus down to where you'd like it.

I want our readers to understand that Gee's measurements of the winding lengths confirm that the JSP are quite thin -- like traditionally-manufactured papyrus. If the papyrus were 500 microns thick, as you would like us to believe, then Gee's measurements are not just incorrect, they would have to be outright misrepresentations. Is that what you're going to argue? That Gee is a liar, or (at the very least) an incompetent bungler?

Since you apparently believe those are the only two possible explanations for such a discrepancy, I'm curious which you've settled on.

(I'm really just ribbing you, of course. But I do hope this will illustrate that it's possible to significantly disagree with someone without believing the worst about them.)

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

That's quite different from John Gee's measured value of 9.7 cm. The last time I disagreed with Gee's measurements so radically, you said the following:

Since you apparently believe those are the only two possible explanations for such a discrepancy, I'm curious which you've settled on.

(I'm really just ribbing you, of course. But I do hope this will illustrate that it's possible to significantly disagree with someone without believing the worst about them.)

Peace,

-Chris

If this particular instance were the only time you have seemed to argue, whether explicitly or otherwise, that Prof. Gee is an incompetent hack, I wouldn't have much of a case to make against you. Unfortunately, it is not. Indeed, there are several other examples that could be cited where your ridicule of the good professor has risen to even more derisive heights.

All the same, your point above is well taken.

[Mortal Man]

All the same, your point above is well taken.

Chris Smith and Will Schryver are actually getting along?!?!?!

I'm pleased to announce that Isaiah 11:6 has just been fulfilled.

Remember folks, you saw it here first.

[Chris Smith]

Chris Smith and Will Schryver are actually getting along?!?!?!

I'm pleased to announce that Isaiah 11:6 has just been fulfilled.

Remember folks, you saw it here first.

I don't think Will appreciates being called a "fatling", Andrew.

[William Schryver]

I don't think Will appreciates being called a "fatling", Andrew.

Especially since I've pretty much given up meat, and have the new belt holes to prove it.

All except what I slay myself, of course.

Mmmmm ... venison loin chops sliced up in stir fry for dinner tonight ...

[Chris Smith]

Especially since I've pretty much given up meat, and have the new belt holes to prove it.

Good for you! I noticed I was starting to put on a few pounds as well, so I've been doing Tae Bo.

[William Schryver]

Andrew,

I will say that you and I are quite close on our measurement for winding 1, although my preferred measurement points are closer to the edge of the roll than yours. Still, I think your selection of points is a good one, if not the best one.

My measurement of the points you selected is 10.3 cm.

My own measurement for winding 1, based on what I believe to be superior measurement points, is 10.35 cm. So, at least in that respect, we are not much in disagreement.

Just thought I'd share that with you.

I have also finished "crunching" the numbers for the hundreds of papyrus thickness measurements we performed. I will detail the results in my upcoming paper.

I've also now learned that John has completed crunching the numbers of his winding length measurements. Although his selection of measurement points differs slightly from mine (by a few millimeters, but anchored in the same segment of lacuna) his results parallel my own within a millimeter or less on each measured winding.

[William Schryver]

Thanks for sharing that information Will.

You'll be interested to know that I've come to agree with Prof. Gee's assertion that the windings cannot be determined to very good accuracy using published photographs.

I also now consider my analysis in the other thread to be completely obsolete (although most of the basic ideas there are still sound).

Now, if you can guess my middle name, I might tell you something more...

I don't even know if you have a middle name.

But I am interested in your estimation, based on your measurements and calculations, for the average thickness of the papyrus used for the scroll of Hor. Nothing precise, just a general idea.

[Mortal Man]

I don't even know if you have a middle name.

Oh I've got one alright, and it would frighten you.

I must say, as a seasoned operative of the SCMC, you seem to be falling down on the job.

But I am interested in your estimation, based on your measurements and calculations, for the average thickness of the papyrus used for the scroll of Hor. Nothing precise, just a general idea.

