"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)

[Pythagoras]

Discuss.

[guacamole]

Well. Whenever I play wargames I tend to go for the spell casters and support units first. Usually I spill pop on the battle field after that because I get excited.

Hows that? Maybe if you directed the discussion a little more?

[flipper]

It was a grammatical error. A more accurate transcription of the text would be:

"Thou shalt not suffer, a witch to live." It's a Hebrew saying that's the equivalent of "an apple a day keeps the doctor away".

Guacamole is right, however. Especially in games like Warcraft. You don't want to leave those undead spellcaster units alone for long, or you'll quickly come to regret it.

[technomage]

Guac, Flipper, you two are great! Pearls to you both!

[studyhound]

Discuss.
It means get the green wood......:burn:

J/K:tongue:

[yxboom]

Guacamole is right, however. Especially in games like Warcraft. You don't want to leave those undead spellcaster units alone for long, or you'll quickly come to regret it.

WhosYourDaddy

[technomage]

OK, jokes to the side.

Pure and simple, the Israelites were not to tolerate witches in the Covenant Community. Witch (haKashaph) comes from a root meaning "To murmer or to mutter"--ie, to cast a spell.

[yxboom]

OK, jokes to the side.

Pure and simple, the Israelites were not to tolerate witches in the Covenant Community. Witch (haKashaph) comes from a root meaning "To murmer or to mutter"--ie, to cast a spell.
the smiley in your sig doesn't seem to murmur very well.

[technomage]

the smiley in your sig doesn't seem to murmur very well.
He's practicing for the ventriloquism contest next month. See, he can murmer all day ... and his lips never move!

Justin

[Heathen Dawn]

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)

Discuss.

Which literally translated is:

“Thou shalt not leave a sorceress alive.”

As for the decree, well, what can I say? Just as the world is chafing under the yoke of the inhuman decrees of the Qur’an, which are the source of all the veilings and stonings and terrorist attacks, so too humanity has yet to dislodge itself from the view of such scriptures as infallibly authoritative. It’s one of the reasons why I hold to nulla scriptura.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Which literally translated is:

“Thou shalt not leave a sorceress alive.”

As for the decree, well, what can I say? Just as the world is chafing under the yoke of the inhuman decrees of the Qur’an, which are the source of all the veilings and stonings and terrorist attacks, so too humanity has yet to dislodge itself from the view of such scriptures as infallibly authoritative. It’s one of the reasons why I hold to nulla scriptura.
I believe it actually refers to someone who fortune tells by contacting the spirits of the dead.

[guacamole]

Well, as long as we are offering out pet interpretations of the passage:

I think it refers to "witchcraft" as the practice of erotic magic as an essential part of temple prostitution as practiced by various near eastern religions at the time- especially fertillity based religions.

fwiw
guac.

[technomage]

I believe it actually refers to someone who fortune tells by contacting the spirits of the dead.
Hi, SacRam,

That's a completely different word in Hebrew--"'esheth ba'alath," or "woman who owns a spirit."

I think it refers to "witchcraft" as the practice of erotic magic as an essential part of temple prostitution as practiced by various near eastern religions at the time- especially fertillity based religions.
Hmmm ... Not really. The closest word I can think of to Kashshaph is the Babylonian "kispu," which is translated as "curse" in the Code of Hammurabi.

The AME concept of "witch" was not a negative concept in and of itself: the "witch" (could be male or female) worked magic, which could be beneficial or malefical. This magic was performed by incantation and a variety of props ranging from mud disks with writing or sigils on it to bells, incense, or clay poppets. A large part of the "beneficial" magic that witches did was related to exorcisms for disease or ill fortune.

There was no "sex magic," per se--that was a later invention that came to Europe from the Far East during the Colonial Age. There was ritual sex as part of certain temple rites, but this was not "magic," and most especially was not "witchcraft." "Harimtu," the Akkadian word for prostitute, is not related to the practices of the witches or to the ritual sex of the temples.

Indeed, the term "sacred prostitute" is more than a bit of a misnomer: ANE sources do not cite sacred prostitutes. Harimtu (and similar words in related languages) frequently worked from taverns or the like.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Here's more:

Dt. 18:10

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interpretes omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, ...."

Dt. 18: 14,

"The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so."

[spl_cadet]

Seems pretty simple to me. Find a witch, have a bonfire.

Though I suspect the EPA would be upset if anyone tried to carry out such a thing :tongue:

[guacamole]

Hmmm ... Not really. The closest word I can think of to Kashshaph is the Babylonian "kispu," which is translated as "curse" in the Code of Hammurabi.

