How Did I Stop Believing My Own Evidence for the Book of Abraham?!

[Philo Sofee]

nonlds scholars suggest the upper "hand" is the wing of a bird hovering over the figure on the couch.

Although this non-LDS Egyptologist believes it is a hand, and his reconstruction of the scene would actually make Smith less wrong than many other reconstructions: http://www.mormonthink.com/files/Lanny_Bell_article.pdf. Figuring out the exact original form of the vignette is difficult, because "every proposed reconstruction of the vignette of P. Joseph Smith I entails attributing to it at least one 'unique' element", i.e., while it's a type of scene that shows up a lot in Egyptian art, the surviving pieces of the vignette don't quite match any other known examples of the scene. That gives the apologists a tiny bit of wiggle room, though not enough for their arguments to actually make sense.

Yes, no two facsimiles are ever exactly the same because they were made by individuals for individuals, so there will always be variety, as there are with hypocephali as Hauslern has so shown us with all those cool inks... It may give them a little wiggle room, but this amounts to little more than a blip on a radar screen. Their central view is so far off from what the ancient Egyptians meant it is an entire different world of discourse, a discourse which Joseph Smith simply did not tap into. Parallels do not mean causation, something I had never entertained when I was out-Nibleying Nibley himself with parallels in my heyday of all the fun.
I know it was much more fun to pull parallels from 3000 B.C. and then another one from 400 A.D. from an entirely different culture, hundreds if not thousands of miles away, and then for extra measure nab a few from between 600B.C. and 400 B.C. from four or five different cultures, and imagine the ancient world had a uniform paradigm with the parallels, through all times and in all cultures, but that just doesn't work. I used to search for other scholars who used Nibley's scattered methodology in order to get some "hits for Joseph Smith" and when I found them I made a fatally flawed assumption.
Other non-Mormon scholars were doing it this way in their research and studies, therefore Nibley was justified in doing so! I had found proof of Nibley's method! What a glorious day. And then came the crash. Perhaps this didn't prove Nibley's method correct so much as the other scholars methodological use wrong as Nibley's was. I can testify that was a terribly deflating time, if not an enlightening one for me. Man I moped for weeks after that once it dawned on me that rather than showing Nibley's method valid it showed all those who used that eclectic illogical method were all together wrong in using it.

[Shulem]

The Bird Wing vs. a Human Hand is really a moot point. It doesn't matter. A human hand is not going to turn the person on the Lion Bed into an Asiatic such as Abraham. It's Osiris, period. Hand or wing, it's still Osiris.

The real problem for Facsimile No. 1, is that there is no knife and the scene is taking place on the banks of the Nile river as indicated by the water and crocodile. That kills Joseph Smith's story that places the scene outside of Egypt. I've discussed these matters down in the thread of my signature. That thread destroys the Book of Abraham in its entirety.

Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

[hauslern]

Interesting thesis on Fac 3 https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=etd
One can download

He talks about the printing plates

"The Challenge with Anubis
Though Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front, some have argued that he
is nevertheless present in Facsimile No. 3. These individuals suggest the head of the individual
standing behind the deceased (Figure 6) has been either badly drawn or otherwise significantly
altered and should have originally been the head of a jackal, representing the Egyptian god
Anubis.41 The reasons cited for this argument have included the ear-like shape atop the head of
Figure 6, his black skin, and the hieroglyphic text written above him. However, each of these
points of reasoning have major issues surrounding them that are worth careful consideration.
The first issue has to do with the claim that the cone-shaped item atop the head of Figure
6 was originally meant to represent a jackal ear.42 One critic has even gone so far as to claim that
the original lead printing plate for Facsimile No. 3 contained a jackal snout to accompany the
apparent ear, but that Joseph Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to remove it.43 However, a close
look at the lead plate suggests nothing more than the expected carving and chiseling necessary to
create the plate to begin with, and any argument otherwise is entirely speculative.44

What do you think Shulem?

[Philo Sofee]

Interesting thesis on Fac 3 https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=etd
One can download

He talks about the printing plates

"The Challenge with Anubis
Though Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front, some have argued that he
is nevertheless present in Facsimile No. 3. These individuals suggest the head of the individual
standing behind the deceased (Figure 6) has been either badly drawn or otherwise significantly
altered and should have originally been the head of a jackal, representing the Egyptian god
Anubis.41 The reasons cited for this argument have included the ear-like shape atop the head of
Figure 6, his black skin, and the hieroglyphic text written above him. However, each of these
points of reasoning have major issues surrounding them that are worth careful consideration.
The first issue has to do with the claim that the cone-shaped item atop the head of Figure
6 was originally meant to represent a jackal ear.42 One critic has even gone so far as to claim that
the original lead printing plate for Facsimile No. 3 contained a jackal snout to accompany the
apparent ear, but that Joseph Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to remove it.43 However, a close
look at the lead plate suggests nothing more than the expected carving and chiseling necessary to
create the plate to begin with, and any argument otherwise is entirely speculative.44

What do you think Shulem?

Can't wait to see Shulem's response. In the meantime, with Muhlestein as this Guy's chair? He won't possibly be able to get anything right...

