Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Shulem]

It's a bullseye that the unprintable or hidden teeth just so happen to be right where they need to be.

[_Shulem]

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

I'm happy to announce that WIKIPEDIA has now picked up on the missing jackal snout:

Joseph Smith Papyri

Scroll down to "Closing Vignette (Facsimile #3)"

Also, Facsimile No. 3 is properly labeled there under!



"Anubis from the original printing plate, where it appears that the nose was scraped off."

"In Egyptian funerary tradition, the god Anubis is a guide to the dead, assisting in leading the deceased through the underworld. Anubis is typically portrayed with a jackal's head to include spiked ears, narrow eyes and long snout. While the spiked ear, and narrow eyes are present, the long snout is not. Close analysis of the printing plates of facsimile 3 indicates that the snout might have been present but chiseled off."

This story will not go away but will only intensify!

[_moksha]

What if a Church essay were to concede that Anubis was indeed part of the facsimile, but made the claim that it only makes Joseph Smith's description of the facsimile truer because of the inclusion of Anubis? How can the Church be held responsible because of some plate desecration by a disgruntled anti-Mormon wood carver?

Hope that helps.

[_Shulem]

What if a Church essay were to concede that Anubis was indeed part of the facsimile

The church has no choice but to concede.

but made the claim that it only makes Joseph Smith's description of the facsimile truer because of the inclusion of Anubis? How can the Church be held responsible because of some plate desecration by a disgruntled anti-Mormon wood carver?

Hope that helps.

You're not making sense, perhaps you're overworked. Pour a tall glass of wine and go to bed.

[_moksha]

You're not making sense, perhaps you're overworked. Pour a tall glass of wine and go to bed.

You are making the assumption that this should make sense, which is strange considering this is the Book of Abraham being discussed.

I would settle for a Diet Coke.

[_Physics Guy]

The row of evenly spaced marks in front of the pointy-headed creature's face does look odd. It could not have been part of the woodcut as such, either before or after a snout was removed, since scratches in the cutaway part of the wood would never get any ink and so would never show on any print made from the woodcut.

Indeed it's hard to think why these marks would be there. If there was some multi-pronged tool that tended to leave such marks just in normal use, then you'd think there'd be more marks like this all over this woodcut.

If Shulem is right that this was a mark made by the carver to record a revision to the original woodcut, then I think we should try to learn whether there was an established practice of making such marks in cases where a revision was made. First of all it would be quixotic for the carver to add this particular mark on purpose if there was no precedent for this kind of mark. Who would ever know what it meant?

Secondly, it seems to me that professional woodcut makers might well have wanted to have a way of showing when a woodcut had been revised at a client't request. Woodcuts were for the centuries the only way to mass-reproduce images, and normally it would be the carver's job to reproduce a given image exactly. If a print came out different from the original, that carver might never work in the industry again. So if woodcuts were revised at the client's direction, carvers might well want to be able to record this fact in some way, to cover their own backsides. Carving some kind of industry-standard sign into the woodcut itself would be the obvious way to do this. It would never show in prints but it would be there in the woodcut if anyone wanted to question the carver's work.

Can we do some research into the history of woodcuts, to see whether a series of hashes might possibly have been a conventional sign to indicate a revision? An awful lot of woodcuts were made over the centuries. Woodcutting was an important industry for a long time. Somebody must have studied it. One might have to dig pretty deep into the history to find anything like conventions for revision marks, since most history probably focuses on the prints rather than the carved blocks, but if there were any such conventions then they would have had to be well known in the trade or they would not have been useful. Any scholar who has looked at a lot of woodcut carvings ought to be able to say something about this issue.

Just imagine if we can find some authoritative text about woodcutting which clearly states that a row of five short strokes was the standard notation to mark where a feature had been removed at the client's request. That would really be a big hit for Shulem.

[_aussieguy55]

I find discussion with LDS about this matter can give one a migraine. In response to my comment about the change to Anubis' face one a Michael Hoggan commented over on Patheos

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... raham.html

"Images in general have different interpretations. Joseph was not an Egyptologist. I would also point out that the field was definitely in its infancy (if that) during his lifetime. The papyri may have been damaged and they put the picture together in a way that made sense to them.
God was primarily interested in giving Joseph doctrinal information."

"As an add-on to my previous comment, I don't consider it at all unusual for people to modify images in an attempt to illustrate a particular thing. It is also certainly possible for the same image to be used to convey very different things. How many times have you seen an image of a famous figure with a caption that isn't a quote from that person?"

I wonder how they would have dealt with Fac 1 if it had been removed undamaged and the priest had a Jackal head.

