Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Shulem]

I got the revelation while Driving south on Central Expressway going home to downtown Dallas

Well, now you just sound like the blogger at Sic et Non.

I've learned a lot on this thread, Shulem. Keep up the brilliant detective work!

I am about to do just that. You will be pleasantly surprised.

You too, Philo Sofee!

[_Shulem]

I mentioned earlier that I received a revelation (an aha moment) while driving home on Central Expressway. The answer came to me and it all seemed as clear as could be giving me a bit of a tingle and a full sense of realization. First, allow me to say, Joseph Smith is one sly dog, a dirty liar, and a master at deception. Enough of that. Here we go:

The Book of Abraham was printed serially in the Times and Season, three installments, each supplied with a Facsimile. After the first publication, Joseph was confident and proud of his work. Therein the first section of the Book of Abraham was published March, 1, 1842 and Facsimile No. 1 was the illustration along with the Explanations there under. Congratulations to the staff of the Times and Seasons for getting it out: Bravo! Special thanks to Reuben Hedlock for his woodworking mastery in supplying the woodcut featuring Abraham being sacrificed on the altar.

Then came the second publication March, 15, 1842. The second half of the story of Abraham was revealed including the illustration supplied by Reuben Hedlock of the Hypocephalus, also known as Facsimile No. 2 with its accompanying Explanations, given by right of the prophet at the present time. Again, congratulations were in order to Reuben Hedlock and those who worked the printing press for their achievement in completing the second installment.

Then time was due for the third installment of the Book of Abraham and the Times and Seasons supplied only the Facsimile No. 3 on May 16, 1842 thanks to Reuben Hedlock's third woodcut. The staff at the Times and Seasons was nearly ready for publication but everything had to be reviewed and approved by the editor in chief, Joseph Smith. Reuben Hedlock's woodcut was sampled along with the Explanations. This is where Joseph Smith's heart went, "Thump"! Something was terribly wrong! The prophet was gravely concerned and worried about releasing the third installment consisting entirely of Facsimile No. 3 and its accompanying Explanations.

So, what was it that troubled Joseph Smith?

This is my theory:

Joseph Smith realized that the jackal headed man-slave in Reuben Hedlock's 3rd woodcut was somewhat similar with that of the idolatrous priest of Elkenah who attempted to sacrifice Abraham on the altar as shown in Facsimile No. 1 which was the beginning of the story. Smith was painfully aware that the original head of Elkenah was missing from the papyrus and that his professed revelations supplied a new head that was crafted by Reuben Hedlock. Smith began to worry that the jackal headed "slave" portrayed from the woodcut as faithfully taken from the papyrus was that of a black man as was the priest of Elkenah. This was not an acceptable risk for Smith to take because it could be construed that the black men depicted in both vignettes on the same roll may be interpreted as being one in the same. It was simply too dangerous for Smith to allow the possibility of Abraham's assassin to be discovered in the king's court in the presence of Abraham sitting upon the king's throne according to the new Explanations therein. What might people think? The black assassin who was struck down by Jehovah is now in Pharaoh's court! This simply cannot be! Therefore, Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to remove the BLACK JACKAL SNOUT and reconstruct a head more suitable for a mere slave. That way no one will know the better and suspect that the persons in Facsimile No. 1 & 3 are actually one in the same.

And there you have it, folks.

[_Shulem]

No comments from anyone, yet? Where is everyone?

Okay. I'll add more for additional bonus points. Permit me to flesh it out further and zero in like a laser on the heart of the matter.

As I indicated above, Smith was concerned that a connection could be made between the black men of his Facsimiles that were upon the Abraham roll. He was concerned that it may be discovered that they were the same and thus negate his story altogether. But what concerned him in particular was the jackal head on Anubis in the original papyrus that Hedlock had transferred into the woodcut. What to do with the jackal head? I think Smith got the impression that the animal head was some kind of indication of status or importance. That of course would not fit well with the interpretation of a black man being a slave in the Egyptian court scene with Abraham atop the king's throne.

Consider, if you will, there are animal headed humans in the Facsimile No. 2 and therein they signify important things as does the animal itself, the "dove" being a divine manifestation of the Holy Ghost as represented in Fig. 7. But most importantly God sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority in Fig. 3 is adorned with that of an animal head. Not only that, the character in Fig. 1 also has some kind of animal head and this was figurative of Kolob and God's realm -- a matter of great importance. So yes, an animal head upon the head of someone such as our black Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 was simply too risky to pose if one wants to maintain he's a slave.

But there is more, the clincher, the bullseye, if you will, in making my case that Smith intentionally desecrated Anubis and committed wanton destruction to the Egyptian god in order to support his claim and story. There is a jackal in Facsimile No. 2 in which must have given Smith further pause and concern until it eventually convinced him he had to get rid of the jackal-head in Facsimile No. 3. I refer to the animal headed person in Fig. 2 which signified the realm of "Oliblish" and in his hand he is "holding the key of power" according to Smith's own Explanation. Imagine that, the jackal being directly associated with power! That doesn't bode well with Smith's claim that the black man having a jackal's head in Facsimile No. 3 is only a slave. The key of power and the jackal are a symbol of authority and that contradicts the low station of slavery wherein one is at the bottom of the power chain rather than the top where the jackal stands tall and sure. But Smith had already published the Facsimile No. 2 and the Explanations and the jackal therein had his power.

