# Talk:Book of the Dead

Removed a myspace link someone placed on the page.

Can someone check and confirm that Thoth records the results of the weighing of the heart?  I wonder if a previous writer has confused Thoth with Anubis (who does the weighing).

Just checked again myself, seems Thoth is the scribe of Duat, marking a record as Anubis weighs.

The following is some material from an article redirected here. The author woul;d like it merged into the article, or restored. 

pert em hru is a hieroglyphic expression which means in english -coming forth by day- It is usually the title of the famous old book known as -book of the dead- although this recent title is rediculous and meaningless because there is no such thing as death in old Egypt.what is really happening merely a transfer from such a body which we see to a glorifying body in the kingdom of Osiris.furthermore,the book is just a collection of spells to counteract actions of evil-spirits which try to prevent this BA or glorifying soul from reaching Fields of Peace which are the real kingdom of gods.The most important part of this book is what is called negative confession in the hall of double MAAT i.e.two godesses of truth , where a person must declare his innocence before 42 god.This declaration costitutes basic moral values of humankind uptill now e.g.1- I have not done violence  2-I have not commited theft 3-I have not acted deceitfully 4-I have not uttered falsehood  5-I have not uttered falsehood  6-I have not uttered evil words  7-I have attacked no man  8- I have not laid waste the lands which have been ploughed 9-I have not defiled the wife of a man  10-I have not commited any sin against purity  11-I have not struck fear into any man 12-I have not been a man of anger  13-I have not made myself deaf to the words of right and truth.   14-I have made no man to weep.  15-I have not judged hastily  16-I have not acted with deceit and I have not worked wickedness   17-I have not cursed the god  18- I have not increased my wealth except with justly things.
Sam Spade 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this has good potential, but the grammar and diction is terrible. Please consider re-writing, as this is not encyclopedic; for example, "the title of the famous old book"? Well, no. That's not proper. As a matter of fact, the more I read this segment, the more I think it's too biased. The moral of the story is, please re-write it. 64.246.144.52 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)MaytrixInk
Is that list authentic? Items 4 and 5 are the same.88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The 18:07, 22 April 2006 edit of the above article on the Gospel story added a new next-to-last paragraph to the Meaning section with this opening sentence:
"There is an increadibly similar tale told in the, pre-Christian, book of the dead, in which Horus feeds a similar number of people with a similarly small amount of bread." (sic)
That edit does not document the first sentence. My check of external sources at the Book of the Dead article did not confirm the assertion. Can anyone document the assertion with either a primary source or a secondary source that cites a primary source to the same effect?  Thx for your assistance.  Thomasmeeks 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Hebrews cobbled together their religion from the cultures that surrounded them; what would be noteworthy about any given Biblical element is its not originating elsewhere.88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh no it’s broken:) 91.225.19.234 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on past edits in history page, I believe we're looking out for the status of this article in the future because there will be more and more non-standard amoral edits until... what? Should we block anonymous users from editing right now or what's another plan to deal with this situation? --Gh87 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the page should be protected, you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Since the vandals all seem to be annons, then semi-protection might help. However, since there was almost two weeks between vandalisms, it might not happen. The best thing to do is just keep the page on your watchlist and check every edit. Koweja 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody object to putting this in Category:Dialogues? ...(If you do, then you-(as one "Osiris-You"), you don't understand that this is just "the Book of the Dead", and... it is for the "common man", just like any other good book one selects: like "Moby Dick", "Atlas Shrugged", the "Bible" (New T, or Old T,)... etc. "It takes a Village"...  SonoranDesert AZfellow.. ....You know how you get to like your Favorite Chapters,Quotes,Sayings?-... (Or.. the favorite Question you ask your Favorite GOD?) -Mmcannis 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
How many chapters do you think are in the Book of the Dead?
Where do you think that the dead people go?
How do they die so fast?
Could the Egyptians in the afterlife still have their books of the deads?

