Missing Papyrus

[Chris Smith]

anything reported by John Gee and William Schryver ... should, at the very least, be viewed with considerable doubt and skepticism.

I'd advise doubt and skepticism when reading any work of scholarship, but it's true that I approach yours and Gee's with a greater degree of skepticism than, say, Brian Hauglid's or Kevin Barney's. This is not because you're bad or unintelligent people. It's simply because, in the past, you have failed to sufficiently guard against confirmation bias. As you improve in this regard, my skepticism will decrease in due proportion.

[William Schryver]

I'd advise doubt and skepticism when reading any work of scholarship, but it's true that I approach yours and Gee's with a greater degree of skepticism than, say, Brian Hauglid's or Kevin Barney's. This is not because you're bad or unintelligent people. It's simply because, in the past, you have failed to sufficiently guard against confirmation bias. As you improve in this regard, my skepticism will decrease in due proportion.

You advance a bold denunciation.

I believe you are therefore obliged to present some evidence to support it.

Two or three examples should suffice, I would think. After all, "confirmation bias" is something that should routinely manifest itself in one so inclined.

I will anxiously await your reply.

[Chris Smith]

Three from Gee:

"Known Contents . . . Papyrus of Hor . . . another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved." (Guide, 10)

"While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." (Guide, 4)

"The characters in the manuscripts are an enigma. . . . They are placed in the manuscripts at the beginning of every paragraph, but there is no pattern to the order in which they are taken from one of the papyri. They seem to be taken at random which completely undermines the theory that the English text (which in many cases is clearly written before the characters) represents a translation of them." (Gee letter posted online, Jan 16 2010)

There are many more, but these should suffice. Note that you have at one time or another endorsed the first two claims, and continued to endorse the second even after overwhelming evidence was presented to the contrary. I don't recall if you've ever made the third claim, but you certainly did try to argue that the characters are not aligned with the English text, a claim that I believe originated with Nibley and is equally problematic. You have also tried to discredit an eyewitness account because it had Joseph Smith estimating Mormon membership at 100,000. Again, you persisted in this line of reasoning even after I showed that this was a common Mormon claim, and had appeared in the Times and Seasons under Joseph's editorship. These are just the examples the spring to mind. I don't keep archives of your posts and don't intend to hunt them up to provide links. And, I don't particularly expect you to agree with my assessment that these are cases of confirmation bias. But that, too, is simply a symptom of the same.

I also don't intend to discuss these examples any further. I provide them, in the first place, against my better judgment.

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Three from Gee:

"Known Contents . . . Papyrus of Hor . . . another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved." (Guide, 10)

"While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." (Guide, 4)

"The characters in the manuscripts are an enigma. . . . They are placed in the manuscripts at the beginning of every paragraph, but there is no pattern to the order in which they are taken from one of the papyri. They seem to be taken at random which completely undermines the theory that the English text (which in many cases is clearly written before the characters) represents a translation of them." (Gee letter posted online, Jan 16 2010)

There are many more, but these should suffice. Note that you have at one time or another endorsed the first two claims, and continued to endorse the second even after overwhelming evidence was presented to the contrary. I don't recall if you've ever made the third claim, but you certainly did try to argue that the characters are not aligned with the English text, a claim that I believe originated with Nibley and is equally problematic. You have also tried to discredit an eyewitness account because it had Joseph Smith estimating Mormon membership at 100,000. Again, you persisted in this line of reasoning even after I showed that this was a common Mormon claim, and had appeared in the Times and Seasons under Joseph's editorship. These are just the examples the spring to mind. I don't keep archives of your posts and don't intend to hunt them up to provide links. And, I don't particularly expect you to agree with my assessment that these are cases of confirmation bias. But that, too, is simply a symptom of the same.

I also don't intend to discuss these examples any further. I provide them, in the first place, against my better judgment.

Peace,

-Chris

So, I ask for evidence of my confirmation bias, and you cite examples from Professor Gee, and then try to tie me to them. Classic.

While I am not inclined to enter into a protracted debate over these things, I think it is very worthwhile to note that you have apparently appropriated the phrase "confirmation bias" as a catch-all explanation for why someone disagrees with your point of view on any argument.

First of all, aside from noting Gee's advocacy of the first item, and expressing a willingness to believe him and his analysis in the matter, I have said very little about Gee's interpretation of the Seyffarth material. I don't find it a particularly persuasive argument, and I never have. But even if I did, how is it that you believe "confirmation bias" would have factored into the equation? The whole thing boiled down to a question of interpretations, and I find none of them conclusively persuasive. Therefore I have never incorporated Gee's argument into the case I attempt to defend.