The key held in the hand of Oliblish is actually a totem or a standard whereon the animal-god Anubis (black jackal) stands proudly atop the wooden framework of the pole.








(taken from another papyrus)

[_Sanctorian]

I love the theory Shulem. It’s certainly very plausible and would explain why the snout might have been removed after the original wood cut. Great work coming up with a narrative that fits within the realm of possibility.

[_Themis]

No one in Joseph's world, including himself, knew anything to be able to make these connections we understand today. This allowed Joseph free reign to imagine what ever he liked. Stick figures can be easily interpreted anyway you want since no one there knew what they meant. I doubt Joseph, if he ordered the snout removed, did so to hid anything. The jackal head was missing from the papyri for fac 1, and fac 2 it is to easy to see all kinds of things. It's also my understanding that many had already viewed the papyri, and that Joseph was not hiding it from everyone. I know Emma, after Joseph died, was showing it to people for money, but I believe Joseph was also still letting people view the papyri. It was the only actual ancient document he ever had, and helped his prophet/translator gig.

[_Fence Sitter]

But then again, apologists can always fall back on Gee's caper that the priest was wearing an Anubis mask, and that it is fine to depict the priest as human headed..... although if memory serves me right, both Lanny Bell and Ritner have refuted that claim of Gee's.

Ritner not only has refuted this, but ridiculed the notion. I am away from home this weekend but I will try and find the citation when I get back.

[_Shulem]

It's also my understanding that many had already viewed the papyri, and that Joseph was not hiding it from everyone. I know Emma, after Joseph died, was showing it to people for money, but I believe Joseph was also still letting people view the papyri. It was the only actual ancient document he ever had, and helped his prophet/translator gig.

More importantly the mummies and papyri were examined by Professor Gustavus Seyffarth when sold to the St. Louis Museum where it was put on display and later in Chicago. Professor Seyffarth provides us with our first professional description of the actual papyrus of Facsimile No. 3:

according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osiris, in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus,) and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge, Osiris

Here we have the papyrus of Facsimile No. 3 being described in wonderful fashion! Hor is being brought into the divine presence of Osiris and the "attendant spirits" (Anubis, Maat, and Isis) are ever present. Professor Seyffarth was somewhat familiar with the Egyptian language using the most recent conventions thanks to scholars abroad -- and he certainly was able to recognize Egyptian deities.

Notice how there is no mention of Anubis missing his jackal head. I have to assume the papyrus depicted the god in his usual form. Anubis ALWAYS has a jackal head, no exceptions. I don't trust Joseph Smith's Facsimile presentation. I believe he pulled a fast one based on everything I understand at this point. What he planned to do with the papyrus in explaining a discrepancy between it and the actual papyrus is anyone's guess. Maybe he just kept it locked in his office while biding his time.

[_Gaelan_Ainsworth]

I doubt Joseph, if he ordered the snout removed, did so to hid anything.

I disagree, I think if I follow the hypothesis that Anubis' snout was removed at Joseph Smith's order I can see one valid reason.

In facsimile one, he identifies the canopic jars beneath 'Abraham' as idolatous gods, all of which are clearly depicted as animal headed. I can see Joseph Smith thinking that it would be difficult to fit into his narrative 'Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne, while Pharaoh's prince, Shulem and an idolatous god pay him audience.' That's the sort of thing I would expect to then be talked about.

[_Themis]

I doubt Joseph, if he ordered the snout removed, did so to hid anything.

I disagree, I think if I follow the hypothesis that Anubis' snout was removed at Joseph Smith's order I can see one valid reason.

In facsimile one, he identifies the canopic jars beneath 'Abraham' as idolatous gods, all of which are clearly depicted as animal headed. I can see Joseph Smith thinking that it would be difficult to fit into his narrative 'Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne, while Pharaoh's prince, Shulem and an idolatous god pay him audience.' That's the sort of thing I would expect to then be talked about.

You haven't dealt with the fact people around him had already seen the papyri, and I am not aware if he was hiding the papyri. Sure he may have wanted the snout taken out to make it look more human, but I don't think he necessarily made a connection to the jars or was trying to avoid a problem no one else was likely to see. The only significance here is it could be more evidence supporting this figure is the jackal headed God Anibus. Not all that needed since without the snout and name above the character Egyptology already knew it was Anibus, and the written name above his head seals it as Anibus.

[_Gaelan_Ainsworth]

You haven't dealt with the fact people around him had already seen the papyri, and I am not aware if he was hiding the papyri. Sure he may have wanted the snout taken out to make it look more human, but I don't think he necessarily made a connection to the jars or was trying to avoid a problem no one else was likely to see. The only significance here is it could be more evidence supporting this figure is the jackal headed God Anibus. Not all that needed since without the snout and name above the character Egyptology already knew it was Anibus, and the written name above his head seals it as Anibus.

You're right ofcourse, speculating as to the mindset of Joseph Smith is wholly irrelevant to the facts of the depiction of Anubis.

What matters though, is that if there exists the chance that Joseph Smith knowingly changed the document, no matter how benign or malicious the reason, it discredits him as a translator that bit further, now it is not just ignorance of the document, but a willful destruction of the document. Arguing that Joseph Smith translated a document badly is better than accusing him of doctoring a document (also badly).