Abraham in Egypt

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Latter Day Data said:

Are you saying I created shapes which weren’t there, like you did?

If yes, please show the shapes I created which weren’t there - CFR. 

Dude, you literally altered the image by removing elements. If you are unable to recognize that then there is zero point in me engaging you any further on this.

When I saw your OP I initially thought it was satire mocking apologists.

Edited March 23, 2022 by the narrator

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 

Are there two Ryans here?  Ryan Dahle and Latter Day Data Ryan, who Robert appears to know from elsewhere?

There are actually 3 (me too).

i think Robert learned that Latter Day Data is a Ryan from his blog link.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Latter Day Data said:

. I removed apparent lotus stems.

So you are assuming they are not an integral part of the lotus?  Why were they added then?  Why make Abraham’s name so confusing?

[strappinglad]

Many years ago in an English lit. class , I noticed that the name Othello has the word " hell " in it. The teacher was pleased with that observation and praised me. Later I noted that the name Desdemona has the word " demon " in it. The teacher was not pleased and said that now I was just being silly !!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Latter Day Data said:

Hi, fellow Ryan. 

Thank you for engaging with the argument, even if only raising a peripheral point.

As I explained in the post, the name Abraham is inside the lotus. I removed apparent lotus stems. In separating it out, I didn’t alter the shapes which compose the name. I just made clear which shapes compose the name.

I get the impression that Robert doesn’t understand what I’ve said. I’m familiar with him, so I’m disappointed in his lack of substantive engagement. 

Stephen’s opinion seems to be based on cursory assumptions and shows no engagement with substance, regardless of what education he has. 

I didn’t remove very much, it was mostly just a cluster and I made clear the difference. What exactly is the problem? 

John Gee has reported elsewhere that Abraham appears in Egyptian texts in various languages. How does your spelling here compare with other transliterations of the name in Egyptian documents?

see here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng

Edited March 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Latter Day Data]

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

John Gee has reported elsewhere that Abraham appears in Egyptian texts in various languages. How does your spelling here compare with other transliterations of the name in Egyptian documents?

see here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng

Thank you for the link! I think the biggest problem is that they seem to all be different languages or scripts (like Demotic). 

But here’s a little thought experiment I just want to put out there. Let’s say we got a glimpse into an alternate reality where Joseph Smith never existed, and the Hor papyrus never existed. 

A group of Egyptologists sits around a table talking. One of them pulls out pen and paper and draws an offering table identical to what *we* see as the offering table in the lion couch scene on the Hor roll. The Egyptologist says, “this is a little puzzle I came up with. I call it ‘Abraham in Egypt’ and my challenge to each of you is to explain why I would call it that.” One of the Egyptologists, named Bricarello, says, “well, the Lotus on the offering table represents Upper Egypt, and we can actually spell out the name of Abraham in the Lotus, so that’s Abraham IN Egypt.” But a man happens to be walking by, and says, “nonsense!” 

So, Bricarello asks him, “what exactly is nonsense? What did I say that isn’t true?” The man replies, “that’s an offering table! There are thousands just like it!” Bricarello then says, “Of course it is an offering table. I just called it that. But can you show me a different one that has these features?” “Yes,” insists the man, who proceeds to look up examples of offering tables which do *not* have those features. 

One of the Egyptologists, who had no idea what was being talked about, looks up from a book he was reading and says, “yes, those are offering tables - I’m going to have to side with this man who is showing us offering tables. He’s right, you know, those are offering tables.”

Now, the thought experiment aside, I do realize the argument I presented isn’t perfect. The hieratic m tilts in part the wrong way, for instance. But in a context where it is *expected* to be an m, that’s what it would be translated as. And in a context where Joseph Smith didn’t exist, where an Egyptologist called it “Abraham in Egypt,” Bricarello’s explanation would be perfectly acceptable. 