The AME concept of "witch" was not a negative concept in and of itself: the "witch" (could be male or female) worked magic, which could be beneficial or malefical. This magic was performed by incantation and a variety of props ranging from mud disks with writing or sigils on it to bells, incense, or clay poppets. A large part of the "beneficial" magic that witches did was related to exorcisms for disease or ill fortune.

There was no "sex magic," per se--that was a later invention that came to Europe from the Far East during the Colonial Age. There was ritual sex as part of certain temple rites, but this was not "magic," and most especially was not "witchcraft." "Harimtu," the Akkadian word for prostitute, is not related to the practices of the witches or to the ritual sex of the temples.

Indeed, the term "sacred prostitute" is more than a bit of a misnomer: ANE sources do not cite sacred prostitutes. Harimtu (and similar words in related languages) frequently worked from taverns or the like.

Justin
Now I know. Thanks...

[technomage]

Hmph! Not to mention that I'd be a bit irritated, myself! :glare: :lol:

Justin

[guacamole]

Hmph! Not to mention that I'd be a bit irritated, myself! :glare: :lol:

Justin
I'd hide you in my basement.







Do you do dishes?

[technomage]

Dishes? Er, um ... which way to the bonfire?

Justin :lol:

[Pythagoras]

Mr. Sacrifical Ram,

I believe it actually refers to someone who fortune tells by contacting the spirits of the dead.No doubt this is another one of your famous(or shall we say notorious) "interpretations" from the Hebrew.

But I fear it's another example of your Poppycock Hebrew.

If witch(as used in Ex. 22) is exactly synonymous with someone 'who fortune tells by contacting the spirits of the dead' then why are these two 'vocations' (if you will) listed separately in Dt. 18:10?
I believe the term witch(as used in Ex 22)
is generic and that it refers to all of the detestable practices( mentioned in Dt. 18:10.)

However since witch and consulter of dead spirits are listed separately in Dt. 18:10 as two different metods of witchcraft , they are probably not synonymous. There's a fine distinction between the two 'callings'(no pun intended) .

.....The trick is to discover which witch is which......

[Pythagoras]

OK, jokes to the side.

Pure and simple, the Israelites were not to tolerate witches in the Covenant Community. Witch (haKashaph) comes from a root meaning "To murmer or to mutter"--ie, to cast a spell.
Honest answer Wiccan.. You're probably entering the kingdom of Christ faster than some of the Scribes and Pharisees here.

[NeilUnreal]

Whenever I play wargames I tend to go for the spell casters and support units first.

Everybody aggros on the mage. Fighters only take me dragon hunting so they can use me as bait.

I have not noticed Justin causing me any suffering whatsoever, in fact I think I'd suffer to keep him alive and posting here at TWeb. :lol:

-Neil

[technomage]

I have not noticed Justin causing me any suffering whatsoever
Obviously, either Neil hasn't read any of my puns ... or I'm losing my touch. :shifty:

Justin

[Pantheist_Oracl]

Which literally translated is:

“Thou shalt not leave a sorceress alive.”

As for the decree, well, what can I say? Just as the world is chafing under the yoke of the inhuman decrees of the Qur’an, which are the source of all the veilings and stonings and terrorist attacks, so too humanity has yet to dislodge itself from the view of such scriptures as infallibly authoritative. It’s one of the reasons why I hold to nulla scriptura.
I agree with you to a point.

First of all, as a Pantheist I worship no gods, save that I have reverence for the Universe as the sum total of existence. As a freethinker I prefer to do my own thinking.

But not everybody sees it that way. And hard as it is for us all to accept each other (and impossible as it may be to see eye-to-eye), I've learned the hard way that you have to be careful in dealing with people's religion. Organized religions have a bad name among some of my intellectual bent, but what many secularists and others seem to have difficulty recognizing and appreciating is that religions, for their adherents, are the sum total of Truth and a powerful perceptual framework for viewing the universe. At some level I'd say this holds true for my Pantheism, but as a Pantheist I relate differently: Pantheism is fairly non-credal and non-dogmatic (at least, relative to the more organized religions). But as a former Christian I know how hard it can be to disengage oneself from the creeds and beliefs of an organized religion such as Christianity. The important thing is to search for a common ground of understanding.

[Heathen Dawn]

Welcome, Pantheist_Oracl :smile:

First of all, as a Pantheist I worship no gods, save that I have reverence for the Universe as the sum total of existence.

Ah, I used to be a pantheist … that was when I was an atheist looking for spirituality. I found Wicca through pantheism, but now I’m no longer pantheist nor atheist, but a panentheist and literal polytheist.

As a freethinker I prefer to do my own thinking.

