Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Jersey Girl]

I need some help over here.

On what artifact appears the canopic jars or was there such a thing to begin with? I'm completely confused because I don't recall the information I had years ago.

[_Jersey Girl]

What is this thing right here? It's got the canopic jars. Fac 1, okay. But does this have any relation to the wood cut we're looking at? Sorry about all the questions. I have to reorient myself to all of this again. I'll try to search up the information I need.



Where is Shirts when you need him? Out back BBQing a squirrel or something?

[_Jersey Girl]

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)

I need remedial training so bad it's not even funny. I'm nearly completely lost here. Okay, let me question you before I answer your scored question. Because you know me, I'm going to beat it to death before I answer anything.

Are you saying that the wood cut plate (whatever) originally had the snout (and possibly the second ear) of Anubis and the engraver chiseled it (or both) off?

If it originally had the snout (possible second ear) from what artifact did the engraver produce this from?

[_Shulem]

I need remedial training so bad it's not even funny. I'm nearly completely lost here. Okay, let me question you before I answer your scored question. Because you know me, I'm going to beat it to death before I answer anything.

Are you saying that the wood cut plate (whatever) originally had the snout (and possibly the second ear) of Anubis and the engraver chiseled it (or both) off?

If it originally had the snout (possible second ear) from what artifact did the engraver produce this from?

Review this thread as well as this one: A few questions for Shulem

Reuben Hedlock engraved the woodcuts for the purpose of printing the three Facsimiles of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham. There is a great deal of controversy about Smith's interpretations and handling of the papyrus as he used it to depict his story.

You really need to read Charles Larson's book available FREE here online:

By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

It's a real good read and will open your eyes to what's going on.

A must read!

[_Shulem]

Get a New Perspective:

Facsimile Printing Plates

Click the link above to the Joseph Smith papers

1. Feel free to remove the right description panel by sliding it over so the woodcut image fills the entire screen.
2. Use the enlargement feature until Anubis and his surroundings fill the screen.
3. Center the image.
4. Use the rotating arrow to observe the woodwork cut from every angle: Side to side and upside down.
5. Magnify, rotate, and move the image as needed to get a perspective of the wood work from every angle.

Fascinating!

Comments, anyone?

[_Shulem]

More Fuel for the Fire:

The reconstruction of Joseph Smith's papyrus to the Facsimiles is atrocious. There is what seems an endless list of errors and blunders in which Smith and Hedlock have proven their inability to inspire genuinity from the papyrus into the woodcut. Others have touched on this in various commentaries and more importantly professional evaluations from Egyptologists. But, the responsibility lies with Joseph Smith when it comes to finding blame and pointing fingers. I blame him because he's the prophet and Hedlock was only his stooge craftsman. Smith created fictitious names in the Facsimile Explanations and the Book of Abraham story itelf. How are Latter-day Saints today expected to believe this nonsense when he couldn't get the portraits right? You'd think someone so inspired with the heavens through revelation in coming up with names could at least get the portraits right.

I demonstrated earlier that Smith put a white man's head on a black man's body in Facsimile No. 1. There's simply no question about it. It's a major blooper for sure! And to top it off, we are supposed to accept his revelation that the name of the black/white man is "The idolatrous priest of Elkenah". Smith thought to pull rabbits out of hats in coming up with names but couldn't tell the difference between a white man and a black man. Red flag!

Now, you will note another blunder wherein the feet of Abraham laying on the altar in Facsimile No. 1 are black. They should not be black! They should be white like the white persons in Facsimile No. 3! The problem is that Smith and Hedlock were too dumb to properly incorporate the anklets on the lower legs of Abraham and depict the bare feet of a white man.

Compare the actual Facsimile with the original papyrus and see how Smith couldn't get it right. If he can't get the feet right how can we trust him to get the names right?

