Another Utah Geology Report

Last month our family took a trip to Utah. I always enjoy my visits there--which sadly seem to be increasingly spaced apart. Having been an easterner for most of my life, I love the change in scenery that Utah offers and I try to incorporate learning a little geology each time I visit. This post is my show-and-tell report, focusing on southeastern Utah again. (Previous reports here, here, and here).

Let me pause to highlight two helpful resources for learning about Utah's geological history. The Utah Geological Survey website has lots of good information that can help you get a general feel for the history. Also, I spent a lot of time with Utah's Spectacular Geology: How it Came to Be, by Lehi Hintze, in my hand. Hintze divides the geological history into nine chapters. But the best part of the book is toward the end where 19 areas are given individual treatment, including photographs with labels. (See modest recreation of one image below.) I found the book to be very helpful and informative. Its one defect is the lack of an index (!).

OK, moving on. We spent a day down at Arches National Park (ANP). But first we stopped at Dead Horse Point (DHP), which is near by and a must-see if you've never been there. When you turn west off Highway 191 onto 313 toward DHP, look to the right and you will see this, (but without labels). (Click for larger.)

The labeling is based on a similar image in Hintze's book. The Wingate Sandstone is pretty easily identifiable at both DHP and ANP, and the Chinle Formation is rather distinct with its green coloring. The Chinle Formation contains uranium--too bad I didn't have a Geiger counter to play with.

On this trip I experimented with taking images that could be viewed in 3D. This was easily done by snapping a picture, taking a step to the side, and taking another picture. I've put them side-by-side below. Look between the two pictures and relax your eyes, as though you are looking through your screen. With a little practice, you should be able to bring the two images together such that you see three images. You'll be focused on the one in the middle, which should lock into place and become 3D. Once you are successful, should be able to keep the effect while moving through the pictures. You can see slightly larger versions by clicking on them, but you may have more difficulty bringing them together. I find it helps to back away from the screen a little, and then once I have the image I can look closer.

Dead Horse Point

Arches National Park

This next picture is of the Fiery Furnace at ANP. I didn't realize at the time that my life was in danger, but when I looked at the picture I saw that the Grim Reaper was coming after me.

Book Cliffs

On the east side of the road between Price and Green River are what are known as the Book Cliffs. Some Internet sources say that they get their name because they look like shelves of books. However, I have it on pretty good authority that it's actually because of their appearance from above--they look like pages at the edge of an open book. The grey rocks are Mancos shale, which was laid down over 65 million years ago when the interior of North America was covered by sea (picture the Gulf of Mexico stretching up through Canada) with Utah as the western shoreline.

North of Price is a small town called Helper. Just north of the merger of Highway 6 with 191, Highway 6 cuts through rock. That black strip is a coal seam.

We only spent a day in the Moab area, but those are the geological highlights of our trip. I took a lot of pictures that I would like to share, but they just don't do the area justice! Go see it for yourself; I don't think you'll be disappointed. I can't wait to go back.

---

Continue reading...

Surely it is the Earth that Moveth

The Book of Mormon seems to be explicitly heliocentric. In a passage expressing his frustration with mankind, Mormon writes about God (with an apparent allusion to Joshua):

14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;

15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun. (Helaman 12:14-15)

What is this kind of statement doing in a document that purports to be ancient? Did the Nephites understand the workings of the solar system better than most of the ancients? Is it an anachronism that gives away Joseph as a fraud? Or is it possible that the scientific clarification was a commentary made during the translation process?

In the latest issue of BYU Studies, David Grandy argues that none of the above are correct. In his article, "Why Things Move: A New Look at Helaman 12:15" (subscription required), Grandy draws on the work of John Walton to contend that this is a case of our failure to understand ancient ways of thinking. We are the children of Newton, who think of matter as inanimate and passively following physical laws, like machines. God doesn't need to push the earth around the sun, gravity does that. In contrast, the ancients saw God's hand in all aspects of the world, including motion. If we look at the larger context of Mormon's statement, we see that he emphasizes that everything on earth obeys and moves according to God's command--except man. The verses surrounding 14 and 15 are all about how various parts of the earth (dust, hills, mountains, water) move, shake, part, rock, dry, etc, as commanded.