I’m a freethinker within the limits of nonnegotiable tenets (such as the existence of life after death, anthropomorphism of the Divine and a few more). I have neither guru nor scripture over me. But I shun scientific scepticism. I believe in quite a few things that currently don’t have a scientific kosher seal stamped upon them, and I couldn’t care less what the others say.

but what many secularists and others seem to have difficulty recognizing and appreciating is that religions, for their adherents, are the sum total of Truth and a powerful perceptual framework for viewing the universe.

I know that. Myself, I view everything through the glasses of my own religious worldview. But I do see it fit to criticise any worldview that makes its holder act on the expense of other people. Like Islam with its incitement to terrorism, and the Bible with its similar atrocities.

Pantheism is fairly non-credal and non-dogmatic (at least, relative to the more organized religions).

All metaphysical naturalists say they have no creed or dogma, but in fact their system is a closed one that isn’t open to falsification. All attempts to bring evidence for the supernatural are rejected in some way or other. They ask for evidence of the Gods, but if a God spoke to them in their head, they would go to a psychiatrist to get checked. Is it any wonder they don’t find?

But as a former Christian I know how hard it can be to disengage oneself from the creeds and beliefs of an organized religion such as Christianity. The important thing is to search for a common ground of understanding.

I find plenty of common ground between Wicca and Christianity; but when it comes to practical questions, such as who I’m going to marry, then the picture is different (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/athnwic.htm)—I’m not going to marry a woman who’s going to tell her children their father is going to hell.

[steamer]

Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Oooh look there's a witch. Kill it! We're not supposed to kill. Hmm, Well then, Ok everybody, remember not to suffer! Ok, I'm not suffering, how bout you guys, you suffering? Nope we're good.

All-righty then. Glad I stopped by. <wanders off to the next thread of biblical clarity>

Oh ya, You got to take out those casters first, especially those DAOC warlocks. Now them guys know magic!

[technomage]

Oh ya, You got to take out those casters first, especially those DAOC warlocks. Now them guys know magic!
Elven archers with longbows. Works every time ... as long as they get the arrows off first.

Justin

... You don't even want to contemplate what happens if they don't get the arrows off first. Messy....

[Pantheist_Oracl]

Welcome, Pantheist_Oracl :smile:



Ah, I used to be a pantheist … that was when I was an atheist looking for spirituality. I found Wicca through pantheism, but now I’m no longer pantheist nor atheist, but a panentheist and literal polytheist.



I’m a freethinker within the limits of nonnegotiable tenets (such as the existence of life after death, anthropomorphism of the Divine and a few more). I have neither guru nor scripture over me. But I shun scientific scepticism. I believe in quite a few things that currently don’t have a scientific kosher seal stamped upon them, and I couldn’t care less what the others say.



I know that. Myself, I view everything through the glasses of my own religious worldview. But I do see it fit to criticise any worldview that makes its holder act on the expense of other people. Like Islam with its incitement to terrorism, and the Bible with its similar atrocities.



All metaphysical naturalists say they have no creed or dogma, but in fact their system is a closed one that isn’t open to falsification. All attempts to bring evidence for the supernatural are rejected in some way or other. They ask for evidence of the Gods, but if a God spoke to them in their head, they would go to a psychiatrist to get checked. Is it any wonder they don’t find?



I find plenty of common ground between Wicca and Christianity; but when it comes to practical questions, such as who I’m going to marry, then the picture is different (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/athnwic.htm)—I’m not going to marry a woman who’s going to tell her children their father is going to hell.
First of all, thank you! :smile: Nice to meet others on this site with the pentacle and circle.

I hear ya about the gods. As an anthropology major I would go so far as to say that we tend to write off the existence of god(s), and thus to obscure the importance of such beliefs for peoples all over the world. The tension is between different views; we can't accept all belief systems implicitly and uncritically. I try to draw the line by keeping an open mind and seeking to understand the substantive nature and underlying reasons for form and presence of belief.

Certainly your beliefs are more than adequate for evaluating other people's beliefs. So are mine. So are Christians'. That's the fascinating nature of worldviews: I spent three years in a conservative Christian school where they taught us an Evangelical, non-denominational "Christian worldview" that extended to practically every aspect of life and thought. I disagree with practically the entire thing now but see its value for those who taught it to me, and for most of my classmates.

With ya on the hellfire thing. That's the major reason I left Christianity. That, and the prosyletizing and some other things. But no denying that the Near Eastern Semitic monotheisms have left a powerful (and in many ways, great), legacy. Most of the abuses I've seen are the distortions of a religion's message/scripture/essence to fit a warped and twisted agenda. This is true for Islam with the recent terror as well as for some things in Christianity (need I mention the usual litany of historical complaints, as well as more recent attacks on abortion clinics and the like?)

