The question always arises - "Isn't Witchcraft against the Bible?" This is a multi-layered question to answer. So stay with me on this.
The first thing we must establish is that the term 'witchcraft' comes from the Anglo-Saxon language, not the languages of the Bible - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. So we must ask, "is the Anglo-Saxon term 'witchcraft' actually in the Bible? Does the meaning of the Hebrew (or later, Greek) term used in the Biblical scriptures have the same meaning as the Anglo-Saxon term 'witchcraft' does?"
Let's find out. To address this question we will need dictionaries in these ancient languages. Our Biblical Dictionary is none other than Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible by James Strong, L.L.D., S.T.D. James Strong was a scholar of Hebrew and Greek languages, and took painstaking time to catalogue every word in the Bible with its meaning, but also following all words backwards as far in time as possible to establish the root/earliest meanings associated with the word, so we a reader might better understand the terms origin and how it evolved to eventually mean what it meant in its particular use in scripture.
In the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures of the Holy Bible, there certainly are mandates against something...something that eventually was translated using the Anglo-Saxon term 'witchcraft' during the King James era in the 1600's.
Lets first look at the scriptures that forbid 'witches' or 'witchcraft':
"Thou shalt not suffer a 'witch' to live..." Exodus 22:13 (Strong's Hebrew word # 3784)
"...of times, or an enchanter, or a 'witch'..." Deuteronomy 1:10 (Strong's Hebrew word #3784)
"...for rebellion is as the sin of 'witchcraft'..." I Samuel 15:23 (Strong's Hebrew word # 7081)
"...used enchantments, and used 'witchcrafts'..." II Chronicles 33:6 (Strong's Hebrew word # 3784)
"...Idolatry, hatred, 'witchcraft', variance..." Galations 5:20 (Strong's Greek word #5331)
"...Jezebel and her 'witchcrafts' are so many..." II Kings 9:22 (Strong's Hebrew word #3785)
"...I will cut off 'witchcrafts' out of thine..." Micah 5:12 (Strong's Hebrew word # 3785)
"...harlot, the mistress of 'witchcrafts'..." Naham 3:4 (Strong's Hebrew word # 3785)
"...and families through her 'witchcrafts'..." Naham 3:4 (Strong's Hebrew word # 3785)
These nine scriptures are total. This is the full number of times the Holy Bible mentions a Hebrew or Greek term that was eventually translated using the Anglo-Saxon term 'witch', 'witchcraft' or 'witchcrafts'. Of course, it is very advisable to read the entire chapter of each passage to get a full context of what was going on in that culture at that time...which would have been VERY different from what was going on in Anglo-Saxon culture at the same time...except wait a minute....Anglo-Saxon culture DID NOT EXIST YET:
" The Anglo-Saxons were the population in Britain partly descended from the Germanic tribes who migrated from continental Europe and settled the south and east of the island beginning in the early 5th century. The Anglo-Saxon period denotes the period of English history after their initial settlement through their creation of the English nation, up to the Norman conquest; that is, between about 550 and 1066.[1][2] The term Anglo-Saxon is also used for the language, today more correctly called Old English, that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England (and parts of south-eastern Scotland) between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century, after which it is known as Middle English.[3]" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons)
Therefore it is preposterous to relate anything going on in Bronze Age or any Old Testament era of Hebrew culture to the Anglo-Saxons, simply because there WAS NO SUCH CULTURE AS ANGLO SAXON. Whoever resided in central Germany, Lower England or Celtic Britain was NOT Anglo-Saxon, had no knowledge of the Anglo-Saxons, and also had no knowledge of the Hebrew, Greek or Semitic cultures of the Orient (usually referred to today as the 'Near East'). It may even be possible to assume that during the Bronze Age, the root words that eventually formed the Anglo-Saxon language had not been rendered yet and even the language had not yet begun to develop:
"Old English (Ænglisc, Anglisc, Englisc) or Anglo-Saxon[1] is an early form of the English language that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants in parts of what are now England and southern and eastern Scotland between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century. What survives through writing represents primarily the literary register of Anglo-Saxon." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_language)
Therefore just from this information alone, it is impossible to relate an Anglo-Saxon term that developed purely in Anglo-Saxon culture which had never been introduced to Hebrew or Greek Culture, to a Hebrew or Greek term which developed in purely Hebrew or Greek culture, and language foundations. The cultures and the language that reflects the two cultures are very different.
On the 'flip side' sometimes there are 'universal truths' - things all cultures recognize as truths. for example, killing others seems to be culturally universal, even though, there have been allowances made for it in every culture, from human sacrifice, to capital punishment. From this we can assume that whatever the Hebrews were trying to forbid as 'witchcraft' may exist as an idea in another culture, which is reflected in that cultures language.
