Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory - Revision history

SpencerMarsh at 16:58, 12 March 2026

2026-03-12T16:58:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 12 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<small>[[Book of Abraham]] > [[Other Pages on the Book of Abraham]] > <span style="color:#7BB375">Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory</span></small>		<small>[[Book of Abraham]] \| [[Other Pages on the Book of Abraham\|Other Pages]] \| <span style="color:#7BB375">Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory</span></small>
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

SpencerMarsh at 16:14, 18 February 2026

2026-02-18T16:14:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 18 February 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<small>[[Book of Abraham]] > [[Other Pages on the Book of Abraham]] > <span style="color:#~~99B36C~~">Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory</span></small>		<small>[[Book of Abraham]] > [[Other Pages on the Book of Abraham]] > <span style="color:#7BB375">Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory</span></small>
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

SpencerMarsh at 09:49, 31 December 2025

2025-12-31T09:49:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:49, 31 December 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	In addition to [[Historical Statements About the Book of Abraham\|historical eyewitness accounts describing the Joseph Smith Papyri]], some scholars have tried to support the Missing Papyri Theory by estimating how long the papyrus scrolls originally were using mathematical formulas developed by Egyptologists.<ref>The following discussion is a summarized version of Stephen O. Smoot, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/framing-the-book-of-abraham-presumptions-and-paradigms Framing the Book of Abraham: Presumptions and Paradigms]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 47 (2021): 281–82.</ref>		In addition to [[Historical Statements About the Book of Abraham\|historical eyewitness accounts describing the Joseph Smith Papyri]], some scholars have tried to support the Missing Papyri Theory by estimating how long the papyrus scrolls originally were using mathematical formulas developed by Egyptologists.<ref>The following discussion is a summarized version of Stephen O. Smoot, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/framing-the-book-of-abraham-presumptions-and-paradigms Framing the Book of Abraham: Presumptions and Paradigms]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 47 (2021): 281–82.</ref>

	~~At the~~ 2007 ~~FAIR Conference~~, Egyptologist John Gee applied a commonly used formula that estimates the original length of a papyrus scroll based on the size and thickness of the surviving fragments. Using this method, Gee initially calculated that about 1,250 centimeters (roughly 41 feet) of papyrus might be missing from the Hor scroll (which originally contained JSP I, X, XI, and the original of Facsimile 3, at least).<ref>John Gee, “[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol20/iss1/11/ Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri],” ''FARMS Review'' 20, no. 1 (2008): 120–23.</ref>		In a 2007 paper, Egyptologist John Gee applied a commonly used formula that estimates the original length of a papyrus scroll based on the size and thickness of the surviving fragments. Using this method, Gee initially calculated that about 1,250 centimeters (roughly 41 feet) of papyrus might be missing from the Hor scroll (which originally contained JSP I, X, XI, and the original of Facsimile 3, at least).<ref>John Gee, “[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol20/iss1/11/ Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri],” ''FARMS Review'' 20, no. 1 (2008): 120–23.</ref>

	Shortly after Gee's publication, Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith criticized Gee’s calculations. They argued that the formula Gee used had been applied incorrectly and claimed that no more than approximately 56 centimeters (about 22 inches) of papyrus could be missing from the interior of the Hor scroll.<ref>Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-original-length-of-the-scroll-of-hor/ The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 43, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 1–42.</ref> If correct, their estimate would leave little room for a longer text—such as the Book of Abraham—to have appeared on that scroll.		Shortly after Gee's publication, Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith criticized Gee’s calculations. They argued that the formula Gee used had been applied incorrectly and claimed that no more than approximately 56 centimeters (about 22 inches) of papyrus could be missing from the interior of the Hor scroll.<ref>Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-original-length-of-the-scroll-of-hor/ The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 43, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 1–42.</ref> If correct, their estimate would leave little room for a longer text—such as the Book of Abraham—to have appeared on that scroll.

SpencerMarsh: Created page with "Book of Abraham > Other Pages on the Book of Abraham > Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory NOTOC {{Header}} {{Summary1}} Some Latter-day Saint scholars have attempted to mathematically prove that there are numerous papyri that we don't possess and that Joseph Smith may have translated from. This page reviews the ongoing debate between supporters and critics of this approach. ---- ====Mathematically Recon..."

2025-12-31T09:45:50Z

Created page with "Book of Abraham > Other Pages on the Book of Abraham > Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory __NOTOC__ {{Header}} {{Summary1}} Some Latter-day Saint scholars have attempted to mathematically prove that there are numerous papyri that we don't possess and that Joseph Smith may have translated from. This page reviews the ongoing debate between supporters and critics of this approach. ---- ====Mathematically Recon..."

