9) Because they were related and derived from the same source, Hor bound together Abraham's record with the Book of Breathings, in the same linen (creating a "roll" - remember, Joseph Smith's eyewitness contemporaries wouldn't have known what constituted a "roll" and, like a newspaper "roll," they may have thought it was okay for a papyrus roll to have different parts, thinking what made it a roll was that the parts came wrapped together. Just as they would not have known what the word "long" means in "long roll," they also wouldn't have known what the second word, "roll," means in "long roll."

Ryan Larsen has subsequently clarified his intent:

“The analogy of a newspaper roll is only to demonstrate that the word “roll” can be used in broader ways than people might be inclined to realize. As I explained in a previous email not too long ago, my position was never that it was rolled up like a newspaper. Although that’s one possibility, it’s not what I ever pictures[d] in my mind.”

To thoroughly treat the subject of the elusive Kirtland papyrus, we should exhaust all the possibilities, starting with the two papyri, one laid on top of the other, then rolled up together in one, constituting a “papyrus roll”, independent of packaging:

Assuming the two scrolls were rolled together like a newspaper before being wrapped in linen, the outer diameter and circumference of the roll would have been much larger than if the Hor scroll was rolled up on itself. Is there evidence of this? Is there evidence that Hor’s Book of Breathings papyrus was not entirely rolled up on itself?

The Hor scroll underwent damage that penetrated into the inner layers of the spiral () roll, causing periodic missing portions of papyrus, called lacunae within the roll. As a result, the distance (curve length W) between periodic lacunae along the spiral of the scroll is somewhat mathematically predictable, and depends on the mean effective thickness of each papyrus wrap or winding.

A second papyrus scroll rolled up with the Hor Breathings Permit would affect the thickness of the papyrus wrap, and the curve length between lacunae features. Wrapping up a written source of the Sepher Avram with the Hor Breathings Permit could effectively double the thickness of a wrap or winding. But the thickness of the Hor papyrus can be determined by direct (visual), and indirect means:

Average thickness (T, difference in radius) of a papyrus roll between the outer n and inner m winding, having curve length (W) that changes with radius. n = θ/(2π), where 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2Nπ is the spiral angle in radians. Inner m > n is similarly expressed. N is the total number of windings or wraps in the roll. The actual limit for the formula above, however, does not range from n = 0. (Cook, Smith, DIALOGUE, The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor)

The accepted mean winding thickness (T) of the Hor papyrus based on the geometry of the roll and periodic lacunae, was found to be about 0.701 mm. This is much thicker than an ordinary piece of modern paper, but the effective thickness is reportedly in good agreement with the measured thickness of other ancient papyrus scrolls. The Hor papyrus is “about twice as thick as the Tshenmîn [Ta-sherit-min (Semminis)] papyrus” which Oliver Cowdery and others tied to the record of Joseph.

“N is the total number of windings or revolutions from beginning to end.” The curve length of the outer wrap of the scroll (W_outer) can be derived from equation (3): W_outer = [4πL_totalT + W_N²]^1/2, where L_total is the total length (150 cm to 155 cm) of the scroll, and “W_N is the winding length at the innermost end of the scroll.” W_N could be “over 3 cm” according to Note 21. So we might estimate the inner diameter of the scroll to be about 3 cm/π, or about a centimeter minimum. The outer diameter of the scroll (W_outer/π) then ranges from 3.78 cm to 3.84 cm - about 4 cm in diameter. Raising the quantity in square brackets to the 1/2 power (i.e. [...]^1/2) is the same as taking the square root of the quantity. The papyrus width (some call it height) measures about 10 cm.

Let us briefly digress from the newspaper roll scenario and consider a phantom papyrus roll of comparable dimensions to the Hor roll, bound side by side with the Hor roll in the linen package. The phantom roll in this case should provide significant protection to one side of the Hor roll. But because we don’t know how the start of the Hor scroll might have been turned with respect to the proposed phantom papyrus bound next to it, the shielding effect (about 4 cm of outer papyrus protection) could have started anywhere along the outer wrap (W_outer). The length W_outer of the outer Hor scroll ranges from 11.88 cm to 12.06 cm. See spreadsheet calculations for Hor Papyrus Roll.

The basic dimensions of the Hor papyrus document are as follows:

Given the diameter of the Hor roll bound next to the imagined phantom roll of comparable dimensions, the resulting linen package (holding the two rolls side by side), would have been rather rectangular, or trapezoidal and not like a roll. It hardly seems appropriate to refer to such a package as a “roll”.