Now that we have considered these things, let's take a look at what these terms mean:
Hebrew word #3784 - KASHAPH: to whisper a spell (the term 'spell' remains undefined in Hebrew, but it actually originates in the Germanic language and eventually took on the meaning 'to curse'; hence we can understand that a person who whispered a curse was the type of person the Biblical scriptures were referring to in regard to the term 'witchcraft' as used in the Old Testament translation of the Holy Bible)
Hebrew word #3785 - KESHEPH, magick, sorcery, witchraft (referencing Hebrew word # 3786, which means magic, sorcery, but #3786 does not itself mention 'witchcraft'; further the specific actions of what witchcraft is (how it is practiced point by point) remains unmentioned, hence we do not know what it is that one does to perform an act or the several acts that can be regarded as 'witchcraft', except the above 'spell' which we have discerned must or may mean 'to curse')
Hebrew word #7081 - QECEM: a lot; also divination, including its fee, oracle; reward of divination, divine sentences, witchcraft
Greek word # 5331 - PHARMAKIAH: medication, pharmacy, by extension, magic, sorcery, witchcraft
It seems from a Biblical standpoint that witches are indeed in trouble....or are they. Wait just a minute. While the terms are translated as 'witchcraft', the deeds of witchcraft are not really made clear. In fact, everything that is mentioned in the above definitions were practiced by the Hebrews themselves, who considered these things permissible inside Hebrew culture. Scripture is full of examples of permissible lot casting, Prophets who spoke curses over other cultures or even their own people (actually they just announced God's curses over others), the use of herbs for food and medicine, and even symbolic acts of sympathetic action that would otherwise be called vicarious magic in other cultures. For example, what does the Hebrew culture mean when the term 'spell' is indicated? We know from searching the term 'spell' backwards that 'spell' is of Germanic origin, and that it means 'to curse', but is that what the original Hebrew text intended when it was translated using the term 'witchcraft' or 'to whisper a spell'? What is a spell in Hebraic ideal? Further, what does the Hebrew culture define as 'magic'? In fact, these terms are not in the Hebrew language and no specific actions are defined; we can not know for sure what the Hebrews meant when the terms they were using were eventually translated into the English term 'witchcraft'; On the other hand, when we ask what deeds were performed by Pagans in the cultures surrounding the Hebrews, we discover that some Pagan practices were very detestable to the Hebrews and most likely would also be detestable to modern, western peoples today. But the Hebrews could not comment about the Anglo-Saxons - they did not know of such a culture, which did not yet exist. The term 'witchcraft' itself has no Hebrew equivalent. What did someone who cast a spell in the Hebrew world do when they cast it? What were they whispering 'in a jar'? Did they whisper a curse or a blessing over an herbal remedy? or instead did they whisper in a large clay pot to deceive a client into thinking they were hearing the voice of a deceased loved one? The definition (to whisper in a jar) is given; but its actual action is still a mystery to the reader, in that we are not sure 'what' the Hebrews were referring to specifically. We do not know what the specific actions were that became condemned by the Hebrews. Some actions were heavily condemned and clearly defined by the Hebrews against their Pagan neighbors, such as placing infants in flaming fires as sacrifices to the god Molech, considered murder in Hebrew law (as well as most nations in our world today, and by most people); or, asking women to engage in religious prostitution, which was considered adultery and forbidden by Hebrew Law. Further, to whom did these people whom the Hebrews were referring to, cast such a spell? Worshipping gods other than the Hebrew God was considered idolatry and was condemned by Hebrew Law, and this may be one of the biggest complaints the Hebrews had about other nations, even though these nations were not introduced to the God of the Hebrews and could not make a choice to worship this God, even if they would have wanted to; In fact, the Hebrews were warned to stay far away from such cultures, preventing them from sharing their God or their religion with these Pagan cultures. Did the spell involve harming others? There were many mandates against bringing harm toward others in Hebrew Law. Even so, the Hebrews had certainly been ordered by their God to destroy full populations of Pagan cultures many times in their history. On the flip side, the Hebrew God is recorded in the Book of Genesis as a deity who approached Pagan people himself (Noah, Abraham, Moses) and inviting them to be is main 'representatives' on earth. If we consider this, God did not condemn the Pagans, he invited them in to know Him and they accepted.
These questions and many others are not answered in the translation of the Hebraic terms in question. So we are left to wonder what a spell is in regard to Hebrew culture...and what 'magic' was for the Hebrews, who condemned it. We do know how the Germanic peoples defined such terms, we may be able to discern how the Babylonians understood such terms, and we may be able to eventually discover how the Anglo-Saxons understood such terms, but in the Hebrew language, we have a limited knowledge of what these terms meant.
