Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Length of the Lost Scroll of Horos


William Schryver

Recommended Posts

Yes, those nineteenth century eyewitnesses to all the now missing material. Pity those exist, as without them the critic's forensic preoccupations would have greater plausibility then at present. With them, the whole theory that all presently existing material is the source/origin of the ideas and text represented in the BofA are in danger, at any time, of disappearing in a puff of oily smoke.

This is what I think is so interesting. What ever the out come I can't crunch the numbers on this stuff it is way over my head. I enjoy a good debate though. I find it interesting that we do have eye witness accounts of a "long" scroll. I think this debate on the scroll length could go on for an eternity. I find the eye witness account compelling. Oh well.

Link to comment
Only that I don't really get what point MM is trying to make here. The photos I have seen of the scroll of Horos seem to show a very fine, thin material was used. Papyrus was manufactured by laying two layers of the plant fibers crossways of each other and pressing them together until they were essentially "welded" to each other. They are known to have -- over the course of millenia -- produced papyrus of an exceedingly thin quality. I have documented samples as thin as .10 mm (100 microns) from the New Kingdom to the Roman era. Gee's measurements, if absolutely accurate, indicate a thickness of 53 microns for the scroll of Horos. Despite the dearth of specimens quite that thin, I don't know that papyrus cannot be manufactured that thin. I do know it can be manufactured to a thickness of 100 microns.

Well, not exactly. I think MM's point is this: Gee's calculations show the thickness of the two ply layer to be 50 microns, which is about the same thickness as the pages of my quad. However, the pictures show areas of the papyrus where one layer has come off. If the two ply layer was 50 microns, then the single ply layer must be something less than that and probably around half that, e.g., 25 microns. The upper layer is also thick enough that the ink did not bleed through to the bottom layer. The bottom layer is also fairly opaque. This evidence, if confirmed, would seem to cast doubt on Gee's measurements that result in the paper being about 50 microns thick.

By the way, has anyone asked Gee if the papyrus looks like it is as thin as bible paper? A cursory visual examination of the original would be sufficient to determine if the thickness of the papyrus is in the range of bible paper, ordinary copy paper, or light cardstock. He has examined them extensively so he should have some ballpark idea of how thick it is.

Link to comment

I think this is all a ploy to increase the sales of the newly published "An Approach to the Book of Abraham" number 18 in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley edited by John Gee. Now available at your local Deseret Book store for those who live on the Wasatch front

Link to comment
Am I missing something, or does CS' argument largement consist of ignoring actual observation of real data and the reasonable extrapolations drawn therefrom in favor of 150+ years ago 3rd party tendentiousness?

You're missing something.

Link to comment

007:

By the way, has anyone asked Gee if the papyrus looks like it is as thin as bible paper? A cursory visual examination of the original would be sufficient to determine if the thickness of the papyrus is in the range of bible paper, ordinary copy paper, or light cardstock. He has examined them extensively so he should have some ballpark idea of how thick it is.

Do you do realize that modern "light cardstock" paper is ~0.25 mm thick? Only the heaviest card stock, or light box material, reaches a thickness of 0.50 mm, which is the approximate thickness of some samples of Greco-Roman period papyrus.

I have talked with John about his impression of the scroll of Horos material. He is careful to maintain a certain, shall we say, "scholarly reserve," when it comes to his response (he doesn't want to make any "definitive statements" until such time as he is able to perform precise thickness measurements), the answer to your question is that a visual examination seems to suggest a very thin, very fragile material; much more like modern "onion skin" paper than card stock; visibly thinner than the "card stock" material upon which it was mounted in 1836. And, of course, if John's measurements are perfect, a thickness of 0.05 mm is suggested, which is approximately that of "onion skin."

I wouldn't be surprised if the measurements are slightly in error. The lacunae are not very uniform, and it therefore constitutes a huge measurement challenge. But I suspect any potential error is on the order of ~0.2 cm rather than the ridiculously large ~2.0 cm error necessary for the papyrus to be 0.50 mm thick.

