path: root/faith/thou_shalt_not_suffer_witch_live.rst

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
#####################################

:date: 2020-09-01T18:08:30
:status: draft
:category: faith
:tags: sermon, english, Bible

There are some verses which are usually important for every
Christian. Everyone of us has one verses like John 3:16 NET (“For
this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only
Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but
have eternal life”), or John 1:12 NET (“But to all who have
received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right
to become God’s children”). Then there are verses which we really
don’t know what to do with (e.g., just for fun Exodus 35:2b NET
“Anyone who does work on [Sabbath] will be put to death.”,
Leviticus 25:44 NET “As for your male and female slaves who may
belong to you—you may buy male and female slaves from the nations
all around you.” so only Austrian slaves, but I cannot import
them from Africa, even if they are a way more affordable?), but
then there are verses which nobody disputes but they are for most
of us not part of The Bible Verseparade. I expect most of my
readers to be Muggles, so I don’t think Exodus 22:18 KJV (“Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live.”) is up there in those most
important Biblical verses of your life.

However, I think that even for us, Muggles, this verse can bring
an important lesson, and this is not the one I hear usually when
it comes to be the subject of a Christian talk.

First of all, let me add here disclaimer: whatever I say in the
following paragraphs should not be understood as approval of
occult in any shape or form. Even if I claim this verse to be
more complicated and less useful that it usually is thought to
be, I still fully believe that Bible stands clearly against any
form of occult, divination or wiccan practices. Not only they are
usually sin against the First Commandment, but they are quite
certainly always a sin against the Eleventh One (“Thou shall not
be stupid.”). Discussion of occult is not subject of this
article.

Let me start with a short historian’s exercise. Czech polymath,
universal artist, overall genius, and gynaecologist amateur, Jára
Cimrman, sternly urged great men of history to consider the day
when they accomplish their great achievement and think about
future students who will have to learn about it in their history
classes. We can commend the Czech king and German emperor
Charles IV. for founding the Prague university now named after
him in year 1348, because everybody knows that all great events
of Czech history are supposed to happen in the year ending with
48, but April 7th is completely unconscionable date, when he
could wait just two weeks, and he would be at least found the
university on Easter (April 17th 1348). On the other hand, we
should really appreciate action of the pope Leo III who made
Charlemagne the first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on the
Christmas Day of year 800.

Year 800 AD is good interesting point in the history for couple
of reasons. First of all, what do you know about that year in the
history (of course, you know that Holy Roman Empire was founded,
but something else). What happened here in the area of the
current Czechia?

No, Saint Wenceslaus lived hundred years later (died most likely
in year 935). And no, Great Moravia and Saint Cyril and Methodius
came to our lands fifty years later (that is truly the beginning
of the history of these lands). And for comparison from other
countries with better documented history, no, Alfred the Great is
fifty years later as well. For Czech lands we really know almost
nothing. Some German chronicles barely mentioned that the area
exists, and there are some rumours about Charlemagne going
through Bohemia around 805, but that’s basically all we know
about this place in that time.

The only point I want to illustrate by these paragraphs is that
year 800 AD is long time ago. Really long time ago.

When we have established this point, we can start to work with
year 800 AD. First idea is really brief: when we think what
happened eight hundred years ago (1220), we considered such event
to happen really long time ago, so long time ago, that anything
is hardly known about it. Well, Christianity was that old in that
year. Because it was long time ago from our point of view, it
doesn’t mean it wasn’t long time from the beginning of the Church
as well.

Next comment is by Chesterton: we have tendency to always
view history as something which happened in past, and we are the
glorious (or not-so-glorious) culmination of past events. What if
we are not the end of history, what if we are just the beginning?
What if thousands years later, people will sing heroic songs
about our deeds, and discuss whether somebody so unbelievable as
Presidents Nelson Mandela or Václav Havel truly existed or if
they were just a myth? Just a food for thought.

Second note is substantially longer. We can use those twelve
hundred years which separate us (roughly) from that year as
a measure with which we can consider the flow of time. One step
from us is year 800 AD, second step is 800 AD - 1200 = 400 BC. It
is one year from the death of Socrates, and it is roughly what
could be declared the beginning of the Classical Antiquity.
I heard this example originally from a historical podcast about
philosophy, where they wanted to stress that although the history
of that era is compressed in our high-school history textbooks to
few chapters, and just after the chapter on Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle, the next chapter is about the Golden Roman era, Jesus,
and Seneca. Except there was four hundred years between those two
points in time, like from us to Descartes (to keep ourselves in
the history of philosophy; and yes, exactly four hundred years
ago, in 1620, Descartes was one of the French mercenaries who
fought and was wounded on the Protestant side in the Battle of
White Mountain next to Prague, which started the Thirty-years
War). We are missing the true depth of the various eras in our
history.

However, year 400 BC may be the beginning of the Classical
Antiquity, but in the biblical history it is still too late. All
canonical history of the Old Testament already happened, Jews
were back from the Babylonian captivity, and even the majority of
the Old Testament itself was already written. So, if we want to
get to the beginning of the Biblical time, we need to take our
historical measure and make one more step. 400 BC - 1200
= 1600 BC (exact years, or even centuries, are not that
important, chronology of that era is really vague and uncertain).
And somewhere there we finally get to the times the Old Testament
writes about. That is how really far away we are.

What I wanted to say by this example is to emphasize how
incredibly distant were people living in the Biblical times from
us. We usually don’t have any problems to accept that most of us
know almost nothing about this era outside of the Biblical
narrative, so I don’t think it is so outrageous to be cautious
about our understanding of the Biblical text from those times.

Let us return back to witches in the Old Testament. There are
surprisingly few verses explicitly dealing with witchcraft. Most
important are four verses (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:26, 20:27,
and Deuteronomy 18:10-11). Let us start with the last one (YLT
with Hebrew words used for the key terms in the verse):

    There is not found in thee one causing his son and his
    daughter to \`abar ba-'esh (H5674, H784), a user of
    qosem qesamim (H7080), a me’onen (H6049), and a menakhesh
    (H5172), and a [practices] mekhashef (H3784), // and
    a châbar (H2266) cheber (H2267), and one wə·šō·’êl ’ō·wḇ
    yidde'oni (H7592 H178 H3049), doresh el ha-metim
    (H1875 H4191).

Young’s Literal Translation gives us this:

    There is not found in thee one causing his son and his
    daughter to pass over into fire, a user of divinations, an
    observer of clouds, and an enchanter, and a sorcerer, // and
    a charmer, and one asking at a familiar spirit, and a wizard,
    and one seeking unto the dead.

NET Bible this:

    There must never be found among you anyone who sacrifices his
    son or daughter in the fire, anyone who practices divination,
    an omen reader, a soothsayer, a sorcerer, one who casts
    spells, one who conjures up spirits, a practitioner of the
    occult, or a necromancer.

Without even looking at the English translations, it is obvious
that this is some kind of list of technical terms. Whole
interpretation of these two verses stands and falls with the
exact translation of these terms.

Let me add here one completely hypothetical example. Let us
imagine, that after this verse about magic, there is another one,
which reads:

    You shall not permit bunja’h to live.

Whole translation of the verse again hinges on the understanding
of the term bunja’h (completely made-up word just for the purpose
of this example). Unfortunately, this word is never ever
mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and we don’t know anything
about it even from other ancient Hebrew literature (i.e., it is
*hapax legomenon*).

Imagine Saint Jerome sitting over this text racking his brain
over this verse. In the end he dives into books about the Hebrew
language, asks neighbouring rabbis for help, and then they
conclude that by using languages of other ancient Near East
nations it could be said that the word is based on roots of words
“man” and “knife”, so it could be literally translated as
something like “a man with a knife”. Jerome puts that in his
translation project (later to be called Vulgate) and whole
history of the Latin Christianity is then marred with the
persecution of cooks and butchers. They have to live outside of
the normal society in the neighbourhood of tanners, hangmen, and
knackers, and in the difficult times and time of crisis they are
frequently victims of pogroms.

Poor Jerome didn’t know, that “a man with a knife” was in the
ancient Palestine a slang expression for the assassin, who killed
his victims with a knife.

That’s an illustration how difficult is our situation and on the
other hand, how important is to get the translation right, to
fully understand it. And just to make it clear, there are over
400 true hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible alone. For example,
“gopher wood” from Genesis 6:14 has not been found anywhere else,
so we really don’t know what the Noah’s ark was really made from
(the idea it was cypress which is a common translation is just
because it was the wood ships were usually made from, but there
is no evidence it was really so; what if the biblical author
wanted to emphasize something by Noah building a ship from some
unusual wood?).

Back to our verse in Deuteronomy.

    There is not found in thee one causing his son and his
    daughter to \`abar ba-'esh (H5674, H784), a user of
    qosem qesamim (H7080), a me’onen (H6049), and a menakhesh
    (H5172), and a [practices] mekhashef (H3784), // and a châbar
    cheber (H2266 H2267), and shâ'al ob (H7592 H178), and
    a yidde'oni (H3049), and one doresh el ha-metim (H1875
    H4191).