Egyptian Papyri for Facsimile No. 1

A Facsimile from the Book of Abraham No. 1

[_Lemmie]

More Fuel for the Fire:

The reconstruction of Joseph Smith's papyrus to the Facsimiles is atrocious. There is what seems an endless list of errors and blunders in which Smith and Hedlock have proven their inability to inspire genuinity from the papyrus into the woodcut. Others have touched on this in various commentaries and more importantly professional evaluations from Egyptologists. But, the responsibility lies with Joseph Smith when it comes to finding blame and pointing fingers. I blame him because he's the prophet and Hedlock was only his stooge craftsman. Smith created fictitious names in the Facsimile Explanations and the Book of Abraham story itelf. How are Latter-day Saints today expected to believe this nonsense when he couldn't get the portraits right? You'd think someone so inspired with the heavens through revelation in coming up with names could at least get the portraits right.

I demonstrated earlier that Smith put a white man's head on a black man's body in Facsimile No. 1. There's simply no question about it. It's a major blooper for sure! And to top it off, we are supposed to accept his revelation that the name of the black/white man is "The idolatrous priest of Elkenah". Smith thought to pull rabbits out of hats in coming up with names but couldn't tell the difference between a white man and a black man. Red flag!

Now, you will note another blunder wherein the feet of Abraham laying on the altar in Facsimile No. 1 are black. They should not be black! They should be white like the white persons in Facsimile No. 3! The problem is that Smith and Hedlock were too dumb to properly incorporate the anklets on the lower legs of Abraham and depict the bare feet of a white man.

Compare the actual Facsimile with the original papyrus and see how Smith couldn't get it right. If he can't get the feet right how can we trust him to get the names right?

Egyptian Papyri for Facsimile No. 1

A Facsimile from the Book of Abraham No. 1

Thanks again for the analysis, Paul, following the development of your idea has been fascinating!

Maybe someone has already done this, so I apologize if my ignorance makes this an obviously dumb question, but have you ever considered analyzing the why of Joseph Smith' choices here, sort of like analyzing the results of a Rorschach test? You have already done it in some areas, such as Joseph Smith' reaction to the black skin and the jackal head. Just as in other areas, was there something in his contemporary world that he copied, or that influenced how he chose the backstories and names for the vignettes the way he did?

[_moksha]

So why does it matter that Joseph chose to give Anubis an extraterrestrial head rather than one of a jackal? If preciseness was demanded Joseph could have used the head of an African golden wolf.

Seems like authors are routinely granted a degree of artistic license, so why not just accept it in this case?

[_Lemmie]

So why does it matter that Joseph chose to give Anubis an extraterrestrial head rather than one of a jackal? If preciseness was demanded Joseph could have used the head of an African golden wolf.

Seems like authors are routinely granted a degree of artistic license, so why not just accept it in this case?

Authors, yes. Interpreters, no! Although I do like your description of the alternative as "an extraterrestrial head." That seems fitting. Maybe the angels he saw were really visiting conehead aliens, and the spiky thing is an homage to that.

[_Shulem]

Maybe someone has already done this, so I apologize if my ignorance makes this an obviously dumb question, but have you ever considered analyzing the why of Joseph Smith' choices here, sort of like analyzing the results of a Rorschach test? You have already done it in some areas, such as Joseph Smith' reaction to the black skin and the jackal head. Just as in other areas, was there something in his contemporary world that he copied, or that influenced how he chose the backstories and names for the vignettes the way he did?

Deeper and deeper we go. I love the Book of Abraham controversy! Your questions are vast and answers thereto would cover a large amount of space which we could hardly appreciate or undertake in this thread.

Joseph Smith was a common thief and stole just about everything he could get his hands on to enhance his ideas in the Book of Abraham. He had friends and a lot of help. He did not do it on his own. He studied the Hebrew language, the Bible in general, Josephus, and other sources at his disposal. Smith and his friends created the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language which was supposed to be revelations in understanding the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian language.

Here is a sample wherein Smith borrowed from the ancient historian Josephus to further embellish his own ideas:

The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] call Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans

Having preached the gospel unto the heathen, was forewarned of God to go down into Ahmehstrah, or Egypt, and preach the gospel unto the Ahmehstrahans

But Smith adds the divine AH to the Egyptians which makes little sense considering Jehovah was such a jealous God.

Ah

"The first being who exercises supreme power" (Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar)

Smith used the Ah:

Ahmeos

"God without beginning or end" (Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar)

Ahman

In the EAG, W.W. Phelps designated the word "Ah" as a sacred name to God Almighty.


What a mess