Further, the term 'witchcraft' is also used to indicate LOT CASTING, which is regarded as divination, including its fee. But this is very problematic, since the Hebrews used lot casting on a regular basis. In searching Strong's Exhaustive, it is evident that a very long list of scriptures mentioning Lot Casting practices exist as a permissible practice among the Hebrews.
The final and 'only' time the term 'witchcraft' is used is in the New Testament (and therefore the Greek language, indicating the culture of the New Testament): it is the term Pharmakiah, and indicates the use of medicine, which was considered magic and witchcraft at the time. Had the world continued on with this mindset, we would not be able to research cures for cancer, or medicate for strep throat. But it must be made known that the Hebrews themselves, as well as the Greeks, did use medicine, and such is mentioned in both the Old and the New Testament on occasion. Therefore one can only surmise that the use of the term 'pharmakia' in regard to the 'unacceptable' practice of 'witchcraft' as listed in the Bible, only indicates the improper use of medicine, since the Hebrew and Greek world indeed, did have a proper and acceptable use for medicine. It is a well known fact that ancient people did indeed use herbal concoctions to kill others, or otherwise bring harm, therefore it can only be concluded that the 'inappropriate' use of medicine was to bring harm and not help, whether by accident or on purpose.
As far as casting lots goes, the Hebrews did use lot casting on quite a regular basis; in fact the term lot, lots and lot casting comes up so much, the list is to long to type. Instead I will just indicate the Strong's #, and its meaning:
Strong's Hebrew #3876 (used 32 times)
Strong's Greek # 3091 (used 3 times)
Strong's Hebrew # 1486 ( used 60 times)
Strong's Hebrew # 2256 (used 3 time)
Strong's Greek # 2975 (used 1 time)
Strong's Greek # 2819 (used 2 times)
Strong's Greek # 2624 (used 1 time)
As one can clearly see, there are several DIFFERENT terms to describe different uses of Lot Casting in the Hebrew world, and which were eventually translated using the singular term 'witchcraft' that originated from the Anglo-Saxon language. This shows a very lax understanding of the Anglo-Saxon language, in that several different practices known to the Hebrew or Greek cultures was assigned the singular term 'witchcraft', a term that came from an entirely different culture and had no specific meaning as defined in any dictionary. The use of the term 'witchcraft' in the Bible can not be regarded as accurate as a term chosen for translation purposes. Thus, for our purposes we must get to the bottom of these meanings in Hebrew and Greek and see if they compare to anything similar in the Anglo-Saxon based term 'witchcraft'.
*Hebrew word #3876 means: The name of Abraham's nephew, "Lot"
*Greek #3091 means : the name of the patriarch, "Lot"
*Hebrew word #1486 means: GOWRAL, a rough stone or pebble used in lot casting; also, a portion or destiny (for example, an inheritance as given by lot casting, lottery; such an inheritance was given by the Patriarch named Lot, to Jacob (though it had been meant for Esau).
*Hebrew # 2256 means: CHEBEL, a rope, by implication, [to rope off] a district of inheritance; may also indicate a rope as used for a snare or trap
*Greek # 2975 means LAGEHANO, a root word, indicating a lot, meaning 'to determine'
*Greek # 2819 means KLEROS, from the idea of using bits of wood, as for a die [dice]; used for drawing chances or a portion, if so secured; a heritage, inheritance, lot, or part.
*Greek #2624 means: KATAKLERODOTEO, to be a giver of lots to each, to apportion an estate
By studying lot casting as it pertained to the Biblical culture of the Hebrews and the early Christians, we can discern from Biblical scripture that the Hebrews engaged in Lot Casting, and were only warned 'not to do as the Pagans do', when casting lots. The scriptures indicating this references that nearby Pagan communities to the Hebrews had used Lot Casting to gain money unjustly from their clients, or used the practice to scare others. Perhaps not all Pagan peoples did this, but enough did that the Hebrews were warned not to use the practice dishonestly. Thus Lot Casting, as a practice, was not forbidden to the Hebrews, but rather it was forbidden to use the practice to deceive, take advantage of others, or frighten them. We must be reminded that even the early Hebrew Priests entered into the tabernacle to cast forth the 'Urim & Thummim', on a lambskin casting cloth marked with messages written in Lamb's blood. The term 'urim' means 'light' or 'illumination', while the term 'thummim' literally means 'perfection'. Thus, the Hebrews went before their deity to gain perfect knowledge from their God in the exact same way other cultures around the world also did - by casting lots, whose placement after the lots landed was considered to be divine providence. In fact, one scripture states, "the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33). Therefore Lot Casting was permissible for the Hebrews, but only if they consulted their own God, and recognized that the lot was placed by the hand of their God and not the God of another nation.
