Talk:List of Book of the Dead spells

Single source of references
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)


 * 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)

Should be called "John H. Taylor's analysis of the Book of the Dead
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)


 * 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)

What even is this?
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)

A bit to help those with more expertise
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)