This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joseph Smith Papyri article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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:
Thank you for your work on this page, everyone! Cstickel(byu) ( talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The History section is getting pretty long. Any thoughts about moving it into a different article? Epachamo ( talk) 00:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joseph Smith Papyri article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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:
Thank you for your work on this page, everyone! Cstickel(byu) ( talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The History section is getting pretty long. Any thoughts about moving it into a different article? Epachamo ( talk) 00:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)