The criticisms presented in this thread aren’t based on substance, except for maybe the minor point that in my side-by-side comparison I showed *both* an unaltered picture and an altered picture, which was intended to aid the reader in comparing parts of the drawing with characters. It’s the same idea as zooming in or otherwise highlighting something. Nothing out of context, nothing being hidden. Nothing to complain about. 

Thank you for engaging with the post. I genuinely appreciate it. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Latter Day Data

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Latter Day Data said:

Thank you for the link! I think the biggest problem is that they seem to all be different languages or scripts (like Demotic). 

But here’s a little thought experiment I just want to put out there. Let’s say we got a glimpse into an alternate reality where Joseph Smith never existed, and the Hor papyrus never existed. 

A group of Egyptologists sits around a table talking. One of them pulls out pen and paper and draws an offering table identical to what *we* see as the offering table in the lion couch scene on the Hor roll. The Egyptologist says, “this is a little puzzle I came up with. I call it ‘Abraham in Egypt’ and my challenge to each of you is to explain why I would call it that.” One of the Egyptologists, named Bricarello, says, “well, the Lotus on the offering table represents Upper Egypt, and we can actually spell out the name of Abraham in the Lotus, so that’s Abraham IN Egypt.” But a man happens to be walking by, and says, “nonsense!” 

So, Bricarello asks him, “what exactly is nonsense? What did I say that isn’t true?” The man replies, “that’s an offering table! There are thousands just like it!” Bricarello then says, “Of course it is an offering table. I just called it that. But can you show me a different one that has these features?” “Yes,” insists the man, who proceeds to look up examples of offering tables which do *not* have those features. 

One of the Egyptologists, who had no idea what was being talked about, looks up from a book he was reading and says, “yes, those are offering tables - I’m going to have to side with this man who is showing us offering tables. He’s right, you know, those are offering tables.”

Now, the thought experiment aside, I do realize the argument I presented isn’t perfect. The hieratic m tilts in part the wrong way, for instance. But in a context where it is *expected* to be an m, that’s what it would be translated as. And in a context where Joseph Smith didn’t exist, where an Egyptologist called it “Abraham in Egypt,” Bricarello’s explanation would be perfectly acceptable. 

The criticisms presented in this thread aren’t based on substance, except for maybe the minor point that in my side-by-side comparison I showed *both* an unaltered picture and an altered picture, which was intended to aid the reader in comparing parts of the drawing with characters. It’s the same idea as zooming in or otherwise highlighting something. Nothing out of context, nothing being hidden. Nothing to complain about. 

Thank you for engaging with the post. I genuinely appreciate it. 

Would it be fair to say you don’t know how it would be transliterated? Like what vowels and consonants would be used?

[Latter Day Data]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So you are assuming they are not an integral part of the lotus?  Why were they added then?  Why make Abraham’s name so confusing?

Removing them was simpler and cleaner than pointing out the spelling through a different method like circling the characters individually - because all I had to do was remove a few lines. And it should have been clear anyway. But I provided both the unaltered and altered versions side-by-side, so there shouldn’t be anything to complain about. 

And Abraham’s spelling shouldn’t be too confusing. 

[helix]

Serious: Can you point to any other instance when a name is purposely used to help form a shape?  Such as another name whose characters help form the petals of a lotus?  Or a name as part of the shape of a crocodile, a jar, a boat, etc.?

Non-serious: I just can't resist.  Many such Egyptian scenes have birds. Can you find a word in a bird?  Because as everybody knows, the bird is a word. 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by helix

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Latter Day Data said:

Again, what exactly do you think my proposal is? I challenged you to provide examples of offering tables which show the same features which you implied were ordinary, and you proved my point by linking to offering tables which do not  show the specific features I am talking about. Stephen showed zero understanding of the situation by coming along and agreeing with you, oblivious to the fact that you were making my point. 
 

So, again, what exactly do you think my argument is? You can do better. You have engaged real substance in the past, and you can do it again. You don’t need to resort to calling things nonsense without understanding them. 

