Jump to content

Anubis or Slave of Abraham Doing Astrology


Recommended Posts

This was a popular dead horse to beat on another board quite a few years ago. Does it smell so bad over there you decided to drag the horse corpse in here?

  • Like 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Robert Ritner  on MS translated the lines above the "slave"  "" Words spoken by Anubis Lord of Heaven who makes protection foremost of the westerners." 

Hence "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."

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 hours 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.

Anubis is not always drawn with two tall, distinct ears.  It took me 30 sec. to find this example, from a Ptolemaic Period (contemporary with the BB papyrus of Hor) copy of the Book of the Dead.  The figure is labeled as Anubis, so there's no doubt what is depicted.

image.png.a9f43d1067558aa132d16c4faf414235.png

Link to post
2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

Anubis is not always drawn with two tall, distinct ears.  It took me 30 sec. to find this example, from a Ptolemaic Period (contemporary with the BB papyrus of Hor) copy of the Book of the Dead.  The figure is labeled as Anubis, so there's no doubt what is depicted.

image.png.a9f43d1067558aa132d16c4faf414235.png

The thesis is talking about Book of the Breathings.  You can look in the thesis and see almost all of the Book of Breathings (there is only one missing) and each of them have two ears.

Edited to add: Here's the quote from the thesis starting at the bottom of page 90:

Quote

Furthermore, in the Book of Breathings, Anubis is always drawn with two tall, distinct ears, rather than a single ear. The hieroglyphic writing above Figure 6 is so low that no such ears would have been able to fit without interfering with the text above them.

 

Edited by webbles
  • Like 3
Link to post
8 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Robert Ritner  on MS translated the lines above the "slave"  "" Words spoken by Anubis Lord of Heaven who makes protection foremost of the westerners." 

The author of the thesis doesn't try to re-translate the words.  He assumes that Dr. Ritner and Dr. Rhodes correctly translated them.  He has their translations on page 40.  It includes Dr. Ritner's 2000 translation (“Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection, foremost of the embalming booth(?).”) and Dr. Rhodes' 2002 translation (“Words spoken by Anubis who makes protection Lord of heaven, Foremost of the Westerners.”).

He does point out potential issues in their reading.  You can read the potential issues for the Anubis hieroglyphs on page 61-62.  The last sentence in that section is:

Quote

Thus, the arms, the presence of determinatives, and absence of the () glyph suggest that this column does not read “Anubis” so easily.

The thesis also points out other instances where the character doesn't resemble the hieroglyphs.  Here's the entire paragraph from page 93 where he mentions that:

Quote

While this is indeed a complex issue, we must remember that the relation between the hieroglyphic captions and the pictures which we assume they describe is not always as straightforward as we would like it to be. For example, Papyrus Rhind 1 and 2 (Edinburgh 908 + 540, and 909) contain several vignettes in which a jackal-headed figure, that we would assume to be Anubis, is sometimes labeled as Thoth, Horus, and even Osiris.53 A text on the wall in the tomb of Ramses VI labels a bearded mummiform figure as “Corpse of Isis,” and a similar figure as “Corpse of Anu(bis),” when we would normally expect Isis to be portrayed as a female, and Anubis as a jackal.54 At the temple of Ramses II at Abydos, the relief of a fully humanoid male is also given the caption “Anubis, Lord of the sacred land.”55 If such a phenomenon could happen on these Theban documents, there is certainly a possibility that the figures in Facsimile No. 3 can be interpreted independent from their hieroglyphic captions as well.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
17 hours ago, DBMormon said:

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

We are to assume the credibility of an anonymous source based on...your credibility?  That’s pretty funny!

  • Like 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Who?

Thanks,

-Smac

Source is anonymous but michael Rhodes can confirm I’m sure

Link to post
38 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Source is anonymous but michael Rhodes can confirm I’m sure

What can Dr. Rhodes confirm?  That the printing plate originally had a snout or that the printing plate was stolen?  It sounds like he can confirm the later but, based on what you've said, that doesn't mean the former.  Even if the printing plate was stolen, we have the 1842 original printing so it shows us what the original printing plate had.

Link to post
12 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Source is anonymous but michael Rhodes can confirm I’m sure

You need to understand that any unverified source from you is a joke.  And it has more to do with you than the unverified source.

The funny thing, Bill, is that I knew your whole "Strengthening Feeble Knees and Lifting Hands that Hang Down" gag was just that years ago.  You were all about shameless self promotion then, in a poorly-fitted sheep's clothing.  Now, speed up a few years and I couldn't have imagined that your self-promoting implosion would morph into breaking knees and dragging hands.  Faith crisis?  Truth crisis?  Nah, I think your new paradigm is an honesty crisis.

