Jump to content

Anubis or Slave of Abraham Doing Astrology


Recommended Posts

"Facsimile #3 of the Book of Abraham is pictured below (top Image). That papyri is missing/destroyed....... but the LDS Church has had the metal printing plate that was created (created sometime between Joseph Smith and the BOA being published) which was used to create the print publication of Facsimile #3 in the LDS Scriptures originally. This plate was made after the original papyri which we don't have and seems to show that figure #6 in LDS Canon said to be a slave of Abraham and dealing with astronomy actually originally had the beak/protruding jaw of Anubis and seemingly it was removed on the metal plate by the Church before printing. This would impose that it was Anubis on the original papyri and that the Church/ Joseph Smith/or other early leader altered the plate so as to keep it in line with Joseph's translation. The Church had this plate in its possession and didn't share this item and essentially hid it away. The Ethics of this is deeply problematic and points to another significant evidence that Joseph Smith was making it up and the Book of Abraham is not what it claims to be." - Bill Reel


How are we to reconcile the removal of Anubis' protruding jaw?


 

117871773_10223448509503383_6136711420605122897_n.jpg

fac3.jpg

117842519_2687245574862412_43278791482409359_n.jpg

Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sources, please?

Thanks,

-Smac

In Egyptian funerary tradition, the god Anubis is a guide to the dead, assisting in leading the deceased through the underworld. Anubis is typically portrayed with a jackal's head to include spiked ears, narrow eyes and long snout. While the spiked ear, and narrow eyes are present, the long snout is not. Close analysis of the printing plates of facsimile 3 indicates that the snout might have been present but chiseled off.

"Facsimile Printing Plates, circa 23 February–16 May 1842," The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed June 5, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/3

Link to post
16 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

How are we to reconcile the removal of Anubis' protruding jaw?

He must have been only a puppy... or why the small ear? The restorer even tries very hard to lengthen the ear to fit the narrative. That would also be more of a beak than a jackal snout... try harder!

117842519_2687245574862412_43278791482409359_n.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
39 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Source, please for this:

Quote

"Facsimile #3 of the Book of Abraham is pictured below (top Image). That papyri is missing/destroyed....... but the LDS Church has had the metal printing plate that was created (created sometime between Joseph Smith and the BOA being published) which was used to create the print publication of Facsimile #3 in the LDS Scriptures originally. This plate was made after the original papyri which we don't have and seems to show that figure #6 in LDS Canon said to be a slave of Abraham and dealing with astronomy actually originally had the beak/protruding jaw of Anubis and seemingly it was removed on the metal plate by the Church before printing. This would impose that it was Anubis on the original papyri and that the Church/ Joseph Smith/or other early leader altered the plate so as to keep it in line with Joseph's translation. The Church had this plate in its possession and didn't share this item and essentially hid it away. The Ethics of this is deeply problematic and points to another significant evidence that Joseph Smith was making it up and the Book of Abraham is not what it claims to be." - Bill Reel

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
40 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

RFM

RFM and Dehlin's interview of Ritner

Ah.  Trying to start a board war, I see.

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
46 minutes ago, gav said:

He must have been only a puppy... or why the small ear? The restorer even tries very hard to lengthen the ear to fit the narrative. That would also be more of a beak than a jackal snout... try harder!

It almost assuredly would be a snout.  What you see in the image is almost certainly the marks of the tool removing it and not the teeth and a bird beak

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

I read that.  I think the case is really weak.  For his two questions, I would say "No" for the first one and a 1 for the second.  Especially since I read his theory.  It makes it even more improbable.

Link to post

Someone inside the church/Joseph Smith papers project has confirmed to me that the snout was originally present and was removed

Link to post

The plate had been stolen from the church. Snout was removed in church’s possession early in the history

Michael Rhodes knew it was missing because it was sold in a yard sale to a “gentile” who framed it and put it up on a wall in his basement. A friend/member saw it while visiting and and asked to take it to be examined. FARMS had Mike R. Look at it and he determined it was the actual plate. photos were taken. They were forwarded to the head Church archivist and he noticed the accession number on the back that matched their records. A year or so later they had reacquired the plate. I don't know how it got lost or how it got returned.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Someone inside the church/Joseph Smith papers project has confirmed to me that the snout was originally present and was removed

Who?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
17 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

The plate had been stolen from the church. Snout was removed in church’s possession early in the history

Michael Rhodes knew it was missing because it was sold in a yard sale to a “gentile” who framed it and put it up on a wall in his basement. A friend/member saw it while visiting and and asked to take it to be examined. FARMS had Mike R. Look at it and he determined it was the actual plate. photos were taken. They were forwarded to the head Church archivist and he noticed the accession number on the back that matched their records. A year or so later they had reacquired the plate. I don't know how it got lost or how it got returned.

Then why does the 1842 printing not have a snout? https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-and-facsimiles-1-march-16-may-1842/10.  If the printing plate originally had it and then had it removed, the 1842 printing should have the snout.

