Was Facsimile 3 Tampered With, and If So, Why?

[Peppermint Patty]

On the Wikipedia page for the Joseph Smith Papyri it states that the printing plate of facsimile 3 could have been altered.   I was wondering if there is an official or unofficial response to this allegation of tampering with facsimile 3?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri      

Quote

Close analysis of the printing plates of facsimile 3 indicates that the snout might have been present but chiseled off.[71]

You can zoom in and see the altered face of Anubis here:  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/3

Edited June 8, 2019 by Peppermint Patty

[Calm]

Do they look at similar plates from that time period to see if such markings are absent?

Is there any evidence of the figure originally having a snout such as a priniting or description?

Edited June 8, 2019 by Calm

[Peppermint Patty]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do they look at similar plates from that time period to see if such markings are absent?

Is there any evidence of the figure originally having a snout such as a priniting or description?

All very good questions. I'm hoping there will be some people here with answers.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

All very good questions. I'm hoping there will be some people here with answers.

There was a brief discussion at Christmas about Anubis' snout although I wasn't terribly convinced. The main argument for the modification is that it was on the interior of the scroll which wasn't damaged like the ends. The counter-argument is that the scrolls were displayed regularly. If it was modified at the time of the making of the plate people would have noticed. There's a claim that the cutting marks indicate a later removal but I'm pretty skeptical there as similar marks are found elsewhere. See the end of this comment. There may be an argument to make here but I'm skeptical. If you know of someone making the argument in a text form (not YouTube video) I'd be interested.

Edited June 8, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

On the Wikipedia page for the Joseph Smith Papyri it states that the printing plate of facsimile 3 could have been altered.   I was wondering if there is an official or unofficial response to this allegation of tampering with facsimile 3?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri      

You can zoom in and see the altered face of Anubis here:  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/3

One might even see remnants of the teeth of that jackal-god (of course it was merely a priest wearing an Anubis mask).

[Robert F. Smith]

 ʼInpw (Anubis) is “Master of Jackals” (Dhu Tanni in Late Bronze Northwest Semitic), and practically indistinguishable from Wp-WЗwt, “Opener of the Ways” (= “key”?; cf. also Isaiah 22:22 for key-on-shoulder as a symbol of authority).  Anubis is also Hry-sštЗ, “Master of the Mysteries,” i.e., “religious secrets” (štЗw), śr dЗdЗt, “Magistrate of the Tribunal” (Pyramid Text 1713a), presides over sh-ntr, “The God’s Booth, council-chamber” (Pyramid Texts 1295,1364,1909,2012; cf. the lower register of Fac. 3), commands the deceased king to ascend and descend as a star (the Morning Star; Pyramid Texts 357,871,929,935, 1364, 1707), and is the perfect choice to preside at a sacrifice (Pyramid Texts 157,590,811d,1286).  Note the following from Pyramid Text 1287 (following Faulkner):

    Your eyes have been given to you as your two uraei
    because you are Wepwawet who is on his standard
    and Anubis who presides over the God’s Booth.

Thus, one can see Anubis as the symbol through which esoteric powers are transmitted, and a symbol of offering and sacrificial formulae (Pyramid Texts 745,806-807; cf. Fac. 1:3,6).

[The Nehor]

To conceal the map concealed within that would lead us to the lost ark.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To conceal the map concealed within that would lead us to the lost ark.

"A riddle wrapped in an enigma."  Churchill

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Do they look at similar plates from that time period to see if such markings are absent?

Is there any evidence of the figure originally having a snout such as a priniting or description?

Anubis (or an Anubis mask) always has the jackal snout, and the scene depicted in Facsimile 3 of the BofA is typical.  Anubis is acting as a soul-guide (psychopomp) for the deceased named Hor, who is entering the presence of Osiris, seated on the throne.  Osiris is, of course, the dying and rising god, in whose name all Egyptians expected to obtain eternal life (if things went well at the judgment).  So, Hor is actually the Osiris-Hor, justified.  The Jewish scribe copying and passing on the Book of Abraham is merely adapting to his own needs a common ancient Egyptian religious scene.  Each character or icon is reinterpreted to fit the BofA story.

Note this 1st century A.D. scene of Anubis and Hathor escorting the deceased into the presence of Osiris (from Lycopolis, Egypt, with Greek explanation in lower register),

Or this illustration of the Osiris-Hu-Nefer being led to the judgment and into the presence of Osiris (13th century B.C. Book of the Dead, Papyrus of Hu-Nefer),

Edited June 8, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeanne]

Just curious...does everyone here still think that the Papyrus is really a Book of Abraham translated? 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just curious...does everyone here still think that the Papyrus is really a Book of Abraham translated? 