As for your second point, again I don't see at all how it is that you believe "confirmation bias" factors into the equation! Granted, I have argued, and will yet argue in my book, conclusively, I believe, that the entire body of the published text of the Book of Abraham was recorded before the end of 1835 or early 1836. I have never disputed the argument that more translation may have followed. It may have. I think you misinterpret the 1842 "translation" reference you cite, but no matter. I am confident I can demonstrate that the portion of the BoA that was eventually published was received in Kirtland, as well as much more that was never published.

Now, how do you believe "confirmation bias" factors into my conclusion on this point? Frankly, you have no idea. You have no way or means to know the basis for my conclusions. You have no idea what I have been doing; what source materials I have been analyzing. You have never seen nor assessed the evidence I will marshal to support my arguments. You're not even aware of what that evidence might be!

All you know is that you believe you have good reason to disagree with my conclusions! And since it is axiomatic with you that Abr. 2:19 to the end of the published text was originally authored in Nauvoo in March 1842, therefore, by definition, (apparently) anyone who disagrees with you must not be seeing things clearly; they're not viewing the evidence objectively; they must be yielding to a "confirmation bias."

How can you tell they suffer from "confirmation bias"? Well, because they disagree with you.

It is nothing but a tautology. And quite a silly one at that.

Finally, I have much to say concerning the relationship of characters to text, but this is not the time or place. Suffice it to say that I am convinced you are not in a position to adequately assess the evidence nor draw informed conclusions when it comes to such questions. When the day comes that you have adequate access to the source materials in order to assess the evidence, then we shall see what conclusions you draw.

No doubt they will be greatly influenced by your overwhelming confirmation bias.

`

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will, I went back and re-read the thread on the translation timeline and it appears that you were only arguing for chapter 3 dating to 1835, rather than supporting Gee's conclusion that "there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." So, scratch that off my list. Your argument about chapter 3 is quite wrong, but not willfully wrong enough to qualify for this list. My apologies for including it.

I stand by the rest, however.

Peace,

-Chris

EDIT: I just re-read the post above this one and it seems you are supporting Gee's view on that, after all. By the way, there are actually four 1842 translation references-- conservatively counted-- not just one. If you don't recall the others, then I suppose I still can't accuse you of confirmation bias in this case.

[William Schryver]

Hi Will, I went back and re-read the thread on the translation timeline and it appears that you were only arguing for chapter 3 dating to 1842, rather than supporting Gee's conclusion that "there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." So, scratch that off my list. Your argument about chapter 3 is quite wrong, but not willfully wrong enough to qualify for this list. My apologies for including it.

I stand by the rest, however.

Peace,

-Chris

EDIT: Never mind. I just re-read the post above this one and it seems you are supporting Gee's view on that, after all. (By the way, there are actually three 1842 translation references, not just one.)

Chris,

As for the 1842 references to "translation" of the papyri, I acknowledge them. I simply believe the evidence is such that, whatever they refer to, they cannot be referencing any of the text of the Book of Abraham that was published in 1842. Most likely, they refer to the explanations given for the facsimiles.

Edit: changed my mind.

[Joseph Antley]

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.

Hi William. I don't want to clutter a thread in the Pundit forum with personal posts like these, but I figured this was worth responding to. As I stated at the Other Board, I don't know you, and the two of us have never had any significant interaction together, that I can recall. I don't necessarily "believe" the things they claim; frankly, I don't care. It doesn't concern me. Considering the treatment I was subjected to there, it's not as if they carry an extraordinary amount of credibility with me.

[William Schryver]

Hi William. I don't want to clutter a thread in the Pundit forum with personal posts like these, but I figured this was worth responding to. As I stated at the Other Board, I don't know you, and the two of us have never had any significant interaction together, that I can recall. I don't necessarily "believe" the things they claim; frankly, I don't care. It doesn't concern me. Considering the treatment I was subjected to there, it's not as if they carry an extraordinary amount of credibility with me.

I'll reply to you via PM.

Edit: I tried, but your PM box is full.

[Joseph Antley]

I'll reply to you via PM.

Edit: I tried, but your PM box is full.

Deleted some messages, try again.

[Joseph Antley]

Apparently the admins lowered the inbox storage capacity down to 50, which I didn't realize. PM's should work now.

[Mortal Man]

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.

I'm curious Will.

Since you're now determined that the BoA was received entirely by revelation, independent of the papyri, are you still planning to publish your "Interminable Roll" paper?

Is John still planning to publish his paper?

Do either you or John still care how long the Hor scroll was?

[Mortal Man]

Those of certain individuals, more qualified than I to make such an assessment.

If you are referring to Prof. William V. Smith of the BYU Math Department, I should inform you that he appears to agree with our assessment.

As to their identities, all will reveal itself in good time.

Your frequent allusions to anonymous informants reminds me of someone else. Now, who could that be?

