Talk:Christian views on magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

Clutch, I can't find an online version of the NWT and I'd REALLY like to have links to the Bible passages that we're quoting, can you help? --Dante Alighieri

Well, I Googled quite a bit, as I'm sure you did. The consensus is that the publishers have not put it online due to its, shall we say, controversial status. I'm sure one of their associates would be glad to visit you with a copy. I do love the translation: "You must not preserve a sorceress alive." Well, then, how am I to preserve her? --Nate 23:51 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure I could find a copy around somewhere... I just wanted to be able to link to it from the page. --Dante Alighieri


I hear that salt is a good preservative. -- Ram-Man
Preferably salt of the earth, and then shine the light of the world on her :) -phma

Would anyone mind if I changed the opening line from:


is a biblical passage in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament)

to

is a biblical passage in the Old Testament

? I don't like the flow and I question whether the link to Tanakh is truly necessary. --Dante Alighieri

I agree - Tanakh refers to the Hebrew Bible, and would be appropriate if the article was about Jewish views on witchcraft; Old Testament is the accepted term when referring to Christian usage. --Tim4christ17 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should find and add teh cockney rhyming slang version :-)

Interpreting a "verse" in isolation is hermeneutically suspect. Verse divisions were added to the Bible in the middle ages, and the idea that verses were in any way units of meaning is a modern innovation. Bible "verses" are a Christian invention: they were not used in reference to the Masoretic text of the Tanakh.

Picking a verse here and a verse there, or picking all verses in which a given word is used, etc. are bizarre, if popular, methods of divining meaning from the Bible. To talk of Exodus 22:18 without referencing its context (that is it part of the 18th section "mishpatim" of the division of the Law of Moses into 54 sections) results in overlooking the fundamental logic of the laws being given, which is to keep the religion of Yahweh's people distinct in its practices from those of the surrounding peoples. To give this specific verse its own link from Exodus unduly emphasizes it (you'd think it was as important as the other divisions of Exodus) and ought to be reconsidered. In fact, I'll move it myself<G>, and leave to others whether the link belongs in Exodus or, as I think, really only in witchcraft. -- Someone else

Fine, but rather than just COMPLAINING that it is being analyzed in isolation, without reference to it's position in a larger body, why not improve the article by adding the information you stated above? --Dante Alighieri
Because having ONE article devoted to ONE verse is a problem that can't be fixed by ADDING to the article! <G> -- Someone else 21:54 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC) (P.S.... it's not that I think the article is BAD, I think the article is a mistake.) -- Someone else
Look, I respect your intelligence and your point of view, so don't take our banter the wrong way. :) That being said, I must TOTALLY disagree with you. ;)
The article is necessary, and I'll explain why. The fact of the matter is, people labeled as "witches" have been horribly persecuted by Christians (and not just in modern times). You can say as much as you like about how the text SHOULD be interpreted and how it OUGHT to be understood. The problem is, that's not how some people HAVE interpreted it. There are people out there, and I think we BOTH agree that they are a little bit off, that insist that witches are an abomination to God and that they must be cleansed. Now, granted, most of the cleansing types lived a few centuries ago, but still, the point is that it is a real historical phenomenon. Now, as far as textual support in the Bible for this position, I can only find TWO passages. One is Exodus 22:18. The other is Deuteronomy 18:11-12. Now all these people who claim(ed) to find textual evidence for their insane persecutions must have been looking at one or both of these passages. Now I think that that very fact makes them relevant for inclusion in the Wiki. --Dante Alighieri
They should be included. Under witchcraft. Or Christianity. Or Views of Christianity on witchcraft. Not as separate articles whose titles are in and of themselves without meaning and which one interested in the subject matter would be unlikely to find. -- Someone else 22:16 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)
I agree that this should be rolled into a better-named article. The content is valid because people have historically taken single verses out of the Bible to support all sorts of bizarre arguments that don't logically follow from the context and meaning of the verses. In fact an article on that very subject would be great. But what to call it... --mav