Thus we can clearly see that 'witchcraft' as used in the Bible has been used to translate many different and unrelated words from Hebrew and Greek. These practices may have some similarities to the eventual development of the Anglo-Saxon culture, but the term 'witchcraft' was never part of Greek or Hebrew, and therefore is an inaccurate rendering of the terms in question as they find meaning in the Holy Bible. Instead of using the term 'witchcraft' as a generic catch-all term for several practices, it would make more sense and be more clear if the actual practice that was used was listed specifically, and the term 'witchcraft' was left out entirely. For example, the scripture that says, "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live," should be better rendered "Thou shalt not suffer one who utters curses to live." Since the scripture speaks of someone who whispers in a jar, we might assume that the curse being uttered was spoken over a poisonous herbal concoction, but this is conjecture - we do not know this, and can only guess. If this would be the case, we might better render the scripture as "Thou shalt not suffer anyone who brings a about a curse through herbal poisons to live." Why would this be wrong? Because that person's intention was to bring about murder, and his or her intention was carried out in a deed that would result in actual death. As well as all this sounds, it is yet unclear what exactly the person was doing when he or she was 'whispering in a jar' in the ancient Hebrew world. We can only guess.
So what, then does the term 'witchcraft' mean in its own language, Anglo-Saxon? When checking an on-line, Anglo-Saxon to modern English dictionary put out by the university of Pennsylvania's on-line "concise Anglo Saxon Dictionary" (see the link here ... (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/oe_clarkhall_about.html)
we can determine what the Anglo-Saxons intended their own term to mean:
wic - a dwelling place or house, a lodging
wican - yield, give way, fall down
wicca - a wizard, magician, soothsayer, astrologer
wicce- a witch
wiccecraeft - witchcraft, magic
wiccedom - witchcraft, use of
wicclan - to use witchcraft
wiccraeft - either witchcraft, or skill with horses, (the translator could not read the central letters of the word in question, thus the term and its meaning is unclear)
wiccung - enchantment
wiccung craeft - witchcraft
These words all developed AFTER the Angles and Saxons came together in England, in the 500's C.E., when the Christians had already settled there. So now we must ask if these words developed from a purely Anglo Saxon standpoint of culture, or rather, if they developed as a means to give a term to ideas brought in by the Christians who had since come into the region from the first century onward. Needless to say the terms are definitely Anglo-Saxon in origin, but were they Anglo-Saxon words that gave Biblical ideas a useful Anglo-Saxon terminology? Or rather, were they already in use, and were later condemned by the Christians who came in, and who regarded the word and its related practices as 'sinful'? This may never be known. Further, the only truly specific word that has any precise meaning is 'astrologer'. We do not know what is involved in the ancient practices of wizardry for either the Anglo-Saxons or the Hebrews. Likewise, we do not know what a magician was apt to do - was his duty based on deceit and charlatanism? Or did he worship and pray to a non-Hebraic deity? What exactly a magician did, point-by-point, we do not know. A soothsayer is somewhat specific, in that a soothsayer is related to predicting the future, but usually, more often comforts a person's personal fears and anxieties (a counselor, perhaps?). But an astrologer, we know the specific tasks and undertakings of astrologers in the ancient world. They measured stars, they watched star patterns, they identified planets, and although their interpretation may have been combined with religious and spiritual beliefs, their knowledge was one of the earliest science-based systems known. Often times, religion is thwarted by science, and thus religious people are often times 'against' those that bring in scientific information, especially when what they learn seems to teach the opposite of the religion in question. In the Hebrew world, the known astrologers taught idolatry and the worship of many deities, which is indeed against the Hebrew world view and religious faith. So again, it is not the use of astrology, but rather the teaching about 'other gods' that offended the Hebrews. But the Anglo-Saxon term gives no such admonition. The dictionary merely and very directly tells us that a 'witch' is someone who practices a list of duties that includes wizardry, soothsaying and astrology, and only astrology can we be fairly sure of what was actually done.
Either, way, the terms in question in Anglo-Saxon still do not tell the specifics of what one does when he or she practices Witchcraft, except to translate the term 'wicca' as a wizard, magician, soothsayer, or astrologer- all things that the Hebrews did permissibly inside their culture, and only condemned the practice of when done by cultures 'outside' Hebrew culture, who encouraged the worship of 'other gods'. A wizard, soothsayer, future-teller, or magician might otherwise be called a prophet, miracle worker, healer, or one who has a divine gift of prayer inside the Hebrew world. So now, the main difference between the cultures is their religious beliefs, rather than their practices.
