Talk:Greek Magical Papyri

unsubstantiated claims

While I realize the improbability of having a real scholar of the magical papyri who creates a wikipedia page, claims such as:

"As far as we [WHO IS WE?] can reconstruct them, these books appear to fall into two broad categories: some are compilations of spells and magical writings, gathered by scholarly collectors either out of academic interest or for some kind of study of magic; others may have been the working manuals of travelling magicians, containing their repertoire of spells, formulae for all occasions. These often poorly educated magic-users were more like showmen than the traditional Egyptian wizards, who were a highly educated and respected priestly elite."

are wholly opinion, and should be described as such.

"The papyri date mostly from the second century BCE to the fifth century or so CE."

This is an opinion and should be cited as such.

"We see this syncretism in the Papyri in a variety of ways."

Again, who is we?

"cacophony of cultural influences"

give me a break.

The type of writing quoted above (very nice writing) betrays a high level of education on the topic. Too high - the author is likely a primary source and researcher on PGM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.141.248 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very nice of you to say so, but that's not the case. The original article (now much cut down, I see with some disappointment) was adapted from a piece I wrote for another purpose, and was only ever an encyclopaedic summary of the communis opinio. While I am a scholar on ancient Greek religion, I have not conducted any original research on the Greek Magical Papyri, and all opinions expressed in the original article were those of scholars in the bibliography given. I can provide the original text (including footnotes) if anybody is interested. Gabrielbodard (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(For "we" in all the examples above, insert "modern scholarship" and cite a source.)

So that explains it. I haven't begun looking into this, but I seem to recall an article on the Greek Magical Papyri that was rather good, and I was disappointed when I came back to it this time when I was linking to an article I wrote. Although it now seems a shade of what it was, I don't understand the basis for the scare citation labels. Not sure what happened, but I feel strongly that people shouldn't delete willy-nilly even when statements APPEAR to be unsourced (if there's a footnote at the end of a paragraph, I assume it covers the whole paragraph unless I have reason to think otherwise). Delete when (a) you know from your recollection of multiple scholarly sources that the statement is false, and (b) you can replace the false assertion with a fact. If a professional scholar takes time to contribute, we should welcome those contributions. Don't delete a statement that's true just because it hasn't got a footnote; if you care so much about the dissemination of accurate knowledge, go read several sources and verify the statement (or delete it because you couldn't). The idea of Wikipedia is to provide information and to make scholarship available to the public in lay language, not to run around playing intellectual sheriff and shutting down people who volunteer their time in good faith. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ancient Greece-related" stub?

If the Greek Magical Papyri was found in Egypt, is related to magic in Egypt, and also related to a syncretic religion found in Egypt, why is this article a "Ancient Greece-related" stub? --Pagebird (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the Papyri under discussion are written in ancient Greek and date from the period when the province of Egypt was governed by Hellenistic Greeks and later the Imperial Romans. I agree it should also be listed as Ancient Egypt-related, of course. But it certainly is ancient Greek in subject matter. Gabrielbodard (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How to observe magic 120.89.104.93 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This article or section has multiple issues

This article has BIG issues, and seems to have been obviously written from the perspective of an "Occultist" or "Neopagan." The whole thing needs to be revamped, sources cited, and a more NPOV taken with much less personal speculation and opinion. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what makes this article seem neopagan or occultist. I agree the article needs more citation of sources (and more items added to the bibliography). I don't see that it contains much by way of "personal speculation and opinion" though. If anyone disagrees with the interpretation of the sources (once cited) they should say so and change the text accordingly. Can anyone give concrete examples of any of the objections made above? Gabrielbodard (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because this article may not disagree with your opinion of the papyri does not mean the information is correct. For starters, the whole article seems to have been based solely on one work, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation by H.D. Betz. The one actual (and minor) citation was made in April has nothing to do with the dispute. Three out of the four listed sources in the Bibliography are non-English, and I doubt were actually used. The influence of the papyri on religion in Greco-Roman Egypt is way over-blow, and the idea of the Papyri Graecae Magicae as the basis for any type of cohesive religion itself is absolutely speculative. I doubt you could really find any support for such a notion outside Occult or Neopagan writings. Even in works like Arcana Mundi by Georg Luck, and Magika Hiera By Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink, there are not such far reaching claims. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"far reaching claims" such as what? I fail to find the claim of a "cohesive religion" of magic you complain about. The article clearly discusses "syncretism" and "folk religion", not any cohesive or institutionalised "high religion". Dear anon, you raised the same concerns at WP:FTN and Talk:Magic in the Greco-Roman world, and I cannot help the impression that your concerns are themselves "overblown". Yes, it is true that Wikipedia gets a lot of naive occultist or neopagan in-universe material, and constant vigilance is needed in these topics. Full agreement there. But you, for once, seem to be on the opposite side of the divide, trying to downplay the importance of magic in historical religion. What we need is a detached discussion of this importance, and neither an endorsement nor a disendorsement. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we start with the statement "The religion of the Papyri Graecae Magicae..." for the claim of a cohesive religion by the article? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, on Magic in the Greco-Roman world all I was looking for was an article that was more encyclopedic, with a NPOV. It was in ensuing debate that the article represented the dominant academic opinion on the subject that had me picking through it to verify quotes and sources, deleting misrepresentations, and eventually finding it to be a plagiarized work. Demonize me all you like, it doesn't change the facts of the matter. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope my contribution can get this going in the right direction. These papyri form a real "book" that has scolarly interest.J8079s (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted 'languages' citation label

