Formulas and Faith
Formulas and Faith
While one might like a simple or simplistic argument
about the historicity of the Book of Abraham, such arguments tend to be
complex. Sometimes they become so complex that individual discussants lose the
thread of the argument and consequently end up undermining their larger
argument to attack a certain smaller argument. This paper will discuss one such
argument. But first, it is necessary to set the argument in context.
One of the more prominent issues with the Book of Abraham is the
relationship of the Book of Abraham to the Joseph Smith Papyri.1 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
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.
Of these three positions, the first seems to be a
minority viewpoint espoused by few if any members of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. Of the remaining two options, the last is preferred by a
majority of the members of the church who care about this issue. Most members
find the issue unimportant.2 Such readers
might be forgiven for deeming this a trivial matter. Yet some are interested in
which of the foregoing theories best fits the available evidence.
Joseph Smith once had possession of at least five papyrus
• A scroll belonging to Horos, son of Osoroeris,
that contained, at a minimum, a text now called the Document of Breathings Made
• A scroll belonging to Semminis, daughter of Eschons,
containing, at a minimum, a text now called the Book of the Dead.
• A scroll belonging to Neferirtnoub, containing, at a
minimum, a vignette from the Book of the Dead.
• A scroll belonging to Amenothis, son of Tanoub,4 containing, at a minimum, portions of the Book of
the Dead together with other texts.
• A hypocephalus belonging to Sesonchis.
Nineteenth-century eyewitnesses, however, did not have training
in Egyptology and did not provide descriptions of the papyri that accord with
modern Egyptological notions.5 Instead they
b. “a long roll of manuscript”;8
c. “another roll”;9 and
d. “two or three other small pieces of papyrus
with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.”10
If one follows position 1 or 2, one might like to know which
papyrus contained the Book of Abraham. (If one follows position 3, which is the
majority position, then the point is moot since the answer is none of the
papyri.) If one looks to nineteenth-century eyewitnesses for information about
which of these types of papyri might have contained the Book of Abraham, one
finds that these accounts—including those both friendly and hostile to
Joseph Smith—are consistent in identifying the “long roll” (b)
as the source of the Book of Abraham.11 Adherents of the minority theories (1 and 2) have sometimes sought to identify
which of the papyri was the long roll.
Unfortunately, of the five papyrus documents that Joseph Smith
had, only fragments of the first three have survived. The fragments of the
scroll of Semminis are the most extensive, and comparison with Books of the
Dead from the same time period indicates it could have originally been about
seven meters (roughly twenty-three feet) long. But we know that not all the
papyri were intact by the time they reached Joseph Smith (as in example d), and
we do not know if the papyrus fragments were part of one of the scrolls at all.
Indeed, it seems that only the fragments that were mounted and preserved (as in
example a) were passed back to the church in 1967. This alone would seem to
rule out position 1, since it requires that the Book of Abraham be on the
mounted fragments, although the eyewitnesses say it was on the “long roll”
(b). How long, then, was that long roll?
Since none of the surviving fragments represents a complete
scroll, we cannot measure the missing portion. Instead, different methods of
estimating the length of a partially preserved scroll have been employed. These
methods consist of formulas that attempt to calculate the missing interior
portion of a scroll using the extant exterior portions. The exterior portion of
a scroll is not measurable by these methods.
Checking the Formulas
Two different formulas have been published for estimating the
original length of a scroll, given the length of each winding of the preserved
intact exterior portions. One has been proposed by the Egyptologist Friedhelm
Hoffmann12 and one by Andrew Cook (a
theoretical physicist) and Christopher Smith (a former Unitarian ministerial
student).13 The two formulas are similar,
differing primarily in minor details. Cook and Smith use the thickness of the
papyri (which they did not measure but only estimated) as an indication of the
change in diameter to calculate the difference between the lengths of
successive windings in the scroll. Hoffmann—knowing that most papyri are
already mounted, thus rendering it impossible to measure the thickness—uses
the average difference between successive windings for the same purpose.
Applying the formulas to the Joseph Smith Papyri presumes the
I. If the long roll mentioned by the witnesses (b) is
the interior part of one of the mounted portions of the scroll (a),
II. and if a method accurately calculates the missing interior
portion of the scroll,
III. and if that method is applied equally to all the remaining
scrolls of the Joseph Smith Papyri,
IV. then it might be able to tell us which was the long
roll (b) and potentially which was the other scroll (c).
Conditions I–III must be met in order to reach
Although both formulas have been applied to the fragmented scroll
of Horos, neither has previously been applied to an actual intact scroll to
confirm the accuracy of predicted length, thus failing to fulfill condition II
and invalidating conclusion IV. This has been a war of theories fought on a
field lacking empirical facts.
In 2001, in the back rooms of the Royal Ontario Museum, I
encountered a rolled scroll whose diameter was about three centimeters. The
scroll—ROM 978×43.1, a Ptolemaic period Book of the Dead—has since
been unrolled; its length (including the fragmented portions) is about seven
meters (roughly twenty-three feet).14 In
November of 2010, I had the privilege of measuring the interior seventy-three
windings of that scroll15 (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 (see p. 63). [Editor’s note: please see page 63 of the PDF or hard copy version for the graph that informs this discussion.]
The fewer the windings that have been measured from the outside
of the scroll, the greater the remaining interior scroll length that must be
estimated with even less data to predict it. Thus, the predictions of Hoffmann’s
formula become particularly erratic. It does so precisely in those places where
the assumptions of the formula fail to coincide with reality and where the
paucity of data magnifies the problem. As can be seen, Hoffmann’s formula
approximates the actual length of the papyrus, though it performs better the
more data it has to work with. Cook and Smith’s formula also improves with more
data, ranging from about a quarter of the correct length to about a third of
the correct length; nonetheless, this formula glaringly underestimates the
length of the scroll. There seem to be some errors in it or in the assumptions
upon which it is based.