Returning to the Cook and Smith analysis: An “anomalously high winding length” was discovered in analyzing data from the damaged scroll, but this mathematical result was attributed to “extra damage” to the papyrus.

The geometric study of the scroll concluded that “there was simply no room on the papyrus for anything besides the Breathing text.”

I would add, based on the determined average thickness of the internally damaged Hor papyrus, that there was likewise no room for a phantom papyrus insert between windings. (Andrew W. Cook, Christopher C. Smith, DIALOGUE, The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor)

Besides, if the Prophet Joseph had Abram’s original, or even an Ah-meh-strah-ans copy, where is the ancient text (or at least transcriptions from it among the Kirtland Egyptian Papers)? Instead, we find Ah-meh-strah-an styled amateur copies and revisions of symbols from Egyptian funerary texts (e.g. the Hor Book of Breathings). No “Rahleenos” (ראה- לי- נס) from a Sepher Avram!

Ryan pictures “the two documents wrapped together perhaps in the same linen [not necessarily like a newspaper]. If they came as a package deal like that, wrapped/rolled up in the same linen, I could see some people referring to them together as parts of a single roll. While other people may refer to them as two rolls. The key here is that there was no set standard whatsoever regarding how to use the word “roll” in the US midwest in 1835, when it came to ancient papyrus.”

But problems persist with Ryan’s argument. It is not at all clear to me that calling a papyrus scroll a “roll” depends on packaging. As explained previously, the packaging in one case hardly resembles a roll.

In every instance that I have found in early Mormon sources, the use of “roll” describing an Egyptian scroll, describes a document that had been rolled up; e.g. “Some difficulty having been found in unrolling the papyrus ...” The fact that the papyrus rolls were bound in linen seems irrelevant to the description “rolls of papyrus”.

Two papyrus scrolls or rolls independently rolled up and placed next to each other and then packaged in linen, does not clearly constitute one roll. It constitutes two papyrus rolls packaged in linen. A mummy similarly wrapped in linen is also not a roll. But this begs the question: If you really do have two associated papyri that you want to keep together in linen, why not roll them up together like a newspaper? The fact that the evidence does not support this, casts doubt on the proposition that there was a phantom Abraham papyrus with the Hor Book of Breathings.

Oliver Cowdery knew that Michael Chandler had “discovered that in connection with two of the bodies [mummies], was something rolled up [bound] with the same kind of linen [as wrapped the mummies], saturated with the same bitumen, which, when examined, proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned [alleged “record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies”].” (HC 2:348-349, “Egyptian Mummies – Ancient Records”, LATTER DAY SAINTS' MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE)

When Brother Cowdery described a papyrus roll as “something rolled up with the same kind of linen”, was he describing a linen package that still resembled a roll? In other words, was he describing one cylindrical papyrus roll inside a cylindrical wrapping? Did Oliver Cowdery not know that the antiquities exhibitor, Mr. Chandler, found on at least one mummy, two papyrus rolls bound in linen? In actuality, a Book of Breathing and a Book of the Dead (the latter separated and sold elsewhere). Did Cowdery misunderstand Chandler?

In his book The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, Egyptologist Robert Ritner states, “In Ptolemaic Thebes, a well-to-do Egyptian could be buried with various funerary papyri in order to ensure a life in the hereafter free of care. Horos [Hor], ... had at least one other funerary composition at his disposal in the underworld, for in 1998 his abbreviated copy of the Book of the Dead surfaced in Paris, France. Several parts of Horos’s badly damaged copy of the Book of the Dead are kept at the Louvre Museum under inventory numbers N 3207, N 3208, and N 3209. ... The manuscript as a whole is about 148 centimeters (58 inches) long; the height varies between 31.5 and 33.5 centimeters (12½ and 13 inches).” (The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri - A Complete Edition; see chapter by Mark Coenen, “The Ownership and Dating of Certain Joseph Smith Papyri”, sections “Another Funerary Papyrus Belonging to Horos”, and “A Priestly Family of Prophets”, hardcover pp. 59 - 60, paperback pp. 72 - 74)

As with Oliver Cowdery’s use of the word “roll”, the use of “roll” in “she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writings of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read ...”, “The "long roll of manuscript" had evidently been cut into shorter pieces to preserve it and make it easier to handle.”, “... hieroglyphics from another roll”, “writings and hieroglyphics which were found rolled up in the breast of one” all have reference to rolled papyrus documents, and not to the sealed linen wrappings that Chandler violated.