[hauslern]

Tamis once he had completed a paper for publication is going to comment on it.

[Shulem]

What do you think Shulem?

What I think is not important. What the scribe who penned the vignette thinks is important. Nonetheless, I'll comment on Barney's apologetic trickery. I'll go ahead and put Barney in his place and hand him his head by critiquing just one sentence, the first from the paragraph you quoted above. That should be easy enough. I'll gladly kick his sorry ass and send him home to mama-Muhlestein for some more sour milk. So what did baby-Barney say?

Though Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front

1) Barney calls attention to the fact that Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front; thus he inadvertently admits that he recognizes that Anubis is somehow associated with the vignette but insists he's not leading in front which EVERYONE in the whole world can easily agree. Anubis is NOT in the front. But note that Barney consciously knows the person is Anubis because he invokes the name "Anubis" rather than refer to the person according to Smith's translation.

2) Barney knows Anubis is NOT in the front and he like everyone else sees that he's in the REAR. Gotcha!

some have argued that he is nevertheless present in Facsimile No. 3.

1) "Some"? Who are these "SOME"? Oh, I get it, it's anyone and everyone outside the membership of Barney's Church! Virtually the whole world.

2) "Some"? This is worded to imply that perhaps only few or a much smaller part of the population that know anything about Facsimile No. 3, argue that Anubis is present in Facsimile No. 3. Every Egyptologists outside the membership of the Church will argue that the person therein is Anubis and a corrupted representation of how he normally appears. Therefore, the only "some" that should be mentioned are the Mormon Egyptologists and their apologists who would argue for the reverse. The out-numbering against the apologists for in favor of Anubis being present is simply staggering -- nearly universal. The Mormons are lonely, a lonely group of people who make a particular claim about the person of Fig. 6, when the whole world knows otherwise.

3) If Barney wants to imply that Anubis is NOT present in Facsimile No. 3, as the world insists it is, then he will also have to prove that the name "ANUBIS" is not present in the writing of the register above the character in which Smith claimed was a human slave.

4) Can Barney prove that Anubis or his name is NOT present in the Facsimile? If so, prove it! What say ye, Barney-baby?

[Philo Sofee]

Tamis once he had completed a paper for publication is going to comment on it.

You are welcome to send him my paper if you care to. I am looking forward to his ideas. It's always a terrific idea to learn from Egyptologists on this subject....

[Philo Sofee]

What do you think Shulem?

What I think is not important. What the scribe who penned the vignette thinks is important. Nonetheless, I'll comment on Barney's apologetic trickery. I'll go ahead and put Barney in his place and hand him his head by critiquing just one sentence, the first from the paragraph you quoted above. That should be easy enough. I'll gladly kick his sorry ass and send him home to mama-Muhlestein for some more sour milk. So what did baby-Barney say?

Though Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front

1) Barney calls attention to the fact that Anubis is not found leading the deceased from in front; thus he inadvertently admits that he recognizes that Anubis is somehow associated with the vignette but insists he's not leading in front which EVERYONE in the whole world can easily agree. Anubis is NOT in the front. But note that Barney consciously knows the person is Anubis because he invokes the name "Anubis" rather than refer to the person according to Smith's translation.

2) Barney knows Anubis is NOT in the front and he like everyone else sees that he's in the REAR. Gotcha!

some have argued that he is nevertheless present in Facsimile No. 3.

1) "Some"? Who are these "SOME"? Oh, I get it, it's anyone and everyone outside the membership of Barney's Church! Virtually the whole world.

2) "Some"? This is worded to imply that perhaps only few or a much smaller part of the population that know anything about Facsimile No. 3, argue that Anubis is present in Facsimile No. 3. Every Egyptologists outside the membership of the Church will argue that the person therein is Anubis and a corrupted representation of how he normally appears. Therefore, the only "some" that should be mentioned are the Mormon Egyptologists and their apologists who would argue for the reverse. The out-numbering against the apologists for in favor of Anubis being present is simply staggering -- nearly universal. The Mormons are lonely, a lonely group of people who make a particular claim about the person of Fig. 6, when the whole world knows otherwise.

3) If Barney wants to imply that Anubis is NOT present in Facsimile No. 3, as the world insists it is, then he will also have to prove that the name "ANUBIS" is not present in the writing of the register above the character in which Smith claimed was a human slave.

4) Can Barney prove that Anubis or his name is NOT present in the Facsimile? If so, prove it! What say ye, Barney-baby?

Yep, you have him by the nutsack...I noticed the same thing, but your challenge here to him is even stronger.

[hauslern]

Tamis shared this illustration of Anubis BEHIND the deceased.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15X6 ... 5xgz0/edit

[Philo Sofee]

Tamis shared this illustration of Anubis BEHIND the deceased.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15X6 ... 5xgz0/edit

That's a great pic. I just went back into Barney's Master's Thesis to see if he had this, and he doesn't. He has a really good group of documents all in one spot however! I give the kid credit for doing a lot of work, for sure. So, yet again, here we are with yet more information with which to update ourselves. Very good, thanks for sharing that Hauslern.