Understating of some of these terms is rather straightforward.
The context is the interdict on the pagan practices of
divination, so *qosem qesamim* is literally “distributes
distributions”, and according to the commentaries to the Czech
study Bible, it means some kind of divination by observing either
spread lots or arrows shot in front of the diviner. Another
commentaries (NET Bible) claims it is just a generic term for any
diviner who predicts future from observing various omens and
signs. However, it is obvious it is some kind of divination,
although we are not completely certain how exactly it was done.

*menakhesh* has complicated meaning. According to some it is just
a generic term for any divination by observing signs and omens
(Strong’s Dictionary). According to other (Czech Bible commentary
and Wikipedia) this word derives from the word for snake, and as
a verb it literally translates to hissing. It could mean either
some kind of whispering or murmuring incantation, or it may
signifies a snake charmer.

*yidde'oni* means “consults a medium or familiar spirit”, and
these mean just what the literal translation suggests.

*\`abar ba-'esh* means literally “pass over into fire” and it is
understood to be just repetition of the interdict on the human
sacrifice, here probably specifically the sacrifice of children
to the Canaanite god Moloch.

*doresh el ha-metim* is slightly more complicated. Literally it
means “inquires of the dead” (or “(one who) questions corpses”),
which most English versions of the Bible translate as
“necromancy”, but my Czech commentary suggests a diviner lying in
a grave waiting for the vision there. 

*me’onen* has rather obscure meaning. The literal
translation is something like “conjure clouds”, which if it is
meant to be some kind of magic, sounds to me more like some
weather modifying, but if it is in the context of divination the
commentaries claimed it to be aeromancy (divination from the
shape of clouds), which is documented from the late ancient Rome
(5th century CE) and it is thought to have been used by the
ancient Babylonian priests. Given how accessible clouds usually
are, I have no problems to imagine that some kind of divination
from them could exist, but it is certainly not something which
was widespread, there are really just few mentions of it in whole
Ancient literature. On the other hand, NET Bible commentary
explains that it is not about clouds, but about conjuring spirits
and apparitions. Rashi’s commentary mentions, that The Sages
said, that this referred to those who “catch the eyes” [i.e.,
they deceived public by creating optical illusions].

*mekhashef* is translated as “sorcery”, but this meaning is far
from certain and obvious. (khashef and khesh come from the same
root, which means snake)

*châbar cheber* means literally “join joinings”, which is not
clear at all. Rashi means that this is “One who collects snakes,
scorpions or other creatures into one place.” The second word
means either spells and charms, or something collected together,
association, shared household, company of priests. Czech
commentary to the Ecumenical translation suggests even
a relationship with bindings in Matthew 18:18.

The overall meaning I was trying to convey in this whole analysis
was twofold. First of all, 

.. https://netbible.org/bible/Deuteronomy+18
   https://biblehub.com/parallel/deuteronomy/18-10.htm
   https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/22-18.htm
   https://studybible.info/strongs/H2267
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_and_divination_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
   https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9982/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-18.htm#lt=both

----

1. Exodus 22:18 (LXX): “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to
   live.”
   
2. Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat anything with its blood.
   You shall not practice augury or witchcraft.“
   
3. Leviticus 20:27 (LXX) “A man or a woman who is a medium or
   a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death,
   their blood is upon them.”
   
---

My overall feeling is that this is mostly about divination,
predicting future, not much about for example healing magic.
Which is no surprise, because until way into the Enlightenment
the difference between the medical science and medical magic was
really ambiguous (or perhaps, a way longer).

---

Another poorly translated verse:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g402

Many of them also which used curious arts G4021 brought their
books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted
the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
(KJV)

Large numbers of those who had practiced magic G4021 collected
their books and burned them up in the presence of everyone. When
the value of the books was added up, it was found to total fifty
thousand silver coins. (NET)

Acts 19:19

The same word G4021 is then used in 1. Timothy 5:13:

And besides that, going around from house to house they learn to
be lazy, and they are not only lazy, but also gossips and
busybodies, talking about things they should not.

(nothing nice, but it doesn’t seem like a witchcraft to me).

Those are only two occurrences of the word in NT (and it is never
used in LXX).