Here is a scan of Column 2 from Michael Rhodes' The Hor Book of Breathings:

HBB_Column2.jpg

Link to comment

I really do not think having such a thin layer on layer of thickness is such a big to do. Any master of their craft should be able to do that. For example I make long bows and recurve bows, in one part I need to sand down the riser that nears the limbs of the bow to paper thin, I do this by hand with no modern machine, all I have is sand paper and my hand and eye coordination and I can do it easily now (after many years of practice).

For those who made the parchment no matter what they used for it, they eventually became so good in their work that what we see as a image of the book of breathings it might look thick to us but zoom in and it is easy to see how thin it could actually be.

Just my two cents'

Anijen

Link to comment
Here is a scan of Column 2 from Michael Rhodes' The Hor Book of Breathings:

Hey Will, any chance you could post scans of all the columns? Your image brings out features that are harder to see in other photos.

BTW, the scan appears to be a mirror image of the instructions column.

Link to comment
This is incorrect. If the measurements are independent, then the errors will be randomly distributed, unless there is some systematic bias in the methodology. Random errors; e.g., a Gaussian distribution about the mean, are subject to cancellation upon integration or least-squares fitting. The net result is that you gain an order of accuracy (an extra digit) by measuring multiple windings. If the skewness of the error probability density function is zero, then the net error goes to zero in the limit of an infinite number of measurements. If the distribution has non-zero skewness (there is a bias), then the net error doesn't go to zero but significant cancellation still occurs.

Is there anyone here who is actually interested in the real answer to this question or is it too much fun beating up on Chris?

Hi MM,

I missed this post of yours regarding one of my comments in the Pundits forum. So please look further down where I actually did Monte Carlo simulations with just the assumptions you suggested, but before I noticed your post. I more or less demonstrated my point, and you do not get an order of magnitude improvement by using the other 5 available measurements (which you assert but made no attempt to justify). Random errors don't get cancelled (completely) out through addition or integration. I know you are not making such a claim, but I am puzzled by your criticism anyway. (It isn't technically correct even if you leave out my ad absurdim parenthetical: Try saying something like "When using more data it can be expected (in the ensemble average sense) that the amount of error in the parameter estimate will be reduced." And then be sure and add your assumptions about the data that make this so.) Perhaps you were overacting to me saying that in this case they don't help that much (which I still maintain)? I avoided quantifying at the time, but I referred to theoretical lower bounds on the standard deviation of the distribution of error on the parameter being estimated. It should be close to my simulated results. I'll give you a chance to save face here by deriving the theoretical limits. This exercise should help you in your search for the real answer. Consider my advice free and of the type I would give students I was mentoring who were working on a project. I don't bring up this imagery to be condescending, rather I think the ethical situation is similar. For instance, professors need to step back and let their students do their own work and they can only provide so much help. If you guys are really interested in making a real contribution, you are going to have to do a lot better. I would also advise using a spiral length equation instead of the spread sheet. There is no reason to reinvent a wheel that has been around since Archimedes. Feel free to ignore my advice. I wish you all the best in your search for truth.

edit: added some more remarks so as to be even more helpful

Link to comment

Having trouble with the editting function.

I know there are no do-overs, but I like to go back analyze how I wrote something and what I could have done better so as not to be misunderstood.

In my response to Chris in the Pundits forum, I presented a glass is half empty perspective on linear best fitting to dampen what I considered overarching enthusiasm for it. So I emphasized the negative aspects of bringing additional error sources into the picture without providing a balanced picture of the trade-offs involved. I didn't write enough to prevent someone from misreading me to be saying that additional measurement error sources always results in increasing the error in parameter estimate (or only has a negligible decrease). Given that read, I suppose that a reiteration of half-full perspective is justified and I will try to look past the incorrect claims that were made along with it.

Link to comment

EbedInteresting.png

I have been told countless times that Latter-day Saints lack the appropriate credentials to be credible. Based on the credentials of Mssrs. Smith and Gee, I find the assertion somewhat interesting. Both are from tier 1 schools as rated by US News and World Report with an excellent reputation and standing.