Grandy writes:

Rather than confirming Copernican cosmology, this verse suggests that Mormon is invoking Joshua’s event, not because Joshua’s account is scientifically inaccurate and therefore in need of correction, but because it reinforces Mormon’s own admonition that humans, being indigenous to the earth (their bodies made of the dust of the earth), should follow the many examples of responsive obedience they witness among things with which they are intimate—dust, hills, mountains, the foundation of the earth, the great deep, and so on.

This is all well and good, but Mormon specifically says, "the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still...for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun." Grandy notes that although this sounds like it assumes axial rotation and orbiting, those are assumptions that we bring to the passage. If he was like other ancients, Mormon did not share our concept of a sphere sitting in space. He would instead have pictured something like the picture to the left [image source]. The focus in these verses is on movements of the earth; it can move back and forth, and thus "goeth back." The contrast drawn with the sun is simply tailoring language to keep focus on the earth.

I'm not sure whether I buy this. I am quite sympathetic to attributing differences between scripture and science to differences in culture and worldview, so when Grandy asserts that Mormon did not share our scientific outlook, I'm on board. My trouble is that verse 15 is so suggestive to me of Copernican motion. If I try to empty my head of orbits and revolutions, does Mormon's statement make sense given the context? I guess it kind of does--maybe I just need to get used to it. I think it helps to keep in mind that Mormon referred to "the earth," not "Earth." That's a subtle but perhaps important difference.

I don't know whether he is right or not, but I think Grandy's argument is at least worth considering.

---

Continue reading...

Modern Mormonism: Revisiting the Church's Pragmatic View

A few weeks ago I highlighted a quote from a news article in which a Church spokesman said something to the effect that the Church takes a pragmatic view of science-religion conflicts. That quotation is now contained in a larger commentary, Mormon and Modern, posted on the Church's Newsroom site. I think it's worth quoting at length (footnotes removed).

For Mormons, there need not be a conflict between devotion to one’s faith and meaningful participation in modern society. Faithful Latter-day Saints are currently engaged in education, science, business, the arts and political life. In a pluralistic world, modern sensibilities tend to compartmentalize spheres of human activity. But Mormon thought encourages integration. Individual character, for example, should not be divorced from public character. Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counseled: “Avoid compartmentalizing your life into segments that apply to profession, to Church, and to family, using different standards in each segment. Your life is a continuum where the same standards of integrity and hard work apply to every aspect of your life.”

Later:

Mormons welcome truth from whatever source and take the pragmatic view that where religion and science seem to clash, it is simply because there is insufficient data to reconcile the two. Latter-day Saints approach such tensions as challenges to learn, not contradictions to avoid.

This productive tension can enrich both mind and heart. All understanding, whether spiritual or rational, is worked out in constant questioning and discovery. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Latter-day Saints do not expect God to simply hand down information. He expects us to wrestle with the complications of life through prayerful searching and sound thinking. “You must study it out in your mind,” Mormon scripture teaches, and then answers will come. This pattern of inquiry opens Mormons to expanding spiritual possibilities.

While the ultimate aims of religious and secular life do not always align, Mormons “follow the admonition of Paul” by seeking after anything that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy,” whatever the source may be. Embracing a world full of truth and meaning, Latter-day Saints aspire to heed the call of Joseph Smith to “gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up.” President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has encouraged “a harmonious combining of both the intellect and the spirit.” Mormons, therefore, do not compartmentalize one truth from another.

This is aspirational stuff. It was brought to my attention by Dave's Mormon Inquiry, where Dave notes (emphasis in original):

If there is something to criticize in the essay, it is that it does not, perhaps, represent the actual approach that many Latter-day Saints and LDS teachers of religion have taken or do now take to faith versus science issues....

Wouldn't it be great if essays like this were reprinted in the Ensign? That's such an obvious move it's hard to understand why it isn't just standard practice. Still, this broad-minded essay is another step forward.

Here, here! Dave's broader criticism is that Newsroom statements may not be filtering down to average members. So until the Church starts putting these things on LDS.org, my advice is to become familiar with them and maybe keep a copy in your preferred electronic device. You may then confidently reference them in Sunday School, or wherever.

---

Continue reading...

The Church Showcases an Evolutionist

This is what is currently highlighted on the I'm a Mormon webpage.



I guess the PR department has gone rogue. ;-)

---

Continue reading...

