Robert K. Ritner'S "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri": A Complete Edition

[MormonMason]

Gee gets the figure he gets because he uses the Hoffmann formula alone, as given in the text he cites. Gee also rounds down his result. That formula is also the one in the PDF file I linked. See Gee's latest article in the Journal for what the Hoffmann formula does. Notice the spikes at certain locations? At certain points the Hoffmann formula will give wildly erratic results. I am pretty certain that this is what happened. One more winding might have made the difference.

Of course, the initial winding is difficult and has been disputed. Some give a figure of 10.5 cm. If so, that would give a diameter of just over 3.34 cm. This would contain a maximum length of just over 7 meters, give or take, at an average of 160-168 microns.

The maximum length possible (given the above assumptions) with the Horos Book of Breathing, therefore, is just over 7 meters. The longest copies of the Book of Breathing of which I am aware are just over 2.1 meters. Most are less than 2 meters in length. So, the question still remains as to what potentially was on the rest of such a long papyrus roll when only a maximum of just over 2 meters would be needed for a copy of one of the lengthier texts of the Book of Breathing.

There is something else of interest in relation to the Horos scroll. When the scroll was cut apart and mounted under glass, those who did so actually took other parts of the Horos scroll to patch up sections of the copy of the Book of the Dead that they also mounted under glass. Why do that with a sacred text believed to belong to Abraham? Is it possible that Joseph Smith figured out that the first part of the roll was not the Book of Abraham, halted the grammar project, and then did not care what happened to the fragments so long as what he put on display "looked cool"? The way that the Book of the Dead texts under glass were handled and patched with fragments of the Horos scroll seems to suggest that possibility. Or, not. Who knows at this point but God?

Edited September 23, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

Gee gets the figure he gets because he uses the Hoffmann formula alone, as given in the text he cites. Gee also rounds down his result. That formula is also the one in the PDF file I linked. See Gee's latest article in the Journal for what the Hoffmann formula does. Notice the spikes at certain locations? At certain points the Hoffmann formula will give wildly erratic results. I am pretty certain that this is what happened. One more winding might have made the difference.

Of course, the initial winding is difficult and has been disputed. Some give a figure of 10.5 cm. If so, that would give a diameter of just over 3.34 cm. This would contain a maximum length of just over 7 meters, give or take, at an average of 160-168 microns.

The maximum length possible (given the above assumptions) with the Horos Book of Breathing, therefore, is just over 7 meters. The longest copies of the Book of Breathing of which I am aware are just over 2.1 meters. Most are less than 2 meters in length. So, the question still remains as to what potentially was on the rest of such a long papyrus roll when only a maximum of just over 2 meters would be needed for a copy of one of the lengthier texts of the Book of Breathing.

There is something else of interest in relation to the Horos scroll. When the scroll was cut apart and mounted under glass, those who did so actually took other parts of the Horos scroll to patch up sections of the copy of the Book of the Dead that they also mounted under glass. Why do that with a sacred text believed to belong to Abraham? Is it possible that Joseph Smith figured out that the first part of the roll was not the Book of Abraham, halted the grammar project, and then did not care what happened to the fragments so long as what he put on display "looked cool"? The way that the Book of the Dead texts under glass were handled and patched with fragments of the Horos scroll seems to suggest that possibility. Or, not. Who knows at this point but God?

The Hoffmann formula gives the same results given the same winding measurements, but I think we agree that those measurements are the key. I think we might also agree then that an initial winding measurement of 9.7 and the last one of 9.5 with 7 windings, would result in the 50 micron effective thickness or less.

