Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[Analytics]

I didn't say anything about the EA/GAEL being "miraculously used ... to literally 'translate' the papyri." But critics have certainly argued, to one extent or another, that Joseph Smith employed the EA/GAEL as his translation modus operandi.

I don't believe Richard P. Howard's 1970 article nor Chris Smith's fairly recent JWHA article are available online. But it is hardly any secret that Smith argues that Joseph Smith used the EA/GAEL to translate Abr. 1:1-3. Furthermore, from what I can gather (he can correct me to the extent I have misunderstood his plans), George Miller is apparently going to argue that Joseph Smith used the EA/GAEL as his tool to translate more than just Abr. 1:1-3.

You said, Mormon critics have argued for the past 40 years, the Alphabet and Grammar was produced before the text of the Book of Abraham was received, and was the means by which that text was subsequently “translated” from the papyri.

If your best references to support this are Chris saying three verses came about this way, I think you are grossly distorting what the critics have been actually saying.

[Cobalt-70]

Let's look at what is recorded in the History of the Church by Joseph Smith:

"By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife's father, in the month of December, and the February following." (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.3, p.20)

Please notice that the translation of the characters was performed using one of the standard methods (Urim and Thummim), and not by way of his imagination or using a reformed Egyptian alphabet and grammar.

Which is how he started out with the Book of Abraham as well--first attempting a character-by-character translation (with seer stones, of course), before switching to a more purely-mystical and free-form process for the remainder. For the Book of Abraham, it didn't take long (three verses, apparently) before he made the switch, although he loosely incorporating the drawings on the papyri as well as some of the ideas, like the pseudo-Egyptian astronomy, that he had developed during the Egyptian Papers exercises.

[William Schryver]

You said, Mormon critics have argued for the past 40 years, the Alphabet and Grammar was produced before the text of the Book of Abraham was received, and was the means by which that text was subsequently “translated” from the papyri.

If your best references to support this are Chris saying three verses came about this way, I think you are grossly distorting what the critics have been actually saying.

<sigh>

Um, Analytics, are you deliberately ignoring my reference to Richard P. Howard's 1970 paper on the topic? (I think Howard confuses the EA/GAEL and the Abraham manuscripts, but that's beside the point. He clearly regards the EA/GAEL as the modus operandi by which Joseph Smith "translated" the papyri.) Are you also deliberately ignoring what "George Miller" has been arguing (and has intimated that he will yet argue) concerning these things? Do you not understand why he has suggested that characters from the papyri can be "dissected" to represent characters from the EA/GAEL?

Perhaps you could tell us how you understand what critics have argued was the purpose of the EA/GAEL and what was its relationship to the papyri. That might save us some time here.

Edited November 1, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Which is how he started out with the Book of Abraham as well--first attempting a character-by-character translation ...

Aside from the point that you have no evidence that this is how the translation of the Book of Mormon was conducted, how do you draw this conclusion in relation to the BoA translation? On what basis?

It continues to amaze me that argument via assertion is the best the critics can offer us when it comes to these things.

I, on the other hand, have presented substantial textual evidence that the EA/GAEL is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham: Dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Edited November 1, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

<sigh>

Um, Analytics, are you deliberately ignoring my reference to Richard P. Howard's 1970 paper on the topic? (I think Howard confuses the EA/GAEL and the Abraham manuscripts, but that's beside the point. He clearly regards the EA/GAEL as the modus operandi by which Joseph Smith "translated" the papyri.) Are you also deliberately ignoring what "George Miller" has been arguing (and has intimated that he will yet argue) concerning these things? Do you not understand why he has suggested that characters from the papyri can be "dissected" to represent characters from the EA/GAEL?

Frankly, I'm not interested in discussing these things with someone whose apparent knowledge of the issue is so deficient.

Perhaps you could tell us what how you understand what critics have argued was the purpose of the EA/GAEL and what was its relationship to the papyri. That might save us some time here.

