REVIEW BY ROBERT F. SMITH, March 2014

Deleanu, Daniel, Reformed Egyptian and Its Decipherment (Toronto: LogoStar Press, 2012); 117pp.

ISBN 978-1-300-36566-2

Daniel Deleanu, Reformed Egyptian Grammar, vol. I: Morphology (Toronto: LogoStar Press, 2012);

153pp. ISBN 978-1-300-34311-0

These are the only two of Daniel Deleanus books which I have thus far been able to find and read (I

found them at the LDS Church History Library in SLC). They provide an adequate explanation of his

method and the results of his failed attempt to decipher Reformed Egyptian and the so-called Anthon

Transcript.

Reading between the lines of his books, it is clear that Deleanu began by scanning the Anthon

Transcript (AT), selecting a set of characters from it which resemble (to a greater or lesser degree)

Latin letters, and attempted to read the AT. Despite the fact that no coherent message either in

English or Hebrew was obtained thereby, he simply went on to present his conclusions in several

books. In so doing, he discussed the theoretical basis of his decipherment, and the implications for

Book of Mormon studies (even throwing in some apologetics).

He reported in his Decipherment book (5) that Reformed Egyptian1 uses an alphabetic script. The

task of its decipherment has been accomplished by employing the Anthon Transcript as a sort of map

legend for the signs/characters . . . . He footnoted (n. 1) that Reformed Egyptian designates both

the language in which the Book of Mormon was originally written and its Script, as mentioned therein

(Mormon 9:32-35). What he means by that is that, through a tortuous evolutionary sequence (from

Proto-Sinaitic writing and its source in ancient Egyptian rebus script, and via Paleo-Hebrew), one ends

up with an essentially Hebraic script and language: Reformed Egyptian is not Egyptian at all, but

rather Hebrew written in a sort of evolved Paleo-Hebrew and Latin script!!

The Anthon Transcript itself (6) is not a quote, since it does not contain enough recurrent sign

groups, and is not an abjad, . . . Moreover, a source . . . of equal value . . . is the so-called Ferrini

Lead Fragment, which (8) was inscribed in a combination of Aramaic and Reformed Egyptian, . . .

That fragment (9) has been his Rosetta Stone in decipherment of the original language . . . of the

Book of Mormon. This was done on purely onomasiological principles, i.e., an a priori and

heuristic modus operandi, in which (10, n. 2), following Roland Barthes, the AT evinces a colourless

writing freed from all bondage to a pre-ordained state of language (citing Barthes, Writing Degree

Zero, 82), with which we have associated the Anthon Transcript, a writing that later on turns into a

dreamed-of language whose freshness, by a kind of ideal anticipation, might portray the perfection of

some Adamic world where language would no longer be alienated (citing Barthes, 94).

Indeed (11), the onomasiological analysis proper employs a quasi-deconstructionist method

borrowed from Jacques Derrida. He goes on in that vein for several pages, but does happily provide

a good deal of substantive discussion and examples elsewhere when it comes to showing what his

conclusions are.

He explains that (13) the graphic forms of Hieratic, Demotic, and Coptic were all reformed,

which is probably a true statement. However, his examples and conclusions elsewhere show almost

no knowledge of ancient Egyptian, and his books on this issue (the decipherment of the AT) might just

as well have never even concerned themselves with Egyptian. Egyptian is apparently irrelevant for his

purposes.

Just so (14), the Anthon Transcript, . . contains all true signs which the Weltgeist-Wortgeist pair needs

for the ontological representation of the world of the Book of Mormon, and all its philological

properties are given in it a priori.

Along with the Ferrini Lead Fragment he also employs other questionable documents, such as (24) the

Los Lunas Stone (Decalogue Rock) at Hidden Mountain, NM, as an instance of the evolution of

Reformed Egyptian script. He states (25) that the Los Lunas Stone cannot be a fake (26), because

Paleo-Hebrew script was unknown until the 20th century -- which is a completely false statement (it

has been in use all along among the Samaritans).

He also covers the (34) evolution from Paleo-Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian, of which the Spangler

Nodule represents the first step. He cites a Ben Urrutia SEHA paper on that Nodule.

In comparing signs in the AT to those known elsewhere, Deleanu (34-55,66-68) tends to free associate

signs from any and every available script, no matter from where or when, and no matter whether

authentic or fake, including the Jordan Lead Codices, Sinaia Lead Plates, the Tartaria Tablets, Alaska

Script, Brahmi, Devanagri, Tibetan, etc.

He wisely observes that (72-73) translation problems/inaccuracies in Book of Mormon and Bible are

often based on human error, citing Joel M. Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the

Bibles Original Meaning (NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2010).

As an example, he sees Book of Mormon elephant as a peccary, the horse as a wild burro (which

he believes is native to the Americas).

He has a chart (78, and on page 13 of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar, I) of the entire Reformed

Egyptian alphabet, which he says is written from left to right. In that chart (68), he presents

Reformed Egyptian in two different alphabets, minuscule (lower case) and majuscule (capital letters).

Upper case (majuscules)

A = ) G = 0 M = 9 S = b Y = & ??

B = | H = O N = T T = + Z = 0

C = j I = Z O = L U = 7

D = < J = : P = # V = S

E = h K = ? Q = U W = X

F = W L = s R = i X = 5

Lower case (minuscules)

a = # g = = m = 5 s = ) y = 1

b = #$ h = + n = l t = ] z = ]

c = " i = $ o = F u = A

d = ? j = ( p = 6 v = F

e = " k = M q = # w = @

f = k l = ^ r = ;> x = Q

Finally, he concludes that (75) The very authenticity of the Reformed Egyptian language and script

has now been fully proven.

In volume one of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar, Deleanu says that (8) Reformed Egyptian is . . . a

sort of shorthand of Paleo-Hebrew written in Egyptian characters . . , yet I can see nothing Egyptian

or shorthand about it. Deleanu never addresses the supposed space-saving qualities of his reformed

Egyptian alphabet used on the Book of Mormon plates. Indeed, the Nephites would have been better

off using Paleo-Hebrew script instead of this alphabetic Deleanu concoction.

Aside from the non-use of the majuscule letters which he charts, Deleanu never uses most of the

Caractors in the Anthon Transcript. He simply doesnt address that question.