As far as the misplaced patches go, (one reason maybe to get the Ritner book since he provides excellent photos & descriptions showing where the 47 loose patches came from and where 27 of those patches actually fit within the existing papyri), I think a much simpler explanation is that they were loose pieces that fell off either when Chandler unrolled the scrolls or came loose while they were being handled in the translation process. It is interesting to note that of those 47 loose pieces, 41 are from P.JS 2 (scroll of Joseph-Book of the Dead) and the other 6 are from the more heavily damaged P.JS 1 (Hor Scroll-Book of Abraham). If there are 7 meters of missing scroll from the Hor scroll which is more heavily damaged why are so few of the loose patches from it and so many of the loose patches from the much better preserved Book of the Dead -Joseph Scroll? You would think that it would be the other way around. Also interesting to note is that all 47 patches are identified as being from The Book of the Dead or the Hor scroll. It there were 7 meters of an unknown scroll within the heavily damaged Hor scroll you would think we might have some significant patches whose origin could not be identified.

Edit to add.

Ritner does note that that there are smaller patches that exist and that the 47 patches only represents "the most significant patches".

Edited September 23, 2012 by CA Steve

[wenglund]

If you really believed that all you need is a manifestation from the Holy Spirit, then why do you spend so much time bolstering your belief in the Book of Abraham via reliance on the "arm of flesh"?

I don't. You just jumped to a false conclusion about how I bolster my faith.

With something like the catalyst theory, no reliance on the "arm of flesh" is necessary.

My comment wasn't arguing against or for the catalyst theory. Rather, it was responding to your comments about falsifiability and supposed BoA problems.

The Book of Abraham is the word of God, regardless of what the "arm of flesh" (be it in the form of Ritner, Ashment, Gee, Rhodes, Nibley, or whoever) tells us about the Chandler papyri.

Agreed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I believe the critics would be better served to forget about the missing scrolls and the KEP (each of which are highly debatable in terms of the specific source document for the BoA translation and/or who is doing the translation), and focus their attention instead on the interpretation of the facsimiles, where there is far less room for debate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I believe the critics would be better served to forget about the missing scrolls and the KEP (each of which are highly debatable in terms of the specific source document for the BoA translation and/or who is doing the translation), and focus their attention instead on the interpretation of the facsimiles, where there is far less room for debate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

An excellent idea, which I did for Fac 2 in 1975 (a detailed and lengthy analysis). I made sure that the anti-Mormons had a copy, but they did not deign to reply. Never heard anything from them on the matter, aside from some comments sent to me by one of them (D. J. Nelson) in reply to an open-ended Fac 2 poll which I conducted by mail in 1975.

I also confronted Klaus Baer in 1974 during an open forum at BYU, and he was unable to refute my points about traditional Egyptological interpretations of items in Fac 2 which matched what Joseph Smith had said.

That does not mean that analysis and understanding of KEP and JSP items are not equally important, because they are. However, they need to be understood in context.

[MormonMason]

The Hoffmann formula gives the same results given the same winding measurements, but I think we agree that those measurements are the key. I think we might also agree then that an initial winding measurement of 9.7 and the last one of 9.5 with 7 windings, would result in the 50 micron effective thickness or less.

As far as the misplaced patches go, (one reason maybe to get the Ritner book since he provides excellent photos & descriptions showing where the 47 loose patches came from and where 27 of those patches actually fit within the existing papyri), I think a much simpler explanation is that they were loose pieces that fell off either when Chandler unrolled the scrolls or came loose while they were being handled in the translation process. It is interesting to note that of those 47 loose pieces, 41 are from P.JS 2 (scroll of Joseph-Book of the Dead) and the other 6 are from the more heavily damaged P.JS 1 (Hor Scroll-Book of Abraham). If there are 7 meters of missing scroll from the Hor scroll which is more heavily damaged why are so few of the loose patches from it and so many of the loose patches from the much better preserved Book of the Dead -Joseph Scroll? You would think that it would be the other way around. Also interesting to note is that all 47 patches are identified as being from The Book of the Dead or the Hor scroll. It there were 7 meters of an unknown scroll within the heavily damaged Hor scroll you would think we might have some significant patches whose origin could not be identified.

Edit to add.

