Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Shulem! (Or anyone else who would be willing)

For those of us who are obviously sleeping in the back row of the classroom, could you explain, in very simple terms/words, what the smoking gun is here.

I have read the entire thread and I am a little lost.

Thanks in advance and peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

The idea that someone hacked away the jackal's snout is intriguing.

It's a brand new concept and you can be sure that LDS scholars will be taking a close look.

The pictures in the OP let the imagination run wild.

It was Joseph Smith's mind that ran wild.

But I can't get over the head spike that everyone assumes is a leftover ear.

What else could it be? If it's not an ear, what is it, The Dude?

I think, if you propose the snout was removed with intent, you also have to explain why the head spike was intentionally left behind.

You assume too much. Have you considered that it may have been left behind unintentionally?

Otherwise the hypothesis is incomplete and I couldn't go above a 3 on Shulem's scale.

(corrected version):

Do me a favor. Examine the ear of Osiris (Facsimile No. 1 Fig. 3) in the original papyrus, the Facsimile print, and the woodcut. Look at that ear, The Dude. Now look at Anubis (Facsimile No. 3 Fig. 6) the Facsimile print and the woodcut and see if you can find any trace or indication of a human ear.

Do you see a human ear on Anubis? No, you do not. Why? Because the ear is that of a jackal atop the head!

Now do you get it?

[_Fence Sitter]

Hello Ceeboo,
Good to see you again.

If Shulum is correct, a very big if, we have evidence of Joseph Smith altering the Egyptian document to fit his made up story.

Is that a smoking gun? I don't know. But it would be proof he knew his interpretations of the papyrus were not based on the actual document.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey FS!

Hello Ceeboo,
Good to see you again.

If Shulum is correct, a very big if, we have evidence of Joseph Smith altering the Egyptian document to fit his made up story.

Is that a smoking gun? I don't know. But it would be proof he knew his interpretations of the papyrus were not based on the actual document.

Thanks, friend, and good to see you too!

Yeah, the post above yours (At the end of Shulem's post engaging the Dude cleared things up a bit for me)


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Shulem]

Do you see a human ear on Anubis? No, you do not. Why? Because the ear is that of a jackal atop the head!

Now do you get it?

[_Sanctorian]

Here are some more single ear examples. The third one has a shorter ear.

http://edgarlowen.com/egypt-cartonnage-13018a.jpg

https://static.cambridge.org/resource/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20161026132711003-0826:9781107256576:04808fig4_24.png?pub-status=live

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/8b120404a3324a7fa368941567f22330/roman-times-funerary-stele-abydos-egypt-1st-century-rebirth-of-the-fhhj15.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Edfu_Temple_Relief.JPG/1280px-Edfu_Temple_Relief.JPG

[_Lemmie]

The idea that someone hacked away the jackal's snout is intriguing. The pictures in the OP let the imagination run wild. But I can't get over the head spike that everyone assumes is a leftover ear. I think, if you propose the snout was removed with intent, you also have to explain why the head spike was intentionally left behind.

If you propose the snout was removed with intent, then only if the 'head spike' was presumed, back then, to be a 'jackal ear' would you have to explain why the jackal ear was left behind when the jackal snout was removed.

If, on the other hand, the head spike was presumed back then to be a head spike, then you would have no reason to assume that it would be logical to remove it when the jackal snout was removed.

[_moksha]

moksha & Nightlion:

Based on what you see in the enlarged woodcut plate, do you sense that there was a jackal nose originally carved and afterward removed? Which way do you tend to lean knowing what you know right now? On a scale of 1-10: 1 being there is no way there was a nose and 10 being there was most certainly a nose.

[ ] 1 (definitely no)
[ ] 2
[ ] 3
[ ] 4
[ ] 5
[ ] 6
[ ] 7
[ ] 8
[ ] 9
[ ] 10 (definitely yes)

I'm not very good at those things. When asked a similar question by a medical professional about an inkblot, his only response to my answer was, "Now that's strange".

[_Shulem]

I give it 3 at this point Paul.

abinadi_fire,

I think you will change your score after a little more thoughtful consideration.

It is argued that Joseph Smith and Reuben Hedlock failed to restore Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 with a jackal head because the head was missing in the original papyrus -- thus the lucuna. Smith and Hedlock did not know that an animal head was appropriate so they fabricated a human head. You'll note that the human head they provided is for a white man but they put it on a black man's body. A major blunder, wouldn't you say?

Now, look at the woodcuts for Anubis in both Facsimiles. Look at the faces. Look at the relief cut of the wood and how it's designed to transfer ink from the wood to the paper to provide color for the skin. Facsimile No. 1 is a white man's head while Facsimile No. 3 is a a black man's.

Now, look at both woodcuts and examine the ears. You see that the one in Facsimile No. 1 is a human ear, fabricated and designed by Hedlock and approved by Joseph Smith. Right? But what of the ear for Anubis in Facsimile No. 3? Where is it? Where is the ear? Tell me where the ear is, please.

Will you consider raising your score just a little? I think that would be fair and equitable -- a more balanced approach. I really don't see that you have much of a choice.

[_Shulem]

Here are some more single ear examples. The third one has a shorter ear.

http://edgarlowen.com/egypt-cartonnage-13018a.jpg

https://static.cambridge.org/resource/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20161026132711003-0826:9781107256576:04808fig4_24.png?pub-status=live

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/8b120404a3324a7fa368941567f22330/roman-times-funerary-stele-abydos-egypt-1st-century-rebirth-of-the-fhhj15.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Edfu_Temple_Relief.JPG/1280px-Edfu_Temple_Relief.JPG

Many thanks! These are excellent examples that show divine jackal headed Anubis in his true stature -- unlike the fictitious recreation and blasphemous interpretation of Joseph Smith.