To conclude we must admit that there is no difference between what the Hebrews did and what non-Hebraic cultures did in regard to lot casting (divination), future telling (prophecy), miracle working (village wise man or woman), or healer (herbalist), except to report what deity the individual asked for this kind of help. Thus we must go on to ask what kind of religion the Hebrews and early Christians had, in comparison with the Celts and Anglo-Saxons.
The Hebrews, from early on, adhered to strict monotheism, and very specific moral and legal codes that were given by their God to Moses, and verified by other of their prophets. Any other god, law or moral code was strongly looked down upon by them. However, other cultures must also to have looked down upon them, and it is safe to say that all ancient cultures regarded what they themselves did as right and regarded outside cultures as 'wrong'. Such was the ancient world.
Meanwhile, the Celts had a very different and interesting spirituality developing. While modern religious trends attempt to convince us that the ancient Celts worshipped a Goddess, or a 'Lord and Lady' the facts are these: The Celts recognized an unidentified spiritual power behind the natural forces of earth, wind, fire, water and the greater cosmos, but never personified this power in any type of idol or form. In fact, when the pre-Christian Roman legions came into their lands, the Celts thought it quite peculiar to try to 'squish' this spiritual 'super-force' into a physical idol that depicted a human or animal form. The Celts were very taken aback by this idea, in fact, and had never considered such in their own antiquity.
When the Romans came in to the British, pre-Christian world, they built Romanesque temples all over Europe and placed Hellenistic-style idols in these temples, and tried to 'match' the names of Celtic (and Germanic) ancestor names to their Hellenistic idols. The Romans did this for one reason - taking over the land and people of Europe and the Celto-British world. The Romans understood one thing - and that is, if the minds and understandings of a people can be changed religiously, then a new government can also take over. The Romans later used the Christian religion for the same purpose, but in pre-Christian times, the Romans had already attempted to use this technique on the Celts and Germans, and it worked. Within a few generations, the Roman influence could been seen, as Celtic and Germanic peoples began to accept the idea that a divine 'All-Spirit' who was evidenced within nature, could indeed be squeezed into an idol which represented not only an ancestor that was dear to them, but also was believed to have power over some portion of the universe or natural world. And thus the Romans made headway into Britain, up to Hadrian's Wall. This was all accomplished in pre-Christian times, and the Romans heavily condemned the Europeans for their practices of many kinds. For the Pagan Romans, everything they did was about taking land and controlling the indigenous people. To say the Christians did this for religious reasons is in fact, an error. What actually occurred was that the Romans adapted the Christian religion to themselves so that they could 'take power' over foreign people groups under the guise of an organizing and unifying religion. Christianity was a good choice for the Romans to use after the first century because it required adherents to honor and worship one God in one place - church - and therefore this set up made re-training the masses of people 'easy'. And once a mindset of a people group is changed, ruling them is easy. Thus it was not Christianity that came trudging into Europe to change people, it was the Roman Government with its pre-Christian methods of conquering foreign people groups, who seized the Christian faith and used it to accomplish their means to an end. As time went on, the people who ran the Catholic Church were unaware of this and just did their jobs. We can see that Christianity was not the kind of religion that believed in forced conversions just by reading the New Testament. Jesus never forced any single person to 'convert' but permitted individuals to make their own choices. His disciples likewise, were told that those who do not want them were to be left alone, and they were to travel onward. Putting this practice to work, we can see that the Celtic world had already had been introduced to Christianity before the Catholic Church came into Britain, which surprised the Catholic missionaries of the middle 2nd century. But the kind of Christianity that was practiced was 'Insular' (sometimes called Celtic Christianity), and it was a very gentle, happy, and non-forceful kind of religion. Those who did not wish to convert to that kind of faith were treated kindly by the Celtic Christians, and most likely the reason for this was, the Christian converts into Insular Christianity were related to those who did not receive it, as family members. It is much different when a government uses a religion to change a culture, rather than an individual receives a religion and brings it home to loved ones and family.
What does all of this tell us? It tells us that the Hebrews of ancient times as well as the early Christians were fighting against Hellenism, just as the British Pagans were. Hellenism is the Roman and Greek ideaology, which embraces forced conversion and colonization to the culture and religion of the warring Romans, with no room for personal choice. Religiously speaking, Hellenism is regarded as the worship of many divine spirits inhabiting many different idol forms, and was certainly 'forced' on the Pagan British and Celts before the Christian era. We can clearly see this in the many Romanesque temples that were erected to 'convert' the Celts and British to a religion foreign to their own, prior to the Christian era by the Roman armed forces.
