Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory

Book of Abraham > Other Pages on the Book of Abraham > Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory

Mathematics and the Missing Papyri Theory

Summary: 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 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.

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).

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. 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. 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.

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.

Significantly, Ratzon and Dershowitz specifically noted that results produced by methods like those used by Cook and Smith are “no better than eyeballing." 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.

Notes

BACK TO TOP