consiglieri,
Thank you for the input above and for complimenting my work. You'll recall at the old Mormon Discussion board, I posted a thread entitled:
Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene; well, I've since copied that thread and pasted it down below in the Archives forum of *this* board to ensure its preservation because I believe it contains important research and thoroughly rebuts the apologists -- chopping the knees out from under the Book of Abraham:
Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene
Unfortunately, I didn't get much attention or help in discussing the glue issue, perhaps readers don't think it's important. I'm going to cut and paste posts about the glue from that thread into this post so that it may be easily referenced. Let's look that over and I'll have more to say, I'm sure. Bear in mind, everything pertaining to the Book of Abraham is a deception on Smith's part. He went into the project with dirty hands, from start to finish -- the whole project was a dirty and dishonest work.
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.
The
"glue marks" are clearly bubbled either
over or
under the penciled sketching of the uppermost portion of the
priest's hair. Regardless, the interpretation of a man's head in full frontal position and an upward drawn knife was imagined in spite of the possibility that there may have actually been an original head in the extant lacuna. I've ever entertained the idea in past postings that the original head may have survived and that Smith intentionally peeled it off in order to suit his own needs. We will never know. But the remains of the headdress are present and Anubis is always Anubis. The pencil sketch and the Facsimile that was published is not germane to the Anubis depicted in funerary art.
Original Papyrus
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:Additionally, whether originally the drawing depicted Anubis’s jackal head or the head of a human, it would have been understood that the role being performed would have been performed by a priest. Perhaps it was a priest representing Anubis, but a priest nonetheless. Thus, if that piece of papyrus were missing when Joseph Smith first acquired it, and if he said it should be reconstructed to depict a priest, such a reconstruction would be accurate to the meaning of the drawing, which would be remarkable in and of itself.
The penciled in version of the priest's head drawn in full frontal position and the upward drawn knife is the ORIGINAL and FIRST interpretation of Smith's restoration. No matter how you slice it, Smith was wrong. And you, Kerry, are a lousy Egyptologist with a third rate education. The Church should fire you and hire someone else more qualified.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hello! Anyone here?
Is anybody clicking this link to peek and see what I'm yapping about?
Please, click the (Original Papyrus) link above and zoom into the glue. The swirl of glue on the paper backing. It may have been used to tack down missing fragments or it could have been spillage during the handling of the papyrus fragments upon the workman's table or, both.
What I am asking: Do you see the glue as
OVER or
UNDER the pencil marks consisting of the
"priest's" head and breeches? I don't know if it can be positively determined without examining the papyrus/paper under higher magnification. But if it can be determined whether the glue is over or under this will provide another clue in determining the process in which the vignette was interpreted.
Please comment.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/egyptian-papyri-circa-300-bc-ad-50/19
The photo above of another fragment seems crystal clear that dried glue (caramel color) and blobs of it are clearly OVER the preexisting
ruled lines that were on the paper backing BEFORE the papyrus was mounted. This gives us a good comparison by which to better judge the glue smudges on the paper backing of the priest's head. It will help us determine if the glue was blobbed over the penciling or if the pencil was drawn over the glue.
Frankly, it appears that the glue is on top of ALL the penciling not just the preexisting
ruled lines but the sketching as well. That was my first reaction but further examination seems in order. I wish I could get a little help around here, Jesus.
Where is Doctor CamNC4Me when you need him!? 
I've determined that the glue is indeed OVER all the penciling. More importantly, the glue is over the penciled sketch of the priest's hair and breaches. I don't see any traces of papyrus stuck to the glue swirl. So, my immediate conclusion is that the swirl is the result of an unintended accident wherein glue was dribbled over the work area and the excess may have been wiped away. Hence, the sketch precedes the glue and was indeed the
only and
original image in which Smith endorsed until Hedlock later fashioned the plate years later having a different head with a new knife.
This seems reasonable. This also downplays Muhlestein's apologetic argument for Smith's actually seeing a priest's head on the original papyrus:
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point
Kerry Muhlestein wrote: At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.
Let's return to the asinine statement made earlier by Muhlestein which has already been commented on but deserves more commentary in light of how bad it is. First, we all know that Muhlestein is an EXAGGERATOR such as his
"millions" of
"mummies" at his Egyptian dig site. Muhlestein loves to exaggerate!
Now look at his statement above:
"quite possible" that there could have been a chunk of papyrus in place where there is now lacuna. How about just say,
"possible" and leave off the
"quite"? Saying
"quite" makes it sound like it's really, really, really possible or,
"perhaps even probable", which was what came out of his next breath! Kerry want us to think that there is an excellent chance that Smith actually saw a man's head and a knife on the papyrus before it fell apart and Smith had faithfully recorded those details in his restoration. This is Muhlestein's little way (trick up his sleeve) of leading his readers down a garden path of deception.
We know there NEVER was a knife. That's not even possible because it defies all logic and common sense and what would Abubis need a knife for while Osiris is rising from the dead? So, no, it's not possible that there was a knife on the original. The remnants of the headdress wipe out Muhlestein's possibility for a man's head. Smith's restoration of the head and knife shown in the crude sketch drawn on the paper backing is WHAT was original to his mind and was the first attempt in making his restoration of what he never actually got to see in the first place because the lacuna was ever present when he opened the roll. Hence, Smith never saw a knife or a man's head!
Muhlestein has ZERO evidence to support the idea that a knife or man's head was original to the papyrus. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever! Funerary art and design won't hint of any evidence either. Muhlestein's faith in Smith's restoration is all he has to go on. That's all he has, hence his hands come up empty.