Like Dan Brown, you are seeing code where there is none.  It's fun, but not productive, Ryan.  Steve Thompson, whom I have never met, took an unsolicited look and gave you a professional Egyptologist's opinion.  I gave you the names of a number of LDS Egyptologists whom you might consult on your and Blake's claim.  I predict that none of them will accept your claim.  I have contacted none of them on this matter.  So you get first crack at them.  OK?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Would it be fair to say you don’t know how it would be transliterated? Like what vowels and consonants would be used?

The transliteration of ancient Egyptian consonants is fairly straightforward.  Over time, Egyptologists have developed a grammatical understanding of the way vowels were used with those consonants.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

There are actually 3 (me too).

i think Robert learned that Latter Day Data is a Ryan from his blog link.

Correct.  We have had some long conversations with Ryan Dahle on this board in the past.  Friendly conversations.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

John Gee has reported elsewhere that Abraham appears in Egyptian texts in various languages. How does your spelling here compare with other transliterations of the name in Egyptian documents?

see here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng

A key point is that other Egyptologists agree with those readings.  They are not in dispute.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The transliteration of ancient Egyptian consonants is fairly straightforward.  Over time, Egyptologists have developed a grammatical understanding of the way vowels were used with those consonants.

And did the OP do so correctly? Is this how Abraham is transliterated in other Egyptian documents?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A key point is that other Egyptologists agree with those readings.  They are not in dispute.

Exactly. I’m merely asking if the spelling used in the OP is the same or close enough to how it is used in these other documents. 

[Latter Day Data]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like Dan Brown, you are seeing code where there is none.  It's fun, but not productive, Ryan.  Steve Thompson, whom I have never met, took an unsolicited look and gave you a professional Egyptologist's opinion.  I gave you the names of a number of LDS Egyptologists whom you might consult on your and Blake's claim.  I predict that none of them will accept your claim.  I have contacted none of them on this matter.  So you get first crack at them.  OK?

Robert, your knowledge of language won’t do any good if you refuse to listen and engage with the specifics. 

You have been unable to point out any specific problems with my actual argument.

And it’s obvious that you can’t. 

Saying my argument is “nonsense” is easy. Backing that up is something you seem incapable of doing. 

Saying that what I’m doing is “like Dan Brown” is easy. Backing that up is something you are unable to do. 

If you are facing some practical issues, like vision problems, then just come out and say so. I will understand if you are unable to assess my argument because of limitations you may have. But don’t pretend that you have in any way addressed the substance of what I’ve said. 

If you or Stephen would like to address the substance, that would be great. Otherwise, just admit that you can’t. 

Your drive-by attacks, like “nonsense” and “Dan Brown” are unbecoming and a poor substitute for substance.

Posting irrelevant things like showing that offering tables exist - offering tables which in no way contradict anything I’ve said - is a poor substitute for engaging the specifics of what I’ve actually said. 

My connections with Egyptologists are not really for discussion on this board, out of respect for them, and you mentioning the names of Egyptologists doesn’t free you from your responsibility to discuss the specifics of what I’ve said.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Latter Day Data said:

Removing them was simpler and cleaner than pointing out the spelling through a different method like circling the characters individually - because all I had to do was remove a few lines. And it should have been clear anyway. But I provided both the unaltered and altered versions side-by-side, so there shouldn’t be anything to complain about. 

And Abraham’s spelling shouldn’t be too confusing. 

The question isn’t why you removed them to help make his name clear.  The question is why were they added in the first place.  It has been asked numerous times if there is any evidence of this sort of disguising of words/names in other Egyptian art.   

That seems to be one of the biggest hang-ups for people.  Until you can provide other supporting evidence, you are going to have a hard time convincing people.   If there is no supporting evidence, it seems to suggest that this is just a lotus and a case of pareidolia.

Edited March 24, 2022 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, Latter Day Data said:

Robert, your knowledge of language won’t do any good if you refuse to listen and engage with the specifics. 

You have been unable to point out any specific problems with my actual argument.

And it’s obvious that you can’t. 

