A controversy over the use of the name Hadit for the winged disk of Ancient Egypt by Thelemites has arisen based on the name
currently accepted by Egyptologists, which is thought to be
bhdt, and not hudt, with the latter transliteration consisting of the one
Aleister Crowley was provided with when he requested a translation of the Stele of Ankh-f-n-khonsu from Cairo museum officials
in 1904. The root of the criticism lies with the conclusion that
hudt is an early misreading of the name of the winged disk, with no
basis in the Egyptian language; if the critics are correct, it could serve as evidence the Book of the Law does not originate from a
divine source, otherwise the author of the book would have known the true name of the winged disk.

      The translation
hudt was utilized by Gaston Maspero, an Egyptologist whose transliterations of Egyptian god names are the
basis for most of those used in the
Book of the Law, a text alledgedly received by Aleister Crowley from a divine messenger during
his stay in Cairo. Maspero uses
Hudit and Houditi when discussing the winged disk in his writings, sometimes preceding them
with the name
Har, which means Horus; the spelling used in the Book of the Law is Hadit. Another Egyptologist, Peter Le Page
Renouf, is the person responsible for influencing the change in the transliteration of the name of the winged disk from
hudt to bhdt.
Omitted here is the account by Le Page Renouf as to why he drew his initial conclusions, since most of the argument is contained
in other text quoted, but for those interested, it can be  found on page 432 of
The life-work of Sir Peter Le Page Renouf, Volume 2.

      In response to the use of Har-Houditi as the name of the winged disk by Maspero, Le Page Renouf wrote the following in the
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, with the actual quotes taken from The life-work of Sir Peter Le Page Renouf, Volume
, page 98; the comments in parentheses are mine:

    But who is the god Har-Houditi? What excuse can there possibly be for an incorrect reading of a name  which in Demotic is (Demotic writing),
    Heru-Behutet, when Brugsh has shown the identity of (Egyptian writing), behtu, 'a throne,' and when I have shown that the place called (Egyptian
    writing) is not  Samhud, but Sambehutet.

      Another renowned expert in the field named Adolf Erman responded to the challenge issued by Le Page Renouf for
justification in using the reading
Har-Houditi as the name of the winged disk, providing evidence to that effect: Le Page Renouf
responded with this statement:

    Since writing the above I grieve to find that Dr. Erman, on the strength of some contemptible blunders of ancient scribes, has raised a doubt as to the
    reading of (Egyptian signs for the winged disk). Surely such forms as (Egyptian signs) are wretched blunders and nothing else. To attach importance
    to them is to undo the best work of the last forty years.

      The following quote is the response of Gaston Maspero to the criticism of Le Page Renouf, quoted from a footnote in The Dawn
of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldea
, page 100:

    The reading Har-Behiditi was proposed by Mr. Le Page Renouf (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1885-86, pp.143, 14-1), and has
    been adopted by most Egyptologists. I do not think it so well founded as to involve an alteration of the old reading of Hudit for the name of the city
    of Edfa.

      Edfa is another spelling for Edfu, the Greek name for the city also known as Bhedet, which is synonymous with the winged
disk. The evidence shows that two experts in the field, Maspero and Erman, both disagreed with the conclusions of Le Page Renouf,
who upon being faced with evidence that contradicted his theory, reacted by describing the examples provided by Erman as
"contemptible blunders" on the part of scribes. The evidence provided by Erman was ignored, leading to
bhdt becoming the
accepted name of the winged disk. As far as it concerns Thelema, it makes no difference whether the evidence that supports
being a valid name of the winged disk is due to scribal errors, or whether there were phases in the evolution of Egyptian speech
that explain the two different readings; the important point is there was never a "misreading" of the name of the winged disk as
suggested, but instead there are two different readings, each supported by evidence, each with its supporters. What is not supported
by the evidence is the claim that
bhdt is the 'correct' transliteration of the name of the winged disk, and that hudt is 'incorrect', or
that the spelling Hadit has no basis in Egyptian writing: it clearly does.     

In Search of Hadit