Missing Papyrus

[Mortal Man]

Interesting paper. Looks like a real game changer.

Do you think we should turn it into a fancy PowerPoint presentation? It's got lots of numbers we could use to construct a really cool cipher.

[Mortal Man]

Interesting paper, thanks for sharing. My mind started glazing when I hit the formulas but other than that, it was a good read. Good job, you two!

Thanks staccato.

If you made it past the spiral without getting hypnotized, then you did better than most people.

[Vance]

Hi Vance,

Thanks for taking the time to look at our paper. I don't blame you for finding the math parts boring, since there's a limit to how exciting the calculations can be. We felt it was important though, to lay out all the details.

Well, 15 years ago I would have been more inclined to dig in, but not now.

For the rolled-up scroll, points n, n+1, n+2 etc. overlay each other. The images below illustrate how the papyrus layers of the wound-up scroll would have overlapped.

The blue lines pass through the layers in integer increments of n. If you cut a notch in the end of the scroll and then unrolled it, the notch would appear at n, n+1, n+2 etc.

Which, I believe, is still based on the assumption that n=1. The damage is not so uniform as to warrant the exclusion of the possibility of n=2 domination.

In other words, these points are collocated in theta. There is no reason to expect damage on one side of the spiral (say theta=0) to be similar to damage on the other side of the spiral (theta=180), since those locations are physically distant from each other.

Why not. If a scroll is put on a flat surface the stresses induce in the material would definitely be n=2 dominated. This n=2 stress pattern could very well cause n=2 degradation.

Again, I think n=2 is a distinct possibility.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you think we should turn it into a fancy PowerPoint presentation? It's got lots of numbers we could use to construct a really cool cipher.

You forget that Cinepro is generally cynical.

[Mortal Man]

Which, I believe, is still based on the assumption that n=1. The damage is not so uniform as to warrant the exclusion of the possibility of n=2 domination.

Why not. If a scroll is put on a flat surface the stresses induce in the material would definitely be n=2 dominated. This n=2 stress pattern could very well cause n=2 degradation.

Again, I think n=2 is a distinct possibility.

Tears at the end of a wound-up scroll pass through adjacent layers, imprinting the same pattern from one winding to the next. For the pattern to be "n=2 dominated", tearing and/or decay at the opposite end of the scroll would somehow have to make the pattern at D more similar to A than B. This simply couldn't happen by accident or through natural decay.

Hoffmann gives a good example in his paper.

I suggest rolling up a sheet of paper, burning off the ends, removing the char, unrolling the paper, and seeing if the pattern is n=1 or n=2 dominated.

[jskains]

I still see this as a rather stretched attempt to make a scientific "theory" based on highly variable evidences.

Excludes hidden scrolls, incomplete or damaged scrolls, thickness variances, inconsistencies in damage, etc. etc. etc.

Unless you can show me a photo of the scroll rolled up in Joseph Smith's hand, I think your stretching theory to match your conclusion that there is no possible missing scrolls or missing pieces of the existing ones.

One could call this clouding the issue with grand, boring, and overly complicated scientific goo.

JMHO though.

JMS

[Mortal Man]

You forget that Cinepro is generally cynical.

Are you sure?

I always saw Cinepro as a Pollyanna type character.

[jskains]

Mortal Man - I fear there is a possibility your matrixing the tears. Your seeing matches where matches aren't necessarily absolute.

JMS

[Mortal Man]

Excludes hidden scrolls, incomplete or damaged scrolls, thickness variances, inconsistencies in damage, etc. etc. etc.

That's all in the paper, if you care to read it.

Unless you can show me a photo of the scroll rolled up in Joseph Smith's hand,

John 20:29 "...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

I think your stretching theory to match your conclusion that there is no possible missing scrolls or missing pieces of the existing ones.

I invite you to present evidence, here on this thread, that Joseph had more than two complete scrolls. I also invite you to present evidence that the Hor scroll was not the longest roll in Joseph's possession.

I still see this as a rather stretched attempt to make a scientific "theory" based on highly variable evidences.

...

One could call this clouding the issue with grand, boring, and overly complicated scientific goo.

I'm afraid you've got our paper mixed up with Will Schryver's presentation.

[jskains]

I invite you to present evidence, here on this thread, that Joseph had more than two complete scrolls. I also invite you to present evidence that the Hor scroll was not the longest roll in Joseph's possession.

I can no more make those proofs than you can prove otherwise. Can you prove the opposite of those facts? Really in the end, there is a LOT of guesswork, a LOT of interpretation, and a LOT of opinion.

The difference is I believe I have received spiritual revelation that the LDS Church is as it claims to be. So I am more open to possibilities. You believe the Church to be false, so you allow Occam's Razor to rule your world.

But remember, Occam's Razor isn't absolute. It simply prevents Buridan's Donkey (Edited: sheesh, the real name is excluded because it is a "cuss" word). It does not, however, exclude more complicated possibilities.