I just removed some text from the article claiming four different versions of the book of the dead. Budge's outdated work wrongly perpetuates Naville's idea that there were different "Theban" and "Saite" versions of the book of the dead. The so-called "Theban" version (or recension), from in the New Kingdom, can hardly be called a version at all because there is no real standard text. And the so-called "Saite" recension is really just a fossilized compilation used much later and is evolved from New Kingdom examples: Raymond O. Faulkner, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Book of Going forth by Day. The First Authentic Presentation of the Complete Papyrus of Ani translated by Raymond Faulkner, edited by Eva von Dassow, with contributions by Carol Andrews and Ogden Goelet (Chronicle Books, San Francisco), c 1994.
As for the Heliopolitan version, (supposedly 5th dynasty), the author must have this confused with something else. There was a heliopolitan version of the creation myth, but the book of the dead wasn't even invented yet in the 5th Dynasty.
As for the difference between a hieratic and cursive hieroglyphic version that is different from the Theban recension, there is no difference. Any "version" could be written in either way, so how is this to be classified as a different text? This would be akin to saying a bible set in Times New Roman is a different bible than one set in Century Gothic. 
Now yes, there were some different books of the dead, in fact nearly every New Kingdom book of the dead is a unique "version" as is already mentioned in the article. And yes, there was a set version used after the 26th dynasty, in the Saite period, where the contents were arranged in a thematic order that was relatively fixed. These points will be addressed in the article, where they can be properly introduced and cited, but please, please, please, don't go to Budge for interpretation or English translation!Jeff Dahl 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This section appears to be vandalized.  I am not well-versed in this and so do not want to attempt to do anything about it.  But will someone who is more adept, please look into this..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.28.37 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 

Hi, I just checked the whole article, including the weighing of the heart section. Everything seems to be accurate; the translation is from Goelet's 1988 work cited in the references. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I just read my own translation is "Men talking in the day". Where does "Book of the dead" fit in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.164.166 (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 

{{editsemiprotected}} Punctuation goes inside quotation marks.  Citations should follow punctuation, not the reverse.
 Done I fixed the one example of each which I saw during a quick scan. If there are others, please make another request. {{editsemiprotected}} requests are listed in Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and are dealt with by editors who may be unfamiliar with the article in question, so please try to be specific about the edits you want. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When was it probably written, please? There are no dates.
Yeah there are, it said around the New Kingdom (1550 BC) to 50 BC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.79.131 (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC) 

I think that we should have some facts and pictures on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.121.185 (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 

{{editsemiprotected}}
A new section, "In Popular Culture", should be published, starting with:
"A comprehensive written version appears in the 1999 film "The Mummy" and its 2000 sequel as the means of ressurecting the dead, starting with the titular mummy Imhotep. It appears alongside the fictional Book of the Living, which is the way they stop the mummy in the movie
75.178.184.130 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Darkwind (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I can see that this article is improving I am a bit concerned that nearly all references are Taylor (and a few Faulkner).  I am not wholly convinced by some of assertions and I think this is the danger of a single source.Apepch7 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could let me know which statements you're worried about and which sources you're consulting. The Land (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I will as soon as my books which are in transit arrive.  Its not so much that what Taylor says is wrong but that an article which draws largely from one source is not likely to reflect a well rounded view of the subject.  Don't take this as a major crit - just an observation.Apepch7 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Look forward to it! Yes, I quite agree, it's a little too reliant on one source to be (say) FA material. I'm sure there are also plenty of areas where views differ. The Land (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:4WhatMakesSense added this comment into the main picture's caption; "Ed.NMEMS ~ That's not what it shows, it is a woman(Ammit) in court testifying against a married man. The uploaded image cuts out him & his wife, but the ring on his left hand(Ankh) means he is not allowed to be with others(Married)". I've moved it here because the article shouldn't have comments like this within it - discussion should happen here. I just wondered if 4WhatMakesSense had any references to this alternative interpretation of the picture? If it's a significant point of view within the academic community we should of course include it. The Land (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a Funerary Text. They call it that because it was buried with someone. But the Text is about how people lived their days. Please help correct the context, and use the correct names, rather than the conventional, Religious Slander = "Book of the Dead". Such slander has no Academic Value or Bearing on The Truth.  4WhatMakesSense (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slander? Any disadvantaged parties have been dead (pardon, have emerged into the light of day) for millennia.88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

the follow was inserted: Jonpatterns (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
the black book of the dead was created in 16 bc by the one caydious known as the 3rd egyption king who was kidnapped in 17bc 
by leon henry

