Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yeah, my quick takeaway is that while funerary papyri (papyruses?) aren't all the same, for obvious reasons, the common elements are generally there.

That said, I can't shake the feeling the Church has something in its possession that would be of further value to the historical nature of this whole affair.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

Yeah, my quick takeaway is that while funerary papyri (papyruses?) aren't all the same, for obvious reasons, the common elements are generally there.

That said, I can't shake the feeling the Church has something in its possession that would be of further value to the historical nature of this whole affair.

- Doc

I mean, don't we know for a fact they own some artifacts at least connected to the original papyri? Wasn't the basis of Schryver's ole' Book of Abraham defense based on scroll measurements? I honestly wasn't all that invested in that line of argumentation so I may be mis-remembering here.

[_Chap]

I mean, don't we know for a fact they own some artifacts at least connected to the original papyri? Wasn't the basis of Schryver's ole' Book of Abraham defense based on scroll measurements?

Yes, but all that was based on measurements of the existing fragments, from which it was possible to come to reliable estimates of the dimensions of the roll of which they once formed part, and hence to work out how much of that roll was still extant and how much was lost. (One uses things like the distance between repetition of similar damage marks, which must have aligned on the original roll, and measurements of papyrus thickness.)

Gee (followed by Schryver) basically failed to get the math right, and concluded that there was an amount of missing parchment sufficient to have contained an Egyptian version of the entire Book of Abraham text, which of course appears on none of the extant fragments. California Kid (Chris Smith) and Mortal Man set all this out very clearly, and showed that the correct calculations only allowed for a comparatively small amount of missing papyrus from the roll, quite insufficient for what was required for Gee's hypothesis.

There was no suggestion from anybody involved that the missing papyrus, if any, was in the church's possession. The claim, rather, was that it had been lost in the Chicago fire.

[_Xenophon]

Thanks for that summary/reminder, Chap. I should probably go back through and read those previous threads, I'm sure they are fascinating.

[_Fence Sitter]

So a little further on Tator's questions and the scroll length, because they are interrelated.

The particular book of the dead we are dealing with here is a "Breathing Permit which is derived from the traditional "Book of the Dead".Its purpose was to ensure that the breath of life returned to the deceased (Hor) and to be a passport to the world of the gods.

This permit was a specific type of document used in and around Thebes for an interrelated family of priests for a few hundred years from 200 BCE onward with limited distribution. An article from about ten years ago said that about 35 had been found so far.These permits have a uniform textural pattern with only minor modifications. Because of this we can calculate the original length of the scroll because the missing parts contained text, the content of which we know, so we know how much space is required for the missing text. Now while the test remained very constant, the facsimiles were quite varied. Because the facsimiles varied and because each permit was an original, often created by different scribes separated by decades or even centuries, there are no exact comparisons of them.
There are standardized ways of representing the characters on the facsimiles, so it is in this standardization that we can see what one would have expected to see in the lacuna.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello I have an outstanding unanswered question over here.

Where are the fangs that Bradley mentioned?

[_Shulem]

Hello I have an outstanding unanswered question over here.

Where are the fangs that Bradley mentioned?

In my view there are none. All portions of the original snout whether it had teeth or not have been removed from the wood.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello I have an outstanding unanswered question over here.

Where are the fangs that Bradley mentioned?

In my view there are none. All portions of the original snout whether it had teeth or not have been removed from the wood.

Thank you. I have not seen any ancient representation of Anubis with fangs exposed.

[_aussieguy55]

Shulem

What would you think DanPs response would be to your finding, since he sees himself and Gee as experts on the Book of Abraham. When asked he suggested Gee's Introduction to the Book of Abraham as helpful. I downloaded it and it was very short and no references to any other scholars like Ritner.

[_Shulem]

Shulem

What would you think DanPs response would be to your finding, since he sees himself and Gee as experts on the Book of Abraham. When asked he suggested Gee's Introduction to the Book of Abraham as helpful. I downloaded it and it was very short and no references to any other scholars like Ritner.

I can't speak for them or read their minds but I have to think this new finding will be of great concern and it will be taken seriously. It's not something that can be simply shrugged off or laughed at. There are clear impressions in the wood that are unlike any on the woodcut that seem to suggest something was removed after the fact -- that something being a jackal's snout. Of course, everyone with a basic knowledge of Egyptology knows that Anubis is always portrayed with a jackal head seeing he is a jackal god. That's a basic standard and convention in Egyptian mythology. Both Peterson and Gee know this and cannot deny that. All they can do is cling to the faith that their Facsimile No. 3 woodcut and the Explanations of the same are somehow inspired and through direct revelation were given and later canonized.

I think right now they are going to be quite concerned and even worried. A professional examination will be in order and they know that. It's not going to be simply swept under the rug and ignored. They have no choice but to face it head on and let the chips fall where they will. I'm hoping to have my Facsimile No. 3 website released for Christmas and there will be a special feature on this point including a restoration of the snout. This particular website is going to focus ONLY on the Facsimile No. 3 using imagery and brief expressions to indicate that the early Mormons were simply wrong and not inline with ancient Egypt or modern Egyptology. I think the site will be appreciated by many and will be of simple design but have maximum impact in striking at one's faith. Pealing away the faith of one's belief in Joseph Smith's Explanations for this Facsimile is a way to undermine the entire testimony and ultimately woo the faithful out of the church.

This is indeed a missionary effort in the reverse. The field is white already to harvest and many saints are ready to leave the church.