However, if you are interested in 19th-century occultists (Blavatsky, Crowley, etc) then you probably should have this translation on your shelf next to a more modern one, because Budge is a primary source of their ideas about Egyptian gods and religion (which are interesting in their own right, though not historically accurate or scholarly). And again, at least Budge's stuff is widely and inexpensively available in Dover paperback editions....


Erroneous, at best   December 26, 2000
 29 out of 50 found this review helpful

Mr. Budge's ineptitude is a well-known shame; his translations (dare I call them that?!?) are notoriously inaccurate and full of blunders. In fact, most of his texts were regarded even in his day as outdated and flawed. Please, there are too many other splendid translations (I recommend Dr. Faulkner Raymond's "The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day" or Normandi Ellis' "Awakening Osiris : The Egyptian Book of the Dead" - both are gorgeous) available to justify wasting one's money on such a compilation of solecisms as this.

[Disclaimer: no defamation of character is intended. That has already been accomplished by Mr. Budge himself. Anyone familiar with Budge's work is already aware of his incompetence.]


"Antiquated, and not for the serious Egyptologist."   October 22, 1999
 25 out of 35 found this review helpful

As a former student of Egyptology, I must inform all potential readers that Budge's translations are very poor, and that much better translations of the Papyrus of Ani now exist. Budge also tends to exaggerate and sensationalize. If this book was supposed to be a literal translation, this wouldn't be the case. The inferior translations are mostly due to the age of the book. Advances in the field of Egyptian grammar make this text obsolete.


Book of the Dead-Giovanni Callanta (Chicago)   August 12, 2004
 21 out of 25 found this review helpful

Being an archaeologist, I know better than to claim that there is such a thing as a wrong or right inference. They are all just interpretations of available information that can be translated differently by another person (I believe this is why Budge included the original text--in order to give the reader a chance to make hs own inferences). The best way to judge an interpretation based on artifacts and proveniences is by the background and experience of the academic doing the translation. Being a celebrated Egyptologist for such a long period of time ought to count for something. I know I wouldn't disparage a fellow Archy based on the words of a fictional man from a movie that claimed pyramids were built by aliens.


Cryers Beware!!!   January 21, 2004
 16 out of 46 found this review helpful

I don't need to be anonymous, scared or ignorant of the "FACT" that Budge did not translate this wonderful papyrus for the general public to be eaten "WHOLE"; he is no different than Falkner and others who spent their personal time to translate what they thought about what it was saying for the minds of the above named individuals!!!

It is up to you to make a translation for yourself!!! Anybody's translation is just that--A TRANSLATION! Do you reviewer's NOT have the ability to learn the language and translate for you own personal archives??? I do and I have translated it for my own personal archives, however, it is not a permanent translation because the mind is ever far-reaching because it is not limited--unlike some of the reviewers comments that I've read here concerning this man. The same can and is said(by me atleast)about Falkner and others who attempt to make "MONEY" on a so-called "RIGHT, CORRECT and AUTHORIZED VERSION (TRANSLATION)" of the papyrus!!!

So, then, stop crying and be happy that at least Budge gave his work with "HIEROGLYPHS"--unlike other so-called "Authorities" on this African nation!!!

Sincerely yours,
Someone who thinks for HIMSELF!!!