Notwithstanding your having consigned the scroll length question to the depths of Mt. Doom,

?

and your enthusiastic confidence in the methodology you employed to predict the measurement points for the winding lengths (a methodology, as I have indicated previously, I had [completely independently] considered myself and judged to be inherently incapable of producing reliable results), you certainly couldn't have thought your arguments would go unchallenged, could you?

"measurement points"???? I really think you should read the paper before spouting off again.

BTW, I look forward to reading your recently completed paper, "The Intolerable Roll

[William Schryver]

If you are referring to Prof. William V. Smith of the BYU Math Department, I should inform you that he appears to agree with our assessment.

I think you should, perhaps, be a bit more cautious when speaking about Bill's conclusions concerning your paper, especially when his concluding statement in the comment to which you link above was:

"I can

[Mortal Man]

Your insinuation, ex-ante, that my paper constitutes a deliberate attempt to fabricate something--in other words, to lie, is duly noted.

Just a little gentle ribbing, William, because we're such good friends.

[Chris Smith]

In the first place, his conclusion is based on an unproven assumption. And since the measurements of the winding lengths is the key to the accuracy of any estimate of the length of the scroll, whether or not Bill "appears to agree" with your conclusions would seem to be an open question at present, don't you think?

Our "measurements" were produced using an automated methodology that produced roughly equivalent results based on both the top and bottom edges. Our automated results also agree closely with the distance between subsequent matching vertical "cracks" in the papyrus as shown in figures 24 and 25. Thus while our measurements are not "proven" in the sense of achieving 100% certainty, they are well-supported by academic standards.

[William Schryver]

Just a brief and somewhat cryptic update to this as yet unresolved controversy:

Until just recently, no one in the field of Egyptology had ever really concerned themselves with things such as the thickness of papyrus, the length of windings, or the length of missing portions of scrolls for which only fragments remain. As a result of the controversy surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri (specifically the original length of the scroll of Hor), impetus has now been given for more systematic study of these questions. Consequently, it has been possible, through a comparative analysis of scrolls of known lengths, to not only develop a reliable methodology for estimating the missing length of a papyrus scroll, but also to test the methodologies employed by the competing Schryver and Cook/Smith teams. I can therefore report, absent any detail or further elaboration at this juncture, that the methodology I describe in my forthcoming paper has been shown to produce reasonably accurate results. My having averaged all the papyrus thickness measurements, instead of using only the ones from undamaged areas of the papyrus, caused me to underestimate the original length of the scroll of Hor by about 1 meter.

The Cook/Smith methodology underestimates the original length of the scroll of Hor by no less than 4 meters.

A detailed report of these continuing studies will appear, within the coming year or so, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

[USU78]

Can you give us a hint at the number of papyri studied to arrive at your conclusions? The boobirds will, no doubt, want to know that there was a statistically significant sample studied.

[William Schryver]

Can you give us a hint at the number of papyri studied to arrive at your conclusions? The boobirds will, no doubt, want to know that there was a statistically significant sample studied.

First of all, it should be understood that I am reporting this information "second-hand." That said, the studies are taking place within the realm of the professional Egyptologists (and papyrologists), rather than the realm of the amateurs, where I undeniably reside. Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that it appears a reliable methodology has been developed for accurately calculating the length of a papyrus scroll for which only a portion is extant.

[Mortal Man]

The Cook/Smith methodology underestimates the original length of the scroll of Hor by no less than 4 meters.

I still think you should read our paper Will. And I'll be very interested to hear how your thickness measurements enable you to establish a lower bound on the missing length.

A detailed report of these continuing studies will appear, within the coming year or so, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

What happened to your paper in The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture?

[USU78]

First of all, it should be understood that I am reporting this information "second-hand." That said, the studies are taking place within the realm of the professional Egyptologists (and papyrologists), rather than the realm of the amateurs, where I undeniably reside. Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that it appears a reliable methodology has been developed for accurately calculating the length of a papyrus scroll for which only a portion is extant.

Thanks, Will.

I'm going to speculate here that the relevant measures are thickness of the papyrus, thickness of the rolled-up papyrus, and length of the scroll . . . that they tend to exist in certain ratios in the samples tested.

Close enough?

[William Schryver]

I still think you should read our paper Will. And I'll be very interested to hear how your thickness measurements enable you to establish a lower bound on the missing length.

As I understand it, the thickness of the papyrus is not a factor in the new methodology that has been developed--although that methodology does predict the thickness.

What happened to your paper in The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture?

It has been completed for several months, but has been on hold in anticipation of these other studies to which I have made reference. It will yet appear in that journal, with some minor modifications.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will, any reason for your non-disclosure of the author's identity?

If this new methodology turns out to be legitimate and to produce accurate results, I'll be the first to welcome it. It would make more sense of the Charlotte Haven account than our 60 cm finding (though it would jive less well with other evidence). However, our results seem pretty solid, so for the moment I remain skeptical that they will be overturned.

