Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Shulem]

The image of Anubis on the wood cut used to print Facsimile No. 3 can be appreciated in great detail at The Joseph Smith Papers:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/3

Note that Anubis only has a single ear and the head is less canine and somewhat human although if you look close at the front of the face it almost seems like Anubis' nose was broken or deformed within the woodwork.

But, nonetheless, look what I just found at the Louvre museum! It's our Late Period Anubis right out of Facsimile No. 3 having a single ear!

Egyptian Antiquities
Roman Egypt (30 BC - AD 392)

http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/funerary-hanging

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 suspect Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to re-engrave the woodcut on Facsimile No. 3 to get rid of the snout. It all seems so clear to me now!

If Reuben Hedlock faithfully chiseled an image of the jackal headed Anubis for Facsimile No. 3 as portrayed on the original papyrus drawn by Abraham, why would Joseph Smith get rid of the snout and make it look human? Why should Smith correct Abraham's original handiwork?

Did Joseph Smith instruct Reuben Hedlock to chisel the jackal snout off the original wood cut of Facsimile No. 3 prior to publication into the Times and Seasons?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No



I see an ample footprint wherein a proper jackal head was first cut and likely test printed but afterward redesigned under the direct supervision of the prophet himself. The more I look at the wood cut under magnification the more I'm convinced the jackal head was original to the papyrus which is now lost. Why Smith would change this is anyone's guess but we have to consider the evidence and question everything.

One thing is for sure: The person in the papyrus is none other than the jackal headed god, Anubis, as represented by the characters above his head:

Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection(?), foremost of the embalming booth.

[_Chap]

That spike on top of the figure's head is the key.

I have always thought it looked weird, but once the parallel with the profile of Anubis with the single ear is seen (combined with the inscription over the figure), the implication is hard to avoid. Congratulations to Shulem for bringing this up.

There may well have been a snout visible on the original papyrus, or it may just be that the snout was not easy to see, while the ear was. Whether the snout was removed deliberately is a question that will probably never be answered.

[_Shulem]

Oops, how utterly clumsy of me to neglect to mention that I presented this discovery the other day deep in another thread entitled, " A few questions for Shulem" raised by mentalgymnast, the board troll. See here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=1095861#p1095861

Special thanks to Philo Sofee, Jersey Girl, Themis, Doctor CamNC4Me, and Lemmie for their comments in recognizing the importance of this new finding.

[_Shulem]

That spike on top of the figure's head is the key.

I have always thought it looked weird, but once the parallel with the profile of Anubis with the single ear is seen (combined with the inscription over the figure), the implication is hard to avoid. Congratulations to Shulem for bringing this up.

There may well have been a snout visible on the original papyrus, or it may just be that the snout was not easy to see, while the ear was. Whether the snout was removed deliberately is a question that will probably never be answered.

Yes indeed, the ear is key. It can't simply be disregarded. That would be like thinking someone was not a Christian even though they were wearing a large decorative cross around their neck. Or is the pope Catholic? Hello!

LDS apologists have long touted how special their Facsimile No. 1 is wherein the Anubis character is shown with a human head rather than that of a jackal. The controversy evolves around the fact that a section of papyrus was broken off or damaged and therefore Smith and his engraver had no idea what was originally drawn. Nonetheless, Egyptology can't very well embrace Smith's ignorant restoration of the figure so others have recreated it to show that the head was originally that of a jackal according to standard Egyptian conventions in funerary art.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is what I see.

Here's the original blown up a bit:


postimage org safe

This is the first Anubis head I see:



Here's the second Anubis head I see:



And this is the third, most obvious one I see:



- Doc

[_Shulem]

This is going to make the hearts of the apologists go, thump. Anubis is practically ready to jump out of the Facsimile and take vengeance on the LDS church for desecrating the sacred funerary rites of the ancient Egyptians with Smith's Book of Abraham.

It's Karma, and I can smell the hammer of justice coming down on Joseph Smith for his wanton destruction and blasphemous acts he committed against one of the greatest religions in earth's history. The desecration and sacrilegious acts he committed against the Egyptian religion through his Book of Abraham is simply unforgivable.

[_Fence Sitter]

Well the reason for the change, if one occurred is obvious, only black humans were slaves in America in the 19th century.

by the way Shulem, before you go too much further with this claim, you might want to run it by an Egyptologist who is familiar with the way Anubis is portrayed in other similar settings. Much has been made by LDS appologists about the many small differences we find in Fac #1 as compared to other such scenes, when the reality is that this type of scroll (Hor) were hand prepared individually by different scribes, each scribe with different levels of artistic ability. Each scroll was unique and variations in the vignettes were normal, though the text was faily standarized. As was recognized even back then (see your link to the Clevland Whig), the scribe for the Hor scroll was not anywhere near as talented as the Ta scroll scribe. So you may just be looking a a poor job on the part of the scribe and simply a bad variation of Anubis, instead of a change directed by Smith.

As Lanny Bell pointed out in his essay on Ancient Book of Breathings like the Hor scroll

A brief introduction to "The Breathing Permit" is required. Egyptologists knew it previously as "The First Book of Breathing," but this designation was actually applied by the ancient Egyptians to a different text. The Books of Breathing" constitute a corpus of Graeco-Roman funerary compositions related to the Book of the Dead. All versions seem to have originated in the Theban area, and Amun plays an important role in them. The distinctive text of "The Breathing Permit," consisting of 17 sections ("paragraphs" or "divisions"), is fixed, with very little deviation. In marked contrast, the few vignettes accompanying this text are not standardized, but display great variation.

See here on page 2-2

[_deacon blues]

Awesome Shulem, just awesome.

[Guest]

Well the reason for the change, if one occurred is obvious, only black humans were slaves in America in the 19th century.

This would implicate Joseph Smith for incorporating American values into his own brand of Egyptology.

by the way Shulem, before you go too much further with this claim, you might want to run it by an Egyptologist who is familiar with the way Anubis is portrayed in other similar settings.

I'd like to run it through this board and get a collective idea from others if the space in the wood cut indeed appears that a jackal snout was removed by the engraver. There are a lot of smart people on this board. The details of the whole head would've course be best interpreted by professional Egyptologists. Bear in mind though, the proposed nose-print in relief form is what's left over from the hacking of the original work of an American engraver unfamiliar with Egyptian conventions. Converting papyrus imagery into a rough wood cut for printing, there are bound to be differences.

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)

[_Shulem]

Awesome Shulem, just awesome.

Thank you!

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)