A Conservative Approach to Environmental Problems

Jonathan Adler is a conservative-leaning law professor, who works on environmental issues. Last month he was invited to do a series of guest-posts at The Atlantic on conservative approaches to environmental issues [1]. I don't usually advocate for particular environmental policies on this blog, nor am I doing so here. However, since most environmental policies have a strong regulatory component administered by the federal government, and are therefore often viewed as 'liberal,' I thought it would be worth highlighting ideas from someone on the more conservative side. Adler argues that

the embrace of limited government principles need not entail the denial of environmental claims and that a concern for environmental protection need not lead to an ever increasing mound of prescriptive regulation.

The core of his argument involves a greater focus on property rights, and I think he makes a number of fine suggestions. I think it would be wonderful if voices like his could gain greater currency in the marketplace of ideas (and politics). This passage nicely encapsulates the bottom line.

Environmental problems are difficult, and typically defy easy solution. Though I believe in property-based solutions to many (if not most) environmental problems, the viability of such approaches should not be oversold. At the same time, the environmental limitations of property rights and markets should not be overstated, particularly in comparison to the viable regulatory alternatives. In environmental policy we rarely have the option of pursuing a clearly identifiable "ideal" approach. Rather, our choice comes from the collection of second-best (and third-best, fourth-best, etc.). The question is not which approach is perfect, but which approach is better (or not as bad) as the others.

Property Rights and the Tragedy of the Commons

Property Rights and Fishery Conservation

How Property Rights Could Help Save the Environment

Is Washington, D.C., Really the Environment's Savior?

A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change


Notes:

1. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how to define a conservative approach, since this year's conservative idea can be rejected as next year's totalitarianism (see cap-and-trade, individual mandate). As Adler was wrapping up his series of posts the House stopped NOAA from expanding its catch shares program, leading Ronald Bailey (of the libertarian Reason Magazine) to opine, "If it's not the Democrats screwing up policy, it's the Republicans - that's bipartisanship for you!"

---

Continue reading...

The Church Takes the Pragmatic View

The Deseret News has a nice article on the teaching of evolution, particularly at BYU. I like this part:

Scott Trotter, spokesman for the LDS Church, offered further clarification:

“Science and religion are not at odds in our faith. We accept truth wherever it is found and take the pragmatic view that where religion and science seem to clash, it is simply because there is insufficient data to reconcile the two.”

There are several ways to interpret that, but it's a whole lot better than it could have been, from my view.

H/T: Gary at NDBF, who shows what the statement could have been.

---

Continue reading...

The Book of Abraham: FARMS Phones It In

The most recent issue of the Maxwell Institute (FARMS) publication Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture (21:1) is now available online, and it has an article by LDS Egyptologist John Gee titled, "Formulas and Faith." Here, Gee addresses mathematical attempts to determine the length of the Joseph Smith papyri (which I discussed earlier). I should make clear that I am not any kind of expert on the papyri or the running arguments surrounding them. Nor do I know much about the persons involved. Nevertheless, I'm sorry to say that I was disappointed in this article for reasons that I will explain below.

Gee sets the issue up as follows:

One of the more prominent issues with the Book of Abraham is the relationship of the Book of Abraham to the Joseph Smith Papyri. There are three basic positions here:

1. The text of the Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that we currently have. (Or, from the unbelieving perspective, Joseph Smith thought that the text of the Book of Abraham was on papyri that we currently have.)

2. The text of the Book of Abraham was translated from (or Joseph Smith thought the text of the Book of Abraham was on) papyri that we do not currently have.

3. The text of the Book of Abraham was received by revelation independent of the papyri.

Gee notes that hardly any informed Mormons accept the first proposition. It may come as a surprise that Gee claims that the third option is held by a majority of Church members (something that may be worth some further attention later). From that perspective, the issue of scroll length is moot, but in light of the second theory Gee is willing to discuss the matter anyway (though I think I detect a sigh and roll of the eyes).

The crux of Gee's argument is that the formulas developed by Cook and Smith, and others, have not been tested on papyrus scrolls of known length. But Gee says that he has done so.

In November of 2010, I had the privilege of measuring the interior seventy-three windings of [a scroll at the Royal Ontario Museum] (after that point the scroll is no longer contiguous).

With the data gleaned from this intact roll in Toronto (that is, the individual winding lengths), I applied each of the mathematical formulas, using the assumptions made by the authors of the formulas concerning papyrus thickness, air-gap size, and size of smallest interior winding. I then compared the outcome with the actual interior length of the scroll. The results are shown on the graph.

