The church website has precious little on "Egyptus." This is still up though:
"Old Testament Seminary Teacher Manual
Abraham 1:21–27 The origins of the government of Egypt are explained
Summarize Abraham 1:21–24 by explaining that after the Flood, a woman named Egyptus, who was Noah's granddaughter through Ham, settled in a land with her sons. The land became known as the land of Egypt, and Egyptus's oldest son, Pharaoh, established the first government (subsequent leaders of Egypt were also called Pharaoh). Ask a student to read Abraham 1:25–27 aloud. Invite the class to follow along and look for how Pharaoh tried to set up his kingdom."
The church continues to maintain that Egyptus' son was actually *named* "Pharaoh," and that subsequent rulers used that proper name as a title.
The mental contortions on FAIR are wondrous to behold. They have a massive word salad wall of text to attempt to explain it away. It starts out "The Book of Abraham contains a founding myth of Egypt." Except that the church presents and teaches it not as a myth, but a literal and genuine historical event.
Another sentence reads: "One of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers notes that Abraham 'was forewarned of God to go down into Ahmehstrah, or Egypt, and preach the gospel unto the Ahmehstrahans.' The word may be related to the Hebrew Mizraim — it sounds a bit like it." No, FAIR, it doesn't.
JS was just channeling the US fascination with all things Egyptian at that time, thanks to Napoleon. He ended up being too clever by half on that "Aegyptus" thing.
The BoA was what finally broke my shelf. Most of Mormonism's claims are unfalsifiable. I mean, if JS said an angel took the gold plates back to heaven, even though they weren't in heaven to strat with, how can you prove that wrong? The only real counter-argument you have is "you're kidding, Right? An angel took them?"
But when the papyri were found in 1966, I was thinking that we finally had something that could be used to affirm or refute the BoA. We can read Egyptian now. We can carbon date organic material now.
It did not go well for JS's claims about the BoA. Not at all well.
Nibley was Mormonism’s favorite intellectual in the 1960s. His scholarship has not aged well. I should stop by Deseret Book and see if they still carry anything by Nibley.
I was struck by horror when I read his disingenuous defense of the BOA. It was clear that the man had sold his soul.
I don't know how a person lives like that: trading his birthright as a (marginally credible) academic for a mess of Mormon praise. What terrible nights he must sometimes have passed.