I'm going to say this, as a practicing witch and a professional technical writer, and then I'm going to leave you guys to hash it out, because I don't really care: This "article" clearly belongs in the existing Witchcraft article, because it's duplicative of what's there. And picking out individual verses of the Bible for independent articles is ridiculous anyhow. -- isis 22:33 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Have you seen John 21 or Mark 16 ? CheeseDreams 01:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this could be put in Witchcraft, but if Witchcraft gets too long, Witchcraft in the Bible or something similar might be a good place for discussion. I have to say that the topic seems to invite non-NPOV interpretations. --Eloquence

My suggestion: Exodus 22:18 should 'become' Christian views on witchcraft. The text in the "Witchcraft" article that is pertinent should be incorporated in that article, and the witchcraft article linked to it. (There's no reason for the Witchcraft article to be dominated by other religions' views of it!) This article could then incorporate all the pertinent material (i.e., both of the verses cited, a discussion of the validity of "interpreting" isolated verses shorn of context, and a link to Biblical hermaneutics, which would need expansion)... Then Exodus could lose its link to 22:18, and the link to Christian views on witchcraft could go in Harry Potter instead of the Witchcraft and Exodus 22:18 links. If this sounds right to you, Dante, you could do it by moving Exodus 22:18 to Christian views of (or on?) witchcraft and requesting a deletion of Exodus 22:18. But I leave that for you, I'm voicing an opinion, not trying to force it on anyone. <G> -- Someone else

Although I agree with -- I think it is everyone except one person -- that this article should be folded into a more general article on witchcraft ofr Christian persecution of witchcraft, either way the text should be NPOV. I made a few minor changes: I placed the word "Christian" before "Old Testament," and changed "English speaking people" to "English speaking Christians." Alos, a word is not "defined" as witchcraft -- a word is translated as witchcraft and the word witchcraft itself must be defined. Slrubenstein

Dante Allighieri writes:

The fact of the matter is, people labeled as "witches" have been horribly persecuted by Christians (and not just in modern times). You can say as much as you like about how the text SHOULD be interpreted and how it OUGHT to be understood. The problem is, that's not how some people HAVE interpreted it.

which provides an eloquent reason for why this article should be deleted, or renamed. Clearly, the article is not "about" this Biblical verse; it is "about" the persecution of witches by Christians; it is "about" people who have interpreted a particualr Bibilical verse a particular way. Since the point of the article is not at all to be "about" the Biblical verse itself, it should not have this name. To quote this verse out of context is to be misleading -- a crime for an encyclopedia. And if the main authors of this article are concerned primarily with one context for the verse (Christian persecution of witches), well, then that shoulod be the title of this article. Slrubenstein

You're right, I suppose the article isn't really ABOUT Exodus 22:18. I'm not married to the name Exodus 22:18, but that seemed to be the early consensus on what the name ought to be. I certainly don't oppose changing the name. I'll go ahead and move the article to Christian views on witchcraft as suggested by Someone Else. Everyone, please hold off on more replies here until I can complete the change. --Dante Alighieri

Cumbersome phrase department:

Most Christians who believe in witchcraft believe that it derives its power from forces of evil - by a special pact or by an appeal to those forces, such as Satan, also called Lucifer, or "the devil". Another belief is that the practice of witchcraft is based on deception. Both of these views may be held together or separately.

I get tripped up by phrases like believe in witchcraft because it's not readily apparent whether that means:

  • approve of it, or
  • agree that it exists

I don't believe in deceiving people, for example, although I do concede that "many deceivers have come into the world, leading the people astray". --Uncle Ed E.g.

  • Jesus
  • Simon Magus
  • Irenaeus
  • Tertullian
  • Karl Marx
  • George Bush
  • Pied Piper of Hamlin

?CheeseDreams 01:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thou shalt not...

The line was originally "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" but it was changed to fit the "needs" of the people when they wanted to persecute the Pagans.