Saying my argument is “nonsense” is easy. Backing that up is something you seem incapable of doing. 

Saying that what I’m doing is “like Dan Brown” is easy. Backing that up is something you are unable to do. 

If you are facing some practical issues, like vision problems, then just come out and say so. I will understand if you are unable to assess my argument because of limitations you may have. But don’t pretend that you have in any way addressed the substance of what I’ve said. 

If you or Stephen would like to address the substance, that would be great. Otherwise, just admit that you can’t. 

Your drive-by attacks, like “nonsense” and “Dan Brown” are unbecoming and a poor substitute for substance.

Posting irrelevant things like showing that offering tables exist - offering tables which in no way contradict anything I’ve said - is a poor substitute for engaging the specifics of what I’ve actually said. 

My connections with Egyptologists are not really for discussion on this board, out of respect for them, and you mentioning the names of Egyptologists doesn’t free you from your responsibility to discuss the specifics of what I’ve said.

I'm sorry you feel hat way, Ryan.  I made an adequate statement already.  Sorry you can't accept that.  People say a lot of things about the Book of Abraham, not all of it meaningful.  Blake and you have made a mistake on this, and simply need to admit it.  I know and admire Blake.  I also knew and admired his late teacher David Paulsen.  This is simply not Blake's field of study or expertise.  You and he need to leave it to others.

[Latter Day Data]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm sorry you feel hat way, Ryan.  I made an adequate statement already.  Sorry you can't accept that.  People say a lot of things about the Book of Abraham, not all of it meaningful.  Blake and you have made a mistake on this, and simply need to admit it.  I know and admire Blake.  I also knew and admired his late teacher David Paulsen.  This is simply not Blake's field of study or expertise.  You and he need to leave it to others.

And yet your “adequate statement” is nowhere to be found. Can you quote it for me? 

CRF - show me this thing you call an “adequate statement.” 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Latter Day Data

[Latter Day Data]

Robert, you don’t get to muddy the waters and run away. I’m going to call you on it. 

You said, “Blake and you have made a mistake on this” - yet you won’t show what that mistake supposedly is. 

So, show it. Detail the mistake you are referring to. Be specific. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly. I’m merely asking if the spelling used in the OP is the same or close enough to how it is used in these other documents. 

Abraham appears as Αβρααμ and ʼbrʼḥm on two separate late demotic papyri from Thebes, accompanying a lion couch scene and a WdЗt-eye.[1]  The name Abraham also shows up in Egyptian Magical Papyrus 8.8 (ABRAHME/ABRACAM), which Ed Ashment says "seems to have been used as a magical representational device in connection with certain magical spells." [2]  The short form of the name, “Abram,” appears ca. 137/138 B.C. at Ptolemais in Egypt (SB, 6184).[3]

Hebrew אברם ʼAbrām “Father is exalted,” reminds Hoch of *ʼAbu-ram, a name from the Egyptian Execration Texts (Egyptian ʼAbu-l-m),^[4] and of an Ugaritic name in Akkadian transcription, Abi-Rami^[5] “My father is exalted.”  Cf. also Akkadian PN Abam-rama “Father is beloved.”[6]

Hebrew אברם ʼAbrām (Genesis 11:26-31; Aramaic אברם ʼbrm in GenApα) and אברהם ʼAbrāhām^[7] (Genesis 17:5-36) both mean “Father is exalted,”^[8] from אב ʼab “father,” and the Semitic root רום √RWM or רים √RYM “be exalted,”^[9] which is virtually the same as Hebrew אבירם ʼĀbîrām “(My) Father is exalted, the high God is my father” (Numbers 16:1, 1 Kings 16:34),[10] all these forms being well reflected in Amorite A-bi-ra-am,^[11] Ugaritic Abrm/Ibrm/A-bi-ra-mu,^[12] and Neo-Assyrian Abi-ra-mu.^[13]  Moreover, Alan Millard points out that one can find an -h- inserted in names in other Semitic languages, as a matter of dialectical variation.[14]   Von Rad claimed that only P originally used Abram, purposely shortening the name in the text prior to Genesis 17 (suggesting that Abram is merely a shortened form of popular Mesopotamian Abamram),^[15] but new texts from Ebla use Abramu – making the short-form likely the more original (cf. also Abram, a slave at Mari).