As Chris mentioned, we work in terms of effective thickness, rather than physical thickness. We made no attempt to measure the physical thickness of the papyri. We view it merely as a lower-bound check on the effective thickness; i.e., if the effective thickness from the rate of change of winding length is less than the physical thickness, then a mistake has been made. Wrinkling etc. can result in very large differences between the two measures. Also, we believe that the physical thickness today may be different than the physical thickness two millennia ago, due to decay of the parenchyma cellular matrix as well as other aging effects. So all I can really say is, since your measured thickness is less than our effective thickness, our results are in agreement.

It appears that Prof. Gee may be reviewing our paper in the near future.

[William Schryver]

Oh I've got one alright, and it would frighten you.

I must say, as a seasoned operative of the SCMC, you seem to be falling down on the job.

As Chris mentioned, we work in terms of effective thickness, rather than physical thickness. We made no attempt to measure the physical thickness of the papyri. We view it merely as a lower-bound check on the effective thickness; i.e., if the effective thickness from the rate of change of winding length is less than the physical thickness, then a mistake has been made. Wrinkling etc. can result in very large differences between the two measures. Also, we believe that the physical thickness today may be different than the physical thickness two millennia ago, due to decay of the parenchyma cellular matrix as well as other aging effects. So all I can really say is, since your measured thickness is less than our effective thickness, our results are in agreement.

It appears that Prof. Gee may be reviewing our paper in the near future.

Well, clearly Professor Gee made some mistakes in his original measurements of the winding lengths, so this subsequent round of measurements has been instructive even for him. I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to admit his mistake and simultaneously agree with the vulgar sciolist of LDS apologetics. That said, his trials and errors have resulted in his coming closer to the knowledge of "things as they really are," rather than further. What you have revealed so far suggests to me that you may still need to traverse that rocky path.

I do believe that, in time, you will come to regret not having had in your hands, while preparing your paper, the comprehensive set of thickness measurements that I now have. As it has turned out, the measurements tell us much more than we originally anticipated.

Your suggestion that "wrinkling" of the papyrus "can result in very large differences" of measurement, as well as your implied conclusions concerning two millennia of "aging effects" appear to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of ancient papyrus production, preservation and manner of rolling, as well as its known properties as attested by the hundreds of discovered specimens--the one Professor Gee recently observed unrolled in Toronto being a particularly telling example. Furthermore, I believe you ascribe a degree of relevance to some of these considerations that is greatly inflated in relation to the real questions at hand. In other words, I don't believe some of these considerations are very important at all in terms of determining, with reasonable precision, the approximate quantity of papyrus originally contained in the scroll of H

[Mortal Man]

Well, clearly Professor Gee made some mistakes in his original measurements of the winding lengths,

We all make mistakes. I even made one once.

BTW, why the italicized "his"?

so this subsequent round of measurements has been instructive even for him.

This whole process has been instructive for me as well.

I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to admit his mistake

I'm sure it wasn't either, but the fact that he's willing to go back and redo his analysis speaks highly of his commitment to the truth.

and simultaneously agree with the vulgar sciolist of LDS apologetics.

Hang on a minute, while I agree that finding you to be right about anything would be extremely irritating to any rational person (and I pray that day never comes), I am unable to recall any previous instance in which you have publicly disagreed with Prof. Gee. Perhaps you can provide us with an example.

That said, his trials and errors have resulted in his coming closer to the knowledge of "things as they really are,"

i.e., our estimate,

rather than further

i.e., your estimate.

What you have revealed so far suggests to me that you may still need to traverse that rocky path.

I traverse it every day in my bare feet. And when they become too bloody for me to continue, Chris carries me on his shoulders.

I do believe that, in time, you will come to regret not having had in your hands, while preparing your paper, the comprehensive set of thickness measurements that I now have. As it has turned out, the measurements tell us much more than we originally anticipated.

I agree that your measurements have value and I wouldn't mind looking them over. I'll tell you what, when the time is right, I'll send you our data if you send us your data.