While Cook and Smith’s formula predicts a highly inaccurate
length, Hoffmann’s formula provides a rough approximation. 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.
Although the Cook and Smith method of determining scroll length
is anything but accurate (and thus fails condition II), 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 (III). 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
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.
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.
Another overlooked possibility concerns the assumption (I) that
the long roll (b) is the interior portion of any of the fragmentary scrolls
(a). This assumption cannot be proven one way or the other but undergirds all
attempts to calculate the interior portions of the scrolls. Unfortunately,
there is no way to verify this assumption. If the assumption is untrue, then
the various attempts to calculate the interior portion of the fragmentary
scrolls are, at best, a moot point as far as identifying the Book of Abraham is
concerned. Some evidence indicates that this might have been the case. An
account from 1846 reports that Lucy Mack Smith “produced a black looking
roll (which she told us was papyrus). . . . The roll was as dark as
the bones of the Mummies, and bore very much the same appearance; but the
opened sheets were exceedingly like thin parchment, and of quite a light color.
There were birds, fishes, and fantastic looking people, interspersed amidst
hyeroglyphics.”16 While fine papyrus was typically light colored,
blackened outsides are characteristic of scrolls that were included in burials
and thus were in contact with embalming fluids.17 This description matches the distinctive characteristics for a scroll with its
outer coat still intact. The reported statement that “part of [the scroll]
the Prophet had unrolled and read” and that Lucy “had pasted the deciphered
sheets on the leaves of a book which she showed us”18 must mean that the deciphered sheets were the translation rather than part of
the scroll, since the roll should have been intact, just as the darkened outer
portion was intact. While this witness’s statement raises more questions than
it answers, it might indicate the presence of a completely intact scroll after
the death of Joseph Smith.
From this a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, Hoffmann’s
method of calculating the interior portion of a scroll provides only rough
approximations at best. The method of Cook and Smith tends to greatly
underestimate the actual length.
Second, there are a number of possibilities for the long roll
mentioned by nineteenth-century observers as being associated with the text of
the Book of Abraham. While the Horos scroll is possible, other options include
the Semminis scroll, the Amenothis scroll, the Neferirtnoub scroll, or another
intact scroll. Historical methods, and even mathematical formulas applied to
the historical evidence, are not sufficient to prove conclusions.
Those interested in these sorts of questions should constantly
bear in mind that the historical evidence is limited and that limitations on
the evidence often preclude definitive answers, or sometimes any answers, to
the types of questions that we ask.19 Scholarship can be useful but is often incapable of answering particular
questions. But faith does not require everything to be proved. Ironically, the
relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham is a
situation in which both believers and detractors must rely on their faith.
John Gee is a senior research
fellow and the William (Bill) Gay
Professor of Egyptology at the
Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious
Scholarship at Brigham
Young University, and chair of the
Egyptology and Ancient Israel
section of the Society of Biblical
Literature. He is the author
of numerous articles on Egyptology and has edited
several books and journals.
John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 21–23.
Gee, “Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri,” FARMS Review 20/1
3. Gee, Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 10–13.
name has been reread as Taketem; see G. Vittmann, “Between Grammar,
Lexicography and Religion: Observations on Some Demotic Personal Names,” Enchoria 24
John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith
Papyri,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on
Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and
Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000),
Quincy, Figures of the Past from the Leaves of Old
Journals (Boston: Roberts
Brothers, 1883), 386.
Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at
Nauvoo, in 1842 (London:
Rivington, 1842), 22.
Haven, letter to her mother, 19 February 1843, cited in “A Girl’s Letters
from Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly (December 1890): 624.
letter to her mother, 19 February 1843, 624.
Cowdery, letter to William Frye, 22 December 1835, printed in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2/3 (December 1835): 234.
W. Blanchard, “Reminiscences of the Granddaughter of Hyrum Smith,” Relief Society Magazine 9/1 (1922): 9; Haven, letter to her mother,
19 February 1843, 624.
Hoffmann, “Die Länge des P. Spiegelberg,” in Acta Demotica: Acts of the Fifth International
Conference for Demotists (Pisa: Giardini, 1994), 145–55.
13. Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith, “The
Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr,” Dialogue 43/4 (2010): 1–42.
be published by Irmtraut Munro.
would like to thank Krzysztof Grzymski, Bill Pratt, Janet Cowan, and Gale
Gibson of the Royal Ontario Museum for their assistance in this matter.
16. M., Friends’s Weekly Intelligencer 3/27 (3 October 1846): 211. I would like to thank Matthew Roper for
bringing this source to my attention.
17. “Funerary papyri are prone to
extensive staining from the resin poured over a mummy at burial or from fluids
from the body.” Richard Parkinson and Stephen Quirke, Papyrus (London: British Museum Press, 1995), 79. “Stains are caused by resins
used in the mummification and burial ceremonies, and perhaps excretions from
the body. Some stains are blackened and almost tar-like.” Bridget Leach and John Tait, “Papyrus,” in Ancient
Egyptian Materials and Technology, ed. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian
Shaw (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 242.
18. M., Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer 3/27
(3 October 1846): 211.
19. See also John Gee, “Egyptologists’
Fallacies: Fallacies Arising from Limited Evidence,” Journal of
Egyptian History 3/1 (2010): 133–58.