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 8/15/2020 at 9:40 AM, DBMormon said:

Source is anonymous but michael Rhodes can confirm I’m sure

I don't think citing anonymous sources as a response to a CFR, as a means of substantiating factual arguments, on this board is kosher.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3
Link to post
On 8/14/2020 at 3:52 PM, DBMormon said:

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

 

On 8/14/2020 at 4:09 PM, smac97 said:

Who?

Thanks,

-Smac

Hauglid, I would suspect. 

Link to post
44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Hauglid, I would suspect. 

Maybe, but given Hauglid's recent actions I don't think he'd exactly be sheepish about putting his name on that opinion. No point in being anonymous now. 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Maybe, but given Hauglid's recent actions I don't think he'd exactly be sheepish about putting his name on that opinion. No point in being anonymous now. 

Maybe not, but it was Reel who gave the hearsay quote. Maybe he thinks he needs to protect Hauglid (if that’s who it was). 

Link to post
On 8/15/2020 at 10:18 PM, PacMan said:

You need to understand that any unverified source from you is a joke.  And it has more to do with you than the unverified source.

The funny thing, Bill, is that I knew your whole "Strengthening Feeble Knees and Lifting Hands that Hang Down" gag was just that years ago.  You were all about shameless self promotion then, in a poorly-fitted sheep's clothing.  Now, speed up a few years and I couldn't have imagined that your self-promoting implosion would morph into breaking knees and dragging hands.  Faith crisis?  Truth crisis?  Nah, I think your new paradigm is an honesty crisis.

Thanks for the personal attack.  In reality you don't care about my story or knowing it as it really is.  but by all means... please do continue.

Link to post
On 8/16/2020 at 1:50 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe not, but it was Reel who gave the hearsay quote. Maybe he thinks he needs to protect Hauglid (if that’s who it was). 

Maybe it was Hauglid.  He's a good fit.  Look at my predictions on what the Church would do that I made a few years ago.  About a third of those have happened thus far and more are coming.  I have lots of sources inside and again on this particular..... Simply ask Michael Rhodes.  Your the newspaper guy.  Go do some real journalism.  You and I both know you can't pursue that story.

Edited by DBMormon
Link to post
On 8/15/2020 at 10:22 AM, webbles said:

What can Dr. Rhodes confirm?  That the printing plate originally had a snout or that the printing plate was stolen?  It sounds like he can confirm the later but, based on what you've said, that doesn't mean the former.  Even if the printing plate was stolen, we have the 1842 original printing so it shows us what the original printing plate had.

He can confirm the snout as well as it being stolen and re-acquired by the Church

Edited by DBMormon
Link to post
3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

He can confirm the snout as well as it being stolen and re-acquired by the Church

You have thus far declined to answer my question from several days ago: how can he confirm the snout? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 8/20/2020 at 12:27 PM, OGHoosier said:

You have thus far declined to answer my question from several days ago: how can he confirm the snout? 

THAT i DONT KNOW BUT HE HAS ACCESS TO THE INSIDE RECORDS OF THE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT OR AT LEAST DID.

Link to post
On 8/16/2020 at 12:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Hauglid, I would suspect. 

SCOTT THIS WOULD BE A BIG MORMON STORY.... WHY NOT PURSUE AS A JOURNALIST SUCH A STORY?  What would keep a deseret news journalist from pursuing a story that would be damaging to the church?

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

SCOTT THIS WOULD BE A BIG MORMON STORY.... WHY NOT PURSUE AS A JOURNALIST SUCH A STORY?  What would keep a deseret news journalist from pursuing a story that would be damaging to the church?

Having retired two years ago, for one thing. 
 

Why are you answering for DBMormon? Are you a sock puppet?

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

THAT i DONT KNOW BUT HE HAS ACCESS TO THE INSIDE RECORDS OF THE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT OR AT LEAST DID.

Access to the historical department only matters if the historical department contains the relevant information. That's why I asked how Reel's source reached his conclusions. 

Since the pictures of the Hedlock woodcut are available for all the world to see and examine, the only reason why the insider source would be relevant is if there is a historical source (a letter, a journal entry, a record) which clarifies that the snout was chiseled off. I asked Reel if that was the case. He has still declined to answer the question, despite presumably being aware of it due to the board's notification system, and the fact that I have asked it twice. It's not a hard question to answer. 

If the insider's opinion is based only on observing the woodcut, then it isn't of particular relevance, since anyone can do that. Presuming that this inside source even exists. 

 

 

Link to post
On 8/14/2020 at 9:40 PM, 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.

 

https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel-appendix-c-anubis.html

 

comparison.jpg

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...