I have to admit that I'm not entirely clear on how to interpret this graph--I think it shows the predicted remaining length as each additional winding is included in the calculation, with the outermost winding being number 72. Nevertheless, Gee's message is clear: neither formula is perfect, but Cook and Smith's formula is not even close.

On the basis of observations I have made while measuring various scrolls, I am not convinced that these formulas can ever yield anything more than rough approximations. More empirical data is needed to make refinements in the formulas.

Fair enough. It's worth noting, however, that if Cook and Smith's method underestimates true length by up to 75% (as Gee claims), that still puts the Hor scroll length at only 600 cm, less than half of Gee's estimate using the Hoffman formula, and perhaps a little cramped for the Book of Abraham. Nevertheless, Gee's caution is a point well taken. However, if you recall my previous post, Cook and Smith were explicit about their methodology, spelling out measurements, assumptions, and formulas. They wanted others to be able to reproduce their work. Now if you were Cook and Smith (or an interested third party) you might want to know where their formula breaks down, or how to adjust it to make it more accurate. Unfortunately you won't get any help from Gee in this article. Aside from the number of windings and the total length of the scroll, no measurements or details of how the winding locations were identified are given, nor is there any hint that they are forthcoming. All we have to go on is a graph and his assurance that it doesn't work. Nor does Gee address Cook and Smith's different winding length measurements for the Hor papyri. That seems like an insufficient response to me.

Moving on, I think Gee's article mis-characterizes the Cook and Smith article. First let's review the basic argument of Cook and Smith (my paraphrase):

1. Based on our calculations, the Hor scroll is too short to contain the Book of Abraham.
2. There is reason to think that the Hor scroll was the one identified as having the writings of Abraham.
3. Therefore, the Book of Abraham is probably not a direct translation of Egyptian text.

Before we look at Gee's further criticisms, you need to know that one witness described seeing a "long roll" (the apparent source of the Book of Abraham) and "another roll." Now let's look at Gee's criticisms, which are mostly confined to three paragraphs. We'll take them one at a time.

Although the Cook and Smith method of determining scroll length is anything but accurate[,]...even if it had been successful, it would have created other problems. Cook and Smith fail to establish which was the long roll because they applied their formula only to the Horos scroll; they did not apply it to any of the other extant scrolls and thus fail to meet another of the necessary conditions.... They measured only the Horos scroll because they assumed it to be the source of the Book of Abraham. Yet the eyewitnesses identify the long roll as the source. Bent on proving that the Horos scroll was not the long roll, they overlooked the implications of such a view. If the scroll of Horos is not the long roll, it simply cannot be the source of the text of the Book of Abraham (according to the accounts of the eyewitnesses). By endeavoring to prove that the Horus scroll was not the long roll, they would have undermined their own case, which depended on the Horos scroll being the proposed source of the text of the Book of Abraham.

'Long' is a relative term, and it seems to me that Gee is perhaps putting more weight on the distinction between a roll and a long roll than is warranted. (Wouldn't five feet be long to a non-Egyptologist?) Be that as it may, I don't see any evidence that Cook and Smith were "bent" on proving the Hor scroll was not the long roll. They don't frame the question in that way and, in fact, they don't even address the issue of the long roll until the end of their article when, lo and behold, they suggest that the Hor scroll was indeed the long one. But even if Gee is right about Cook and Smith disqualifying the Hor scroll as the long one, does that undermine their case? I guess it depends on what you interpret their case to be. Gee seems to imply that their case is that the Book of Abraham is bogus. But whatever the authors think personally, their article does not argue such a thing. At any rate, their immediate conclusion is that the Hor scroll did not contain the text of the Book of Abraham. If they unwittingly demonstrated that the other scroll was longer, then by Gee's criteria their conclusion is actually stronger.

Cook and Smith would like to minimize the length of the Horos scroll because they believe that finding would eliminate the possibility that the Book of Abraham was translated from a scroll that we do not currently have (theory 2). Even if their calculations had been correct and thus had shown that the scroll of Horos was not the long roll observed by the witnesses, that simply would have meant that another scroll would have been the scroll containing the Book of Abraham. So their attempt to eliminate theory 2 as a possibility would not, in fact, have actually been successful even had their formula correctly predicted a short length for the scroll of Horus.