Likewise, in the posthumous redaction of History of the Church 2:236 we read, “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.” It should be noted, however, that the Book of Joseph was likely perceived to include accounts of other prophets including Abraham. We could interpret the following quote from Oliver Cowdery to indicate this: “The record [singular] of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation”. The Book of the Dead of Ta-sherit-min is described in this case.

In contrast to the above statements (by Oliver Cowdery and others), verifiable statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith seem, in some respects, to be more carefully worded, and likely refer to the revealed manuscript “record” or “records of Abraham”. These revealed records featured copied characters. But, there is no verifiable mention by Joseph Smith of a roll or rolls of Abraham. See Book of Abraham manuscripts A, B, and C (circa July–circa November 1835).

Regarding “the record of Abraham” (manuscripts with characters), Joseph Smith’s journal records, “Mr Seixas our hebrew teacher examined them [early manuscripts of the Book of Abraham] with deep interest & pronouncd them to be original beyound all doubt ...” (30 January 1836 • Saturday).

Joseph also likely showed his Hebrew teacher the papyrus roll (the Hor papyrus) from which the characters were transcribed. Not long before this event, Joseph’s journal records, 26 November 1835 • Thursday “... at home, we spent the day in transcribing Egyptian characters from the papyrus. ...”

Yes, it was revealed to Joseph that symbols from the Hor Book of Breathings correlate with the Abram narrative, but this does not mean that the Book of Breathings is the written source of the Book of Abraham. It is now clear to scholars of ancient Egyptian that it is not. Early members of the Church supposed otherwise.

Did Joseph tolerate the leaps in logic made by his associates regarding the papyrus and the Book of Abraham? He may have. He couldn’t correct every misconception or overgeneralization. He himself was a rough stone on the roll. Thus the Mormon tradition about a physical papyrus in Kirtland containing the record of Abraham, and thus the desperate elusive papyrus defense upon learning that the Hor papyrus (containing the vignettes, and lines of Book of Abraham manuscript characters) couldn’t be the written Abrahamic source. But is a phantom papyrus really needed? Is there a reasonable place for it? Or does it get in the way of the truth and cause spiritual harm?

Let’s continue to exhaust the options: A phantom papyrus could not have been placed at the end or the Book of Breathings, nor added in the midst of it, nor wrapped up with it (like a newspaper insert) because if it were, it would have changed the repeating spiral pattern as observed in the lacunae of the Hor papyrus.

Could a phantom papyrus have been added at the beginning of the Hor papyrus, before the first Anubis and Osiris vignette? Not likely! The considerable damage at the leading edge of the papyrus was probably caused when the antiquities exhibitor Michael H. Chandler, roughly handled the linen packaging. The damage seems to indicate that there was no phantom papyrus wrapped around the Book of Breathings protecting the leading edge of the Breathing permit as the package was harshly opened.

This leaves us to consider a separate but elusive papyrus roll for which there are no transcriptions or copies of characters made in the busy Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Book of Breathings Fragment A. The roll written in Hieratic Egyptian reads left to right, top to bottom - like Hebrew. Fragment A (shown above) measures ~36 cm long by ~10 cm wide max. The total length of the Hor Sensen papyrus, including missing portions, is estimated to be about 150 cm to 155 cm. The average thickness of the roll (T) is about 0.07 cm. What if the papyrus roll was bound with another papyrus roll of comparable size; what effect would that have had on the damage pattern? Let us consider two scenarios: One scenario 9a) in which the rolls are stacked end on end, and a second scenario 9b) in which the rolls are bound side by side. In both scenarios the phantom roll renders some protection to the Sensen papyrus roll when the linen packaging is roughly handled and opened. Do the patterns of visible damage to the Sensen papyrus indicate the presence of a phantom roll according to either scenario? If not, the phantom roll is likely illusive - a figment - not real! The fact that the Hor Sensen papyrus shows significant damage on both its upper and lower edges indicates that both ends of the roll were covered with linen and then harshly opened. In other words, one end of the roll was probably not placed against another roll. Both ends were likely covered with linen packaging. So 9a) should probably be discounted. It is important to keep in mind that not all of the missing papyrus was the result of Chandler’s mishandling. This complicates the problem. The protection given by one roll to another in the case of 9b) could possibly manifest as a ~4 cm (lengthwise) undamaged portion, spanning top and bottom (~10 cm), on the outer wrap of the roll, somewhere within ~12 cm from the leading edge. 12 cm from the beginning of the Sensen papyrus is at the waist of Osiris rising. If we imagine that we see what was an undamaged portion near the start of the papyrus, we should keep in mind that this undamaged pattern should repeat about 11.5 cm to the left of it, and thereafter at shorter and shorter leftward intervals (following a diminishing spiral curve length). The fact that both the upper and lower edges of the outer papyrus exhibit significant damage, with no definite sign of the presence of another roll partially shielding the Sensen scroll, is evidence that 9b) should also, possibly be discounted. Only the Hor Book of Breathings seems to have been rolled up in the linen. Thus, the Hor papyrus appears to have taken all the damage - top, bottom, and on the leading edge. See calculations on spreadsheet for Hor Sensen Roll. Questions however remain: Where was the Hor Book of the Dead roll on the mummy with respect to his Book of Breathings? Could the Hor Book of Breathings have been side by side with a Book of the Dead in the same linen wrap? The additional damage to the Joseph Smith papyrus makes the evidence difficult to discern.