Ritner does note that that there are smaller patches that exist and that the 47 patches only represents "the most significant patches".

Maybe the patches information might be useful. I really don't want to add another anti-Mormon book to my collection, though. I don't like wading through tedium just to find useful bits of information. As I have grown older I have not had as much patience for such things as I used to have.

I disagree that it involves 50 microns thickness, in spite of what you seem to be using to determine that. If we take the measurement of the initial winding as 10.5 cm, it will fit just over 7 meters of papyrus of 160-168 microns thick inside. We also can know this for certain because an extant scroll of just over 7 meters length fits into something slightly smaller in diameter than the Horos scroll. Straight line projections using Microsoft Excel do not always give useful information in every circumstance. I am surprised that you used something like that at all. Perhaps you will need to rework your assumptions regarding determining thickness on initial two windings or on initial and final winding measurements?

But, just the fact that they were taking these papyri and patching them up with others implies some interesting things. And, it is usually the outer windings that get damaged. Aside from insect damage, there have been scrolls preserved that have very little damage on the inner windings. So, I would not expect that there would be identifiable pieces of any second text on the Horos roll anywhere else among the extant Joseph Smith papyri. I would be pleasantly surprised to see this as the case but I have seen no evidence of it as of yet. Who knows what will come next?

[TAO]

An excellent idea, which I did for Fac 2 in 1975 (a detailed and lengthy analysis). I made sure that the anti-Mormons had a copy, but they did not deign to reply. Never heard anything from them on the matter, aside from some comments sent to me by one of them (D. J. Nelson) in reply to an open-ended Fac 2 poll which I conducted by mail in 1975.

I also confronted Klaus Baer in 1974 during an open forum at BYU, and he was unable to refute my points about traditional Egyptological interpretations of items in Fac 2 which matched what Joseph Smith had said.

That does not mean that analysis and understanding of KEP and JSP items are not equally important, because they are. However, they need to be understood in context.

Hmmm... could you send me a link to some information about this! I'm just always looking for cool info like this! Thanks!

[Robert F. Smith]

Hmmm... could you send me a link to some information about this! I'm just always looking for cool info like this! Thanks!

Sorry, I have no complete copy of the 1975 works, and those who have copies can't locate them, although I am incorporating what I do have into a complete commentary on the Book of Abraham which I will try to get out next year.

[wenglund]

An excellent idea, which I did for Fac 2 in 1975 (a detailed and lengthy analysis). I made sure that the anti-Mormons had a copy, but they did not deign to reply.

Is this analysis now available on line?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

Sorry, I have no complete copy of the 1975 works, and those who have copies can't locate them, although I am incorporating what I do have into a complete commentary on the Book of Abraham which I will try to get out next year.

Cool thanks! I'll look forward to it!

[Robert F. Smith]

Is this analysis now available on line?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, no.

Back in 1975 everything had to be typed.

[MormonMason]

Posted completed, preliminary review of the book mentioned above, starting here:

[blackstrap]

Is it just me, or does it not seem that those who had been given access to the papyri were quite cavalier in the protection and preservation of them? The least they could have done is sealed them up and hidden them in some cave where a wandering goatherd might have found them a couple of centuries later.

Edited October 16, 2012 by blackstrap

[MormonMason]

Is it just me, or does it not seem that those who had been given access to the papyri were quite cavalier in the protection and preservation of them? The least they could have done is sealed them up and hidden them in some cave where a wandering goatherd might have found them a couple of centuries later.

It was easy enough to copy them when they wore out. Old papyrus ended up being re-used or tossed into trash heaps. Burial texts were not expected to be re-used. They were supposed to be taken into the afterlife. They were often wrapped and sealed in bitumen to protect them from water and other damage.

Notwithstanding the papyri in the caves of the Dead Sea being placed there for goatherds to find, they were in particularly bad shape like the leather manuscripts. Sealing something up in a cave is no guarantee of preservation. In fact, there is one fragment that was preserved only as an impression in the cave floor. That is the only reason we know about it. None of that scroll survived. How many scrolls were actually lost in those caves is unknown and may have been substantial.

