My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[William Schryver]

Metcalfe:

Again, you've persuaded me that you utterly fail to appreciate the text-critical intricacies of the various BoAbr manuscripts.

I

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I will.

I certainly hope you will, Will.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[dblagent007]

But I think you would make a fine candidate.

I'm not too worried. God doesn't honor curses uttered by the unrighteous.

Changing the subject ... I would like to draw the attention of all interested parties to a significant update I have posted to my scroll-length thread in the Pundit's forum.

Oh man, this just takes the cake! This is yet another example of your deceptiveness. I have repeatedly suggested that you and Brian MEASURE the papyri since you two seem to be one of the few people on earth that have access to them. Every time I made this suggestion you said that you couldn't. You always had one excuse or another (e.g., it was covered with a paper backing that made it impossible, etc., etc., etc.). I guess it really wasn't all that hard after all.

The problem here is one of credibility. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar too often for us to take the measurements at face value. You probably made 25 measurements and only reported the lowest two that correspond to the most ragged, worn out, frayed edges.

Now if Brian came on here and swore that those two measurements were representative of all the measurements taken and that the measured portions weren't unduly worn out, then it would add a lot to your credibility.

[William Schryver]

I'm not too worried. God doesn't honor curses uttered by the unrighteous.

Oh man, this just takes the cake! This is yet another example of your deceptiveness. I have repeatedly suggested that you and Brian MEASURE the papyri since you two seem to be one of the few people on earth that have access to them. Every time I made this suggestion you said that you couldn't. You always had one excuse or another (e.g., it was covered with a paper backing that made it impossible, etc., etc., etc.). I guess it really wasn't all that hard after all.

The problem here is one of credibility. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar too often for us to take the measurements at face value. You probably made 25 measurements and only reported the lowest two that correspond to the most ragged, worn out, frayed edges.

Now if Brian came on here and swore that those two measurements were representative of all the measurements taken and that the measured portions weren't unduly worn out, then it would add a lot to your credibility.

Another shining example of the quality argumentation that dblagent007 brings to the discussion.

A litany of baseless allegations, random speculations, and ad hominem irrelevancies. You're a credit to your kind.

BTW, still waiting on your two shovels full of the "mountain of evidence" that disproves my KEP thesis ...

[dblagent007]

BTW, still waiting on your two shovels full of the "mountain of evidence" that disproves my KEP thesis ...

As I still wait for your explanation of how Gee's two-inks and over-run arguments have any relation to your latest theories other than using the same words.

Besides, it wouldn't be a mountain of evidence if I could put it together in a minute, now would it.

[William Schryver]

Metcalfe:

... you've persuaded me that you utterly fail to appreciate the text-critical intricacies of the various BoAbr manuscripts.

Your comments of late increasingly invoke for me comparisons to the scene in Monty Python

[Mortal Man]

The problem here is one of credibility. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar too often for us to take the measurements at face value. You probably made 25 measurements and only reported the lowest two that correspond to the most ragged, worn out, frayed edges.

That was my impression as well.

At any rate, the thickness of papyrus that has been drying for over two thousand years merely sets an absolute minimum on Hoffmann's S factor; it says nothing about the actual value of S.

Now if Brian came on here and swore that those two measurements were representative of all the measurements taken and that the measured portions weren't unduly worn out, then it would add a lot to your credibility.

I'd like to ditto that.

Will,

Did you take photographs of the papyri during your visit?

[juliann]

Wow, Will....you have struck not only a raw nerve but a very exposed nerve. That the naysayers have so much invested in these measurements yet don't want to hear that we might actually be close to knowing what they are says a lot.

Congratulations on your findings, it sounds very, very exciting.

[Anijen]

deleted

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

That was my impression as well.

No doubt. After all, my reputation for pathological dissembling is so extensively attested in my public record as to render suspect anything I say. Right?

At any rate, the thickness of papyrus that has been drying for over two thousand years merely sets an absolute minimum on Hoffmann's S factor; it says nothing about the actual value of S.

You don

[William Schryver]

Wow, Will....you have struck not only a raw nerve but a very exposed nerve. That the naysayers have so much invested in these measurements yet don't want to hear that we might actually be close to knowing what they are says a lot.

Congratulations on your findings, it sounds very, very exciting.

The funniest part is that Brian and I predicted these reactions--and the actual participants!--in rather minute detail. We must be prophets.

[William Schryver]

Wow, Will....you have struck not only a raw nerve but a very exposed nerve. That the naysayers have so much invested in these measurements yet don't want to hear that we might actually be close to knowing what they are says a lot.

Congratulations on your findings, it sounds very, very exciting.

What's also so ironic is that I took no end of abuse when I believed and reported (as I was told at the time) that it would not be possible to measure the JSP because they were inaccessible to such measurements. It was only after we made an impassioned case to the "powers that be" at the CHL that we were then permitted access to some fragments (and were also assured that, in the not-too-distant future, the papyri will undergo a rigorous series of measurements at the time their conservation status is improved).

So now, in direct response to the critics' requests, we have provided measurements of the thickness of the Joseph Smith papyri, and what happens? I am subjected to condemnation as a liar and deceiver of the first order. Why? Because apparently they don't like the results!

And these are the people who claim we have nothing to fear from the facts.

It doesn't get any more ironic than this ...

[Calm]

At any rate, the thickness of papyrus that has been drying for over two thousand years merely sets an absolute minimum on Hoffmann's S factor; it says nothing about the actual value of S.

IIRC, Will states that the measurements demonstrate the upper limit and points out that half of that limit matches the reports of the eyewitnesses better. It does not appear to me that his arguments require that the extremes be the actual values.

add-on: here is the relevant quote....

And finally, since you have apparently failed to comprehend the significance of the calculated range (18'-25') I reported for the "upper-bound" length of the missing portion of the scroll, I will clarify: it is based on the range of the measurements of the samples (97-127 microns). Of course, I do not believe the actual length of the missing portion of the scroll was somewhere between 18'-25' (which is merely the "upper-bound," or the maximum possible length if the scroll had been wound as tightly as possible) but most certainly it was less. Even so, a missing length only half of the "upper-bound" would be 9'-12.5', which is entirely consistent with the contemporary eyewitness testimony of a "long roll" present after the mounted fragments had been removed.

Will can correct me if I have misinterpreted his comments.

[Mortal Man]

Is double agent a sock puppet for MM?

Given his 1070 posts to my 655, it would more likely be the other way around.

What's that dblag? I wasn't supposed to say that? I'm sorry, I'll go back in the drawer now.

[wenglund]

Moving quickly past the hystrionics, please allowing me to post again this query that has yet to be responded to:

Am I correct in assuming that while Chris may be open to a supernaturalistic explanation for the BoA, there are those who proffer a naturalistic explanation?

If so, is there any in the latter camp participating on this thread?

I ask, because I am wondering what naturalistic arguments this latter group presents for how Joseph supposedly came up with the Egyptian alphabet/grammar to begin with, and whether they believe the alphabet/grammar was used in the production of most, if not all, of the BoA, rather than just Abr. 1:1-3, if that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

The funniest part is that Brian and I predicted these reactions--and the actual participants!--in rather minute detail. We must be prophets.

Will, suppose Chris were to come back and say that his micrometer measurements show a thickness of 0.8 mm; what would be your reaction?

[Chris Smith]

I am subjected to condemnation as a liar and deceiver of the first order.

I don't think you're a liar. But your thickness measurement doesn't give us the value of S. What it does (as you yourself pointed out) is give us an upper bound for S. And since your reported upper-bound makes John Gee's original calculation physically impossible by half, I'm at something of a loss to explain how this is a win for Book of Abraham apologetics. Having looked at several sets of photographs with rulers in them in anticipation of my CHL visit, I still feel quite confident that a careful, documented geometric analysis will show the missing portion to be far, far shorter than 25 or even 12 feet.