Chris Smith has an MA in Christian History from Wheaton College. Tier: 1 Rank: 56 Score: 64

John Gee has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University. Tier: 1 Rank: 3 Score: 98

I wonder, based on credentials alone, who has the edge in this situation? I suspect Gee but I also suspect that I am not seeing the complete picture.

Link to comment
You're missing something.
Perhaps, yet the fact remains that CS completely disregards the eyewitness testimonies regarding the then estimated length.

Why would that be, we wonders?

Link to comment
Perhaps, yet the fact remains that CS completely disregards the eyewitness testimonies regarding the then estimated length.

Why would that be, we wonders?

Actually, I don't. I've discussed the testimonies at great length on numerous occasions, and I believe I have established that they point quite persuasively to there having been no other text on the roll after the Book of Breathings. The only testimony that could arguably be cited against my view is that of Charlotte Haven, who described the roll as "long". But Charlotte had no referent against which to judge its length, so "long" is whatever she believed was "long".

Link to comment
Actually, I don't. I've discussed the testimonies at great length on numerous occasions, and I believe I have established that they point quite persuasively to there having been no other text on the roll after the Book of Breathings. The only testimony that could arguably be cited against my view is that of Charlotte Haven, who described the roll as "long". But Charlotte had no referent against which to judge its length, so "long" is whatever she believed was "long".
Would you mind treating the witnesses you rely on at greater length [pun intended]? I seem to recall 3-5 "long scroll" witnesses who talked about seeing the scrolls rolled out in the mansion house. I could look it up, but I'm decidedly lazy.
Link to comment
Actually, I don't. I've discussed the testimonies at great length on numerous occasions, and I believe I have established that they point quite persuasively to there having been no other text on the roll after the Book of Breathings. The only testimony that could arguably be cited against my view is that of Charlotte Haven, who described the roll as "long". But Charlotte had no referent against which to judge its length, so "long" is whatever she believed was "long".

Of course, I consider your interpretation of the various eyewitness testimonies to be, at the very least, problematic, and probably even unjustifiably dismissive. As I have argued elsewhere, Charlotte Haven reports on precisely those elements of the papyri I would expect to make an impression on a young woman: the length and the "pictures."

Nevertheless, if Gee's measurements of the extant fragments are even remotely accurate, a "long roll" becomes an undeniable reality. And, in the judgment of many students of the relevant history, a "long roll" at Nauvoo, containing an Abraham text, is persuasively indicated.

Link to comment
Would you mind treating the witnesses you rely on at greater length [pun intended]? I seem to recall 3-5 "long scroll" witnesses who talked about seeing the scrolls rolled out in the mansion house. I could look it up, but I'm decidedly lazy.

Charlotte Haven is the only "long scroll" witness. If you look more deeply into Nibley's "Mansion House" claim you will find that it is unprovenanced and unreliable.

The main witness for my view is Gustavus Seyffarth, who described the papyrus in 1856 as "not a record" but rather an invocation to the deity Osiris and a vingette answering to Facsimile 3. He describes nothing after Facsimile 3 on the roll.

Best,

-Chris

Link to comment
Charlotte Haven is the only "long scroll" witness. If you look more deeply into Nibley's "Mansion House" claim you will find that it is unprovenanced and unreliable.

The main witness for my view is Gustavus Seyffarth, who described the papyrus in 1856 as "not a record" but rather an invocation to the deity Osiris and a vingette answering to Facsimile 3. He describes nothing after Facsimile 3 on the roll.

Best,

-Chris

Chris could you please provide the source for this "Gustavus Seyffarth, who described the papyrus in 1856 as "not a record" but rather an invocation to the deity Osiris and a vignette answering to Facsimile 3".

Thanks. In my study of Professor Seyffarth he was a very opinionated and piously loyal to his faith, took credit for the interpretation of the Rosetta Stone and did not appreciate Champollion's credit. I would find him to be a very studious scholar but one who might have no agenda to publicize anything that would validate anything that would credit Joseph Smith. I would hope that you would have based your main witness theory off of more of a less biased source than Professor Seyffarth. Or it could simply be that he cataloged the wood museums contents and didn't comment further.