My colleague Ryan and I can agree that the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham are sort of a “package deal”, although the Book of Abraham actually incorporates papyrus parts from more than the Book of Breathings. The Sheshonq (Shishaq) Hypocephalus converted into Facsimile 2, is missing from the “package deal” proposed by Ryan. But, since Ah-meh-strah-ans interpretted the center of a hypocephalus as representing a cosmic center, or Holy of Holies of the Heavenly Temple, all three anachronistic Book of Abraham facsimiles, converted from Egyptian funerary art, can be seen to relate to the Jewish temple.

I’m convinced that one of the documents in the “package deal” was palpable (the Hor papyrus) while the other was virtual – delivered to us by revelation. The wonder is that there are correlations between symbols from the first lines of the Book of Breathings Made By Isis and the narrative of the Book of Abraham. The situation is somewhat analogues to how the Hebrew aleph-bet correlates with Psalm 119; except that in the case of the Book of Abraham and Book of Breathings, the correlations do not constitute a simple abecedarius.

Consider the 1835 Book of Abraham manuscripts A, B, and C. These clearly demonstrate why Mormons presumed that the Egyptian papyrus that contained the vignettes (repurposed by Joseph Smith as the first and last facsimiles of the published Book of Abraham), must have, in their view, contained the Abrahamic text. Of course we now know, that the text is the Book of Breathings Made By Isis written in Hieratic not Hieroglyphic Egyptian. The Isis text is certainly not a Hebrew text, though it makes abundant sense that certain pictographs or “hieroglyphics” (ראה- לי- נס) in the original Book of Abram were an early form of Hebrew writing.

Onitas does sound similar to Onias in English, but ancient versions of these names are spelled and pronounced quite differently: Onias is a Ptolemaic Greek version of the Hebrew name HoniYo (חוניו) spelled with a het. The name Onitas, is possibly a Ptolemaic (Greek) Ah-meh-strah-an version of the more ancient name Oni-Ptah (Onitah) spelled with an aleph. (Gen. 41:45)

As a rule, I tend to not give much weight to second and third-hand statements attributed to Joseph Smith even if they come from family members. The idea that there may have been some confusion between the title “King Onitus” (quoting Mother Smith) and “Osiris Horus” (the priest, but arguably an endowed godlike king in the afterlife) is an interesting hypothesis. (“Lucy Mack Smith on Mummies and Papyri”, compiled by H. Michael Marquardt, 2013) Did Joseph Smith believe that one of the female mummies was a daughter of Onitah?

Ryan Larsen acknowledges that, “... I'm undoubtedly leaving some loose ends and unanswered questions ...” Indeed, the Phantom Papyrus Hypothesis fails to account for the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

If the Prophet Joseph held the characters of the Sepher Avram in his hand, why go to the trouble of transcribing characters from the pagan Book of Breathings - making amateur copies of symbols to appear to correlate with portions of the revealed English translation of the Book of Abraham? Why do that if the ancient Abraham text is right there in your hands to transcribe from? For Heaven’s sake correlate the available ancient Abraham text with the translated English narrative. Why go to the pedagogic effort (wild-goose chase) of producing an esoteric Ah-meh-strah-an Aleph-Beth and vocabulary index that draws on the characters of funerary texts, when the text of the Sepher Avram is right there before your eyes and the eyes of your amateur scribes? Set the heathen stuff aside for another time, and copy the characters, words and sentences directly from the Avraham papyrus!