It was just vandalism. A. Parrot (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130514100911/http://www.cultorweb.com/eBooks/Archeo/The.Egyptian.Book.of.the.Dead.(1895).pdf
Rajmaan (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why the focus on 'spells'? This trivializes the text's content & context. Why not consider a new paradigm: the translated text reads more like poetry, consistent with what we know of Egyptian culture. Poetry suitable for certain occasions. In contemporary cultures it is not uncommon for people to place poetry, prayer, or spiritual prose on tombstones or in ceremonies. My classmates at Cambridge, their parents and grandparents would no doubt refer to eulogies or whatever prose or poetry was relevant to their lives in this way, not as 'spells', I trust men and women of ancient Eygpt were not significantly less textured in their own appreciation of life. This text may offer a glimpse into an ancient literary canon that should not be trivialized in one stroke as 'spells' - this trivializing limits rather than liberates thinking about the text's significance. TranscendTranslation (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must use the terminology of reliable sources, and the divisions of the book are always called either "chapters" or "spells" in Egyptological writing. I didn't write this article, but you could ask User:The Land, who did most of the work here, his reasons for choosing "spell".
I will say that "spell" may seem trivializing to modern Westerners, but to the ancient Egyptians, speech and writing were believed to have a profound power, which the Egyptians called heka. The best translation of heka into English is probably "magic", but that word, like "spell", still has some negative connotations, where people assume magic is opposed to and inferior to religion. In contrast, heka was one of the central principles of ancient Egyptian religion, and power-infused writing and speech were an essential part of ritual (The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Modern Practice by Robert K. Ritner, 1993, pp. 236–249). The term the Egyptian used for the divisions of the Book of the Dead meant something more like "spell" than "chapter", as funerary texts were believed to have magical effects, and their texts could be re-adapted for use by the living (Ritner 1993, pp. 41–42, 63–64).
That doesn't mean the Book of the Dead and other funerary texts weren't poetry. As Miriam Lichtheim put it when discussing the Pyramid Texts, "While trusting in the magical potency of words, the authors of these incantations often achieved the heightened intensity of formulation which is poetry" (Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, 2006, p. 8). If this article were to reach featured status, it would have to include analysis of the texts' value as literature. I'm not very knowledgeable on that subject, though, and I'm not sure where to find this kind of detailed analysis in the Egyptological sources. A. Parrot (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TranscendTranslation! When I worked on this article a couple of years ago, most of the sources I was working from tended towards the term "spell". This is inevitably only a small sliver of the literature - I'm sure we could benefit from more material about the different approaches to interpreting the texts. If you can see errors or omissions please feel to make amendments - the key principle is that the article ought to reflect the balance of opinion that can be read in secondary and tertiary sources on the subject. The Land (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Spells are deadly serious business to people who believe in them! Likewise incantations that will subdue the demons you will meet along the way. One day Christian mythology will be seen by all for the ridiculous childishness it is, and any references to it by those living 5000 years from now may well be felt by them as "trivial"...88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In the second-to-last paragraph under the "spells" subsection, the last sentence contains an incorrect word. "[...] giving him power of them" ought to read "[...] giving him power over them."
Eloquentmess (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how the english word "dead" has come out of the translation. The word "dead" is by no means equivalent to what the Khemet referred to as leaving life. It is clear that there is much more to it. Simplifying the name pf texts as something to do with modern death greatly diminishes the true value of what has been written. Jevinchi07 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As may be, but what's the relevance to this article?  "Book of the Dead" is by far the name by which this is most widely known in the English language, and that's not a translation of the original Egyptian, it's a translation of Lepsius' 1842 German rendering.   Ravenswing   21:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I take issue with the popular name, not the Wikipedia entry. I'm simply pointing out that the name assigned alters the perspective of the entire work to any new user hoping to find infornation here. 