At the risk of being a board Nanny, I just want to say I think it is useful to have Analytics ask his questions and to have you respond. Even if whose "apparent knowledge of the issue is so deficient". I know it is frustrating but I find quite a bit a value in going the rounds. Thanks either way.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[William Schryver]

At the risk of being a broad Nanny, I just want to say I think it is useful to have Analytics ask his questions and to have you respond. Even if whose "apparent knowledge of the issue is so deficient". I know it is frustrating but I find quite a bit a value in going the rounds. Thanks either way.

You're right. I've removed the snarky statement from my post.

Edited November 1, 2011 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

How do you come to this conclusion when, in the first place, the EA/GAEL is clearly based on a pre-existing text of the BoA, and the vast majority of the characters in the EA/GAEL are neither Egyptian nor are they to be found on the papyri?

I think your conclusion has no reasonable basis. Upon what basis do you think your conclusion is reasonable?

I understand that you think the EA/GAEL is based on a pre-existing Book of Abraham text, and was written as some sort of cipher with links to a mystical Knights Templar tradition. (Forgive me if I misrepresent your conclusions, because I haven't had time to watch all your videos.) But I don't think that conclusion is clear at all, and frankly, I think it seems a little far-fetched--not to disrespect the large amount of work you have done on the issue. If you can get your theory peer reviewed and published in a respectable journal, I'll probably take a closer look. But until you do, you can't say that your conclusions are "clear," and you can't say that the conclusions represent the mainstream.

By far the most straightforward conclusion, and the one that best passes Occam's Razor, is that , consistently with the known external history of the texts, he made an (incomplete) grammar and alphabet first, and then later created the Book of Abraham drawing from, and inspired by, some of the ideas he developed in the EA/GAEL as well as the figures shown in the papyri. He tried to make a literal, character-per-character translation, but he didn't get past the first three or so verses before reverting to a modus operandus more similar to that by which he produced the Book of Mormon, although he still drew loosely from his prior work and from the figures.

I think you have the causal link backwards. Common Mormon opinion to the contrary, Smith was a very smart guy with a phenomenal memory. Undoubtedly, he reviewed the EA/GAEL before starting the Book of Abraham translation, and had these ideas and even phrases in his mind while preparing the Book of Abraham--perhaps even having the EA/GAEL before him during the translation. Beyond the first three verses, there are connections between EA/GAEL, but it was not an attempt to be a literal translation of the papyri. Maybe you are even correct that only the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham contain this correspondence, and if that is the case, perhaps your study has a valuable conclusion. But where you and I would disagree is in which text came first. It would seem that by chapter 4, Smith was no longer much bound to his prior work.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand that you think the EA/GAEL is based on a pre-existing Book of Abraham text, and was written as some sort of cipher with links to a mystical Knights Templar tradition. (Forgive me if I misrepresent your conclusions, because I haven't had time to watch all your videos.)

They cipher has nothing to do with the pre-existing text. The cipher theory is 2ndary to his main thesis.

[Loran Blood]

Not a lot has been said about how the Book of Abraham was produced, but there is a lot of internal evidence as to what happened. I think it is clear, based on the papyri, the EA/GAEL, and the Book of Abraham text itself, that Smith first spent a fair amount of time trying to decipher the text of the papyri in a quasi-scholarly way--that is, trying to establish a one-to-one correspondence between text and translation. Of course, not knowing a thing about the Egyptian language, his EA/GAEL is not accurate from an academic perspective. However, the exercise of producing the EA/GAEL must have energized his inspiration and imagination, and inspired him to produce the Book of Abraham story that we have today, through a process much like the way he produced the Book of Mormon.

It was much the same exercise Smith used for the Book of Mormon: spending some time copying characters and trying to give translations to those characters (ie, the Anthon transcript), and then putting that aside to use purely mystical means for producing the translation without reference to any source material.

I'm just going to wonder out loud here why, since Joseph Smith had no idea regarding the Egyptian language whatsoever - none - in either its hieratic or hieroglyphic forms, you think it ever would have crossed his mind to attempt word for word transliterations from Egyptian to English?

Secondly, the "internal evidence" you mention, as well as what we can theoretically reconstruct from extant documentary sources, is deeply ambiguous and fragmentary, which means the the air of certainty about these things that has long been the critic's forte is seriously incongruous with that very evidence.

[William Schryver]

I understand that you think the EA/GAEL is based on a pre-existing Book of Abraham text ...

Yes, and I presented extensive textual evidence to that effect.

... and was written as some sort of cipher with links to a mystical Knights Templar tradition. (Forgive me if I misrepresent your conclusions, because I haven't had time to watch all your videos.) But I don't think that conclusion is clear at all, and frankly, I think it seems a little far-fetched--not to disrespect the large amount of work you have done on the issue.

You appear to not understand my argument. Perhaps it would help if you were to actually view the presentation that articulates them. You seem to be conflating my primary thesis with the secondary portion of my presentation that offered a hypothesis for why the EA/GAEL was produced.

If you can get your theory peer reviewed and published in a respectable journal, I'll probably take a closer look. But until you do, you can't say that your conclusions are "clear,"; and you can't say that the conclusions represent the mainstream.

My primary thesis concerning the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham will, in course of time, be published in its entirety. Whether you will consider the journal for which it is slated "respectable" remains to be seen. I have noted that most Mormon critics are loath to characterize any journal associated with the Church or BYU as "respectable."

I will be publishing a series of articles concerning my research. I am still, as a matter of fact, adding to the body of evidence that supports the thesis I have already presented. But the fact remains that I have already presented on these arguments, at the 2010 FAIR Conference. That is a respectable venue, and I am not aware of any substantive counter-arguments made in relation to my 2010 presentation. We have seen in recent days how "substantive" Chris Smith's arguments have been in that respect.

The thesis has been very well received by those who have taken the time to assess it, including several individuals with extensive training in textual criticism. Some have even begun to argue for it: See here.

You seem to believe there are valid arguments to support the notion that the EA/GAEL precedes the production of the Book of Abraham. By all means, please articulate them. You also seem to believe there are persuasive counter-arguments against the evidence I have already presented that supports the opposite conclusions. Please articulate them. We would love to consider them.

If you are going to do nothing but make arguments via assertion, I don't think anyone here will pay much attention to you anymore.

By far the most straightforward conclusion, and the one that best passes Occam's Razor, is that , consistently with the known external history of the texts, he made an (incomplete) grammar and alphabet first, and then later created the Book of Abraham drawing from, and inspired by, some of the ideas he developed in the EA/GAEL as well as the figures shown in the papyri. He tried to make a literal, character-per-character translation, but he didn't get past the first three or so verses before reverting to a modus operandus more similar to that by which he produced the Book of Mormon, although he still drew loosely from his prior work and from the figures.

This consists of nothing but assertion. It just won't fly anymore in the face of actual evidence to the contrary.

I think you have the causal link backwards.

Then present evidence to support your assertions.

Common Mormon opinion to the contrary, Smith was a very smart guy with a phenomenal memory.

Here it comes, folks ... as I have long predicted and mentioned just recently: the only critical counter-argument to the thesis I propose.

Undoubtedly, he reviewed the EA/GAEL before starting the Book of Abraham translation, and had these ideas and even phrases in his mind while preparing the Book of Abraham--perhaps even having the EA/GAEL before him during the translation.

No, the EA/GAEL contains extensive, almost word-for-word portions of the Book of Abraham--all five chapters. It isn't just "ideas and even phrases." It's actual extracts; parts of the book itself, as I demonstrate here.

Beyond the first three verses, there are connections between EA/GAEL ...

No, there are extensive word-for-word extracts from the Book of Abraham, throughout the EA/GAEL, drawing upon all five chapters, Facsimile 2, and also other previously received revelations of Joseph Smith, as I demonstrate here and here, in substantial detail.

... but it was not an attempt to be a literal translation of the papyri.

The majority of the characters in the EA/GAEL don't even come from the papyri!

Maybe you are even correct that only the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham contain this correspondence, and if that is the case, perhaps your study has a valuable conclusion.

It's unfortunate that you are attempting to refute my arguments without even knowing what they are. It severely hampers your efforts.

But where you and I would disagree is in which text came first. It would seem that by chapter 4, Smith was no longer much bound to his prior work.

The EA/GAEL references components of all 5 chapters of the published Book of Abraham, in addition to other Abraham-related materials never published, as well as the word-for-word explanations to a portion of Facsimile 2, as well as references to previously received Joseph Smith revelations (primarily D&C 76 and D&C 88).

As I predicted, and have recently argued against here, the only counter-argument to the evidence of dependency I present is that Joseph Smith essentially had the entire Book of Abraham memorized prior to producing the EA/GAEL, and that he then drew upon that memorized story to eventually produce the Book of Abraham. If you believe that passes the Occam's Razor test, then I can see why we have a difference of opinion concerning these things. But I am confident that the reading audience will look upon your proposed theory and find it wanting.

Edited November 1, 2011 by William Schryver

[Loran Blood]

This is the standard operating procedure mentioned above for translating scripture, and it is the method consistently claimed to have been used to translate the Book of Abraham (i.e. by the gift and power of God). Again, nowhere in the historical record is there any mention of an alphabet/grammar used to translate scriptures, nor, as I have been pointing out, does it make sense to have used such a method except for secular educational purposes. Sorry.

Unless, of course, one's axiomatic metaphysical assumptions about the universe are of a kind that quite simply preclude concepts such as revelation through the "gift and power of God," the existence of God and his power, spiritual powers/agencies etc. working through human beings, the very existence of "scripture" in the gospel sense etc., from existing at all and being legitimate aspects of any intellectually serious discussion of upon a subject such as the origins of a specific text claimed to be divine in nature and content.

The torturous and detailed argument and counter-argument necessary to a rigorous give and take between opponents in the ongoing text-critical debate (not to take anything away from that in and of itself) tend, I think, to wash out the very real body of essential, pivotal philosophical assumptions that underlie the entire project of placing the BofA in a purely naturalistic, human sociological setting. That project is indicative of foundational presuppositions about just what the BofA could, or perhaps, given those preconceptions, must be (not so much what the historical/text-critical evidence, such as it is, really allows us to say about it with any degree of certainty) if the rest of the universe is to remain in conformity to those foundational presuppositions.

We can call this a metaphysical naturalism, materialism, or humanism, but whatever its designation, its core assumptions about what the BofA should be, if those assumptions are correct, animates much of the all inclusive hostility to any claim regarding, not what the BofA should or could be, but is.

Alter those assumptions, and the text-critical evidence takes on a different coloration, as the benefit of the doubt and inferential bias shifts.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I predicted, and have recently argued against here, the only counter-argument to the evidence of dependency I present is that Joseph Smith essentially had the entire Book of Abraham memorized prior to producing the EA/GAEL, and that he then drew upon that memorized story to eventually produce the Book of Abraham. If you believe that passes the Occam's Razor test, then I can see why we have a difference of opinion concerning these things. But I am confident that the reading audience will look upon your proposed theory and find it wanting.

I want to make sure I understand. It sounds like the critics agree that teh BoA was pre existing before the EA/GAEL. Just that it pre existed in JS head, not that he actually had a translation prior to the production of those documents.

I don't think the evidence supports that theory at all. In fact I am not sure one could ever prove that theory, anyway.

This is really quite interesting.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Loran Blood]

... a very limited set of unique words, with very specific applications. As opposed to a more non-contextual selection of wide-focus building block words that one would reasonably expect to encounter in a document intended as a tool to decipher an unknown text, instead we encounter words and phrases focused on a narrow subject matter. ... If, as Mormon critics have argued for the past 40 years, the Alphabet and Grammar was produced before the text of the Book of Abraham was received, and was the means by which that text was subsequently “translated” from the papyri, then how likely is it that the would-be translators would include virtually nothing but unique words and phrases from an as yet unwritten book?

