Examination of an ancient Egyptian religious text
used to solicit the gods for eternal survival.
(The Papyrus of Ani, otherwise mistakenly known as the Book of the Dead.)
I posted the following to the Internet Ancient Egyptian Language discussion list on August 17, 2002.
Hello Everyone:
I am new to the list, and also new to understanding the ancient scripts. I hope you will be patient with me.
In a post dated Sun Aug 11, Christine El Mahdy made several remarks that led me to be bold.
“cast any translations to one side. Many of them, as we have found, are highly inaccurate.”
“If you want a demonstration of what I mean, try examining a small section the Book of the Dead . . .”
I recently purchased a copy of the Papyrus of Ani (The Egyptian Book of the Dead), translated by Raymond Faulkner, with some emendation by Ogden Goelet, Jr., Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1994. James Wasserman conceived the project. It is a beautiful reproduction of an original papyrus from circa 1250 BC, in full color, but reduced in size about 40% from the original. Apparently this is the first reprint of the papyrus published in 1890 in full size by Wallis Budge under the sponsorship of the Trustees of the British Museum. At that time the interested reader was expected to purchase the text, transliteration and translation published in 1895 in a separate volume. Budge repeats all hieroglyphs in the latter to obtain his transliteration. ((Dover reprint, New York, 1967.)
My interest was a study of ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, and especially the role of Osiris. I wanted to use the most original and reliable sources I could find, without the intervening and possibly interpretative altering of the meaning of the text from that intended by the ancient scribes.
In an Introduction Wasserman states:
“Several issues regarding this edition need to be discussed. My original idea, developed in detail for several years, was to follow the Ani Papyrus word for word. I planned to use Budge's translation, and his excellent key to the hieroglyphics, to present the text and images on the same page. Dr. (Ogden) Goelet, however, made clear, first, that Budge's translation falls far short of modern standards, and second, that the hieroglyphic text of the Ani Papyrus itself is of uneven quality, often much inferior to the excellence of its vignettes. He proposed that we use Faulkner's translation below the images of the Ani Papyrus, supplemented by his own translations where necessary. Our text would then represent the best translation from the best Egyptological sources for the specific chapter illustrated in the Ani Papyrus.
“Thus this volume combines the finest modern scholarship with the most beautifully illuminated ancient papyrus.”
I question that this is an accurate statement.
This remark led me to examine Budge’s publication, and to compare translations. Certainly, over the past hundred years, much greater understanding of the ancient script has evolved. Since Budge’s translation is still used widely among interested laypersons I wondered what differences existed and were they important? How might they affect my understanding and that of others?
I went through the first 10 columns of text in conducting my comparisons, as a test sample. For convenience I use Budge’s translation to show the differences.
I discovered the following items: