This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Why are these texts the best known? Curb Chain ( talk) 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
These papyruses were written by Egyptians describing Egyptian culture (whose ancient Greeks always said it was the source of all Greeks' knowledge), but now the philhellenes want to classify them as Greeks because some of them were written in Greek(thanks to Alexander the Great)? I am speaking English right now, according to this logic I am an English/ American and should be entitled to have a greencard as well. 2804:7F2:2990:F845:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Greek magical papyer 120.89.104.93 ( talk) 15:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Why are these texts the best known? Curb Chain ( talk) 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
These papyruses were written by Egyptians describing Egyptian culture (whose ancient Greeks always said it was the source of all Greeks' knowledge), but now the philhellenes want to classify them as Greeks because some of them were written in Greek(thanks to Alexander the Great)? I am speaking English right now, according to this logic I am an English/ American and should be entitled to have a greencard as well. 2804:7F2:2990:F845:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Greek magical papyer 120.89.104.93 ( talk) 15:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)