In other words, Cobalt, Joseph does not appear to have been at all concerned with a general lexicon - an actual alphabet and grammar of a language in the normative sense - which could then be used, once understood, to construct any particular text one wished. Joseph was concerned with specific, core theological/metaphysical concepts and ideas key to what the Church understands as the "plan of salvation." There appears to be no evidence that his concern extended to understanding Egyptian qua Egyptian such that, if you placed any Egyptian text before him, he could give you some degree of a competent translation. Indeed, as Joseph didn't understand hat language (as the critics are always wont to point out), why continue to belabor this?

Joseph was concerned solely with what the texts he had in his possession from the Chandler mummies actually said, not with the Egyptian language per se, and I think the evidence Will has made explicit here bears that out.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Which is how he started out with the Book of Abraham as well--first attempting a character-by-character translation (with seer stones, of course)...

Which, if actually the case, and assuming as a possibility that seer stones actually exist and have the powers ascribed to them in gospel teaching, means that the translation itself came through the principle of revelation, leaving the EA's as thought experiments or otherwise intellectual exercises having potentially little or nothing to do with the actual translation process.

But I do take note of the sarcastic tone of your "with seer stones, of course" comment, and take note again of my post above regarding preexisting philosophical assumptions.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Aside from the point that you have no evidence that this is how the translation of the Book of Mormon was conducted...

Which, Cobalt, really is the upshot of the entire matter, is it not?

[Analytics]

What are you supposing is the position of several of the key critics in the BoA debates, like Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe, if not also Mortal Man?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Chris Smith said,

My own hypothesis is that Joseph did have a prototype of the Book of Abraham in mind when he created the EAG. Furthermore, where there were lacunae in the papyri, he filled the lacunae with fictional characters constructed from the graphemes in the EAG. Very little of the material in the EAG was allowed to go to waste; he made sure to use as much of it as possible. (And really, there's not much there to begin with.) The EAG was used in translating the Book of Abraham only for the first chapter or so, and only as far as possible. Because most of the characters from the papyri do not appear in the EAG, for these characters Joseph had to supply an interpretation by revelation. The result is a hybrid translation-- partly derived from the EAG, and partly received by revelation.

Saying the EAG "was the means by which that text was subsequently translated from the papyri" seems to be describing a position other than Chris's.

I don't know what Brent Metcalf or Mortal Man have said. Thus my CFR.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith:

My own hypothesis is that Joseph did have a prototype of the Book of Abraham in mind when he created the EAG. Furthermore, where there were lacunae in the papyri, he filled the lacunae with fictional characters constructed from the graphemes in the EAG. Very little of the material in the EAG was allowed to go to waste; he made sure to use as much of it as possible. (And really, there's not much there to begin with.) The EAG was used in translating the Book of Abraham only for the first chapter or so, and only as far as possible. Because most of the characters from the papyri do not appear in the EAG, for these characters Joseph had to supply an interpretation by revelation. The result is a hybrid translation-- partly derived from the EAG, and partly received by revelation.

The bolded part is necessitated by the fact that Chris’s primary thesis breaks down after the first three verses of chapter one. Therefore he casts about for something else to help him out of the bind he’s in. The problem with the solution he has chosen is that, as I have noted repeatedly, the EA/GAEL contains elements, many of them virtually word-for-word, of all five chapters of the Book of Abraham; word-for-word elements of the explanations to Facsimile 2; and elements of D&C 76 and 88, and other of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations. Given this reality, his “hybrid translation” theory does not answer to the evidence; it is not tenable—not to mention that it falls into the category of the unfalsifiable, which explains why Chris never provides any evidence for it in the first place. He merely (much as Cobalt-70 has done in this thread, asserts his conclusions, and asks us to trust that they are correct.

[William Schryver]

Saying the EAG "was the means by which that text was subsequently translated from the papyri" seems to be describing a position other than Chris's.

Hardly. It's just that Chris is compelled to give up his already tenuous theory after just the first three verses of chapter one, for reasons I have mentioned previously.

Nevertheless, his theory breaks down altogether for the reasons I have articulated in my prior post.

[wenglund]

Chris Smith said,

Saying the EAG "was the means by which that text was subsequently translated from the papyri" seems to be describing a position other than Chris's.

