SEYFFARTH EGYPTIAN THEOLOGY. 59 



The Cb^ba (elilim), so often mentioned in the Old Testament, 

 i.e. the little powers, refer likewise to the minor pagan deities of 

 the planets. 



3. The foolish idea of the Champollionists that the beetle sig- 

 nifies c/zeper, a word not to be found in any language, needs no 

 refutation. This scarabaeus expresses ^ in many proper names, 

 and its appellation was xdvda()o^, i.e. RHn-oTop, the Hebrew 

 "iHK (Adir), the divine Creator. Hence our group signifies /r, 

 i.e. «^pe facere, or ^Top god. 



4. It is astonishing indeed that the Champollionists, during a 

 period of fifty-four years, did not learn what the papyrus scroll 

 signifies. Its name being ^cwja. (see my Gram. ^g. p. 94, No. 

 492), this scroll expresses plurality, the letters km, the Coptic 

 r>toAv. copia, multitude. Hence it is evident that the Hebrew D'' 

 (yim), is the same, but the softened acojw., plurality. For it is 

 known that k very often goes over into the consonant jk, e.g. in 

 ;x:poTi (gignere), the Hebrew IT (yalat), gignere. Comp. VT* 

 (yada), scire, with k.a.ti (scire, intelligere) ; D' (yam) with ^toM' 

 (lebes, (pud?.a, lacus) ; roi with 1001 (ager), and so forth. Hence, 

 by the way. it is erroneous what Gesenius, in his Lexicon, 

 asserts, that the molten sea was "hyperbolice" called a sea, for D"" 

 (yam) as well as 2fi.ojA. denotes a kettle, DJN ; hence a lake, espe- 

 cially the Mediterranean sea or lake. — This same papyrus scroll 

 moreover, expresses plurality in eight other places of our inscrip- 

 tion (Nos. 13, 15, 20, 26, 30, 41, 44, 55). The Champollionist 

 Brugsch, not knowing what to do with this papyrus scroll, de- 

 clared its picture to be a mere "expletive sign," destitute of any 

 phonetic or ideologic value. Hence it came to pass that Brugsch's 

 great Dictionary of four volumes in quarto, containing nearly ten 

 thousand words, changed some thousands of substantives into 

 verbs, and plurals into singulars. The same work, moreover, did 

 not originate from translating entire Egyptian texts, but from sin- 

 gle groups severed from the context, of which the significations 

 were defined by guessing and by means of determinatives taken 

 ideologically. Hence it is natural that this voluminous Diction- 

 ary contains in every hundred words ninety-nine wrong ones ; 

 and I do not understand how a prudent man ventured to appear 

 before the scientific world with such a fabrication prior to having 

 learned the Egyptian alphabet, the grammatical forms, the Cop- 