Here Gee makes a logical leap of his own, which is to assume that if the Hor scroll was too short to contain the Book of Abraham, then another scroll must be longer. What is the justification for that? Gee makes a good point--that it would have been better if Cook and Smith had also evaluated the other fragments for comparison. But if Cook and Smith had determined that another scroll was longer, would that necessarily mean anything? I guess it depends on how much longer. But at the very least, someone would need to explain why the Book of Abraham referred to a vignette (Facsimile 1) on a totally different scroll, which was owned by a different person [1].

Furthermore, their attempt, even if successful, would not have eliminated the most popular theory—that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by revelation unconnected with the papyri (theory 3). It certainly cannot force anyone to accept the theory that the Book of Abraham was translated from the extant fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri (theory 1) since that theory is excluded by the historical evidence. So for those who care about such matters, there are still two theories (2 and 3) that are not excluded from consideration.

Here we come to the reason I quoted the conclusion of Cook and Smith in my previous post. Having ruled out the scroll of Hor as the source of the text, they listed several alternatives. Here they are again:

(1) the Document of Breathing served as a mnemonic device for the Book of Abraham, (2) the Breathing text served as a catalyst (rather than source text) for the Book of Abraham, (3) the Document of Breathing is a corrupted version of the Book of Abraham, which Smith restored to its pristine state, or (4) the Book of Abraham is simply an imaginative mistranslation of the hieratic script.

Hey, I recognize that second option and it looks a lot like Gee's theory 3. Gee doesn't seem to recognize that Cook and Smith's work supports his preferred theory (at least by popularity--allegedly), by their own admission.

All of this leads me to conclude that Gee's article does not engage Cook and Smith's work in a fair or convincing manner. People who only read Gee's article will get the impression that he has bested bumbling critics who can't construct a coherent argument. However, having read both articles, I get the impression that Gee didn't read theirs very carefully.


Notes:

1. One suggestion that I have seen is that Abraham referred to a figure that was missing from the papyri, so Joseph adapted by using a different illustration.

Further Reading:
A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

I Have a Question: Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? by Michael D. Rhodes

Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham, by W. V. Smith

FAIR Wiki: Book of Abraham Papyri

---

Continue reading...

Was the Book of Abraham Too Long for its Papyrus?

While the saints were in Kirtland, Joseph Smith acquired some Egyptian mummies and papyri from a traveling showman. Having examined the papyri, he said that they contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt. The Book of Abraham, now in the Pearl of Great Price is the product of Joseph's translation work. Because the outermost portions of the scrolls of papyri were fragile, they were separated from the rolls and mounted on paper. Following Joseph's death, the papyri were divided up and some of them ended up at a museum in Chicago, where they were apparently destroyed in the Chicago Fire of 1871. However, at least some of the mounted fragments of papyri eventually made their way to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City in 1918, and were later given to the Church in 1967. One of the fragments of papyri is immediately recognizable as Facsimile 1 in the Book of Abraham.

The re-discovery of the papyri was exciting because it offered an opportunity to check Joseph's translation against that of modern scholars. It quickly became apparent that the surviving fragments did not contain the Book of Abraham. At first glance it appeared that Joseph Smith was proven wrong. However, although one might expect the writing surrounding the vignette that became Facsimile 1 to be the Book of Abraham, defenders have noted that the Egyptians often placed vignettes next to unrelated text. It is therefore possible that the text of the Book of Abraham came from another portion of the papyrus. But how much papyrus was there?

Joseph originally had at least five different documents, with only three of them represented by surviving fragments of papyri. Facsimile 1 comes from a document called the Book of Breathings made by Isis and was owned by a man named Hor. Facsimile 3 also comes from this scroll, but it was destroyed in the fire with the rest of the scroll. Facsimile 2 was an independent document. Given that the Hor scroll contains (or contained) Facsimiles 1 and 3, it is natural to assume that this scroll was the source of the Book of Abraham. This assumption is strengthened by the book itself, which says:

12. And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

13. It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

14. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics. [Abraham 1:12-14]

So how long was the Hor scroll? The surviving portions of this scroll apparently come from the outer end, as mentioned above. Although its original length is unknown, one can take a couple of approaches to estimating. One way is to compare to similar scrolls of the same period. You can also take a mathematical approach to the question because when the scroll was wrapped up, the outermost portion of the scroll contained the rest within it. With an idea of the winding length and the thickness of the papyri, one can estimate the maximum length of the scroll. (Imagine taking a roll of toilet paper and using a marker to draw a line from the cardboard tube to the outer edge--but just on one side so that the line roughly represents the radius. When unrolled, you would see a repeating pattern of marks at one of the edges. The distance between marks would be the winding length, which shortens as you progress toward the original center.)