Interpreting אברהם ʼAbrāhām as “Father of a multitude” (Arabic إبراهيم Ibrāhīm) is not simply a popular etymology based on Hebrew המן hămōn (Abraham 1:2, Genesis 17:5 אב-המן גוים ʼab-hămōn gôyîm “father of many nations”), but also reflects Arabic رهام ruhām “large number, multitude.”[16] 
 

---

[1] M. Rhodes, JSH-TYL, 6, citing Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, lviii; Johnson, “Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384,” XIII:6,16; and Griffith & Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, VIII:8.

[2] Edward H. Ashment, "The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham" (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 1993), citing Johnson 1975, 44 n. A; and Johnson in Betz, 1992, 208.  Ashment is replying to comments of John Gee on Papyrus Leiden 384:1.6 (ABRAAM), and notes another appearance of ABRACAM in Papyrus Leiden 384:2*.16-17 (=PDM 12:6-20); Gee adds PBM 12:260-321, 36:295-311, and 5.459-489.  Ashment's piece is available at www.irr.org/mit/ashment1.html .

[3] Tcherikover & Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, I:xvii, n. 2.

^[4] Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 495, E47 (comparing Amorite Ḫa-mu-ra-ma); Lepsius, Denkmäler, III:252, 71-72, cited in Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 983.

^[5] Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 18, #2, with genitive case ending on rami.

[6] J. J. Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939), 292.

^[7] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosography, §11111 (p. 24), citing Rothstein/Hänel, 156; cf. IPN 242:466; Albright, JBL, 54 (1935):193ff.; BASOR, 83 (1941):34; 88 (1942):36; Cassuto, EB(c) 1, cols. 62-63..

^[8] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24); Thomas Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 22-36, cited in Scott Layton, Archaic Features, 22-23.  LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 600-601, Abram “exalted father,” and Abraham “Father of a multitude,” the latter a false folk etymology based on Hebrew המן hămōn “multitude,” P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2^nd ed., with corr. (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011), §98b.

^[9] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing IPN 145-146; WSB 84.

[10] B. Levine, Numbers 1-20, Anchor Bible 4A (Doubleday, 1993), 411.

^[11] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing AS 21:554:125 OB.

^[12] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing PTU 182; Frauke Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Studia Pohl 1 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 86; G. del Olmo Lete & J. Sanmartin, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 2^nd ed., 12.

^[13] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing WSB 279.

[14] Millard, “Abraham,” in Freedman, ed., ABD, I:39; IPN, 145 n. 1.

^[15] Von Rad, Genesis, 157,199-200; cf. p. 202 on Sarah/Sarai.

[16] HALOT; Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, I:1172; cf. H. Baker, Prosopography, 448.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And did the OP do so correctly? Is this how Abraham is transliterated in other Egyptian documents?

Blake and his source in Italy saw what they wanted to see.

[helix]

Latter Day Data.  I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this needs more work to be persuasive.  Many of us have seen far too many examples of striking parallelomania before.  I can recall multiple people doing exactly what you're doing with the Joseph Smith Translation "Caracters" document, finding striking matches, so long as you ignore some parts. 

From a casual observer.  The good points:

• The lotus petals do look like characters and not like the lotus drawings in other figures.  That's curious.
• The lotus petals can spell IBRM when you ignore other parts.  The I and R are good matches to my untrained eye. 
• You say the lotus represents Upper Egypt.

What's missing for me:

• Examples of similar words in pictures in other drawings.  I'd be hard pressed to believe in a one-of-a-kind assertion.  Prior precedence would go a long way.
• Explanation why some of the ink lines and marks on the lotus was straight up ignored when spelling I B R M.  Do those additional marks and lines mean anything?  Any good reason why we can ignore them?
• A good review of how a lotus represents Upper Egypt, I need more than just assertion.
• The B seems a bit weak, and the M seems very weak. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by helix
Fixed the letters.