New page

[[Book of Abraham]] > [[Other Pages on the Book of Abraham]] > Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} Some Latter-day Saint scholars have attempted to mathematically prove that there are numerous papyri that we don't possess and that Joseph Smith may have translated from. This page reviews the ongoing debate between supporters and critics of this approach.
----
====Mathematically Reconstructing the Length of Any Scroll is Fraught With Difficulty====
The Missing Papyri Theory for Book of Abraham translation says that there are other papyri—besides that owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—that Joseph Smith translated from to render the text of the Book of Abraham.

In addition to [[Historical Statements About the Book of Abraham|historical eyewitness accounts describing the Joseph Smith Papyri]], some scholars have tried to support the Missing Papyri Theory by estimating how long the papyrus scrolls originally were using mathematical formulas developed by Egyptologists.<ref>The following discussion is a summarized version of Stephen O. Smoot, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/framing-the-book-of-abraham-presumptions-and-paradigms Framing the Book of Abraham: Presumptions and Paradigms]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 47 (2021): 281–82.</ref>

At the 2007 FAIR Conference, Egyptologist John Gee applied a commonly used formula that estimates the original length of a papyrus scroll based on the size and thickness of the surviving fragments. Using this method, Gee initially calculated that about 1,250 centimeters (roughly 41 feet) of papyrus might be missing from the Hor scroll (which originally contained JSP I, X, XI, and the original of Facsimile 3, at least).<ref>John Gee, “[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol20/iss1/11/ Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri],” ''FARMS Review'' 20, no. 1 (2008): 120–23.</ref>

Shortly after Gee's publication, Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith criticized Gee’s calculations. They argued that the formula Gee used had been applied incorrectly and claimed that no more than approximately 56 centimeters (about 22 inches) of papyrus could be missing from the interior of the Hor scroll.<ref>Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-original-length-of-the-scroll-of-hor/ The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 43, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 1–42.</ref> If correct, their estimate would leave little room for a longer text—such as the Book of Abraham—to have appeared on that scroll.

This disagreement led to a scholarly exchange between Gee and Cook.<ref>Cook and Smith, "Original Length," 36.</ref> As part of that discussion, Gee revisited his calculations and revised his estimate. His later conclusion suggested that about 314 centimeters (roughly 10 feet, plus or minus a foot) of papyrus may have originally been part of the scroll but is now missing.<ref>John Gee, “[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol21/iss1/6/ Formulas and Faith],” ''Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture'' 21, no. 1 (2012): 60–65; Andrew Cook, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/formulas-and-facts-a-response-to-john-gee/ Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 45, no. 3 (Fall 2012): 1–10; John Gee, “Book of Abraham, I Presume” (August 2–3, 2012, South Towne Exposition Center, Sandy, UT), https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012/book-of-abraham-i-presume.</ref>

Critics of the Book of Abraham, including Dan Vogel, generally side with Cook and Smith. Vogel argues that their conclusions imply that the eyewitnesses who connected the papyri with the Book of Abraham must have been referring to a small roll only about two feet long. However, Vogel offers little independent reasoning for preferring Cook and Smith’s mathematical approach over Gee’s, beyond asserting that it is superior.

Importantly, the reliability of these kinds of mathematical reconstructions has itself been questioned by scholars outside the Latter-day Saint debate. In a recent study, Eshbal Ratzon and Nachum Dershowitz examined methods commonly used to calculate the original length of ancient scrolls and found that, although such formulas can make sense in theory, they are difficult to apply accurately in practice. As a result, they concluded that these methods often produce large errors and that many past estimates should be reconsidered.<ref>Eshbal Ratzon and Nachum Dershowitz, “[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239831 The Length of a Scroll: Quantitative Evaluation of Material Reconstructions],” ''PLOS One'' 15, no. 10 (2020): 1.</ref>

Significantly, Ratzon and Dershowitz specifically noted that results produced by methods like those used by Cook and Smith are “no better than eyeballing."<ref>Ratzon and Dershowitz, "The Length of a Scroll," 23.</ref> This does not prove that Cook and Smith are wrong or that Gee is right, but it does show that strong confidence in any precise numerical estimate is unwarranted.

Taken together, these findings suggest that mathematical formulas alone cannot reliably determine how much papyrus is missing from the Joseph Smith Papyri. Given the acknowledged limitations of these methods, caution and further study are necessary. Historical eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, and scholarly uncertainty must all be weighed carefully when evaluating claims about the original length of the papyrus scrolls.
{{endnotes sources}}