But the moral standards and ideas of equality are what I prefer to take away from Christianity, especially after my own experience.

[Solly]

Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Oooh look there's a witch. Kill it! We're not supposed to kill.

Surely even you can distinguish between the crime of murder, and a capital offence resulting in execution?

Oh, of course, we know that witchcraft doesn't work; how enlightened we are.

[Heathen Dawn]

Most of the abuses I've seen are the distortions of a religion's message/scripture/essence to fit a warped and twisted agenda. This is true for Islam with the recent terror

No, terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam, it’s a logical outgrowth of it. The Qur’an has plenty of verses exhorting Muslims to kill and be killed for the true religion.

If there’s anything that makes me lose faith in humanity, it’s its regarding of atrocity-filled scriptures like the Bible and Qur’an as holy and inerrant and authoritative.

[steamer]

Surely even you can distinguish between the crime of murder, and a capital offence resulting in execution?

Oh, of course, we know that witchcraft doesn't work; how enlightened we are.
Yes even I can distinguish the difference. Perhaps you can tell me which state holds witchcraft to be a capitol offence? Perhaps even you can understand that killing outside the sanction of the law is murder.

[Solly]

Israel held witchcraft to be a capital offence; England, America and most of Europe did also, for a long time. If you believe in its power, then you take action against it. We can say that w/c doesn't exist, but that is not always the point; if someone is seeking to redirect the loyalites of your citizens, and turn them into traitors, then you take action.

[steamer]

Israel held witchcraft to be a capital offence; England, America and most of Europe did also, for a long time. If you believe in its power, then you take action against it. We can say that w/c doesn't exist, but that is not always the point; if someone is seeking to redirect the loyalites of your citizens, and turn them into traitors, then you take action.Which explains why the Romans offed Jesus, but not why anyone would hold witchcraft to be something to worry about. People could make the case that Christians are trying to take over the government. Should we kill them?

My view is that if the bible didn't say anything about it then you would not care. The question really is, why should you care? You think witches have magic powers and Christians don't? Perhaps praying is a kind of witchcraft, from my view it looks the same. How is a Christian "blessing" any different from a witches? How about healing? Can healing someone even be a bad thing? I don't see Christian activities to be very much different than Wiccan ones. I just think that whatever power either of you think you have is either non-existent or it exists but it comes from yourselves. There's also biblical accounts of Christian curses, like the bald guy and the bears and Jesus and the fig tree. There is no difference that I can see between a Christian and a witch.

[Malista_Dove]

I read somewhere, not sure where, that the ancient term for the word "witch" means murderer or evil doer. This would mean that the phrase "Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live" would mean "Thou shalt not allow a murder to live"...Which means a totally different thing than what many people believe it means. This does not mean thou shalt not allow a shaman, a healer, or a magick worker to live.

I believe I might have read this is Raven Grimassi's book "The Ancient Origins and Teachings of Wicca."

If anyone can find truth backing this up...please do. If not argue, discuss, or whatever you wish to do.

[Durthorin]

I read somewhere, not sure where, that the ancient term for the word "witch" means murderer or evil doer. This would mean that the phrase "Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live" would mean "Thou shalt not allow a murder to live"...Which means a totally different thing than what many people believe it means. This does not mean thou shalt not allow a shaman, a healer, or a magick worker to live.

I believe I might have read this is Raven Grimassi's book "The Ancient Origins and Teachings of Wicca."

If anyone can find truth backing this up...please do. If not argue, discuss, or whatever you wish to do.

One of the original versions tranlates that line as "Thou shalt not allow a posinor to live". Supposedly changed to make an english King happy. One thing to not.. in other places some things are said just as bad.. don't make the mistake that even if this line is not really about witches.. still witchcraft, pagan worship etc.. are soundly and oftenly spoken out against in any translation of the Bible.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Malista_Dove]

One of the original versions tranlates that line as "Thou shalt not allow a posinor to live". Supposedly changed to make an english King happy. One thing to not.. in other places some things are said just as bad.. don't make the mistake that even if this line is not really about witches.. still witchcraft, pagan worship etc.. are soundly and oftenly spoken out against in any translation of the Bible.

Brighid Bless, Dur


Thank you. I knew that it was something to that sort. I am glad you replied.

[*love*]

many different people translate the meaning of the bible in many different ways. there can be lots of different meanings to one phrase. no one really nows wat the phrase'thou shall not suffer a witch to live" was meant to mean nor do we know if that was even the original context. remember......the bible was written by men, not god and men make mistakes. and also remember that the bible we know today wasnt actually put together until the 4th century by the the roman emperor constantine who revised it for his own personal gain.