Because he describes nothing after facsimile three does not mean nothing wasn't there, perhaps he didn't because he just assumed it was more BoB or BotD or whatever....

Most importantly I would like to reiterate Professors Gee's words;

our theories have dictated our facts as often as our facts have dictated our theories. Theoretical bias has been unrecognized and its pervasive influence ignored. So long as we are willing to allow our preconceptions to structure our questions and answers, to rewrite the historians, or disbelieve the papyrus evidence, how will we ever find examples of positive . . . interaction between Egyptian and [Mormon]? It will not matter whether we use [Mormon] or [Egyptian] evidence, or any evidence at all; we shall see only our long-ingrained stereotype

Critics and believers alike seem not wanting to budge with their pet theories and I do not think we can meet with cooler heads until we do. FWIW I believe the William Schryver has tried on his part.

Link to comment

Anijen,

The source is the 1856 St. Louis Museum Catalog.

These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt, sixty feet below the surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, forwarded to New York, and there purchased, in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon Prophet, on account of the writings found in the chest of one of them, and which he pretended to translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahs’ – but, according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus,) and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge, Osirus.

Seyffarth's description gives us zero reason to believe that there was anything on the roll after Facsimile 3. Your assumption that he spoke from an anti-Mormon bias is unsubstantiated. As far as I know, he had no real interest in Mormonism whatsoever. His bone was with Champollion, not Joseph Smith.

-Chris

Link to comment
Of course, I consider your interpretation of the various eyewitness testimonies to be, at the very least, problematic, and probably even unjustifiably dismissive.

You are hardly in a position to accuse me of being unjustifiably dismissive. I recently provided you with three eyewitnesses who were shown fragments under glass that were identified as the writings of Abraham. I also provided you with a large number of eyewitness reports that identified the prophet's mummies as a pharaoh and his daughters. Yet even so venerable a witness as William I. Appleby, who heard this explanation from the prophet himself, you simply blew off. You seemed to feel that all the reports were either fabrications or exaggerations, and that none of them could be trusted. I have applied myself to the witness testimony with great care, comparing witnesses against each other and applying the standard methods of the historical discipline. Everywhere that I have raised questions about a witness's testimony, I have carefully justified my reservations. In no case have I poisoned the well or rejected a witness's statement wholesale. You can hardly say the same. And if treating witnesses dismissively is not enough, you have done the same to the critics themselves.

Best,

-Chris

Link to comment
Anijen,

The source is the 1856 St. Louis Museum Catalog.

Seyffarth's description gives us zero reason to believe that there was anything on the roll after Facsimile 3. Your assumption that he spoke from an anti-Mormon bias is unsubstantiated. As far as I know, he had no real interest in Mormonism whatsoever. His bone was with Champollion, not Joseph Smith.

-Chris

Thanks for the source it saves me some time to look it up.

I agree his riff was with Champollion, I was referencing his allegiance to the Lutheran church (nothing wrong with that) its that it would seem if there was anything on the scroll ie anything about Abraham it would validate Josephs view rather than his own faith in which he was biased for. We all have biases, He had many huge ones. Bias is one reason I quoted Gee; "our theories have dictated our facts"

Seyffarth's description gives us zero reason to believe that there wasn't anything else on the roll either. In reality what it gives us is exactly what it says nothing more (in which I may think) and nothing less (in which you may think).

Link to comment

CS:

You are hardly in a position to accuse me of being unjustifiably dismissive.

Quite to the contrary, I believe I am. Here is a sampling of your recent dismissive attitude towards eyewitness testimony you find to disagree with your assumptions:

â?â?¦ probably mis-remembered â?¦â?

â?As for Gee's comments on the eyewitness testimony, all I can say is that he has not understood said testimony.â?

Most witnesses mix accurate memory with distorted memory, understatement with exaggeration, truth with fiction.

â?¦ I think she simply fudged this detail in her memory.