  • Like 2
Link to post
33 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Someone inside the church/Joseph Smith papers project has confirmed to me that the snout was originally present and was removed

How did they know that? Was a record kept of it or is it deduction based on the woodcut? 

Quote

Thanks for the link to what amounts to a suggestive and thoroughly irreverent graphic novel. 

In all seriousness, I looked through his arguments and I have some reservations about both arguments and conclusions. Permit me to raise my objections. Quotes will be from Mr. Osborne's page. 

Quote

 An expert craftsman familiar with 19th century lead making techniques could explain the curious traces and patterns which indicate that something was chiseled out.

Is Mr. Osborne such a craftsman? If not, why hasn't he produced one who testifies to that effect? In any case, we see the same sorts of bevels, scrapes, and marks all throughout the low-relief area of the woodcut. There was chiseling throughout. There's nothing particularly special about this besides the v-shape, which I agree with gav would likely produce a beak-shape more than a snout. Interestingly enough, the "first-ever reconstruction" in my opinion deviates from what could be derived from observing the scrapping and beveling. There's a line that travels along the top side of the 5 marks and hits the mouth area of the Anubis/Olimlah figure. Why was that relatively clear line ignored in favor of a more ambiguous line? Aren't we supposed to allow the v-shape cut to be our guide? 

Quote

Notice there is no mention of a missing jackal snout.

Weak argument, the vignette would have been recognizable even if the snout were missing. Seyffarth was going for general commentary here. 

To say the least of the fact that Osborne's theory is not convincing. It would have been easier for Joseph to recast the power-figure as a chief guard or general in the court. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

The plate had been stolen from the church. Snout was removed in church’s possession early in the history

Michael Rhodes knew it was missing because it was sold in a yard sale to a “gentile” who framed it and put it up on a wall in his basement. A friend/member saw it while visiting and and asked to take it to be examined. FARMS had Mike R. Look at it and he determined it was the actual plate. photos were taken. They were forwarded to the head Church archivist and he noticed the accession number on the back that matched their records. A year or so later they had reacquired the plate. I don't know how it got lost or how it got returned.

CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
4 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

It almost assuredly would be a snout. 

Now that's convincing... almost assuredly so!!!

Link to post
5 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

"Facsimile #3 of the Book of Abraham ................... figure #6 in LDS Canon said to be a slave of Abraham ..............................."

You titled the OP "Anubis or Slave of Abraham Doing Astrology"

Both claims are false, as are the accompanying comments which you got from who knows where.  This is one more version of pre-school "scholarship" from you.

"Fig. 6, Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

The plate had been stolen from the church. Snout was removed in church’s possession early in the history

Michael Rhodes knew it was missing because it was sold in a yard sale to a “gentile” who framed it and put it up on a wall in his basement. A friend/member saw it while visiting and and asked to take it to be examined. FARMS had Mike R. Look at it and he determined it was the actual plate. photos were taken. They were forwarded to the head Church archivist and he noticed the accession number on the back that matched their records. A year or so later they had reacquired the plate. I don't know how it got lost or how it got returned.

The most likely way such things turn up missing is by theft.  I know of a case in which an anti-Mormon actually stole a document from the LDS Archives.  He then went and showed it to Jerald Tanner, who immediately took it directly back to the LDS Archives and laid it on the boss' desk and walked out without a word.  The boss, being an idiot, just assumed that Jerald had stolen it, and put out that false word.  Unfortunately, Bill, that is often the level of reasoning you bring to such issues.  You never seem to get around to asking the really hard questions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, webbles said:

I came across a Thesis paper that talks about Facsimile 3 and includes a portion about the Anubis character.  It is from last year and even references the website that Unclean Deacon pointed out.  You can read the entire paper at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8598&context=etd.

The part about Anubis starts on page 90.  The main points that he says are:

  • Anubis is always drawn with two tall, distinct ears.  The figure in the facsimile only has one short ear and the hieroglyphic writing doesn't give much room for even one tall ear.
  • In all of the other Book of Breathings, Anubis only has black skin if the entire vignette is colored.  Since Facsimile 1 is not colored and the other parts of the Book of Breathing of Horus aren't colored, then it is extremely unlikely that Anubis would have had black skin.  He also mentions that this might mean that the figure in Facsimile 1 actually isn't Anubis.
  • Anubis always has a headdress.  Facsimile 3 doesn't have a headdress.
  • Anubis clothing is always different from the deceased clothing.  Facsimile 3 has Anubis wearing the same clothes as the deceased.
  • Even though the hieroglyphics have been translated to say "Anubis" (though in page 61, he points out that there are some possible problems with that translation), the hieroglyphics don't always relate to the character next to it.

In the Appendix C (starts on page 130), he includes almost every single known copy of the Book of Breathing.  So you can go through them and see how they compare to Facsimile 3.

It does look like the character that has been identified to be Anubis really isn't Anubis.

Thanks for this! 

  • Like 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...