And if I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. *shrug*

[Chris Smith]

Will, suppose Chris were to come back and say that his micrometer measurements show a thickness of 0.8 mm; what would be your reaction?

I didn't get authorization to use a micrometer. When I view the papyri they will be encased in their usual mylar (transparent polyester) sheaths.

[Mortal Man]

Moving quickly past the hystrionics, please allowing me to post again this query that has yet to be responded to:

Am I correct in assuming that while Chris may be open to a supernaturalistic explanation for the BoA, there are those who proffer a naturalistic explanation?

If so, is there any in the latter camp participating on this thread?

I ask, because I am wondering what naturalistic arguments this latter group presents for how Joseph supposedly came up with the Egyptian alphabet/grammar to begin with, and whether they believe the alphabet/grammar was used in the production of most, if not all, of the BoA, rather than just Abr. 1:1-3, if that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

I think that the translation process is quite clearly explained in the first two pages of the GAEL, which expounds D&C 9:7-11. I see the process as follows:

1) Look at the number of "connecting points found in the character" to determine how many "connecting parts of speech" must be used ("or, the full sense of the writer is not conveyed").

2) "Study it out in your own mind," i.e., imagine something from Genesis, The Book of Jasher, Antiquities of the Jews, The Zohar, The Philosophy of a Future State and/or The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato.

3) If you don't get a "stupor of thought," then it is "expedient" that you continue translating, but if you "fear" then the "time" will be "past".

[juliann]

I don't think you're a liar. But your thickness measurement doesn't give us the value of S. What it does (as you yourself pointed out) is give us an upper bound for S. And since your reported upper-bound makes John Gee's original calculation physically impossible by half, I'm at something of a loss to explain how this is a win for Book of Abraham apologetics.

It is telling that you see this in terms of winning. That is not an encouraging position for a scholar. I can't tell you the name of one "apologist" who doesn't want to know the facts and would not consider more knowledge a win....even if it undercuts a current theory.

[Chris Smith]

It is telling that you see this in terms of winning.

The adversarial method is an important component of how the academy functions. In terms of competing hypotheses, there are winners and losers. The important thing is that we be willing to abandon a hypothesis that has been falsified or to move to a new synthesis if both sides have something to contribute. And I don't believe I've ever said anything to suggest that I am not so willing.

Your ironic attempt at point-scoring also, of course, misses the fact that I was responding to your and Will's triumphalist proclamations against the "naysayers" rather than expressing triumphalism of my own. But that, I suppose, is beside the point. Let's get back to substantive issues, shall we?

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith:

But your thickness measurement doesn't give us the value of S.

The

[juliann]

The adversarial method is an important component of how the academy functions. In terms of competing hypotheses, there are winners and losers. The important thing is that we be willing to abandon a hypothesis that has been falsified or to move to a new synthesis if both sides have something to contribute. And I don't believe I've ever said anything to suggest that I am not so willing.

Your ironic attempt at point-scoring also, of course, misses the fact that I was responding to your and Will's triumphalist proclamations against the "naysayers" rather than expressing triumphalism of my own. But that, I suppose, is beside the point. Let's get back to substantive issues, shall we?

We obviously have a different vision of the academy. As to your hyper-defensiveness, taking notice of the extremely churlish responses to what might be a watershed moment in Mormon Studies is hardly triumphalist. Nor is a simple congratulations...which would be the normal response for those without an agenda so laden they can't even squeak out a positive word. I think it is a sad commentary on the adversarial posturing by those who want to taken seriously in academics. It certainly was never looked on kindly at CGU.

[Chris Smith]

I wouldn't call it a watershed moment, but it is a useful measurement, and I'm glad Brian and Will undertook it. So, you're right: Will is due congratulations on his good work.

But you're wrong in your assessment of my attitude and agenda. I'm sorry you feel the need to air your misjudgment of me here. Peace,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

I already know what Cook and Smith are going to argue when it comes to the scroll of Horos. They