Moreover, why burden the sacred Book of Abraham with phallic symbol laden talismanic art from a Book of the Dead? The clam shell vignettes and uncircumcised “funny round thing” were never part of the Hebrew’s original scripture. Why go outside the “package deal”? Unless, like an Ah-meh-strah-an of old, it was incumbent upon the Latter-day Seer to Abramize and circumcise the hypocephalus in an ordinance of conversion. (Gen. 17:24, Ps. 46:10, Abr. 2:10)

Well, clearly these things were done because no Hebrew prophet’s book, or version thereof, was rolled up with, or in any physical way present with the assortment of Egyptian funerary papyri that made it to Kirtland. The Prophet Joseph Smith not only participated with, but in all likelihood led the funerary scroll transcription effort. Apologetic efforts to distance Joseph Smith from the Ah-meh-strah-an (“Egyptian”) Aleph-Beth project in which he was clearly involved, are frankly poltroon.

In the end, Latter-day Saints have gotten the work “purported to be the writings of Abraham” (T&S, March 1, 1842) that they deserve. Those who love and devote themselves to the Standard Works, including the Book of Abraham, appreciate the teachings of the revealed scripture. They come to grasp the iron rod, “the word of God”. Egyptian enthusiasts with their hand reaching ever so near the rod, dote on the enigmatic clamshell vignettes and ostensible pearl. But a true restoration of the Sepher Avram is likely to come more from a study of Hebrew scripture, than from Egyptology. After all, the professional training that Joseph Smith and his Kirtland brethren sought and received in their poverty, was not imparted to them by an Egyptologist.

As if Church tradition and saving face are as important as defending scripture, contending for cherished Mormon myth continues. The myth for instance, that the Prophet Joseph Smith held the Book of Abraham papyrus in his hands at Kirtland.

Is it not enough that this tradition has disappointed even injured the convictions of those who have earnestly sought greater light and knowledge? (Abr. 1:2) Yes, I believe it is enough! The aforementioned tradition in my opinion is false. What the Prophet Joseph Smith literally held in his hands was the book of Isis, restorer of Osiris, and  portions of individualized books of the dead.

Things that helped the Prophet Joseph Smith to bring forth an Ah-meh-strah-ans styled version of the Sepher Avram - “called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM”:

Joseph’s diligent study of the scriptures guided his divine ability to bring forth an English version of the Book of Abraham. The Prophet drew in large measure upon the content and customary language of the Authorized King James Bible, and to some degree upon his training in Hebrew. (Ps. 105:8-23, KJV)

The Prophet effectively became a seer stone, or the living embodiment of one. As such he was able to bring forth the scriptural text of the Book of Abraham without a physical copy of the ancient text in his hands. By use of Urim and Thummim, he had previously revealed the contents of an ancient document written on parchment by the Apostle John (LDS D&C 7:1-8), a document that Joseph also did not hold in his hands.

  The Prophet and his colleagues were initiated in degrees, by prayer and meditation, into the study of Ah-meh-strah-an symbols and methods of interpretation. This prepared the Prophet, and to a lesser degree Oliver Cowdery, to reinterpret the Egyptian funerary documents in esoteric ways as had the Ah-meh-strah-ans of old. See for instance the Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an “Aleph” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s handwriting , and compare it to other historical versions of the hieroglyph/letter. One interpretive method was to connect Egyptian symbols with symbols from other written languages. Elder Cowdery may have been inspired after all, when like an Ah-meh-strah-an, he thought he saw Hebrew letters in Hieratic Egyptian script. The Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-ans also dissected, revised and redefined Egyptian symbols in abstruse ways, assigning mystical meanings to their work. Their work is somewhat comparable to that of rabbinical mystics on the subject of ketarim assigned to certain postexilic Aramaic/Hebrew letters.

  Finally there is the possibility that the arcane correlations between symbols appearing in the Hor Book of Breathings, and the Sepher Avram narrative are no coincidence. The Ptolemaic scribe that Hor commissioned to compose a personal Breathings permit (overtly ascribed to Isis throne goddess, but perhaps covertly Sarah mother of kings, Gen. 12:13; 17:15-16) may have been an Ah-meh-strah-an. It may have been the Ptolemaic scribe who placed literary DNA from a Sepher Avraham in the Book of Isis (Sarah) known to scholars as the Book of Breathing(s) belonging to Hor (Horus) the priest.

The Sepher Yoseph   ספר יוסף