The line was "originally" not in English.... so, Anonymous, you need to specify the domain in which your comment is relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The idea is that "witch" was originally a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "poisoner"... which appears to be a widely-spread urban legend. I think I ran into it first in Robert Heinlein's book Job, A Comedy of Justice. Here's a [sample article] debunking the mistranslation. dvgrn 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have also seen articles stating that it actually is a mistranslation (the suggested translation would be something like "someone who uses herbs to hurt people") so I guess the jury is out on that one. // Liftarn
In the absence of a decided jury we have some fairly authoritative sources to go on. We have various translations in use by Christians and Jews which have been thrashed to bits by scholars; we also have a clear explanation of why the "poisoner" translation is unlikely (oh and it was Reginald Scot who first advanced this theory in his 1584 Discoverie of Witchcraft, and the myth seems to have been circulating ever since). The only articles I've read supporting the "poisoner" translation fail to address the points raised in the article mentioned by Dvgrn above. In the absence of stronger evidence I think we have to take the "sorceress" translation as authoritative. It certainly wouldn't be the most barbaric law in the Bible... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV/Sourcing

Several POV/Sourcing issues here - I'm going to address a few of them at least.... --Tim4christ17 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone familiar with the Pentecostal movement would add a note to this section - also, I'm not sure that "mystic" is the correct term to be using in the first section with reference to the Pentecostal movement and the apostles Paul and John.
Also, I've added several templates asking for sources, using [verification needed] for the more serious/urgent needs and [citation needed] for the less important ones.
Finally, I sectioned off the last part of the article as "Analysis" and tagged it with a POV tag - it will probably have to be re-written at some point. --Tim4christ17 05:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a general historical introduction and a bibliography. I think the rest needs to be ordered more carefully, and different viewpoints represwented as far as possible. SteveH 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Jesus' and others' powers?

How do the powers of Jesus, or Joseph (prophetic dreams) factor in to Christian beliefs and attitudes as related to this topic? Why are their supposed supernatural abilities regarded as acceptable and holy while others are not? What makes turning water into wine "not magick"? Just because those people show up in their Bible or what?

Thats a good point. I dont understand Christians. Their faith, im my personal opinion, is so shunning and cold. ^.^

Remember this is a research discussion page. Let's leave our prejudices out of it. We'll achieve much more here if we all be nice to each other.
Now I believe (but am not an expert) that "magic" is often considered within Christianity to be achieved by illusion, deception or demonic aid rather than by the grace of God. Thus they don't term the miracles of Jesus and the Saints etc. as "magic", but as "miracles". Fuzzypeg☻ 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply, "magick" (in the Christian perspective) is the attempt to personally twist the fabric of reality for personal gain/desire (where the power comes from is immaterial, since if it was divine it would be a miracle, not "magick".) Miracles are not so much a "twisting" of reality for personal gain/desire (as "magick" is); they (miracles) are only possible when God (or "the divine" if that is more your liking) allows it. One is attempted from a personal perspective, and is unregulated by higher order (or at least is desired to be), the other is allowed only if it is in accord to this order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liftarn (talk • contribs).

That may be putting it simply, but it's also putting it from your personal point of view, which is not necessarily the perspective of all other Christians. I think it's worth saying too that according to the definitions you give of "magic(k)" and "miracle", the vast majority of Wiccans, neopagan witches, ceremonial magicians, vodouisants etc. etc. would consider themselves practitioners of "miracles" not "magic", since they don't claim that they have any power other than that given by God (or whatever you want to call that universal creator and source). Also, within the magical community it is widely believed that magic performed for personal gain/desire will either not work, or will lead to trouble, unless it serves for spiritual advancement and the greater good.
Now to examine this a little closer, in terms of Christian theology: According to your definition any miraculous event is a "miracle" if God allows it, and "magic(k)" if he doesn't. But to suggest that anything can occur without God "allowing" it is tantamount to heresy in the Christian faith, since it implies that he is not omnipotent. Ergo "magic(k)" (by your definition) can't exist in the normal Christian world-view. Of course "magic" as it is understood by most of its practitioners is impossible to distinguish from the "miracles" of Jesus and the saints, and as such is much easier to reconcile with common Christian world-views.
Oh, and remember to sign your posts by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment where you want your signature to go. That will turn into your name and the date/time, like so: Fuzzypeg☻ 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need sources for a paper