[blackstrap]

I am speaking of the Smiths et al

[MormonMason]

I am speaking of the Smiths et al

If they had sealed them up somewhere in Illinois, there would have been nothing left by our time. Conditions were wrong. That is partly why they degraded so much. The humidity is a killer for papyrus. That is why so much of it even in the trash heaps has been preserved in Egypt. The air in Egypt is quite dry. In Illinois, the moisture in the humid, Illinois air would actually add moisture to the natural juices that held the papyri layers together, weakening them and allowing the ink to flake off and papyrus fibers to separate with the handling. This is why they are kept in climate controlled conditions in museums.

Neither Joseph Smith and his mother would have known that. They tried to preserve them the best way they knew how, and that was to mount them to paper and then under glass. Unfortunately, when they were taken out of their glass sheets the wear would continue, as was most certainly the case when the collection's components were separated from each other and ended up with different owners after Joseph Smith's and Lucy Smith's deaths.

Blame Emma. She was the one who allowed her second husband to parcel them out. If she had given them to the Church when they went West they would have been in a better state of preservation today than they are, and we would have had most all of them.

Edited October 16, 2012 by MormonMason

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Sorry, I have no complete copy of the 1975 works, and those who have copies can't locate them, although I am incorporating what I do have into a complete commentary on the Book of Abraham which I will try to get out next year.

I think I do though...... I have an enormous amount of your work, and rather liked it! I wonder if the photocopies I have is what you are talking about? Of course, this work will certainly have to be updated, but it is some terrific reading.......

Edited October 17, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[MormonMason]

I think I do though...... I have an enormous amount of your work, and rather liked it! I wonder if the photocopies I have is what you are talking about? Of course, this work will certainly have to be updated, but it is some terrific reading.......

Oh, if you have that paper, I'd like to obtain a copy, as would a number of others here. Pretty please...?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Oh, if you have that paper, I'd like to obtain a copy, as would a number of others here. Pretty please...?

I have a LOT of the early research of Herr Mr Smith.... I was told he actually helped Nibley out quite a bit with his research on the facsimiles, so when I read his materials I could see some similarities, but also some really interesting things that Smith had that apparently Nibley didn't get to use. Probably the stupid editors of his work which Nibley complained about justifiably so....... in a way it really is a GREAT thing that Robert did NOT publish, because that way we have the FULL amount of his stuff........ IF........IF it is the stuff he is commenting on here.

[volgadon]

Oh, if you have that paper, I'd like to obtain a copy, as would a number of others here. Pretty please...?

It is like chewing gum. I hope Kerry brought enough for everyone...

Edited October 17, 2012 by volgadon

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Yes I brought enough just so we could all blow bubbles - LOL!

[noel00]

I am interested in whether the "hand" is a hand or the wing of a bird. When you magnify the "hand" there are two dots, just like the dots in the bird above. i believe there are no specks of papyri in the glue in the missing area where some attempted drawing is made. I understand there are couch scenes where the other hand is holding the penis of the person on the couch.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am interested in whether the "hand" is a hand or the wing of a bird. When you magnify the "hand" there are two dots, just like the dots in the bird above. i believe there are no specks of papyri in the glue in the missing area where some attempted drawing is made. I understand there are couch scenes where the other hand is holding the penis of the person on the couch.

As I understand there has never been a couch scene were there were 2 birds. Kerry had written a wonderful article that detials this argument. I think that Larson has no chance for his argument to hold up. I am sure some one will post his article before I find it.

[MormonMason]

Yes I brought enough just so we could all blow bubbles - LOL!

Somehow, I find that idea strangely appealing.

[MormonMason]

I am interested in whether the "hand" is a hand or the wing of a bird. When you magnify the "hand" there are two dots, just like the dots in the bird above. i believe there are no specks of papyri in the glue in the missing area where some attempted drawing is made. I understand there are couch scenes where the other hand is holding the penis of the person on the couch.

Lanny D. Bell is the latest Egyptologist to jump on the "two hands up" bandwagon. He did so because the evidence of the actual dimensions of the papyrus vignette do not allow for the Parker/Larson/Ritner reconstruction. But, I have looked at papyri and also at high resolution photos in multiple variations of lighting and had someone I know look at the material under a microscope. I came to the conclusion that it was indeed two hands. There is also the shape of the thumb and finger strokes on both hands facing the same direction.

Add to this the fact that no papyri have a second bird like that in the reconstruction that has become standard anti-Mormon fare and that the current vignette's remains show that there is no room for another, especially if there was a second, now lost, column. Ritner's reconstruction of the text of that column requires a minimum of two columns. This is why Ritner is now trying to cover himself by saying that it may have been a winged solar disk instead (takes a little less room). The current vignette also has enough remaining to show that there was no second arm grasping a penis there.

Worse, if the reconstruction that has become standard anti-Mormon fare were correct and fitted to the actual dimensions of the papyrus fragment, to be correct it would have to have had the "Anubis" figure grasping the penis instead. I know of zero depictions like that anywhere. There are zero references to it in any written text, too. That is one reason why Lanny D. Bell came to the conclusion that he did that it is correct to restore two hands instead of one. There is no hand at the side and there is enough shoulder remaining to show that there isn't any arm at the side either.

Standing figures missing an arm, like Min often is depicted, is acceptable. A person lying on a lion couch without an arm is not. He has an arm and it is neither at his side nor grasping anything. The only other place would be upward like the first arm.

Now, the two "dots," you claim are like the mottling on the bird are not written the same direction as the mottling on the bird. If you look very carefully at the area on the papyrus, you can see that there are breaks there where a couple fibers actually are missing in the spaces between the "dots." This would easily have flaked off parts of the ink on the papyrus in just the pattern that can be seen. I have seen multiple examples of such, including on fragments of papyrus amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can see on 7Q5, for example, places where ink has flaked off near breaks in the papyrus in similar fashion, as well as sections of ink that literally were rubbed off on raised sections of fibers still extant, and places where there may never have been ink because of the roughness of the papyrus in some spots, giving a kind of mottled look along fiber lines.

Here is an example using 7Q5. Take a look at how many broken lines of ink there are around the edges of the break and elsewhere on this above fragment.

But in the case of P. JS 1.1 (also known as P. JS-I), the "mottling" occurs right on the edges of the break. If you look close enough at even a really good photograph with just the right lighting and/or color shading, you will see spacing remaining where there now are missing fibers of papyrus, right between the remaining ink.

Conclusion: The first vignette of the Horos scroll had two hands up above the face and in the air. More Egyptologists may over time also come to the same conclusion as they look closer into the issue and keep open minds. Those with closed minds will forever cling to the position that it only has one hand up and nothing but. They have to stick to this. If they don't they will have to alter their conclusions and discard their favorite, "pet" reconstruction. Lanny Bell was able to accept that and he also was able to make an alternate reconstruction and interpretation that the man on the bier is reaching up to embrace his Ba-spirit.

Egyptologists still have yet to address and account for the fact that the man is fully alive, fully clothed and accessorized, and that only his back is on the lion couch. They also have yet to address the remaining extant word in the column above the action that refers to "sacrifice" or to being "fit for offering." Ritner translates as "justification" but that interpretation would require three columns and there is no remnant of the phrase m m3^c ḫrw (which does mean "justification") in the extant column. The remaining letter is a fragmented 't' there and 'm' would be required. There would then need to be a third column to contain the ḫrw component of the phrase. The 't' is an interesting question in itself but that is another discussion for another time.

Edited October 18, 2012 by MormonMason