I said the missing papyrus theory was dead; it does, however, have beautiful plumage.

No Book of Abraham discussion can reach the peak of meaninfulness and value until Kevin Graham, the foremost expert in Egyptology, has summarily dismissed credentialed opponents and called some apologists liars. We can now take great joy in the fact that this has happened, and relax and sit back and bask in the laser-bright illuminations on the topic that only he can muster.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, MM, I think Wade's question can be read as a Freudian slip, seeing as how vested he seems to be in the missing scroll/cipher school of "thought."

The lacunae don't match if you include the knife, which means it wasn't there when Joseph Smith got it.


Of course, this "somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 cm" talk began after we pointed out that ~511 cm is necessary for the Book of Abraham.


This was inevitable, with such a vast quantity of flammable papyrus in the city.


If you make this "less than 1%" then you'll have more of a buffer against critics.

LOL.

Bumping yet again ... will Schryver put up, or has he shut up?

Yeah, I suppose it must burn that you are incapable of refuting a guy you so thoroughly hate. Poor wade. Keep fighting the good fight!

If I'm not mistaken, Bell is the one who contradicted the critical argument (Ashment and Metcalf, IIRC) that there wasn't really a second hand, but that it was a bird wing instead. There are remnants of the fingers of the hand on the surviving papyrus that Ashment and Metcalf said were feathers (or something like that) but Bell agrees with Gee who says they are fingers. So that is a confirmation of Gee and Joseph Smith.

But Bell can't come across as too overly pro-Mormon, at the risk of damaging his reputation in the field, so he arbitrarily decides (I say “arbitarily” because there is no surviving evidence to go on, on the papyrus) to finish the picture with an Anubis headed figure handing the guy on the table a cup of tea, or something like that.

Still, Bell agrees that the picture would have included a live person on the couch, and that makes the picture quite unique, from what I’ve read. IIRC, there are only one or two other examples of this lion couch scene that portray a live person on the couch. In fact, if I remember right, Bell uses one of those others as the model for his Anubis serving coffee, or whatever it was.

The questions I want to see answered are:

1. Are there other lion couch scenes that show a human headed Anubis figure?

2. Are there accounts of people describing the picture while it still belonged to the Smith’s?

Mortal Man:

?

What does this mean?


I’m pretty sure this not true. Schryver predicted an original length of 500 cm in the paper he posted in the Pundit’s section of the old FAIR/MAD board, and that was before you had anything to say on the topic. It was back in the spring or summer of 2009. It was Schryver posting that paper that set in motion this whole debate. I don’t recall you having any involvement in these things before then.

Has anyone ever heard the phrase "We want to hear from the organ grinder, not the monkey"? (The original usage, first heard in the British House of Commons in 1957 was in fact "If we complain about the tune, there is no reason to attack the monkey when the organ grinder is present.")

Bump for CK and MM to reply to my posts from this morning.

Wow! What a load of BS! Those are pretty serious accusations. You are claiming that Bell has made a careless scholarly decision on an issue as big as that based solely on his attitudes toward Mormonism? Shall we email him to ask him what he thinks about those serious accusations? You people are unbelievable.

Is that something you got by consulting with your scholarly mentor, Will? Or did you come up with that bit of irresponsible codswallop on your own?

Doubtless he is yet another pawn in the vast worldwide conspiracy involving every non-Mormon historian, scholar, archaeologist, and anthropologist to suppress the overwhelming evidence that irrefutably supports the Church's truth claims.

If you look at the images I posted, you'll see that all seven extant layers are torn where Anubis' neck and wrist would be. To say that the head and knife were originally present is to say that the outermost layer was torn with a certain distinctive pattern, then a layer was skipped, then the next 6+ layers were torn in exactly the same manner as the first layer.


Nope


I do.

LOL. That's perfect.

Well, Nomad, in addition to leveling false accusations against Dr. Bell, has been thoroughly pwn3d by Mortal Man.

I think that about covers it.

Mortal Man:



I am pleased to see you add another flawed argument to your growing repertoire. I hope to see you put more of such arguments in print.
.
.
.
Kishkumen:

You don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. You are grossly uninformed when it comes to this topic. You should exercise prudent restraint and refrain from commenting on subjects that rest comfortably within the bounds of your ignorance.

Your mistaken supposition must be based on taking yourself, Kevin, and me too seriously. I don't. How could I? It isn't like any of the three of us has brought anything of substance to the discussion table. For my part, I am just toying with you all and having a bit of quasi-scholastic fun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're saying you, too, believe there was a knife on the papyrus when Joseph Smith had it? Even though there are no fibers stuck to the paper backing here? Even though there's a pencil mark on the backing paper right at the current edge of the papyrus, where someone started to restore the missing arm and hand but stopped? Even though a knife has been drawn into Anubis's right hand on the backing paper, which would have been totally unnecessary if there was already a knife in the left?

Well, that's... interesting. I hope to see you put more of such arguments in print.

That's priceless, coming from you Wilbur. I've decimated so many of your idiotic arguments on this subject it is scary. I'm not sure you've ever made a valid point on this topic in the five years I've seen you posting on it.

But keep playing to your audience, the naïve folks at FAIR whose knowledge on this topic is so abysmal they don't know any better but to clap their hands. You'll have to stay in that environment to stroke your ego, because all that there is for you over here is more ego-crushing embarrassment. You'll of course flee the scene as you always do. You debate nothing. You just assert that everyone else is ignorant and when we CFR you allude to some future publication that never comes to fruition. This has been your online ritual for almost four years and counting now.

Thanks for the entertainment.

This is interesting, isn't it?



The note under the picture says it is from "a wall relief in the Dendera Hathor Temple Complex in Qena, Egypt (Picture courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)"

No knives - not even a coffee cup. And Anubis with his usual animal head. No nasty priest 'sacrificing' anyone.

If I wanted to restore the missing portions of a papyrus like this one, I'd say the relief above gave me all I needed:



By the way, have you noticed that the figure on the couch from Dendera is a bit ... well ... excited? Good thing that bit was missing from the papyrus Joseph Smith saw, or the Book of Abraham might have ended up R-rated.

Hey - isn't this a scene depicting the begetting of Horus on Isis by Osiris? See this book.