[kristov]

Sounds like the Ordo Malleus need to take a look at earth!

(nobody knows what i'm talking about, that's whats so beautiful!)

[technomage]

Greetings, *love*,

Pythagoras is (at least for the moment) no longer actively posting. He's temporarily restricted from posting--that's what "caught in the matrix" means.

many different people translate the meaning of the bible in many different ways. there can be lots of different meanings to one phrase. no one really nows wat the phrase'thou shall not suffer a witch to live" was meant to mean nor do we know if that was even the original context.

While there is sometimes some disagreement over what passages of the Bible mean, there is certainly little reasonable disagreement over what this particular passage says.

remember......the bible was written by men, not god and men make mistakes. and also remember that the bible we know today wasnt actually put together until the 4th century by the the roman emperor constantine who revised it for his own personal gain.

Hmmm ... no. All Constantine did was order the printing of fifty Bibles to be used in churches in Constantinople. The list of books used to print those Bibles was used for some 150 or 200 years before Constantine's reign, and we have sufficient confidence in the text to know how few changes were made--in all probability, none were deliberately made, and the scribes seem to have done their best to be very careful.

Additionally, this particular passage was from the Torah--writings that the Jews have preserved for at least 2500 years. The Christian version is a faithful and reasonably accurate translation of the Jewish writings.

[Lady Macbeth]

Thanks, Justin. It's nice to see someone who doesn't totally malign Constantine, especially among fellow Pagans.

What confuses me about discussions of Exodus 22:18 is why participants on both sides of the issue (Christian and Pagan) want so desperately for there to be "some other" interpretation of that passage - for it to mean something other than "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (or in ESV version, "You shall not permit a sorceress to live"). If that line were not clear on its own, it is reinforced two lines later in Exodus 22:20 - "“Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the Lord alone, shall be devoted to destruction."

These people did not like outsiders who worshipped other gods and/or practiced magic. That's all there is to it. Their intolerance was to the degree that they considered them lesser people and not worthy of living among them. Ethnocentrism has always existed. Individual groups of people have been in possession of the quality of thinking their way of life to be "correct" since time began. Trying to apply our standards of "political correctness" to people who did not have "political correctness" does not work.

The people who lived under the laws of Exodus 22 rejected outside belief structures and the practice of magic, and some people today still follow those beliefs. I don't think it gets any more plain than that.

[technomage]

These people did not like outsiders who worshipped other gods and/or practiced magic. That's all there is to it. Their intolerance was to the degree that they considered them lesser people and not worthy of living among them.

Woah, Lady Macbeth--wait a second here. I think you're judging bronze-age Hebrews by computer-age understanding, and that means you're not going to get an accurate picture.

While we quite agree that the witchcraft mentioned in the passage does mean witchcraft (not poisonong, or some such twaddle), it does need to be pointed out that what they meant by "witchcraft" is radically different than what you or I may mean by the term. In Middle Eastern cultures, witches were not sweet, benevolent Wiccans who practiced the Rede: witches were capable of healing, yes, but they were also capable of cursing--and far more likely to do so!

In the culture of the time, witchcraft was not simply "just another religion." Heck, a religion wasn't simply "just another religion." Very often in the middle east of that time, the people on the other side of the hill who practiced another religion wanted you dead--they wanted your land, your cattle, whatever wealth you may have, and they wanted your blood watering the dirt. If they were especially nice about it they'd save the women and children and enslave them--rape was optional, but not uncommon. If the other tribe came over the hill, they were coming for blood.

When these texts started taking their final form (during the Babylonian Captivity), the Jews were a captive people in a very strange land--they had just had their kingdom, their home taken away from them. Everyone had relatives or friends who had been killed by the Babylonians, and everyone who was left alive was on their way to being a slave.

So yeah, maybe they're not terribly tolerant by today's standards ... but then again, when's the last time the folks in the next town over were going to come to your town, kill the men, rape the women, take everyone who survived captive and make them slaves?

Brutal times led to brutal customs, and tolerance is a luxury of the peace that we have today.

[Lady Macbeth]

Woah, Lady Macbeth--wait a second here. I think you're judging bronze-age Hebrews by computer-age understanding, and that means you're not going to get an accurate picture.

<SNIPPED FOR SPACE, but being replied to.>

That was my bad for not clarifying - I do understand the idea of times having changed; however, I am not fully convinced that people as a whole have. I know that part of it is the fact that, as you pointed out, we are living by computer-age understanding. We are a much more global community, and as such, those of us who are global-minded get a skewed perception of how much violence is actually in the world as opposed to what we perceive there to be. (My psychology professor pointed out that if the same ratio of murders to other crime happened in real life as happened on television, the entire United States would be depopulated in three months due to murder alone.)