---

I have to admit 

Existuje několik fanfikcí, které se tímto problémem zabývají
z hlediska většinou zhruba jedenáctiletých dětí, pro které je
tento verš rozhodující pro celý jejich život. Některé příběhy
jsou jenom hloupé a ventilují si jakousi frustraci autora
pravděpodobně s americkou evangelikální církví, ale některé se
problémem reálně zabývají. Většinou profesoři v Bradavicích,
kouzelnické škole ve Skotsku, kde nešťastná mladá čarodějnice
studuje (nevím proč se vždycky jedná o dívku), se jí snaží
přesvědčit, že se partikulární zákazy musí vysvětlovat,
a helvétská konfese s nimi souhlasí, takovým výkladem, „jenž se
shoduje s pravidlem víry a lásky a slouží výborně k slávě Boží
a spáse lidí.“, ale dívka většinou s takovým vysvětlením není
úplně spokojená, protože si nechce z Písma Svatého dělat trhací
kalendář a odhazovat části jenom proto, že jí nevyhovují.

Proč tohle vyprávím v evangelickém mudlovském kostele je, že jsem
konečně našel jeden příběh, který vzal celý problém podle mého za
správný konec. Co opravdu víme o chápání magie ve starověkém
světě, co víme o magii ve starověké hebrejštině, co doopravdy
víme o magii? Co když slovo, které ze starověké hebrejštiny
překládáme jako „čarodějnice“ je ve skutečnosti nějaký technický
termín, který označuje nějaký druh černokněžnice, používající
magii k nekalým cílům?

Jak dobře mohli mudlovští, tedy nemagičtí, pisatelé, překladatelé
a komentátoři Písma opravdu správně zaznamenat a přeložit něco,
čemu v podstatě moc nerozuměli? A to platí i ve chvíli, kdy
nevěříme na reálnou existenci magie. Jsem si jist, že i lidé,
kteří praktikovali magii klidně jako podvod nebo pověru v té
době, měli pro své konání terminologii, která je obávám se
z větší části pro nás lidi jednadvacátého století ztracená. Ve
chvíli, kdy se zaberete do studia komentářů i specializovaných
knih o magii starověkého Blízkého Východu [#]_, a snažíte se
zjistit, co doopravdy znamená hebrejské slovo, které zde
překládáme jako „čarodějnice“, odpovědí je veliké zmatení, které
se zdá zakrývat bezradnost. Takto kniha tvrdí, že se jedná
bylinkářku (snad připravující jedy?), jiní tvrdí, že to je vědma
předpovídající budoucnost z par vystupujících z nějaké jámy
naplněné čímsi, existují i názory, že se jedná o jakousi
zaklínačku, která kletbami škodí druhým.

Takže tohle je první závěr, který bych chtěl předat z tohoto
kázání: samozřejmě, že je v Bibli spousta věcí, které jsou
jednoduché a zjevné, a které i ta stará žena na Táboře může
pochopit. Sloužit cizím Bohům je špatný nápad, podvádět
manželku/manžela také, vraždit bližního je zcela mimo, milovati
ho je mnohem lepší nápad. Ale na druhou stranu ne všechno v Bibli
je jednoduché a pokud se tváříme, že je, dostaneme se do velmi
ošklivých konců, jako jsou hony na čarodějnice šestnáctého
a sedmnáctého století.

----

Jiftah a jeho dcera (Soudců 11 a 12 kaptiola) je příkladem lidské
oběti a čistého černokněžnictví.

* https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12822/what-is-the-meaning-of-sorceress-in-exodus-2218
* https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/thou-shalt-not-suffer-a-witch-to-live-a-murderous-mistranslation-1.5443682
* https://archive.org/details/witchcraftinmidd0000russ

.. [#] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QaT1tVK0uZIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

----

Before I (finally) get to them, let me add one more side track:
while looking for these verses, and studying them, I have met
[#]_ quite couple of mentions of actions or practices described
in the Bible (both Old and New Testament), which looked to me
very much like occult practices and which would today be strongly
prohibited by all Bible-loving churches. Bible just notices them,
but neither condemns them, nor even comments on their
(un-)righteousness:

* Joseph’s silver cup used for divination, Numbers 5:12-31, Urim
  & Thummim, Elisha cursing small boy who calls him “badly”,
  lots, Daniel was supervisor of “the magicians, astrologers,
  Chaldeans and soothsayers” (Daniel 5:11). In the New Testament
  Paul’s declaration in Acts 13:6-12 looks uncomfortably like
  a curse, and Acts 5:9 perhaps too (this one is more
  explainable).

.. [#] Mostly from http://www.religioustolerance.org/divin_bibl.htm