Talk:List of Book of the Dead spells

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Ancient Egypt Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from List of Book of the Dead spells appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that of roughly 200 magic spells in the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, five are intended to protect the dead from snakes in the afterlife?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/December.

Wikipedia

Single source of references[edit]

Pleased to see this page but I think it suffers from single source of information (Taylor) unfortunately I have packed all my books because I am moving home or I would add more. I think it should explain that the sections are called 'spells' because they were intended to be spoken out loud and would also point out that Spell 7 is a magical charm against apophis not 'animals'. Perhaps something more needs to be said of Spell 64 - 'all chapters in one' and also 151 is usually called 'head of mystery'.Apepch7 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. Taylor's book isn't a spell-by-spell analysis, so isn't a great source for this article; I mainly created it as an adjunct to the work I'm doing on Book of the Dead. Hopefully it's a good start though. The Land (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be called "John H. Taylor's analysis of the Book of the Dead[edit]

As Apepch7 points out, the single source is problematic. A related problem is nomenclature; the identification of the various parts as "spells" evokes imagery of magical incantation, which is not justified. They do appear to have been intended to be read aloud, in which they are pretty much identical with almost all ancient literature. The only suggestion of "magic" (as is clearly implied by the word "spell") is inferred by modern readers and explicated by the prejudice of the translator. I know of no good reason to attribute any other motivation to these texts than as attempts to explain current or future realities as believed by these ancient Egyptians. Even a priestly rite would not be a use of "magic", any more than e.g. a Catholic priest intoning a prayer is exercising "magic" in the eyes of his parishioners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoxjox (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of the Warburg Institute's Esoteric Studies Working Group, working in the general domain of First Califate magia. The term is derivative from magus, a knowledgable/wise one, and includes copious amounts of talismanic and amulet work, including generalised theory. This clearly derives from local culture, and so we must approach the term in the sense of Arthur C Clarke's definition of the miraculous as being simply advanced technology, in the widest sense, the knowledge of how to do something, including the divine knowledge thereof. That is to say, not magic as fairground slight of hand, nor yet as fabulation, but the work of the wise. It is not, therefore, incumbent on you to bring the standards of your culture to bear, judgmentally, but to use the meaning the authors intended, as best it can be translated now. Enough theory: these aren't spells, but invocations, intercessory prayers of the same general nature as any in common use today. It's just that the elements of creed are different.

Returning to the single-source issue, you're entitled to remove the lenses of Muscular Christianity used when these translastions were undertaken: this is what causes the irrelevant "magic" dispute, Christian opposition to such, as diabolical (2 Peter 1:20-21 extended in Deuteronomy 18:11-12. Within the framework of Matthew 6:5-7, your Priest intoning a prayer is equally problematic.

Contrasting different sources, and, indeed, the original text, is fully within scope. Given there are variants, the first step must be a collation thereof, with variant paths. The second, argued variations thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What even is this?[edit]

I accidentally stumbled upon this article and I have no idea what this is. No description at the top of the page. Horrible article.8.48.251.116 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit to help those with more expertise[edit]

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/literature/religious/bdbynumber.html has a full list itself, and has sources to back it up. I put several of the promising ones in the Further Reading section. I know nothing of Egyptology so this is as helpful as I know how to be! N7fty (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]