[Latter Day Data]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The question isn’t why you removed them to help make his name clear.  The question is why were they added in the first place.  It has been asked numerous times if there is any evidence of this sort of disguising of words/names in other Egyptian art.   

That seems to be one of the biggest hang-ups for people.  Until you can provide other supporting evidence, you are going to have a hard time convincing people.   If there is no supporting evidence, it seems to suggest that this is just a lotus and a case of pareidolia.

First, thank you for engaging in something substantive, and trying to better understand my argument rather than insulting it. I haven’t been trying to ignore you, but have been short on time. And energy lol

Second, it makes sense for them to be added in the first place, because the lotus (not a “true” lotus, btw, just like how the Egyptian jackal isn’t a “true” jackal, per se) represents the “Egypt” part of “Abraham in Egypt.” Those added parts don’t overlap or interfere with the parts which resemble characters. 

Third, the Egyptians did similar things, yes. Like this rebus, for example:

https://see.news/familiar-with-ramses-ii-statue-depicting-him-as-child/

see attached images

Fourth, one difference between this and pareidolia is that this was identified in advance as being Abraham. That’s very different than looking at clouds and seeing “something.” Of course, pareidolia is still possible even if a claim is made in advance, because people can still twist things to make them fit what they want (which is what Robert F. Smith seems to be accusing me ‘n Blake Ostler of doing), but that’s why I’m trying to discuss the substance. And thank you again for engaging on a substantive level. 

[Latter Day Data]

2 hours ago, helix said:

Latter Day Data.  I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this needs more work to be persuasive.  Many of us have seen far too many examples of striking parallelomania before.  I can recall multiple people doing exactly what you're doing with the Joseph Smith Translation "Caracters" document, finding striking matches, so long as you ignore some parts. 

From a casual observer.  The good points:

• The lotus petals do look like characters and not like the lotus drawings in other figures.  That's curious.
• The lotus petals can spell BRHM when you ignore other parts.  The B and H are good matches to my untrained eye. 
• You say the lotus represents Upper Egypt.

What's missing for me:

• Examples of similar words in pictures in other drawings.  I'd be hard pressed to believe in a one-of-a-kind assertion.  Prior precedence would go a long way.
• Explanation why some of the ink lines and marks on the lotus was straight up ignored when spelling B R H M.  Do those additional marks and lines mean anything?  Any good reason why we can ignore them?
• A good review of how a lotus represents Upper Egypt, I need more than just assertion.
• The R seems a bit weak, and the M seems very weak. 

Thank you for talking about substance. 

James P. Allen explained it well in Middle Egyptian, on page 45. I’ll include a screenshot. Note Allen’s last couple lines:

“In Ptolemaic and Roman times, the fad for new and clever spellings was so popular that the hieroglyphic system itself was practically reinvented; one
text even consists mostly of crocodile signs, each of which is to be read differently. These later texts
are much more difficult to read than most hieroglyphic inscriptions, even for specialists.”

I’ll include a couple other screenshots which describe examples of the “type of” thing we’re perhaps dealing with in Bricarello’s observation. Keep in mind, Bricarello was working at the famed Egyptian Museum in Turin and was presumably familiar with untold numbers of Egyptian artifacts and the language. 

As far as the additional marks and lines go, the idea is that Abraham is IN Egypt, not that everything is part of the spelling of Abraham. But those lines don’t really interfere or overlap the spelling, so I don’t see why they would be an issue. It’s like if a picture is of a person IN a restaurant, and you can still see the person, it makes no sense to complain about the table and food being part of the picture. 

The Upper Egypt part is something very well known. Just google “lotus” and “upper egypt.” 

The left part of the “m” tilts to the right instead of to the left, but the brush strokes are othwise very similar.