Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_abinadi_fire]

Technically it’s the “missing lacuna and missing snout from the missing papyrus” theory.

There are lacuna on the other papyrus in the middle of vignettes. The point is, there is no original to compare the facsimile to. For me the botched translations of facsimile #3 are a sufficient smoking gun.

Paul, like i said I really want your theory to have legs. I think it’s funny if you think I am an apologist. All I am offering is a critique from the critical side.

[_Shulem]

Technically it’s the “missing lacuna and missing snout from the missing papyrus” theory.

There are lacuna on the other papyrus in the middle of vignettes. The point is, there is no original to compare the facsimile to. For me the botched translations of facsimile #3 are a sufficient smoking gun.

Paul, like i said I really want your theory to have legs. I think it’s funny if you think I am an apologist. All I am offering is a critique from the critical side.

I grant there is the possibility that a lacuna (of an unknown size) could have distorted the head of Anubis. However, this may be possible, it's highly improbable. There had to have been enough of the original head for Hedlock to determine a human ear did NOT exist and that the "spike" was the ear. Had there been a human ear on the original this would necessitate the need to include a wood cut/stroke allowing for a spot of paper to be untouched by the ink just like he did for the eye in allowing the sclera to appear. The human ear on a solid black head would have to be accentuated by means of an inverted shadow. So, considering the fact there is no human ear in Facsimile No. 3, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that Hedlock knew the animal ear was infact the real ear and that afterward the snout was removed to satisfy Joseph Smith's spurious instructions to alter the original.

You will agree that Hedlock was fully aware humanoids with animal heads was an Egyptian concept -- just look at Facsimile No. 2. Hedlock carved the Hypocephalus into wood to include the persons with animal heads . . . .

[_Fence Sitter]

Technically it’s the “missing lacuna and missing snout from the missing papyrus” theory.

There are lacuna on the other papyrus in the middle of vignettes. The point is, there is no original to compare the facsimile to. For me the botched translations of facsimile #3 are a sufficient smoking gun.

Paul, like i said I really want your theory to have legs. I think it’s funny if you think I am an apologist. All I am offering is a critique from the critical side.

You are correct & I have edited my original claim above to note this.

In a least one of those interior 'holes' Ritner has filled it in with a patch, so there is one less than we think there is. I still think, given the near perfect reproduction of fac#3 (only the snout is at variance), we have to give a much higher probability to it being there than not, a probability made higher, in my opinion, based on Paul's observation of the chisel marks and what appears to be the original outline of the snout in the woodcut.

Honestly, there is a lot more evidence for Paul's theory here than there is for any portion of the Book of Abraham appearing on any part of the Hor scroll, extant or not. ( And I am not trying to convince you of that, just a general statement aimed at lurkers.)

[_Shulem]

A REVELATION GIVEN TO SHULEM

The profile of a human head shares a proportionate relationship to the size and location of the human eye and ear. Yes?

Let's take the woodcut head of Anubis and briefly analyze it.

1. The head is human
2. The eye is depicted as human, but I suspect it's really animal
3. There is no human ear
4. The ear atop is animal

Now, look at the location of the eye in which Hedlock chiseled into the head. My question is this:

IS THERE SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR A HUMAN EAR BEHIND THE EYE?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If no, then the animal ear atop the head is the only valid interpretation in which to include an ear on this person.

[_Symmachus]

Some of Sanctorian's links do show varying degress of quality in the depiction of Anubis, so I'm not as troubled by the ear. The point that the hypocephalus includes animal-headed humans is a strong one, because it does suggest that Joseph Smith could tell the difference, even if the Anubis in this Facsimile was poorly drawn. Added to that, when I look a bit closer at the marks where a dog snout is hypothesized to be, they are clearly different from the marks left behind in the empty space elsewhere on the wood block. The etches of the empty space in most of the relief has left behind long furrows and flat square-like indentations in series. But where the snout seems to have been, one can not only see the rough outlines of what an Anubis mask should look like, but also six or so small marks, almost like teeth, which does suggest that there was extra attention in this part of the wood block. The only place I can find something like it is near the arm of the figure 4, just a bit below the engraved "4."

I am more persuaded now than I was at the start of the thread.

As for the point about there being a lacuna, I don't see any indication of that. The point of comparison, Facsimile 1, is clearly lacunose; look at all that empty space between figures 3 and 1, and note especially on the papyri that there is a small line of text terminating just above the arm of Anubis—a line of text that Joseph Smith omitted. There is very little empty space in the papyrus, and that Joseph Smith saw some there and filled part of it in with his drawing (but not all of it) suggests that it was already lacunose when Joseph Smith got it. And what got in the way of his conception of the image—the fragment of a column of writing—was omitted. Facsimile 1 actually shows us that removing something inconvenient to his interpretation thus has a parallel.

By contrast, there is very little empty space between figure 6 and the hieratic writing on Facsimile 3. In other words, if there was a lacuna there, it must have been only about the size of the snout that was originally there. What a coincidence that would be!

[_Themis]

I still think, given the near perfect reproduction of fac#3 (only the snout is at variance), we have to give a much higher probability to it being there than not, a probability made higher, in my opinion, based on Paul's observation of the chisel marks and what appears to be the original outline of the snout in the woodcut.

It would be nice to have someone skilled in woodcarving to comment on the possible snout area. The area looks like it was re-carved. It seems there may be different techniques used to make the original image one has in mind then how you may decide to remove something like a snout.

[_Shulem]

I just had a revelation and have unraveled the mystery!

[_Shulem]

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

[_Philo Sofee]

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

Oh crap, not you too now........

[_Symmachus]

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!