But it also tells us that what the Celts and Germanic peoples may have believed was closer to the Hebrew religion instead of farther away from it, and also that the Hebrews had absolutely no comment about what the Germanic or Celtic peoples believed in spiritually. In fact, the Hebrew or Greek Biblical Scriptures never broach the Celtic outlook at all and there is no mention of any idea that the divine exhibits itself through the forces of nature, as mentioned in the Bible. The Celts and Germans were so far away from the Hebrews as to not be mentioned at all in scripture. The New Testament may briefly mention them when speaking of the 'Galations', who might have been the inhabitants of southern France, also known as 'Gaul', but there were other peoples who might also be labeled as 'Galations' in that era and so we can not be sure that the Galations of the New Testament were the people of Gaul in Southern France.
While the Hebrews often compared the power of their Biblical God to natural forces, they did not, per-say, believe that their God was actually 'in' such forces, but on the same token, they never said their God was not 'in' these forces either. In fact, the Celtic idea of a divine force specifically displaying through natural forces like wind, rain, waves, fire and other natural events is a completely foreign idea to the Hebrews as well as the Hellenistic peoples who eventually accepted Christianity. The oriental peoples of the ancient near east were very focused on a belief that a human or divine spirit 'had' to dwell in a human shaped idol. the Egyptians believed this, as did the Greeks, Romans, Persians and so on. The Hebrews came up with a 'new' and very different idea: that there was only one deity and that this deity did not 'have' to dwell in an idol, but instead lived outside the cosmos and governed all things. Amazingly the Celts had a very similar idea. The Celts also honored their ancestors, in a similar way that the Catholics eventually suggested as 'saint' type belief. This may be the reason that people were comfortable converting to the Christian faith in some circumstances. History shows that many of the Germans converted specifically to receive protection from the Romans against forces that invaded against the Germans, so conversions to Christianity was not always about 'forced' conversion, but rather about chosen conversion to gain political help. Indeed, the religious worlds of these colliding cultures was a lot more complex than Christian missionaries coming into Europe and torturing people into conversion. This did occur, but then, the Pagan Romans did a lot of human torture of Christians as well - feeding thousands of 1st century Christians to the Lions and using live and conscious Christian converts as 'torch fuel' at their parties (yes this is true! and pretty horrible!)
Thus we can safely say that what the Celts believed in spiritually is neither in agreement with, nor in juxtaposition with, anything in the Bible. Instead, the spiritual concepts of the Celts and Germanic peoples were unknown to the Hebrews. And thus when Christianity came into the Anglo-Saxon world, they had to assize what the Celts and Anglo-Saxons did spiritually and only 'try' to understand their thinking and religious actions. And as we all know, when you only know a little bit about something, it is very easy to draw the wrong conclusion, or fully mis-understand what they mean, or are doing.
But we still have not answered the ultimate question - what is it that people 'do' when they practice 'witchcraft'? I have often asked my Christian friends this question: "If Witchcraft is a sin, then what specific actions are sinful? What specifically must one avoid doing to 'not' practice Witchcraft?" I get a blank stare. While people know 'witchcraft' is certainly a sin, no one can actually tell me what behavior it is that is 'witchcraft'. If Witchcraft is indeed against the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, then what specifically are they (witches) doing? The only answer we have is to consult the court records of history, which are given in a scholarly web sight, called SURVEY OF SCOTTISH WITCHCRAFT (http://webdb.ucs.ed.ac.uk/witches/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.search), which details the court records of those accused of and found guilty for practicing Witchcraft. The sight states that many people were accused of worshipping the Christian Devil, but that in fact, they were not doing such. In fact, they were tortured into confessing to worship the Christian Devil, and only confessed as a means to end their torture. Most of them were using folk healing methods, some of which probably did not work very well, but in a culture with no modern medicine, the records show that people were desperate to try to heal others who were suffering.
