A serious investigation into what Smith claimed regarding Fig. 6 in Facsimile No. 3, did not begin to take shape until 1912 when Mormon apologists were forced to answer charges of fraudulent translations published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Apologists used citations from (friendly non-member) R.C. Webb,
"Joseph Smith as a Translator", in examining arguments against Smith's interpretations. Some of these were published in the
IMPROVEMENT ERA Vol. XVI MARCH, 1913.
Difficulty surrounding the problem dealing with Smith's poorly drawn so-called slave
"Olimlah" was a stigma that simply couldn't be resolved. Fig. 6, was a real problem for the Church and one that was simply swept under the rug:
IMPROVEMENT ERA, p. 451, 452 wrote:
The figure marked 6, is another difficulty in the present plate. This is attested by the testimonies of the authorities quoted in the Spalding pamphlet, who differ widely, even radically, in their judgments. Thus, Prof. Petrie calls it "the God Anubis." Dr. Breasted says, "the head probably should be that of a wolf or jackal, but . . . is here badly drawn." Prof von Bissing sees here "the dead (5) and his shadow (6),'' but adds, "6 only may be interpreted in different ways, but never as Smith did."
Note above, that Egyptologists call for the head of Fig. 6, to be a
jackal, not the poorly drawn human version shown in Facsimile No. 3, which is
"NEVER" interpreted
as Smith did by Egyptologists!
IMPROVEMENT ERA, p. 452 wrote:
The criticisms of the Egyptologists quoted above must be considered with the respectful attention always due to the opinions of competent scholars; but, like the judgments noted in connection with the first plate, they evidently derive most of their weight from the assumption that these plates come from, and belong in, the Book of the Dead, as Dr. Meyer does not hesitate to state, or in some other mortuary document. As a matter of fact, no such figure as 6 appears in any papyrus of the Book of the Dead that has been published in facsimile, or shown in American museums. The dress suggests that it is a male figure, but by the same token, it constitutes an extremely unusual representation of Anubis, or of any other male deity commonly present in such scenes. The priestly character might be admissible, but not, properly, in the confines of the Osirian court. The pose, also, is most unusual, to say the least. It may be safe to assert, on the basis of the facts just noted, that, if this plate be considered to be in anything like the original form, and if it be insisted that it represent one of the usual run of scenes showing the deceased before Osiris, it departs sufficiently far from the usual reverent and consistent presentation to be classed as the veriest caricature. If it does not represent any such scenes, this judgment must of course be modified accordingly.
As noted above, Fig. 6, of Facsimile No. 3, does not appear in that form in any papyrus of the Book of the Dead and is one of a kind -- an
"extremely unusual representation" of the god Anubis. If the original vignette of the papyrus had survived as did the vignette of Facsimile No. 1, we can be sure that the caricature created by Hedlock's alteration would be immediately detected! The nose scraped off the lead plate is proof that the person on the papyrus was intentionally altered. One gets the feeling from the following statement that this may have actually been a concern:
IMPROVEMENT ERA, p. 452 wrote:
Without attempting any further interpretation of the plate, or hazarding any further guess on what it may represent, it would seem safe to say that the resemblances to usual Osirian scenes end with figures 5 and 6. The
best available refuge of a critic of Joseph Smith's interpretation lies, therefore, in the statement of Dr. Budge that this is "a falsified copy." There is one difficulty with this assumption, however, and that is that such falsification as may be consistently suspected — quite entirely in the construction of figures 5 and 6, if we leave out of account the sundry other matters already noted — is all in minor matters, and not at all in the interest of rendering the group more consistent with the explanations offered in regard to it. The strong suspicion of femininity adhering to fig. 4 could hardly have escaped any observer. Consequently, the presumable changes of 5 and 6 from the usual must appear unspeakably stupid, when this one is left untouched.
Surely, Dr. John Gee now agrees with Dr. Budge that Fig. 6, is indeed
"a falsified copy" in light of the lead printing plate that shows a jackal snout was originally carved -- mirroring exactly the person on the papyrus. The evidence of
falsification along with everything Egyptologists know about Facsimile No. 3, is proof that Smith was lying and making stuff up out of thin air and removed the snout to cover his tracks. I have to think that had author R.C. Webb been able to examine the lead plate for Facsimile No. 3, with a magnifying glass, his following statement might not be so generous:
Joseph Smith as a Translator p. 153 wrote:
It may be true, as Prof. Breasted has remarked that No. 6 "is here badly drawn," but we may indicate that it is no worse in this particular than other figures in the scene. Nor is it inevitable to hold that it may have had a wolf or jackal head originally, as the Professor suggests, because the drawing of the eye accords with the usual practice of Egyptian artists in rendering profile faces; being drawn in unusual size, possibly, in order to render it apparent when the head is colored black. Whether these elements were exaggerated by the unskillfulness of the original wood-engraver, in his effort to make a small printing block, can not be decided, of course.