It might be already widely known, but the amount of times "Book Of The Dead" has been used in this article, it would embed in any reader the notion that that is what it was always called instead of just being a 160 year old name. Jevinchi07 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the comma be in italics or normal? "transliterated rw nw prt m hrw," or "transliterated rw nw prt m hrw,"?--Adûnâi (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Adûnâi: The italics are for non-English text, which in this case means the Egyptian phrase. The comma isn't a part of that phrase and should not be italicized. A. Parrot (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The section on "Judgement" with the analogy to "the Ten Commandments of Jewish and Christian ethics" seems to summarise an opinionated source as if it were simply factual. Opinions can be valid to mention, if they are particularly influential, but they should be framed as such. Possibly direct quotes would be appropriate, or language along the lines of "some authors have compared it to". Currently this section seems to have been edited to look simple / factual / unbiased, without actually being such. Irtapil (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: (For future reference, new discussion topics go at the bottom of the talk page.) I don't see what's objectionable about this passage. It only says "For every 'I have not...' in the Negative Confession, it is possible to read an unexpressed 'Thou shalt not'. While the Ten Commandments of Jewish and Christian ethics are rules of conduct laid down by a perceived divine revelation, the Negative Confession is more a divine enforcement of everyday morality." The first sentence is pretty obviously true, and because the Egyptians didn't have ethical codes laid out by divine revelation, the second sentence more or less follows from it. Besides, if a statement in a Wikipedia article is based on the consensus of scholars in the relevant field of expertise, then it is neutral by Wikipedia's definition, and as far as I know, this is the consensus. A. Parrot (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What does the * refer to? I find it only once in the page with Ctrl-F. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 23:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
For now, i remove the *, please restore it if i just overlooked where it points to. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia entry in this article, the Ancient Egyptian title is: r(ꜣ)w n(y)w prt m hrw(w)). According to the English Wiktionary, "rw nw prt m hrw" translates into: ‘Utterances of Coming Forth in the Day’. More smoothly translated: Words of Coming Forth in the Day. In other words, how to achieve enlightenment, during life. Not after death. 
In other words, something completely different in wording and meaning. Orientalising has meant that Ancient Egypt was re-framed as a culture obsessed with death rather than life, including immortality. It was consciously contrasted with Greek obsession with youth and vitality. 
It seems incongruent for the English translation to be so different from the Ancient Egyptian title in the same sentence. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:E41D:5620:598D:2C45 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its article titles on the names that are most commonly used in reliable sources; see Wikipedia:Common name for details. Most of the sources still call this composition "Book of the Dead", even though most of them mention that the name is modern and the Egyptian title meant something like "Book of Coming Forth by Day". If most of the sources abandoned the term "Book of the Dead", Wikipedia would, too, but it won't happen until then. A. Parrot (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Then perhaps it should be called both. A reference to it's historic mistranslation/misrepresentation - no matter how often repeated - and an actual translation of the title according to Ancient Egyptian.
Also, calling it 'Book Of The Dead' creates a confusing connection to the Tibetan Book Of The Dead. Which is also a mistranslation... Tibet's Bardo Thodol translates as, Brittanica: "Bardo Thödol, (Tibetan: “Liberation in the Intermediate State Through Hearing”)... Seems like a trend. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:E41D:5620:598D:2C45 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles can only be at one title (one URL). But the second sentence of this article does give the Egyptian title: "the original Egyptian name for the text, transliterated r(ꜣ)w n(y)w prt m hrw(w), is translated as Book of Coming Forth by Day". A. Parrot (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's a funny continuation of this saga. This is a game of chinese whispers going through history. It was Richard Karl Lepsius, who asked the local arabs what they were called, and having found them in a 'tomb' (probably wasn't a tomb), they called it the 'Tomb Books'. Which Lepsius then translated into German as 'Tötenbuch' or again translated into English, 'Book of the Dead'. It doesn't end there. In Tibet, Walter Evans-Wentz had the Bardo To Dol translated, and thought it was 'like the Egyptian Book Of The Dead'. And thus, he called the Bardo Todol 'The Tibetan Book Of The Dead'.
"We owe that super cool name to Karl Richard Lepsius , described as the founder of German Egyptology , who apparently named it “Tötenbuch”, perhaps from the Arabic term used by villagers to describe tomb papyri." Source: Egyptian 'Book of the Dead', BCE - University of Washington Information School, October 12, 2023
"In 1927, The Tibetan Book of the Dead was published by Oxford University Press. Evans-Wentz chose the title "Book of the Dead" because it reminded him of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. ...[3]" Source: Wikipedia. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Those were prayers, not spells and it is still done to this day in many cultures for the dead. 2600:8807:8446:A200:B4D7:81DB:9013:3815 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I freely admit that this is a ’request for opinion’ rather than an edit. The article makes reference to “a Bible”, in the particular context - should it be ‘the Bible’? Andyeff (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)