What witches of the Medieval and Elizabethan era were not doing was worshipping a Goddess, or a "Lord and Lady". In the court records, there are no mention of the "Lord and Lady", or any such "God and Goddess". While earlier Pagan Europeans had many ancestors who had been given the status of 'god' or 'goddess', and while many people made offerings at natural altars to natural spirits, we also must define 'what' a god or goddess was. The Anglo-Saxon language does not clearly define this term for us, so we return to the classical languages of Greek to find out. The Greeks by the way were also Pagans, and their language is ultimately related to the Indo-European language group, but the culture again, was so far away as to make any comparison of such really out of the question. Even so, Greek is the only language which gives us any definition of the term 'god' at all. In Greek the term 'god' means 'ruler' indicating governorship, priesthood, or even king. It is not necessary a term indicating a deity per say, except to say that all ancient peoples recognized their kings as mediators between humanity and a greater divine being, who was above the priest or king and had appointed that priest or king over the people. In other words, a 'god' or 'goddess' was in fact a human ruler put in place by a 'higher' divine being. Thus it is safe to say that the deities of Europe may well have been the true and actual ancestors of the European peoples, but were their 'most important' leaders, much like Americans remember George Washington now. At any rate, the worship of these deities was part of a more ancient European world view that disappeared approximately 400 C.E. on the continent and later (800 C.E.) in the most northerly fringes of European society. by the Medieval era and the Elizabethan times, there appears to be no knowledge of such deities among the many accused witches, even those who readily confessed that they practiced witchcraft, like Bessie Dunlop, who was a healer of her day. Archeologically, there is absolutely no evidence for any household or group of people who revered any such types of beings - no household idols, no written records, no pictures of such and no hidden temples in back rooms, dungeons, or caves. If any groups of people had existed, or even if any individual person had indeed done such, the evidence would certainly exist. Scholars have searched heartily for such evidence, since it had been proposed by Margaret Alice Murray and later encouraged by Gerald Gardner, but there simply is no evidence that such existed.
Instead, there is much mention of fairies. And Fairies are a COMPLETELY FOREIGN entity to Hebraic, or Hellenistic thought. In other words, the Bible cannot comment on such entities because these entities are completely foreign to Biblical thought and its surrounding culture. The idea of fairy-type creatures is so different from anything in the Semitic world that the only true analysis is to say it is absent from Biblical thinking. People have, for centuries, tried to 'equate' fairies and the related 'creatures' of the Celtic and European world to demons as spoken of in the Bible, but in reality, the Bible gives us the origin of demons...and this origin has nothing at all to do with Fairies. Let us review the Biblical history of demons:
In Ezekiel chapter 28, Lucifer is listed as the Biblical God's 'favorite' angel, and the only angel permitted to enter into the Biblical God's circle of fire. The scripture goes on to describe how the Biblical God withheld NOTHING from Lucifer, and dressed this angel in every gemstone that had been created. The way scripture describes the relationship between Lucifer and the Biblical God, it almost seems like a romance. But then, Biblical scripture tells us that 'iniquity' was found in Lucifer. Scripture does not tell us what this 'iniquity' was, not in Ezekiel 28, anyway. But once 'iniquity' was found in Lucifer, he was 'cast out' of the Biblical God's presence. Moving on to Isaiah 14, we discover what it was that Lucifer attempted to do: climb up onto the Biblical God's throne and take the Biblical God's place, becoming ruler over God. This act would have 'unplugged' creation, because only the Biblical God is capable (according to Hebraic thought) of keeping life going. It is this God who is the 'electricity', the 'force' and the 'power' that gives power to all other things - including Lucifer. Therefore, attempting to 'unplug' the Biblical God, would have in essence, 'unplugged' everything that this Biblical God had created, and EVERYTHING would have died and ceased to exist - including Lucifer. Because the Biblical God thought his creation was "very good", according to accounts in Genesis, this act of treason was certainly a cause for schism between Lucifer and the Biblical God. And thus Isaiah 14 tells us that Lucifer was 'cast out' to 'die'; in other words, the Biblical God gave him exactly what he desired - death. Further, because Lucifer tried to master-mind the death of the entire universe, including the Biblical God, its creator, Lucifer became associated with death, dying, corruption, lies, deception, disease and everything else that causes death and downfall. Jesus is reported as stating that he himself "saw Lucifer fall like lightning from the heavens..." (Luke 10:18), and this fall is expanded upon in the Book of Revelation, as a 'war' that took place in heaven (Jude 1:6; Revelation 12:7), which states:
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
As we can clearly see, the act that Lucifer attempted (treason against his creator, the Biblical God), caused such an uproar, that a war broke out in heaven and was heavily fought. It states that this enemy of God, named Satan (which means accuser), and also known as Lucifer (which means light-bringer), was hurled down and out of heaven along with angels who had aligned with him. Some believe that up to 1/3 of the angels in heaven allied with Lucifer in this endeavor to 'take over' heaven, and thus the demonic 'kingdom' was formed, which is no kingdom at all, but rather a conglomeration of enemies who have lost their place, their power and their future. Biblical scripture tells us that when Jesus Christ returns, this war will continue until Lucifer is fully destroyed, and that he indeed will be destroyed along with all who align with him. Only then will a new heaven and a new earth be created by the Creator Deity of the Hebrews, known today as 'Jehovah'. This is the perspective on the Demonic world according to the Holy Bible. No where does it mention Fairies. Fairies are not part of the Biblical concept and is completely foreign to Semitic thinking altogether.