JMS

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man - I fear there is a possibility your matrixing the tears.

I have no idea what you mean here but your jargon has a nice ring to it.

Your seeing matches where matches aren't necessarily absolute.

What we see or don't see does not enter into the analysis. The point of the correlation calculations is to remove the subjectivity of visual inspection. It's a purely mechanical process. You feed the data into the formulas, turn the crank, and out come the answers. We let the evidence speak for itself. The only place we attempt to interpret the lacunae is at the end of the paper, where we explain why one of the results doesn't fit the rest (like the old Sesame Street game).

I really think you should read the paper.

[jskains]

I have no idea what you mean here but your jargon has a nice ring to it.

What we see or don't see does not enter into the analysis. The point of the correlation calculations is to remove the subjectivity of visual inspection. It's a purely mechanical process. You feed the data into the formulas, turn the crank, and out come the answers. We let the evidence speak for itself. The only place we attempt to interpret the lacunae is at the end of the paper, where we explain why one of the results doesn't fit the rest (like the old Sesame Street game).

I really think you should read the paper.

*Eyeroll* Matrixing is when you believe you see something in a pattern that may not really be there. It's another name for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

JMS

[Theseus]

It seems to me that an argument that there is a missing scroll is in vain. From my limited understanding Joseph could have had a whole room full of scrolls and it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe I'm simplifying the matter, and if I am, please point it out to me because I haven't studied this topic in great depth. Having probably a little less than average intelligence, here's what I've come up with on the subject:

1. The Book of Abraham refers to the "Joseph Smith Papyrus I" in BoA 1:12 "and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." So we know that JSP I was used in the translation.

2. JSP I was attached to JSP XI.

3. JSP XI has nothing to do with Abraham and is an ordinary Egyptian funerary text.

4. Why on earth would Abraham's writings be mixed with the Book of Breathings (or whatever it's called)? Or even more bizarre, why would his writings on one scroll refer to an image in a separate and unrelated Egyptian text?

I just don't see how a theory of a missing scroll or a missing portion of scroll will be relevent until it's explained what Abraham's writings were doing so out of place to begin with.

I've also noticed that proposing a "missing manuscript" theory does little to sway anyone's opinion regarding the origin of texts.

Theseus

[Anijen]

deleted

[Vance]

Tears at the end of a wound-up scroll pass through adjacent layers, imprinting the same pattern from one winding to the next. For the pattern to be "n=2 dominated", tearing and/or decay at the opposite end of the scroll would somehow have to make the pattern at D more similar to A than B. This simply couldn't happen by accident or through natural decay.

Hoffmann gives a good example in his paper.

I suggest rolling up a sheet of paper, burning off the ends, removing the char, unrolling the paper, and seeing if the pattern is n=1 or n=2 dominated.

All of which is interesting, however you don't have enough of a sample to eliminate the possibility of the damage being of n=2 type.

And doing the experiment as you propose wouldn't address this issue. I suggest that you do the experiment and inflict n=2 type damage, then remove only enough of a sample to be equivalent to the sample of papyrus your paper considered.

I am convinced that an honest, open minded evaluation of the results of this experiment would result in the consideration of the possibility of n=2 type of damage.

"open minded", of course, being a key word.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It seems to me that an argument that there is a missing scroll is in vain. From my limited understanding Joseph could have had a whole room full of scrolls and it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe I'm simplifying the matter, and if I am, please point it out to me because I haven't studied this topic in great depth. Having probably a little less than average intelligence, here's what I've come up with on the subject:

1. The Book of Abraham refers to the "Joseph Smith Papyrus I" in BoA 1:12 "and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." So we know that JSP I was used in the translation.

2. JSP I was attached to JSP XI.

3. JSP XI has nothing to do with Abraham and is an ordinary Egyptian funerary text.

4. Why on earth would Abraham's writings be mixed with the Book of Breathings (or whatever it's called)? Or even more bizarre, why would his writings on one scroll refer to an image in a separate and unrelated Egyptian text?

I just don't see how a theory of a missing scroll or a missing portion of scroll will be relevent until it's explained what Abraham's writings were doing so out of place to begin with.

I've also noticed that proposing a "missing manuscript" theory does little to sway anyone's opinion regarding the origin of texts.

Theseus

I guess you missed the thread in the pundits forum that deals with Abr 1:12?

Why would Abrahams writings not be included with the BoB? I see little relevance in asking either question. And to just assert that "it just doesn't make sense" is not very convincing of anything. Not that you said it, but other have in the past.

[jskains]

It seems to me that an argument that there is a missing scroll is in vain. From my limited understanding Joseph could have had a whole room full of scrolls and it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe I'm simplifying the matter, and if I am, please point it out to me because I haven't studied this topic in great depth. Having probably a little less than average intelligence, here's what I've come up with on the subject:

1. The Book of Abraham refers to the "Joseph Smith Papyrus I" in BoA 1:12 "and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." So we know that JSP I was used in the translation.

