In Search of Hadit

A controversy over the use of the name Hadit for the winged disk of Ancient Egypt 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. Maspero uses
Hudit
and
Houditi when discussing the winged disk in his writings, sometimes preceding them with the name
Har, which means Horus. 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 2, 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
(omitted), Heru-Behutet, when Brugsh has shown the identity of (Egyptian signs),
behtu, 'a throne,' and when I have shown that the place called (Egyptian signs) 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, 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
hudt 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, 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 light of findings made with the Tahuti Key, criticizing the name Hadit as being inaccurate in
regard to Egyptian language is a moot point when it can be argued the spelling is intentional, so as to
cause its enumeration with gematria to match that of Nuit, the bride and complement of Hadit.

      Nuit = 29 = Hadit