In fact the Bible is very clear about where these demonic forces came from, but Bible scholars labor to match any and all ancestors or deities of non-Hebraic people groups up with these demonic forces. However, this 'matching up' of unrelated cultures can only be done 'if' the Bible really tells the whole story of the Universe, and this is a matter of 'belief'. Further, even if it does, the Bible only tells the story of the Hebrew world, and never broaches on the other world cultures. So even if the Bible is completely true in its assessment, it never analyzes distant cultures and their systems of thoughts. But from an anthropological and historic perspective, one can not say that the Hebrews were assessing distant cultures, but only asizing their own 'world' of the ancient near east region. One must look at these cultures as fully UNRELATED, and when this is done honestly, one can not compare Fairies to anything listed in the Bible at all. This is because the world of the Celts and all that they believed in is SEPARATE from any ideas that were part of Hebrew culture. Suffice it to say, however, that Hebrew culture strongly condemned neighboring cultures of idolatry and worship of the wrong deities, and had they become acquainted with the Celts, they certainly would have condemned them for some of their beliefs as well, but possibly not their idea of deity.
But we must also take into consideration that the Celts may be descendants of the wandering tribes of the Hebrews, specifically, the 10 Lost Tribes, who, after their exile in Babylon, wandered northward and disappeared. There is much to compare between Hebraic culture and the Celts that is so similar it is uncanny - language similarities, dietary codes, the high regard for the law, and the mandate the Druids had for 'not' writing down any of their laws, when compared with the Hebraic mandate that the law never be written down from memory, but only scribed perfectly from another, already penned scripture, so that it could be compared, and if error was found in that scripture, it was immediately destroyed. Even the sound of the term 'Druid' and 'Judah' sound somewhat similar (Drew...Jew). while linguists and other scholars cannot yet prove that the Druids and Celtic peoples were indeed related to the Jews and their priesthood to the Levites, many people have noticed similarities that make this comparison almost impossible to discount. From this perspective, it seems that if the Celts had once been a part with the Hebrew Lost Tribes, this would explain why the ancient, pre-Roman Celts of the 2nd Century B.C. had ideas about the divine being to great to contain in an idol, and why they never wrote anything down. Even the Festivals of the Hebrews is comparable to that of the Celts in many ways, such as theme and season.
Because the Lost Tribes of the Hebrews left Israel around the time of the Bronze Age, when the lot casting system of Urim and Thummim were still being used by the Hebrew Priesthood, it seems sensible that they would have continued to use a lot casting system to 'get in touch with' their God. Certainly, they would have attempted to use herbal remedies from things that grew in their region, because this provision came in the Book of Genesis, which they would have been familiar with. Cursings and Blessings over medicines would have been likely, as the Hebrews were known for (and their scriptures are filled with) examples of spell-type activities that were well-known in other, non Hebraic, Oriental cultures in their region. For example, in Genesis, a woman suspected of committing adultery was required to drink water into which the ashes of a certain paper had been placed (and upon which a phrase had been written); if she died, she was guilty, if she lived she was innocent... a practice that certainly appears 'spell-like'; in a later scripture, the Hebrews broke bowls upon which the names of their enemies were written, and in the story of Esther, the name of the evil Mordechai has always been and continues to be, written on the soles of the shoes and walked on, to keep his memory and spirit destroyed - an act that is borrowed from surrounding oriental cultures and has long been regarded as a type of 'spell'; this practice was certainly considered a form of magic by those Semitic cultures.
Thus the term 'witchcraft' as used in Biblical scripture can not really condemn actions of anyone. The Jews of the Old Testament, and the Christians of the New Testament used the same activities, but in varying contexts; to concemn such would have caused themselves to become guilty of their own actions. Instead, the only real crime they condemned was doing these things in the name of another deity. This was the real crime.
Thus we can conclude that what the Hebrews and Christians condemned was not what the Celtic and European people were 'doing' but rather whom they worshiped. And this is always a matter of personal choice, that no one should suffer for at human hand. Rather, only the God of the Biblical religion can judge, and He Himself states that he will do so, and do so with justice. It is Jesus that brings mercy to the equation, as well as acquittal. Biblical Scripture tells us that Christians are 'not to judge others' period. Instead Christians are to LOVE others.
Those who do not believe in the Biblical God are free to make their own choice. However, using the term 'witchcraft' in the Bible scriptures is completely inaccurate, and must be updated so the scriptures reflect greater accuracy of translation.
No comments:
Post a Comment