Your suggestion that "wrinkling" of the papyrus "can result in very large differences" of measurement, as well as your implied conclusions concerning two millennia of "aging effects" appear to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of ancient papyrus production, preservation and manner of rolling, as well as its known properties as attested by the hundreds of discovered specimens--the one Professor Gee recently observed unrolled in Toronto being a particularly telling example. Furthermore, I believe you ascribe a degree of relevance to some of these considerations that is greatly inflated in relation to the real questions at hand. In other words, I don't believe some of these considerations are very important at all in terms of determining, with reasonable precision, the approximate quantity of papyrus originally contained in the scroll of H

[William Schryver]

AWC:

... I agree that finding you to be right about anything would be extremely irritating to any rational person ...

Fortunately for "rational" people, such a thing occurs rather infrequently. But it does happen on occasion.

... I am unable to recall any previous instance in which you have publicly disagreed with Prof. Gee. Perhaps you can provide us with an example.

On this very thread, just the other day, when I posted my measurement for the first winding length, I publicly disagreed with John's previously published measurement for that length. You might be surprised to learn that I have disagreed rather frequently with Professor Gee, as he would readily acknowledge.

The data are what they are. We describe our methodology and then turn the crank; it's a purely mechanical process. Our defense plans are simply to describe our analysis in excruciating detail and then make all of our data freely available to anyone who wishes to verify our results.

Discerning readers understand that not all data is created equal. I'm confident that there will be many people willing and motivated to verify (or dispute) your results. If your methodology is sound, and your data correct, it will be verified. If not, the defects will be shown. The same goes for my methodology and data.

In the meantime, I am gratified that our readers will be able to graphically conceive the difference in our arguments. Your belief is that the scroll of Hor, when it arrived in Kirtland in 1835, looked something like this:

Whereas I am convinced the evidence is conclusive that the scroll actually looked very much like this:

[William Schryver]

Question for Chris:

You were the one to measure the papyri at the Church History Library. Although you did not measure specifically for thickness, do you believe the papyrus of the scroll of Hor is about 700 - 800 microns thick, or the approximate thickness of 8 sheets of common printer paper?

Edit: If not, would you venture just a rough guess for how thick you believe the papyrus was? I'm just curious.

[Mortal Man]

On this very thread, just the other day, when I posted my measurement for the first winding length, I publicly disagreed with John's previously published measurement for that length.

I was talking about before you took your latest set of measurements.

I'm confident that there will be many people willing and motivated to verify (or dispute) your results. If your methodology is sound, and your data correct, it will be verified. If not, the defects will be shown. The same goes for my methodology and data.

No argument here.

Your belief is that the scroll of Hor, when it arrived in Kirtland in 1835, looked something like this:

I never said it looked anything like that. In fact, I believe the Hor scroll was wound tightly all the way to the core, much like your second image:

Note the looseness of the outer winding, and despite your imagination, it is impossible to tell here what the ratio is between the physical and effective thicknesses for the inner windings.

[Chris Smith]

do you believe the papyrus of the scroll of Hor is about 700 - 800 microns thick, or the approximate thickness of 8 sheets of common printer paper?

No. But I do believe the effective thickness to be in that neighborhood.

Edit: If not, would you venture just a rough guess for how thick you believe the papyrus was? I'm just curious.

I'd guesstimate it to be more like 300. But as I took no measurements of my own, I'll accept whatever value Brian reports.

[William Schryver]

I was talking about before you took your latest set of measurements.

No argument here.

I never said it looked anything like that. In fact, I believe the Hor scroll was wound tightly all the way to the core, much like your second image:

Note the looseness of the outer winding, and despite your imagination, it is impossible to tell here what the ratio is between the physical and effective thicknesses for the inner windings.

I'm pleased to learn that you believe the scroll was wound tightly to the core. That was my only point with the image I posted.

[William Schryver]

No. But I do believe the effective thickness to be in that neighborhood.

I'd guesstimate it to be more like 300.

I see.

But as I took no measurements of my own, I'll accept whatever value Brian reports.

Brian Hauglid?

Brian is not involved in any of this analysis.