However, that said and understood (that the world is not the violent world of the bronze-age Hebrews or Hollywood screens), there is still an element of that in our world. We continue to fight the stereotypes that we (as pagans) are violent people who seek to harm our neighbors. Would our neighbors be afraid of us if they thought that we use our magic to bring them free tea and cookies to clear up their cold and expect no money or return favor? Every single time I visit a Pagan forum, there is always some kid who wants a love spell to make a guy love them, wants a curse to cast on someone who's picking on them in the locker room, or wants a spell for easy money. Even though it is a minority, and it is people who don't understand witchcraft, it can't be ignored - because those things feed the very same perceptions and fears that caused Exodus 22:18 to be penned in the first place.

I agree that our "witchy ancestors" were probably people to fear, and that made the authors of Exodus justified in what they wrote. That is why I don't understand why either side of the coin would dispute what they wrote.

Hope I didn't make my thoughts more confusing. I'm confusing myself by trying to rewrite it so that it's clear. :huh:

[James Peter]

Sounds like the Ordo Malleus need to take a look at earth!

(nobody knows what i'm talking about, that's whats so beautiful!)

I do. =][=

[technomage]

I do. =][=
I do, too--I have a friend who plays. :smile:

[OckhamsRazor]

This particular command is specific to the time and to Israel. It's important to remember that Idolatry was a big issue for God in regard to His chosen people. Witches generally would have been representatives of these other religions. The people of these other religions would claim to do supernatural acts and to prophesy. This could deceive the people into going astray. God provided real supernatural signs for His people. So you see the witches in this context would represent the competition. This is a problem because first, God has a right to expect His people to be faithful, second He did allot for these people and was entitled to some gratitude, third He loved His people and wanted a relationship with them and witches would have disrupted that, fourth the prophets and foundations for salvation to the world were to come from Israel. They should have set an example for people. (The above numbering doesn't represent actual importance of the various points) I hope this clarifies the issue a bit.

[Lady Macbeth]

This particular command is specific to the time and to Israel. It's important to remember that Idolatry was a big issue for God in regard to His chosen people. Witches generally would have been representatives of these other religions. The people of these other religions would claim to do supernatural acts and to prophesy. This could deceive the people into going astray. God provided real supernatural signs for His people. So you see the witches in this context would represent the competition. This is a problem because first, God has a right to expect His people to be faithful, second He did allot for these people and was entitled to some gratitude, third He loved His people and wanted a relationship with them and witches would have disrupted that, fourth the prophets and foundations for salvation to the world were to come from Israel. They should have set an example for people. (The above numbering doesn't represent actual importance of the various points) I hope this clarifies the issue a bit.

Playing Devil's Advocate here (which is highly amusing in its own right, considering the number of times I've been seriously accused of being such) to throw out a question on this point: would you say that it is not as big of a concern today? You mention that it's specific to the time and to Israel (which I agree with, I'm just reiterating to make sure I'm wording clearly) and the points you outlined are thus alluded to as concerns for people of 2000+ years ago Israel. Do you feel that Christians of today are not as vulnerable to competition from other religions, not as susceptible to seeming supernatural work of witches and are more likely to show gratitude to and have a relationship with God despite witches living in and around them? (I'm not going to include whether or not foundations for salvation of the world still come from Israel - that discussion opens too many cans of worms.)

[Sevivon1913]

"You shall not allow a sorceress to live" doesn't imply that "witches", as understood in the Celtic-Norse tradition, are to be killed; witches don't practice "sorcery".

[technomage]

Hi, Sevi,

"Celtic-Norse tradition" is some really bad anthropology foisted on the Wiccan community by some well-meaning (but not well informed) Wiccans.

And yes, the modern Hebrew word for Wicca is maKashaph. (Sorry, I can't do the Hebrew letter coding.)

[Sevivon1913]

Are you saying the Celtic-Norse tradition concerning witches is wrong? I'm only going by my local history and folklore, which is both Celtic and Norse.........and we had one witch here ba
ck in the 19th century who was just somebody extraordinarily eccentric, knew what every herb, etc did, knew alternative treatments and (being a Christian also) could heal people in the name of the trinity. The church never had a problem with those people; because they were Christian (the notion that witches were devil worshippers is a continental idea, not scandinavian or british). That's the tradition I meant; I didn't mean the Walt Disney image of witches as hooked nosed old hags with broomsticks or the Nickelodian image of witches as "cool teenage" cute wiccans.