One problem:  There are lots of Joseph Smith Papyri, many of them no longer extant (some destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire).  And we have no Egyptian papyrus today which contains the Book of Abraham text.  We do have some illustrations (three facsimiles) from other sources, and opinions range from totally negative to totally positive on whether those illustrations are correctly interpreted by Joseph Smith, and thus whether there ever actually was a Book of Abraham in ancient Egyptian.

[aussieguy55]

I think that the "slave"" and the "Prince" are holding the "waiter" because he was upset because "Abraham" complained about the service.

[aussieguy55]

Why do you block critics on this matter. ? Oh well in this matter you have a lot at stake.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

I think that the "slave"" and the "Prince" are holding the "waiter" because he was upset because "Abraham" complained about the service.

Or, a bit more seriously:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/shulem-one-of-the-kings-principal-waiters/

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Why do you block critics on this matter. ? Oh well in this matter you have a lot at stake.

Have any critics been blocked?  On this board?  We have discussed this matter on this board many times in the past and those discussions have included harsh criticism of LDS beliefs.  We take that all in stride.  

Sans rancoeur.  Besides, we like Antipodeans.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[aussieguy55]

 Is "Shulem "represented   by the characters above his hand?   I understand the names can be read and match the Egyptian characters for Isis etc. Why is the Prince holding his hand? Again the Princes' name is supposed to be above his hand?  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

 Is "Shulem "represented   by the characters above his hand?   I understand the names can be read and match the Egyptian characters for Isis etc. Why is the Prince holding his hand? Again the Princes' name is supposed to be above his hand?  

As in all Egyptian illustrations of this type, the captions overhead identify the players (as in a modern cartoon).  It is all fairly cut and dried.  You can find standard translations of all the papyri online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri .  That doesn't tell you everything you need to know, but it is a good start.

[10THAmendment]

On 6/8/2019 at 12:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

One problem:  There are lots of Joseph Smith Papyri, many of them no longer extant (some destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire).  And we have no Egyptian papyrus today which contains the Book of Abraham text.  We do have some illustrations (three facsimiles) from other sources, and opinions range from totally negative to totally positive on whether those illustrations are correctly interpreted by Joseph Smith, and thus whether there ever actually was a Book of Abraham in ancient Egyptian.

We have the facsimiles Joseph Smith attempted to interpret. Since those funerary illustrations were mistranslated on every level we can reasonably assume everything else was as well. I would like one credible source that shows the facsimile translation is accurate in any way shape or form. If you’re able to produce one I can give you dozens more by scholars that say it’s false.

And what about the document written by Joseph Smith’s scribes that show the translation of individual hieroglyphics? Are we to assume that was their own translation for fun and not Joseph Smith’s? Seems like a stretch. The same way we assume the Kinderhook plate translation in the Times and Seasons was not approved by Joseph Smith, right? But we believe that scribe was credible when recording the D&C? Picking and choosing as well as convenient. There’s a lot of that with the BofA.

We don’t need all the papyrus. We have the original facsimiles and the several examples of hieroglyphics they flopped on. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

We have the facsimiles Joseph Smith attempted to interpret. Since those funerary illustrations were mistranslated on every level we can reasonably assume everything else was as well. I would like one credible source that shows the facsimile translation is accurate in any way shape or form. If you’re able to produce one I can give you dozens more by scholars that say it’s false.

So, you put yourself in the "totally negative" column.  Going for the tis-so, tis-not vote seems pointless in scholarly circles.  The issue is one for standard Egyptology, not for apologists and polemicists.

7 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

And what about the document written by Joseph Smith’s scribes that show the translation of individual hieroglyphics? Are we to assume that was their own translation for fun and not Joseph Smith’s? Seems like a stretch. The same way we assume the Kinderhook plate translation in the Times and Seasons was not approved by Joseph Smith, right? But we believe that scribe was credible when recording the D&C? Picking and choosing as well as convenient. There’s a lot of that with the BofA.

We do not know the actual source of the Kinderhook comments, but it could have been Joseph.  The published comments were actually from William Clayton's journal, and converted by a scribe to a first-person account by Joseph, which was standard practice for the scribes putting together the LDS history eventually published under editorial control by B. H. Roberts.  A factual account is available by Book of Mormon Central, “What Do the Kinderhook Plates Reveal About Joseph Smith’s Gift of Translation? (Mosiah 8:12-13),” KnoWhy #454, July 31, 2018, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-do-the-kinderhook-plates-reveal-about-joseph-smiths-gift-of-translation .

7 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

We don’t need all the papyrus. We have the original facsimiles and the several examples of hieroglyphics they flopped on. 

We have tried to do away with lynch law in America, but someone always insists that we don't need no stinking facts, cause we could just as easily go Jaywalking with Jay Leno.  But that didn't tell us anything other than "there's a sucker born every minute" (David Hannum).  Rather than going for the jugular, we probably ought go for simple fairness.  I have tried to do that in my "Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10, Mar 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .