FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Utilizador:GregSmith
Índice
Draft of Dr. Gee response:
Question
At the 2007 FAIR apologetics conference, Egyptologist Dr. John Gee (PhD, Yale) presented new data on the scrolls from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. This material has since been published in the FARMS Review (Click [ (needs URL / links)here] to read the entire presentation.)
Dr. Gee demonstrated how a formula developed by Friedhelm Hoffmann can be used to determine the total length of a papyrus roll based upon measurements of the extant scroll:[1]
- Z ≈ ((E2-6.25)/2S) - E
Where:
- S = average difference between winding measurement
- E = length of last winding
- Z = theoretical length of the missing proportion
When this formula is used, the Document of Breathings scroll (sometimes called the Book of Breathings) in the Joseph Smith Papyri (JSP) is shown to be missing 41 feet. Obviously, with so much papyri unaccounted for, it is entirely possible that the Book of Abraham was on the portion of the Joseph Smith papyri which was destroyed. And, that Joseph Smith had this much papyri is attested to by eyewitnesses.
Some internet critics have recently claimed, based on measurements made of the papyri from photographs, that this calculated size is too large. That they would want to deny that there is a large amount of text unaccounted for his understandable, since they cannot then claim that we have the papyrus from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, which does not match the Egyptological translation of it.
We asked Dr. Gee if he would care to address these issues. The following is his reply, lightly edited for clarity, and published here with his approval.
Answer
Is the formula correct?
In August 2008 I asked Hoffmann if he still stood by his formula. He could see no reason not to, the math was correct. (I checked the math too; he is correct.) So the formula holds up.
When I first did the math, I checked both the measurements and the formula and its derivation. Critics have thus far not challenged the formula itself, either because if they understand math they can verify its correctness, or if they do not they are incapable of correcting it.
The measurements
If the formula cannot be critiqued, this leaves only the measurements to be questioned. I have access to the originals of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Critics who have challenged the conclusions I have drawn have done so only on the basis of the photographs found in Chuck Larson's book.[2]
Larson's photographs
To understand the problem facing critics who would use Larson's photographs, we need to how he obtained them. When the Joseph Smith Papyri were on display at BYU about 1970, some photographs of them were taken and placed in the BYU Special Collections. Special collections does not have the technical details of the photographs (Tom Wells [photoarchivist] BYU Special Collections, oral communication to John Gee, 11 December 2008); they do not even know for certain which year they were taken. Larson arranged to borrow these photos and was allowed to do so on condition that no copies were made. Larson violated his agreement. (Chad Flake, oral communication to John Gee May 1992).
Photographic distortion
All photographs are subject to a number of distortions:
[Perspective distortion|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)] is influenced by the angle of view of the camera and the angle of view at which the photograph is viewed. The angle of view of the camera is dependent on the distance of the camera to the object and the focal length of the lens on the camera. Neither of these is known for the original photographs that BYU took as no technical details about the photographs are known. This is compounded by the process used to duplicate the photographs when Larson made his copy, which involves taking a picture of the photograph introducing another set of variables where neither the distance of the camera to the object nor the focal length of the camera lens is known.
[Lens|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)] [distortion|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_Distortion] is primarily a factor of the [lens of the camera|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_lens] involved. Since the technical details of the BYU photographs are not known, the lens and its type are not known nor the type of distortion that they will produce is not known. One can correct for lens distortion only if one knows the details about what needs to be corrected.
"Doctoring" Photos
Joseph Smith Papyri I, X, and XI have been physically separated since the 1840s at latest. They were mounted on paper at that time. They were stored in frames and now the individual fragments are encased in one of the standard papyrological encasings. Any picture including those in Larson's book showing them joined has been doctored or altered from how the papyri are presently. What we do not know in any given case is the extent of the doctoring or the process of stitching the photographs together that has been used. It is at this juncture that the distortions in the photographic process can also come into play again as distortion from the lens and perspective can make portions that should match up not match up and the photographs must be further distorted (perhaps by scaling or other means) to make them meet.. How are the photographs made to fit together? We have no details.
Distortion can enter in at every step at the photographic process, in taking the photo, in copying the photo, in printing the photo, in stitching the photo. It does not have to be intentional but the phenomenon are very real and adversely affect any measurements taken from photographs. This means that the measurements from photographs are not necessarily intentionally dishonest but are nonetheless dishonest.
Potential sources of error in measurement
There is a lacuna [gap] in the middle of the roll that eliminates about half a column of text so we are confident in the general amount missing. Although it could be calculated, and we know the number of rollings missing, it would be folly to base anything on the measurements of the lacuna. The lacuna and any partial measurements from them were dropped from the evaluation which I made.
How will this affect the data? One of the numbers required is an average. The range of measurements differs by 2 mm. Since the lacuna in the middle of the measurements, it cannot be less than the smallest measurement. It will be larger than the largest measurement only if there is a fold in the scroll (which is unlikely). I do not think that it is practical, possible, or desirable to measure in any units smaller than a millimeter. Any average based on this data will be within the 2 mm range. It will not adversely affect the data.
Alert readers will also have seen that the criticisms levelled at the argument were anticipated in the article.
Length of scroll versus contents
What I find amazingly silly in this discussion is that while the calculated length of the scroll does account for all the known historical data (whereas those who argue against it cannot account for all the known historical data), it does not tell us what was on the scroll. If the critics were honest they would simply say that the length of the scroll does not prove that the Book of Abraham was on it. This is true. I do not have a problem with that. It also does not prove that the Book of Abraham was not on it.
Since, to the best of our knowledge, the missing portions were destroyed in the Chicago Fire in 1871 and we have not been able to find a copy of the scroll (and I have been through all of Seyffarth's papers in two archives looking for a copy), there is no possible way at this point to determine what was on the scroll. An honest scholarly assessment would simply say that we do not have enough information to determine what was on the part of the scroll that we do not have.
Conclusion
Individuals can believe whatever they want to about what was there, and that will be their belief. We have reached as far as scholarship can take us and after that point our assumptions and presuppositions and beliefs will plainly take over. However, until someone demonstrates that either Friedhelm's formula is in error, or there is a source of error in the measurements of the original papyri which is unaccounted, the approximate size of the original Joseph Smith papyri is on solid scientific ground.
Endnotes
- [note] Friedhelm Hoffmann, "Die Lange des P. Spiegelberg," in Acta Demotica: Acts of Fith International Conference for Demotists (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori, 1994), 145–155.
- [note] Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Inst for Religious Research, 1992).
"Somebody could walk into this room
And say your life is on fire.
It's all over the evening news,
All about the fire in your life on the evening news."
- - Paul Simon, "Crazy Love, Vol. II," Graceland album (1986).
My e-mail is glsmith7 (at) telus.net 9
Reference links:
- ParserFunctions: #if et al.
- Template:BackupGLS:InsightsGLS - Backup of Insights code
- InsightsList:Summary - Backup of nav tool and list
Usage
{{Latter-day Saints}} OR
{{Latter-day Saints|show|hide|hide|hide|hide|hide}}, etc.
where show/hide is used to set the default show/hide for each of the levels.da:Skabelon:Sidste Dages Hellige