[Durthorin]

Are you saying the Celtic-Norse tradition concerning witches is wrong? I'm only going by my local history and folklore, which is both Celtic and Norse.........and we had one witch here ba
ck in the 19th century who was just somebody extraordinarily eccentric, knew what every herb, etc did, knew alternative treatments and (being a Christian also) could heal people in the name of the trinity. The church never had a problem with those people; because they were Christian (the notion that witches were devil worshippers is a continental idea, not scandinavian or british). That's the tradition I meant; I didn't mean the Walt Disney image of witches as hooked nosed old hags with broomsticks or the Nickelodian image of witches as "cool teenage" cute wiccans.


A freind of mine once remarked all you have to do to be on the wrong end of the fire with Christianity is perform any kind of divination.. runes, tarot, scrying.. etc..

[technomage]

Are you saying the Celtic-Norse tradition concerning witches is wrong?

Well, without knowing what you specifically mean by "Celtic-Norse tradition," it's difficult to say exactly what's true and what's false. Your illustration gave some interesting insight, but "local history" is frequently not what it's cracked up to be, and "folklore" is actually a lot more mutable (and short lived) than many people assume.

Fundamentally speaking, there was no "Celtic-Norse" tradition: the Celts and the Norse (as most people think of the terms) were not even really contemporaneous, and neither the Celts nor the Norse had unified cultures within their own groups, much less between the two.

the notion that witches were devil worshippers is a continental idea, not scandinavian or british

Well, yes, both England and Scandinavia saw witches as "devil worshippers," mainly because by the time the Witch Hunts began, England and Scandinavia were quite well integrated with European culture. For the most parts, witch-hunts were extremely sporadic until after the Protestant Reformation--most of the "Witch Panics" occurred in areas where there was social upheaval and strife, frequently strife between Protestant and Catholic Christians.

[Trout]

:woohoo: Get the matches.

[technomage]

Fried trout?

[Sevivon1913]

Well, without knowing what you specifically mean by "Celtic-Norse tradition," it's difficult to say exactly what's true and what's false. Your illustration gave some interesting insight, but "local history" is frequently not what it's cracked up to be, and "folklore" is actually a lot more mutable (and short lived) than many people assume.

Fundamentally speaking, there was no "Celtic-Norse" tradition: the Celts and the Norse (as most people think of the terms) were not even really contemporaneous, and neither the Celts nor the Norse had unified cultures within their own groups, much less between the two.

Celts and Norse lived at the same time in the western isles and the two cultures amalgamated; this wasn't the case on the mainland, of course.

Well, yes, both England and Scandinavia saw witches as "devil worshippers," mainly because by the time the Witch Hunts began, England and Scandinavia were quite well integrated with European culture. For the most parts, witch-hunts were extremely sporadic until after the Protestant Reformation--most of the "Witch Panics" occurred in areas where there was social upheaval and strife, frequently strife between Protestant and Catholic Christians.

Hmm, I think we're looking at different chronologies here. I was thinking of pre-Christian society; there were no "witch-hunts" or animosity toward witches until the Christians came along, and Celtic-Norse culture died out in most places thanks to Christian hegemony.

I suspect that even the Oracle of Delphi would be called a witch, had they lived at the same time as Christians; oh, if only we'd all been so fortunate!

[technomage]

Celts and Norse lived at the same time in the western isles and the two cultures amalgamated; this wasn't the case on the mainland, of course.

Eh ... if you're strictly looking at pre-Christian cultures, then the only answer is "sort of." About 300 years before the Norwegians came to the Isles, the Picts were converted to Christianity. Of course, that far out in the boondocks, how "complete" that Christianisation was is anyone's guess.

Hmm, I think we're looking at different chronologies here. I was thinking of pre-Christian society; there were no "witch-hunts" or animosity toward witches until the Christians came along, and Celtic-Norse culture died out in most places thanks to Christian hegemony.

We are., Yes, there were no witch persecutions recorded in Celtic or Norse history before Christianization. Early Scandinavian and English records involve some condemnation of "witches" (however the term is translated). However, the main activity of "witch persecution," so called, was not with the early Christianization of Europe, but with the much later social and political disruption that occurred during the time of the Reformation.

Not all of that social and political chaos was caused by the arguments over religion (though they certainly helped). Basically, a lot of the same persecutions that were hurled against European Jewry were also hurled at the rather nebulous concept of "witches." Unfortunately, both real Jews and so-called "witches" were persecuted under false accusations.

I suspect that even the Oracle of Delphi would be called a witch, had they lived at the same time as Christians; oh, if only we'd all been so fortunate!

Either "witch" or "posessing a familiar spirit"--there's a reference in Acts somewhere about a pythoness--a seer somewhat similar to the Oracle.