It was I who requested and was authorized to measure the papyri for this study. I am grateful to John Gee for having consented to assist me, as also George and Howard Fisher, whom you would not know, but whose material assistance was extremely valuable and generous.

[Chris Smith]

Brian is not involved in any of this analysis.

It was I who requested and was authorized to measure the papyri for this study. I am grateful to John Gee for having consented to assist me, as also George and Howard Fisher, whom you would not know, but whose material assistance was extremely valuable and generous.

Then I suppose I will have to be satisfied with the testimony of three or four witnesses, even if one or two of them do have a somewhat "visionary" reputation. You did take these measurements with your natural eyes rather than your spiritual eyes, I hope.

[William Schryver]

Then I suppose I will have to be satisfied with the testimony of three or four witnesses, even if one or two of them do have a somewhat "visionary" reputation. You did take these measurements with your natural eyes rather than your spiritual eyes, I hope.

A "visionary" reputation? Mmmmm .......... let's see. That is an indirect (albeit rather artless) way of suggesting to your readers that anything John Gee or William Schryver produce in the way of evidence and analysis should be considered suspect, by definition.

It's a minor twist on the old logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

"These guys have a long record of seeing things that aren't really there, so distrust as unreliable anything they claim."

Now, I'm sure you have, as a basis for this well-poisoning exercise, a fairly lengthy list of examples where Professor Gee and I have established our "visionary reputation." Right? Good.

Because I would hate to think that that your insinuation has no basis in the facts; that this whole thing has been nothing but a propaganda ploy, and that, in truth, you have no justification whatsoever for impugning (even in a veiled fashion) the competence and/or trustworthiness of your opponents in this controversy. Resorting to something like that would seem to betray an underlying uncertainty of the strength of your own position. And we know that can't be the case, right? After all, you're the one who has suggested that it will require a miracle greater than the seagulls to disprove the air-tight analysis that our erstwhile Brother Cook is planning to serve up.

Of course, those who tend towards the "visionary" have historically been associated with such miracles ...

[Mortal Man]

It's called humor Will.

[Chris Smith]

It's called humor Will.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that a wicked anti-Mormon such as myself is capable of telling an honest joke. My soul is much too twisted by the dark side for that!

[William Schryver]

It's called humor Will.

Of course it is. Some of the best propagandists of the 21st century use humor as their primary medium. Witness Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. (Not that Chris rises to their level of comedic competence, by any means. )

That doesn't change the fact that the notion Chris seeks to plant in the minds of his readers is that anything reported by John Gee and William Schryver is not to be trusted, or should, at the very least, be viewed with considerable doubt and skepticism. Why? Well, because they are inclined to see things that just aren't there. Everyone knows that! Right?

Hey, I've been around the block a few times. I know how things work. Poisoning the well is probably the single most popular method employed in my particular case. Witness the kinds of things that get said about me in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park. Just the other day a poster characterized me as a prolific and extremely fluent "cusser." Then several others following concurred that William Schryver cusses like a sailor. Is there any evidence to support to support the allegation? No. And, of course, none is provided. It's not even necessary. It "goes without saying," as they say.

Then Joseph Antley, a relative newcomer to the GSTP, was subjected to page after page of propaganda about me, provided by Agostini, Il Maledetto. ( ) At first, Antley said he was not aware of the fact that I do all these bad, nasty things attributed to me by Agostini, Il Maledetto. But after several people affirmed what Agostini, Il Maledetto was saying, Antley began to believe.

Now, bear in mind, no one ever provided any evidence whatsoever to support the accusations. It's not even necessary. It "goes without saying," as they say.

And now, the last I looked, Antley has been more or less persuaded that I am more or less guilty of all these bad, nasty things attributed to me by Agostini, Il Maledetto.

It's freaking hilarious!

But that doesn't mean it isn't propaganda.

And it is not substantially different than what Chris seeks to accomplish with his comedic forays in this thread.

So carry on. I'm not offended. Not at all. I'm just inclined to point these things out for the benefit of the less discerning. That's all.