LDS Egyptologist (and FARMS associate) John Gee originally went with a generic estimate of 320 cm (10.5 ft). However, after applying a published mathematical formula, he updated his estimate to 1250.5 cm (41 ft).

So far so good.

In the Winter 2010 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, independent researchers Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith published a paper, "The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr," that took another look at the question [1]. They wrote:

Gee reported 9.7 and 9.5 cm as the lengths of the first and seventh windings, respectively, but offered no details regarding identification of winding locations. When we attempted to replicate Gee’s results, we found that his measurements did not seem to be accurate, and in fact required that the papyrus be impossibly thin.

In the rest of their paper, Cook and Smith described in detail how they attacked the question. Briefly, they traced the original papyri (because they were not permitted to photograph them) and then digitized their tracings to convert them into a grid of measurements. To determine winding locations (i.e. repeating patterns of damage to the upper and lower edges), they used a mathematical autocorrelation formula in order to reduce subjectivity. Let's look at an example. First we have a tracing of the papyri overlaid onto an independently obtained photograph.

Next, the upper portion of the of the tracing has been digitized into a coordinate system that matches the contour of the of papyri (though it is a little vertically stretched). The dotted lines show the same tracing shifted 10.42 cm to the right. Note the general agreement in contour.

Here is the output of the correlation function, which has a peak at 10.42 cm. This is the winding length, and was used in the last figure to determine the winding location.

Cook and Smith applied this method to the top and bottom of each fragment from the Hor roll. A cursory examination of the paper reveals lots of mathematical formulas and figures. The authors wrote:

Our choices are based on a desire to provide all details necessary for others to verify our work and duplicate our results.

In endnote 39 they add:

We are happy to make our data available to anyone interested in verifying our results.

I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand their method. Math is not a strength of mine. But those who do understand should be able to replicate their results.

When it's all put together, Cook and Smith estimate that the Hor scroll was approximately 150 cm (4.9 ft). Their estimate is within 3 cm of that of Klaus Baer (Hugh Nibley's Egyptology tutor). Based on the width of the surviving columns of text, and how it correlates to English translation, Cook and Smith estimate that the Book of Abraham would have required at least 511 cm (16.8 ft). Therefore, they argue that the Hor scroll is too short to have contained the Book of Abraham.

I don't know whether they are right or not, but it's a fun and interesting exercise. Their concluding paragraphs will be important later, so I quote them in full.

In recognition of the unlikelihood that there ever was a Book of Abraham source text on the inner section of the Hôr scroll, several alternative theories have been put forth to the effect that: (1) the Document of Breathing served as a mnemonic device for the Book of Abraham, (2) the Breathing text served as a catalyst (rather than source text) for the Book of Abraham, (3) the Document of Breathing is a corrupted version of the Book of Abraham, which Smith restored to its pristine state, or (4) the Book of Abraham is simply an imaginative mistranslation of the hieratic script. The ultimate success of any existing or future theory will depend on its ability to account for all of the evidence, including the fact that there was simply no room on the papyrus for anything besides the Breathing text.

Irrespective of Joseph’s method of translation, it is clear that he sensed in the Hôr scroll a richness of symbolic and religious potential that contemporary scholars could not see. To the experts who viewed Chandler’s collection in New York and Philadelphia, the Hôr scroll was a cryptic relic of a dead religion from a dusty tomb. Joseph, however, breathed fresh meaning into the crumbling little scroll, giving it new life as powerful scripture for the latter days. Perhaps the Egyptian vision of the afterlife, described in Hôr’s Document of Breathing, is not so far-fetched after all.

In my next post we will look at the FARMS response.

Notes:

1. Cook is a physicist and Smith is a graduate student in religious studies. Smith is not LDS; I don't know about Cook.

Further Reading:
A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

I Have a Question: Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? by Michael D. Rhodes

Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham, by W. V. Smith

FAIR Wiki: Book of Abraham Papyri

---

Continue reading...