â?¦ I think that she was merely told that these vignettes were from another roll, not that she actually viewed that roll while it was still intact.

Believe it or not, I have pretty good reasons for making these kinds of interpretive decisions.

Sounds to me like someone being arbitrarily dismissive. I'll leave it to our readers to make their own judgment.

You continue:

I recently provided you with three eyewitnesses who were shown fragments under glass that were identified as the writings of Abraham.

You're trying to spin their testimony to support your assumption: that the mounted fragments represent the vast majority of the scroll of Horos. But that's not what the testimony says at all.

Caveat Lector: When you're informed what a witness has said, but not actually shown the source for that testimony, be skeptical.

I also provided you with a large number of eyewitness reports that identified the prophet's mummies as a pharaoh and his daughters.

I'm sure Lucy Mack Smith loved telling that story, true or not.

I have applied myself to the witness testimony with great care, comparing witnesses against each other and applying the standard methods of the historical discipline. Everywhere that I have raised questions about a witness's testimony, I have carefully justified my reservations. In no case have I poisoned the well or rejected a witness's statement wholesale. You can hardly say the same. And if treating witnesses dismissively is not enough, you have done the same to the critics themselves.

Bull pucky! You use the witness testimony selectively to justify your assumptions. You carefully attempt to discredit the testimony that conflicts with your assumptions, and you unjustifiably extrapolate beyond the source in the case of witness testimony that you believe tends to confirm your assumptions.

Gee and others have identified several sources that point to a long roll in Nauvoo, and that that roll contained the text of the Book of Abraham. But you are committed to an assumption that the extant fragments are what Joseph Smith believed to be the source of his "translation," and therefore you reject all testimony that appears to conflict with that assumption.

Furthermore, you seek to cultivate an image here of one who is always taking the "high ground," and yet you do not hesitate at all in your willing derision of Professor Gee, myself, and others in venues where your denigration is welcome by consensus, and where your words are unlikely to be reported to a wide audience like the one that frequents this board. You complain bitterly about the mild criticism your arguments received in the Pundit's forum thread, and yet you routinely stand silent when someone like myself is subjected to far worse treatment at the hands of your "good friends" elsewhere in cyberspace.

In short, you are fooling no one. You have now developed the reputation among the upper-echelons of LDS apologetics as one who will shake your hand kindly, smile to your face, speak soft words in your presence, and then characterize you as a blathering, bumbling fool when out of your presence. Such duplicity has garnered you some short-term applause in the "small clubs" in town, but it will not serve you well in the long term, nor will it play well in the larger venues where you aspire to perform.

Link to comment

I have reverse-engineered Prof. Gee's measurements and I believe I have identified the source of his errors. I'd like to describe the process with some pictures, but unfortunately, the board will not let me upload attachments. I get "Upload failed" whenever I try. Is anyone else having this problem?

Link to comment
I have reverse-engineered Prof. Gee's measurements and I believe I have identified the source of his errors. I'd like to describe the process with some pictures, but unfortunately, the board will not let me upload attachments. I get "Upload failed" whenever I try. Is anyone else having this problem?

No.

You could post the photos on another website such as Flickr, photobucket, etc. and then embed a link to the photos so that they appear when you publish your post. You could just put a link to the photos in your post too (someone else could then attach them to a post).

Link to comment
I have reverse-engineered Prof. Gee's measurements and I believe I have identified the source of his errors. I'd like to describe the process with some pictures, but unfortunately, the board will not let me upload attachments. I get "Upload failed" whenever I try. Is anyone else having this problem?

I never upload anything to the board itself, but to photobucket, and then I place the link inside %7Boption%7D tags in the body of my post. It's fast and easy to do it that way.

Incidentally, I think your post would be better suited to the thread in the Pundits forum. Why don't you PM Nemesis and request Pundit status? I would say you seem to qualify for that high and exalted station in life. :P

I look forward to your analysis, and to see how wrong you believe Gee's measurements are. How large of a total error are you suggesting? .1 cm? .5 cm? 1 cm? 3 cm?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...