[Trout]

Either "witch" or "posessing a familiar spirit"--there's a reference in Acts somewhere about a pythoness--a seer somewhat similar to the Oracle.

Witches burn hotter, I like them better.

[technomage]

Witches burn hotter, I like them better.
The better to fry you with, Trout my dear. :grin:

I'll even invite Sevi--trout is kosher, after all.

[Durthorin]

Witches burn hotter, I like them better.

Actually we are hotter...and better looking and wickedly smart...

[guacamole]

Sounds like the Ordo Malleus need to take a look at earth!

(nobody knows what i'm talking about, that's whats so beautiful!)

The grey knights cannot be bothered to hunt mere witches. We respectfully request you submit your petition to that pack of posseurs known as the Ordo Hereticus.

Thank You,
Brother Captain Stern

[dwolfe983]

Hi All,
What I heard. The bible at the time of Homosexual King James, is the first version of the bible in which 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' appears. King Jimmy also write a book called Demonology so the cleric translators included that line in order to please their king. This may or may not be true but it works for me.
bright blessings
dwolfe983

[technomage]

This may or may not be true but it works for me.

In eighteen years of being Wiccan, I have heard statements that were more foolish than yours. Just not many.

[MetalMark]

The verse is about necromancy. End of discussion.

[IanCorrigan]

One of the original versions tranlates that line as "Thou shalt not allow a posinor to live". Supposedly changed to make an english King happy. One thing to not.. in other places some things are said just as bad.. don't make the mistake that even if this line is not really about witches.. still witchcraft, pagan worship etc.. are soundly and oftenly spoken out against in any translation of the Bible.

Brighid Bless, Dur

My understanding from a jewish friend is that the Hebrew term used in the passage has the connotation of 'sorcery with herbs and drugs' - thus 'poisoner' is one sort of translation.

The greek equivalent is the term 'pharmakos' which was used to refer to a type of sorcerer, again one who used potions, drugs, etc. The greek context clearly puts the term in the context of illegal magic.

It was entirely reasonable for the KJV translators to use the english term 'witch' (from a root meaning 'magic user') to translate the septuagint greek 'pharmakos'. Any english translator of the period would have said that pharmakos referred to witchcraft. Of course while greek had several words to refer to various types of disrespectable magical practice, english mostly had only one, and so the distinctions do get blurred. But there's no real mistranslation in the verse "thou shalt not suffer (allow) a witch to live"
Ian

[Huguenot]

I was curious if someone could find where in the Bible a witch was ever found? Was she burned or killed?

[Weboh2]

Φαρμακευς is the original greek word for witch, and it means someone who delivers narcotics or hallucinogens.

[Geoffrey]

Part of the problem is that we can no more than guess who these "witches" were that the Hebrews were commanded to eradicate.

All too many people imagine these witches as rather inoffensive fellows, and move from there to being indignant at this biblical commandment.

Read H. P. Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward". Then ask yourself if letting Joseph Curwen live would be a good idea.

My guess is that these "witches" that Moses commanded the Hebrews to kill were of the same sort as Joseph Curwen. I don't think they were Wiccans or anything like that..

[Weboh2]

It was a command to not let them prosper. It wasn't a death sentence.

[Huguenot]

It was a command to not let them prosper. It wasn't a death sentence.

Under King Saul, I know of the witch who conjered up the dead spirit - or familar spirit - i.e. a demon from Hell, and she was exiled to a witches paradise of sort - Egypt.

LOL

[Weboh2]

Under King Saul, I know of the witch who conjered up the dead spirit - or familar spirit - i.e. a demon from Hell, and she was exiled to a witches paradise of sort - Egypt.

LOL A different hebrew word is used for this person. It implies one who murders for money.

[MichelleA]

In the original it was '...not suffer a poisoner to live" and referred to poisoner of wells because water was scarce.

King James had it poisoner changed to witch to suit his own purposes.

[technomage]

In the original it was '...not suffer a poisoner to live" and referred to poisoner of wells because water was scarce.

King James had it poisoner changed to witch to suit his own purposes.

This is false, but is a commonly repeated error in the Neo-Pagan community.

The Hebrew word here translated "witch" is haKashaph--it does not refer to a "poisoner" or "poisoner of wells," but to one who performs incantations. The root of the word means "To mutter, to murmer," and is consistantly used in Hebrew and Ugaritic manuscripts to refer to witchcraft, not to poisoning.

In the Septuagint, the word was translated pharmakeia, which can mean poisoner, but more frequently means "one who makes magic potions."

Oh, and by the way--while King James commissioned the scholars who translated the Old Testament, he played no part in the actual translation.