Talk:Joseph Smith Papyri

Assessment review 4/5/21

Hello! I reassessed the article as c-class for the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I also did a general copyedit. Here are my recommendations for improving the article moving forward:

• Include more neutral language. The article has some spots where cleanup of biased language is needed. I invisible commented on a few.
• Condense and simplify. Take out extraneous information. Some sections are too lengthy, IMO, and some could probably be taken out entirely.
• Add sources for discussions of depictions. I'm not entirely sure on Wikipedia's rules for this (I'm not finding any specific language on when to cite or thereabouts. So, I would cite something just to be safe.

Thank you for your work on this page, everyone! Cstickel(byu) (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation of the fragments

I recommend a citation to the most recent publication of the fragments, a complete translation of the Joseph Smith papyri by Robert K. Ritner in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, Signature Books (Salt Lake City), 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.163.228 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is looking pretty good so far. I appreciate all the effort Descartes has put into the formatting, references and footnoting. I have done a change to the section on JSP I to reflect the fact that it was Baer who speculated that the completed image would represent a conception/ressurection scene. The damage to the fragment makes any assertion concerning the content speculative. I do note that other examples of this type of image exist - as illustrated in Budge's book. I'd be pleased to insert that in a section discussing comparisons with other BOD vignetes, if someone can tutor me on the process of inserting images. DWmFrancis (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the image of JSP IV is included with the Hor scroll fragments. It should actually be grouped with the Book of the Dead for Tshenmin. Nice work on getting the Tshenmin fragments online. I don't believe they are accessible elsewhere on the net. Incidentally, do I understand correctly that images of the papyri cannot be copyrighted and therefore are automatically fair game for Wikipedia? If so, I'm certain I can scan these images at higher quality than they are here, and also supply the images that are missing from the article thus far. CaliforniaKid (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:PD-Art. However, for the Tshenmin images, you have to be careful: the Improvement Era images are sepia and the rubrics tend to chamoflage with the papyrus. Also, several small Hor fragments are apparantly glued into lacunae in JSP IV, the base papyrus of which is a Tshenmin fragment. -- Thomas.hori (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

JSP IV has patches that had fallen off of, or were cut from the other JSP and were pasted into it from the Hor scroll. Not sure who thought this was a good idea, but it is confusing. Epachamo (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Unique leg position?

"and the position of the legs of the reclining figure, with one raised, is also unique"

Cited as this may be, it does not seem to be the case. Consider the following:

• 
• 

What is unusual is the adoption of such a position whilst wearing a kilt. The reclining figures in the above Egyptian lion couch scenes are nude. -- Thomas.hori (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the wearing of a kilt is also not unique. http://thebookofabraham.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-collection-of-lion-couch-scenes.html has a compilation of lion couch scenes similar to Facsimile #1. There is nothing particularly unusual that ANY Egyptologist would find unique about Facsimile #1. Epachamo (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Translations

I added several different translations. As this is a HIGHLY charged topic, so to maintain a neutral point of view, I chose four translations (two of them from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and two respected Egyptologists). Baer is widely respected by both Mormon and Non-Mormon Egyptologists. While Ritner might have a somewhat adversarial attitude towards Mormonism, his translation is still respected among members of the church, as evidenced by the dozens of times his work is referenced by the Joseph Smith Papers project. Epachamo (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I split the translation section into its own article. See Breathing Permit of Hôr to discuss further. Epachamo (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Split out history into new section?

The History section is getting pretty long. Any thoughts about moving it into a different article? Epachamo (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Princess Katumin sentence change explanation

In an effort to improve the accuracy of the article, I have changed the sentence

Parts were translated by Smith as a short tale about a Princess Katumin, daughter of Pharaoh called Onitas.

to read:

Parts were translated by Smith as a short history of a Princess Katumin, daughter of Pharaoh Onitas.

I have done this for the following reasons:
1. The purpose of the sentence is to explain what Smith thought about the characters, not on the accuracy of the translation. What HE thought they were is of clear interest to historians, not just what they actually were.
2. It is fairly clear that Joseph Smith and his adherents truly thought that Princes Katumin and Pharaoh Onitas were real people. Saying he translated it as a 'tale' implies that Smith himself thought the translation was fictional, making the sentence not only POV, but flat out wrong.
3. Scholars thoughts on Joseph Smith's translation is clearly laid out directly afterwards, leaving no doubt in the mind of the reader as to the accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation.
Epachamo (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Direct translation"

In the lede, I've changed "...which he said was a direct translation from the papyri." to "...which he said was an inspired translation from the papyri." This is to reflect what's actually said in the two cited sources - they both say the translation was "inspired" and neither calls it "direct". As far as I can see, neither source has a quote from JS on the subject, but both seem pretty clear that he claimed and/or believed the translation was inspired. The second says "directly inspired", but that's a different meaning to "directly translated". Although it doesn't make much difference to this page, I think it's an important distinction because pro-Smith apologists often claim the "translation" was analogous to Smith's "translation" of the Bible (which was said to be an inspired restoration of what the original authors meant, rather than a word-for-word translation of any extant text). That interpretation is mentioned on the "criticism of the Book of Abraham" page, where such discussion really belongs. To be absolutely clear, I'm not trying to make the article say it was inspired, only that JS said it was. Pastychomper (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pastychomper: There still exists a problem with "inspired translation." Smith thought he was making a literal translation of the papyrus, inspired or not. Somehow we need to craft that in there in an NPOV way. Epachamo (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)