2. JSP I was attached to JSP XI.

3. JSP XI has nothing to do with Abraham and is an ordinary Egyptian funerary text.

4. Why on earth would Abraham's writings be mixed with the Book of Breathings (or whatever it's called)? Or even more bizarre, why would his writings on one scroll refer to an image in a separate and unrelated Egyptian text?

I just don't see how a theory of a missing scroll or a missing portion of scroll will be relevent until it's explained what Abraham's writings were doing so out of place to begin with.

I've also noticed that proposing a "missing manuscript" theory does little to sway anyone's opinion regarding the origin of texts.

Theseus

Your assuming that the Facimilies are the originals, and not symbolic representations because the originals were lost completely before they even got to Joseph Smith. Or even moreso, that when Joseph Smith translated the BoA, that he looked for these facimilies and attached the ones he found.

JMS

[jskains]

Mortal Man - Do you even know when the damage was done? How do you know it wasn't damaged post Joseph Smith?

JMS

[wenglund]

Mortal Man - Do you even know when the damage was done? How do you know it wasn't damaged post Joseph Smith? JMS

I believe he provides some evidence of the pre-Joseph damage with citations regarding the unwrapping of the papyri from their linen encasement. If he didn't, then , if I recall correctly, there is historical evidence for at least some of the damage occuring at that time. Whether this accounts for all the damage, is uncertain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jskains]

I believe he provides some evidence of the pre-Joseph damage with citations regarding the unwrapping of the papyri from their linen encasement. If he didn't, then , if I recall correctly, there is historical evidence for at least some of the damage occuring at that time. Whether this accounts for all the damage, is uncertain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Pre-damage does not exclude post damage, and post damage usually would hide pre-damage since damage of this nature usually constitutes additional loss at the end of the scroll.

JMS

[wenglund]

Pre-damage does not exclude post damage..

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it does.

...and post damage usually would hide pre-damage since damage of this nature usually constitutes additional loss at the end of the scroll. JMS

I don't know about "usually", but post-damage can at times hide pre-damage in the way that you suggest. It is just that there are similar extant papyri to the JS papyri with which to inductively determine if there is much loss at the end of the scroll or not. From what little I know of the issue, that doesn't appear to be the case. There is some loss at the ends, but that loss can somewhat be acounted for using the comparable papyri. Then again, I may not know what I am talking about--which is likely the case here, and so I best shut up and listen to those who do know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Theseus]

Your assuming that the Facimilies are the originals, and not symbolic representations because the originals were lost completely before they even got to Joseph Smith. Or even moreso, that when Joseph Smith translated the BoA, that he looked for these facimilies and attached the ones he found.

JMS

Is that a serious response? I hope there's a better explanation than that. Are you saying that the "original" Book of Abraham some how turned into the Book of Breathings over the years? And that Abraham's escape from being sacrificed on an alter turned into the Egyptian idea of Anubis resurrecting Osiris?

Theseus

[Theseus]

I guess you missed the thread in the pundits forum that deals with Abr 1:12?

Why would Abrahams writings not be included with the BoB? I see little relevance in asking either question. And to just assert that "it just doesn't make sense" is not very convincing of anything. Not that you said it, but other have in the past.

I just found it, thanks. I'll read up on it.

Theseus

[jskains]

Is that a serious response? I hope there's a better explanation than that. Are you saying that the "original" Book of Abraham some how turned into the Book of Breathings over the years? And that Abraham's escape from being sacrificed on an alter turned into the Egyptian idea of Anubis resurrecting Osiris?

Theseus

Your reading my response incorrectly. I am saying that the BoA was a separate document, not the funeral text. I am also saying it is possible that the real facsimiles were lost, perhaps damaged beyond repair. That someone crammed them in with the funeral text. That Joseph Smith translated the BoA, then tried to decipher the Funeral text, trying to figure out that THAT document said by comparing characters on the BoA portion of the scrolls with the current version of those scrolls. Ultimately Joseph Smith possibly did not know where the BoA text ended and the current text began.

JMS

[Theseus]

Your reading my response incorrectly. I am saying that the BoA was a separate document, not the funeral text. I am also saying it is possible that the real facsimiles were lost, perhaps damaged beyond repair. That someone crammed them in with the funeral text. That Joseph Smith translated the BoA, then tried to decipher the Funeral text, trying to figure out that THAT document said by comparing characters on the BoA portion of the scrolls with the current version of those scrolls. Ultimately Joseph Smith possibly did not know where the BoA text ended and the current text began.

JMS

That seems like a theory that goes out of its way to come to a predetermined conclusion, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Where does the Facsimile #1 fall in your theory? To me, it appears as plain as day that since it was included in the canonized Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith thought that it truly was part of the Book of Abraham. And we can see today that it is connected to text that is clearly not the BoA.

Theseus

Edit typo's