I don't know what Brent Metcalf or Mortal Man have said. Thus my CFR.

Two quick points of clarification.

First, we need to distinguish between what is believed to have been the intent and purposes of EA/GAEL (the reason the EA/GAEL project was commenced to begin with), as differentiated for what is believed about how the EA/GAEL actually ended up being used. Will and I are arguing against critics who believe EA/GAEL project was commenced for the purpose translating the Book of Abraham, though it was later abandoned for various reasons (not the least of which was its evident infeasibility). It is my understanding that Chris and others are of this belief, and what you quote from him implies as much.

Second, Will and I are also arguing against those who believe that the Book of Abraham was "translated" using the EA/GAEL (i.e. how the EA/GAEL ended up being used), whether in part or in whole. Our arguments apply to Chris and others because they evidently believes the Book of Abraham was partially translated using the EA/GAEL.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 1, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Which is how he started out with the Book of Abraham as well--first attempting a character-by-character translation (with seer stones, of course), before switching to a more purely-mystical and free-form process for the remainder. For the Book of Abraham, it didn't take long (three verses, apparently) before he made the switch, although he loosely incorporating the drawings on the papyri as well as some of the ideas, like the pseudo-Egyptian astronomy, that he had developed during the Egyptian Papers exercises.

You keep asserting this. So, let me ask again, would you please address the several arguments I have already laid out against your proposition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Please understand that if I one is going to argue that the content of the Book of Abraham was memorized prior to creating the EA/GAEL, the memorization still constitutes a preexisting text, and thus supports Will's contention and argues against the proposition that the EA/GAEL was used to create the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Hi Loran,

I appreciate you eloquently underscoring my first point.

Really, as you suggest, this is all academic. If one wishes to know if the Book of Abraham is of God, one ought to use the means God has established for making such spiritual determinations, and this by asking him in earnest prayer and by applying in one's life the precepts found within that book of scripture to see if they don't expand one's spirit and soul. All the scholastic musings either may be interesting and informative, but not all that useful in determining the supernaturalistic origins of the text.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For what it's worth, this is why I have not been participating. A little odd to post that reason, but there it is.

I suppose I could do this on all the threads I don't respond to....

[wenglund]

Please also understand that even if one disbelieves the Book of Abraham was translated supernaturally, and one is convinced it was produced naturally (via Joseph's imagination and/or his borrowing from sources presumably available to him at the time, etc.), the arguments from Will and I still pretty much apply, particularly arguments 3 & 4:

3) The proposition [i.e. that the EA/GAEL were intended to be used, and were used, to produce part or all of the BoA] is counter-intuitive and infeasible, particularly when compared with the standard operating procedure.

4) There is evidence that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon preexisting texts, including, but not restricted to, portions of the Book of Abraham. Since portions of the Book of Abraham predate the EA/GAEL, then logically the EA/GAEL clearly weren't intended to [or weren't used to] produce the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 2, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

For what it's worth, this is why I have not been participating. A little odd to post that reason, but there it is.

I suppose I could do this on all the threads I don't respond to....

I am glad you stopped by even if to say just this. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I think Cobalt70 has a lot of explaining to do in order to reconcile his assertions with the evidence.

I know this is specifically the opposite direction from the one in which Wade wants to take this thread, but I think it might be useful to have a few working possibilities for what the EA/GAEL actually WERE- perhaps that would strengthen the case in your favor- do you think an attempted "Adamic lexicon" is a possibility?

If I were there, if I were assuming that Joseph did a literal translation of the papyri, I might well think that since we "know" how this phrase on the papyri now translates, we can now take those specific "translated" characters and use them to translate further, in what I might have thought was a "scholarly manner"?

Obviously they knew it was Egyptian, but clearly they also believed that Egyptian was very close to Adamic.

That might account for the characters which were NOT Egyptian as well- perhaps they were labeled as "Egyptian" and not "Adamic".

I hope that at least makes sense within your theory- since I am less than totally familiar with every nuance of your point of view.

Edited November 2, 2011 by mfbukowski