[_Shulem]

The row of evenly spaced marks in front of the pointy-headed creature's face does look odd. It could not have been part of the woodcut as such, either before or after a snout was removed, since scratches in the cutaway part of the wood would never get any ink and so would never show on any print made from the woodcut

Indeed, we logically conclude that the 5 marks could not be printed as part of the facsimile because they are set in the recessed area below the point whereon ink on the raised design makes contact with the paper, thus the marks are not part of the overall artwork.

Indeed it's hard to think why these marks would be there. If there was some multi-pronged tool that tended to leave such marks just in normal use, then you'd think there'd be more marks like this all over this woodcut.

Indeed, these 5 marks raise questions. They are unique.

If Shulem is right that this was a mark made by the carver to record a revision to the original woodcut, then I think we should try to learn whether there was an established practice of making such marks in cases where a revision was made. First of all it would be quixotic for the carver to add this particular mark on purpose if there was no precedent for this kind of mark. Who would ever know what it meant?

Quixotic = exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical. I had to look that up. Ha ha ha.

It's just a matter of time before we find out more about whether revision marks were a standard in the industry.

Secondly, it seems to me that professional woodcut makers might well have wanted to have a way of showing when a woodcut had been revised at a client't request. Woodcuts were for the centuries the only way to mass-reproduce images, and normally it would be the carver's job to reproduce a given image exactly. If a print came out different from the original, that carver might never work in the industry again. So if woodcuts were revised at the client's direction, carvers might well want to be able to record this fact in some way, to cover their own backsides. Carving some kind of industry-standard sign into the woodcut itself would be the obvious way to do this. It would never show in prints but it would be there in the woodcut if anyone wanted to question the carver's work.

In due time all will be revealed. We'll find out whether this was a practice or not. Even if it wasn't, that doesn't nix the idea that it was a one-time thing known only to Reuben Hedlock. The theory is plausible regardless. That's the beauty of it! Ha ha ha! If apologist can assert plausibility at every turn, so can I!

Can we do some research into the history of woodcuts, to see whether a series of hashes might possibly have been a conventional sign to indicate a revision? An awful lot of woodcuts were made over the centuries. Woodcutting was an important industry for a long time. Somebody must have studied it. One might have to dig pretty deep into the history to find anything like conventions for revision marks, since most history probably focuses on the prints rather than the carved blocks, but if there were any such conventions then they would have had to be well known in the trade or they would not have been useful. Any scholar who has looked at a lot of woodcut carvings ought to be able to say something about this issue.

There are answers and there are those who know them. I think we can rest assured they are forthcoming. Woodworking and printing in Reuben Hedlock's time was a specialized trade but the practice and art is certainly not forgotten to this day.

Just imagine if we can find some authoritative text about woodcutting which clearly states that a row of five short strokes was the standard notation to mark where a feature had been removed at the client's request. That would really be a big hit for Shulem.

That would be a dream come true! Nonetheless, it's plausible it was a notation known only to Hedlock. So, either way, I'm going to win this one. I've got Anubis on my side.

[_Shulem]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... raham.html

Anubis was always embarrassed by what he called his "snout," and so he went to a plastic surgeon for a nose job.

No, that's not true. Anubis is not ashamed of being a god of Egypt. What is shameful is that the Mormons have incorrectly labeled him a slave in their book of canon. That is what is most embarrassing for the church in Facsimile No. 3. Continued laughter and mocking of Anubis on your part is utterly disgraceful and unprofessional. Can you imagine John Gee making such a statement?

Would you make a similar or derisive comment about Muhammad? If so, BYU would fire you on the spot.

You're a hypocrite, Dan. You really are.

[_Shulem]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... raham.html

"Images in general have different interpretations. Joseph was not an Egyptologist. I would also point out that the field was definitely in its infancy (if that) during his lifetime. The papyri may have been damaged and they put the picture together in a way that made sense to them.
God was primarily interested in giving Joseph doctrinal information."

"As an add-on to my previous comment, I don't consider it at all unusual for people to modify images in an attempt to illustrate a particular thing. It is also certainly possible for the same image to be used to convey very different things. How many times have you seen an image of a famous figure with a caption that isn't a quote from that person?"

The image of Anubis in the funerary vignette has one interpretation and one only: It is Anubis a god of Egypt. That is the only interpretation that is true and correct. Anything other than that is nonsense -- evil.

You're right, Joseph Smith was not an Egyptologist, nor was he a prophet, seer, and revelator who could translate hieroglyphic into English. He couldn't interpret the figures or read the writing in Facsimile No. 3. Everything he said about the figures and the writing is nonsense -- evil.

The vignette of Facsimile No. 3 was whole and intact. We have the figures and the writing. Nothing is missing except for the snout which Joseph Smith had removed. Why?

There is no excuse for what Smith did to sacred Egyptian funerary documents in slandering their memory and falsifying his ability to interpret and read the original as published in the Times and Seasons.

You sir, are a despicable Mormon and a liar.