I deleted the citation label on using languages other than English. The article contains no direct quotations of other languages, and only one of the secondary sources appears to be in a language other than English; I hope we aren't taking the position that Wikipedia contributors can only use English-language scholarship. In my opinion, contributors who makes foreign-language scholarship available to those of us who can't read a particular language are performing a great service. As for verification, that would obviously need to be done by someone with the language skills. But if you don't have the language skills to handle the major scholarship on a topic, could I respectfully suggest that you are perhaps not qualified to pooh-pooh the work of those who do?

The other non-English sources given are PRIMARY TEXTS that happened to have been edited (as is so often the case with ancient Greek texts) by German-speakers. Betz's English translation is also given. Excuse me for the Homeric exclamation, but "Duh." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting tags

The tags at the top of the article have been outstanding for years, and they seem rather obsolete to me. What the article needs is references for the claims, and more and better data. I am removing the tags, and instead sticking fact tags against unreferenced claims. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"The best known of these texts is the so-called Mithras Liturgy."

Why are these texts the best known?Curb Chain (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This or some other superlative may be true of the Mithras liturgy, but it does seem the kind of thing that requires a citation. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I initially removed it, but Rob Pearse objected: I have dropped a message, so maybe he can give his thoughts.Curb Chain (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I expect that this has come up in his reading for Mithras Liturgy, and that a source will be forthcoming. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to praise the ML -- no more interesting to me than any other -- but to link to it. You got it right in the note on my talk page -- we have a separate article and I wanted to link to it somehow. I do believe that it's the most important of these texts to most people, simply because no-one I know has ever even heard of the rest. For instance it's the only one that is getting separate editions, as far as I know. But in fact I don't have a reference for it (sorry Cynwolfe!). So I take your point. Open to suggestions on this. We should link the two articles, I think? Roger Pearse (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You might be amused to learn, given that the Mithras Liturgy mentions Helios Mithras just once, that the same formula appears in several others of the Greek Magical papyri. I was just looking through Betz' translation of the PGM, searching for "Mithr", to see if I could get a reference as above, and I found shoals of them in other texts in other volumes, in PGM III and PGM V! Has no-one but me ever looked, one wonders? (Some notes here) Roger Pearse (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the "Mithras liturgy" was characterized as such by more than the invocation of "Helios Mithras." If we have no citation for calling it "best known" or "one of the most important/significant," I've offered a temporary alternative. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me. So long as we let the reader know of the link, I'm easy. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Found a link here: Ronald Hutton, Witches, Druids and King Arthur, 2006, p.116: "The most famous of these texts is the so-called Mithras liturgy...". Roger Pearse (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol, nice. He scoresCurb Chain (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it explicitly states that it is the most famous. Should we say "According to Witches, Druids and King Arthur<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=QqPbJQkSo8EC&lpg=PA116&dq=The%20Greek%20Magical%20Papyri%20mithras%20liturgy&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=The%20Greek%20Magical%20Papyri%20mithras%20liturgy&f=false Ronald Hutton, ''Witches, Druids and King Arthur'', 2006, p.116]</ref>, "The most famous of these texts is the so-called Mithras liturgy..."."?Curb Chain (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm somewhat queasy about Hutton as a source, but perhaps this is because I once had a bad experience on WP with Neopagan religionists using him as a source. Besides, I'd just say "One of the best-known," because I think there are a few others that have attracted singular attention as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit wary; but the section in the preview on the papyri seemed rational enough. And hey, I think that was pretty damn good at short notice! (grin)

You must know something I don't about the others, then. But by all means, "one of the best known". I don't think we need say in the body of the text "According to Witches, Druids and King Arthur" -- I'd just say "One of the best known is " and put the stuff in the reference. If we needed an authority say "According to Ronald Hutton..." but I think most people would just say "who?" I'll try an edit, and by all means hack it around. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hutton's actually a very good scholar, though Wikipedia enthusiasts might sometimes use him in irresponsible ways. In one article, I've found that some of his work distresses Neopagans.

I do find it a bit weird that text like "one of the most famous of these texts is the so-called Mithras liturgy" needs a citation at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does; elsewhere I complained that it was silly to support the statement "Orpheus is one of the most important figures in Greek mythology" with eight footnotes. (Seriously, there were eight footnotes; scroll down in this version.) "The most important", though, in my opinion would require a citation because I'm not sure such an absolute would be useful. "One of the best-known/most important" is reasonable enough not to be challenged.

I should also say that the distinction between Hutton and those who (mis)use him is fair. Now that you mention it, in my incident, I did actually think they were misreading him, and then treating his book as gospel. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)