Jersey Girl wrote:Wait! I've got it. YES it's damaged. It's made to look like a human.
Nailed it, baby. This is a big find. Can you clearly see the chisel marks? I can!
Yes, I can see it. The problem is that JSJr. got his hands on something unique and unknown in the region, and used it to wow the folks in town.
And it worked.
He thought he could do the same thing with the Kinderhook plates and totally screwed up. This represents a pattern of behavior that you can trace back to his glass looking days.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote: Yes, I can see it. The problem is that JSJr. got his hands on something unique and unknown in the region, and used it to wow the folks in town.
And it worked.
He thought he could do the same thing with the Kinderhook plates and totally screwed up. This represents a pattern of behavior that you can trace back to his glass looking days.
This particular finding deserves some serious attention. It raises more questions about the Joseph Smith papyrus and the handling thereof according to Smith's own liking. This is not good news for the apologists!
Shulem wrote: This particular finding deserves some serious attention. It raises more questions about the Joseph Smith papyrus and the handling thereof according to Smith's own liking. This is not good news for the apologists!
I'm sitting here flabbergasted.
Either it was already damaged when he acquired it (and didn't know the difference) or JSJr and CO. intentionally damaged it themselves.
Either way, it's damaged.
I'm sure I can come up with an apologetic defense for it.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Shulem wrote: This particular finding deserves some serious attention. It raises more questions about the Joseph Smith papyrus and the handling thereof according to Smith's own liking. This is not good news for the apologists!
I'm sitting here flabbergasted.
Either it was already damaged when he acquired it (and didn't know the difference) or JSJr and CO. intentionally damaged it themselves.
Either way, it's damaged.
I'm sure I can come up with an apologetic defense for it.
I've always suspected that Joseph Smith purposely damaged the original papyrus for Facsimile No. 1 to do away with the jackal head and make it human. I think Smith ripped a piece of the papyrus out and penciled in his own head. The papyrus we have today doesn't include the actual head. I think Smith tore it off. (Guilty as charged)
I also think Smith made Reuben Hedlock re-engrave the woodcut on Facsimile No. 3 to get rid of the snout. It all seems so clear to me now!
Jersey Girl wrote: Either it was already damaged when he acquired it (and didn't know the difference) or JSJr and CO. intentionally damaged it themselves.
Either way, it's damaged.
I'm sure I can come up with an apologetic defense for it.
Joseph Smith confessed in having a personal hand with corrections made to the Facsimile woodcuts hewn by the engraver Reuben Hedlock:
Joseph Smith HC 4:519 wrote:During the afternoon I was at my office and the printing office, correcting the first plate or cut of the records of Father Abraham, prepared by Reuben Hedlock, for the Times and Seasons, and in council in my office, in the afternoon; and in the evening with the Twelve and their wives at Elder Woodruff's, at which time I explained many important principles in relation to progressive improvement in the scale of intelligent existence.
If Reuben Hedlock faithfully chiseled an imaged of the jackal headed Anubis for Facsimile No. 3 as portrayed on the original papyrus drawn by Abraham, why would Joseph Smith order Hedlock to get rid of the snout and make it look human? Why should Smith correct Abraham's original handiwork?
Shulem wrote:I've always suspected that Joseph Smith purposely damaged the original papyrus for Facsimile No. 1 to do away with the jackal head and make it human. I think Smith ripped a piece of the papyrus out and penciled in his own head. The papyrus we have today doesn't include the actual head. I think Smith tore it off. (Guilty as charged)
I also think Smith made Reuben Hedlock re-engrave the woodcut on Facsimile No. 3 to get rid of the snout. It all seems so clear to me now!
Great find on fac 3, but I will disagree with you about fac 1. If you look at other parts of the papyri you will see a similar missing section that matches fairly well the one with fac 1. I suspect the papyri was ripped by those who first removed it from it's original casing well before the papyri was brought to Joseph Smith. This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.
Themis wrote:but I will disagree with you about fac 1. If you look at other parts of the papyri you will see a similar missing section that matches fairly well the one with fac 1. I suspect the papyri was ripped by those who first removed it from it's original casing well before the papyri was brought to Joseph Smith. This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.
I know what you're saying and have churned this in my mind time and time again. But I just don't trust Smith. There may have been more evidence on the original to lead one to reason there was a jackal head rather than human. We'll never really know exactly what Joseph Smith saw when the rolls were rolled about and cut for his exhibit. At this point, I don't give Smith the benefit of the doubt because he can't be trusted. He was a crooked liar, for sure.
Shulem wrote: I know what you're saying and have churned this in my mind time and time again. But I just don't trust Smith. There may have been more evidence on the original to lead one to reason there was a jackal head rather than human. We'll never really know exactly what Joseph Smith saw when the rolls were rolled about and cut for his exhibit. At this point, I don't give Smith the benefit of the doubt because he can't be trusted. He was a crooked liar, for sure.
The problem is we have evidence of similar missing sections suggesting they were torn together in roll form. This would happen easily from someone not taking proper care in removing them from their original case. The missing section next to fac 1 only has text and Joseph would not likely have torn it out. While I agree that Joseph is a known liar, I don't see any motivation to tear out parts. He was a master with working with what he had and would have used it in his imaginations. The two key pieces of evidence is Joseph's recreation of fac 1 is incorrect only in the missing section. The other is other missing sections showing it was ripped out in roll form. Together I think it is good evidence these missing sections were missing before Joseph ever saw the papyri.
I would add that the missing sections are not torn out with any precision, supporting accidental tearing.
Shulem wrote: I know what you're saying and have churned this in my mind time and time again. But I just don't trust Smith. There may have been more evidence on the original to lead one to reason there was a jackal head rather than human. We'll never really know exactly what Joseph Smith saw when the rolls were rolled about and cut for his exhibit. At this point, I don't give Smith the benefit of the doubt because he can't be trusted. He was a crooked liar, for sure.
The problem is we have evidence of similar missing sections suggesting they were torn together in roll form. This would happen easily from someone not taking proper care in removing them from their original case. The missing section next to fac 1 only has text and Joseph would not likely have torn it out. While I agree that Joseph is a known liar, I don't see any motivation to tear out parts. He was a master with working with what he had and would have used it in his imaginations. The two key pieces of evidence is Joseph's recreation of fac 1 is incorrect only in the missing section. The other is other missing sections showing it was ripped out in roll form. Together I think it is good evidence these missing sections were missing before Joseph ever saw the papyri.
I would add that the missing sections are not torn out with any precision, supporting accidental tearing.
Everything you've said is reasonable and seems logical enough considering what we know. However, critics have the same right as do the apologists to leave doors open and consider any plausible avenue which furthers our argument with each and every element that comprises Smith's Book of Abraham. I've spent countless hours pondering the Facsimile No. 1 original papyrus and how and in what manner it was presented to the church. I'm open to the possibility that Smith may have had some knowledge that Anubis was originally jackal headed with a cup in his extended hand rather than a knife. Of course, I can't prove it and the evidence is not there to build a proper case to show that this is so, but it's plausible or at least possible when one considers how much liberty and license Smith took with his papyri.
I think we can agree on that much.
Now, the carving of the face for Fig. 6 in Facsimile No. 3 is a legitimate concern because the woodwork cuts in front of the face support the idea that a snout was originally there but was hacked off. Have you been able to discern that through high resolution examination? For me, it's like a bloody revelation! Joseph Smith hacked the face off of Anubis and called him a slave! If this is true, it's a game changer and a serious strike against Smith's credibility.