I am glad to hear that the new methodology does not rely on thicknesses. That method, it seems to me, rested on far too many problematic assumptions.

[Mortal Man]

...to test the methodologies employed by the competing Schryver and Cook/Smith teams.

Whoever is doing this will first have to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of our method before I'll have any confidence that they can employ it properly.

The astute reader of our paper will notice that our method contains its own internal tests and checks on accuracy:

1. the independently measured top and bottom edges agree with each other,

2. fragments I & XI predict the winding lengths of fragment X and vice versa.

First of all, it should be understood that I am reporting this information "second-hand." That said, the studies are taking place within the realm of the professional Egyptologists (and papyrologists), rather than the realm of the amateurs, where I undeniably reside. Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that it appears a reliable methodology has been developed for accurately calculating the length of a papyrus scroll for which only a portion is extant.

Is this John Gee's solo effort or is someone else involved as well?

The Cook/Smith methodology underestimates the original length of the scroll of Hor by no less than 4 meters.

It has been completed for several months, but has been on hold in anticipation of these other studies to which I have made reference. It will yet appear in that journal, with some minor modifications.

While you're revising your paper, apparently to make it agree with whatever John is coming up with, why don't you try rolling up 4.6 meters of papyrus into a scroll with an outer circumference no greater than 9.5 cm (Gee's measurement for the innermost extant winding)? Then post a picture of it here for your fans to marvel at.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

While you're revising your paper, apparently to make it agree with whatever John is coming up with ...

Charming, as always.

... why don't you try rolling up 4.6 meters of papyrus into a scroll with an outer circumference no greater than 9.5 cm ...

Funny you should mention this ... I think you have some surprises coming your way.

You know, I don't believe I've ever gotten an answer from you to the question of how thick you believe the Hor papyrus to be. Of course, as you know, the measurements we performed indicated that the thickness of the undamaged areas of the papyrus is in the range of 100 - 125 microns. As I recall, you have disputed (at least implicitly) that measurement. How thick do you believe the papyrus to be?

... (Gee's measurement for the innermost extant winding)?

John's originally published winding measurements were not accurate--something he acknowledges and will correct in a forthcoming article. He agrees, more or less, with my measurements of the first three winding lengths (10.48, 10.30, 10.13 [all in cm, based on a starting point ~1.0 cm in from the outer edge of JSP I]).

Then post a picture of it here for your fans to marvel at.

I will post some interesting pictures in an upcoming post.

The astute reader of our paper will notice that our method contains its own internal tests and checks on accuracy ...

Well, we shall see. I am aware of at least a handful of "astute readers" that have weighed your methodology in the balance, and it has been found wanting.

.

.

.

CS:

I am glad to hear that the new methodology does not rely on thicknesses.

As I presently understand it (and I must emphasize that I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down with the papyrologist to discuss the specifics) the thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary measurement in the methodology that has been developed. However, the formula does give a reasonably accurate estimate of the papyrus thickness. Therefore, knowing the thickness of the papyrus is an important element of confirming data. Furthermore, as I illustrate in my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very accurately estimate the original length of the scroll. The original length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm.

I am confident that it will be conclusively demonstrated that the formula you and Cook employed is fatally flawed.

That method, it seems to me, rested on far too many problematic assumptions.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions at all. It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements: the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three windings. Its simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

[Chris Smith]

John's originally published winding measurements were not accurate--something he acknowledges and will correct in a forthcoming article. He agrees, more or less, with my measurements of the first three winding lengths (10.48, 10.30, 10.13 [all in cm, based on a starting point ~1.0 cm in from the outer edge of JSP I]).

I can understand why you arrived at the first two of those numbers. My initial measurements of the first two windings produced very similar results, and our automated methodology returned similar numbers for the top edge of these first two windings, as well. However, we got very different results when we used the bottom edge and the vertical "cracks" in the papyrus. It turned out to be the bottom edge and "crack" results that best agreed with our measurements of the other windings. This is all laid out in detail in our paper.

Furthermore, as I illustrate in my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very accurately estimate the original length of the scroll. The original length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm.

I find it quite telling that you have chosen to focus exclusively on the first three windings. I think you would be hard-pressed to reconcile your first three winding lengths with the physical characteristics of pJS X. Your measurements imply that the winding lengths for pJS X should be in the neighborhood of 9.8 cm. But I think anyone with eyes and a ruler should be able to see that the pJS X winding lengths are actually much shorter than that.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions at all. It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements: the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three windings. Its simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

I was referring to your earlier methodology based on thicknesses, not the new one. Your earlier methodology assumed that papyrus thickness was a close approximation of effective thickness-- that is, the change in scroll radius per winding.

As for the new methodology, do you mind if I ask how you have ensured that your measurements of the first three windings are "objective"?

Peace,

-Chris