I'm writing a paper on the origins of accusatoins against witches for my class. Seeing as how Wikipedia is kind of a tertiary source (compiles information from secondary sources), I was wondering where the info in this article comes from-- I notice some statemetns are unsourced but can anyone provide some sources I could use? Note, I do have a list of sources already, I'm just wondering what sources were used in this article. Kuronue 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why we try to get people to provide their sources right at the start, because later on it's anyone's guess what the sources were. I can give you two recommendations: Carlo Ginzburg's Ecstasies is an academically highly regarded book, and the first chapter deals with the form that accusations against witches took, and finds exactly the same accusations brought against lepers and then against jews in the century or two before the witch-hunts. Max Dashu is a slightly less well-known author who draws interesting comparisons with ancient Rome and the persecution of the Bacchantes, in which virtually identical accusations were brought against these revellers as were later brought against "witches". The two chapters of interest are [1] (provides background regarding the cult) and [2] (describes the Bacchic "witch hunt"). Unfortunately Dashu's book is not yet published, and the online excerpts provide partial inline references but not the expanded references one would find in the bibliography.
Both these sources are dealing with the form that accusations took pretty much regardless of what minority group was being accused. Hope these help... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a bibliography, and the book by Charles williams, and the one by Cohn can help. SteveH 12:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is POV

This article's whole content smacks of POV issues. It uses the words most when describing the beliefs of Christian's far to often without any sort of sourcing to indicate that these beliefs are in fact normative of Christians. Indeed many seem normative specifically of fundamentalist and conservative Christian bodies. Among Liberal Christianity however more divergent views seem prevalent and few of these are in fact addressed. I did try to clean it up slightly but it needs some work. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Its very POV for many reasons. I tried to improve the first paragraph at least. The section labeled "Analysis" is the worst part. The first line in particular is clearly worded to influence the reader. I think the arguments made are perfectly valid, but they are not stated in an NPOV way and don't belong in the article to the extent that they are represented here. For instance, it is not a fact that "one must acknowledge that interpreting "verses" in isolation is hermeneutically suspect." It is one's opinion that such interpretations are hermeneutically suspect and that one must acknowledge it. It would be more acceptable to say that "So-and-so scholar argues that interpreting such verses in isolation is hermaneutically suspect [cite source]". I think too much time is spent on the analysis section anyway. The purpose of the article should be to report on the various Christian views of Witchcraft, not analyze the correctness of those views or the way the Bible is interpreted.

Also, the intro mentions that Christian views are influenced by sciptural, theological, and historical considerations. I think it would make sense to have subsections that discuss how each of those affect Christian views of this subject, linking to other articles when appropriate (especially for the historical considerations.Nimrand 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect one of the primary problems is the lack of referencing and thusly the near-impossibility of attributing ideas correctly to figure out which views have more weight :/. I fixed a few self-reference problems and one exhortation to the reader, but without references, I suspect this article will be difficult to fix :/. Homestarmy 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Fixing this Article

Ok, I think most of agree this article needs "fixing". But, what approach should we take? Clearly, we need references. But, what cleanup tag(s) should we add? Will a complete rewrite be necessary? What organization should the article have to ensure a more balanced and NPOV article? Please post your comments here. Nimrand 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I cut out the third subsection of the "Scriptures" section and refactored a more general discussion of terminology into the first subsection, which also has a citation (YaY!). This change takes out the comment about Strong's concordence defining witchcraft as anyone who casts spells. The statement, as written, just didn't seem inappropriate. And, pretty much the same information is conveyed, in a more NPOV form, in what is now the second paragraph of the first subsection. Nimrand 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I cut a major portion of the scriptures section. It just wasn't fixable in my view, especially without references. I think the section deserves to be fleshed out more, however, and will contribute what I can as I find sources. However, as others contribute, please keep in mind that virtually any inference from scripture is contentious. Unless its a fact that virtually anyone would agree is true (which almost never happens when interpreting scripture), it needs to be stated as a point of view of a notable person or a group. It should be accompanied by a citation as well. Furthermore, the focus should not be to lead the reader to conclusions regarding the "correct" interpretation of the scriptures, but rather to inform the reader in order to explain how those scriptures affect Christian views on witchcraft. Nimrand 02:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a stub section to discuss the theological thought behind Christian views on witchcraft. While this has some overlap with the first paragraph of the first section, this would be a good place to discuss the Christian distinction between spells and prayer, and what-not. I'm sure there are plenty of other things that can go in there as well, provided good sources are available. Nimrand 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a historical introducetion and bibliography, and will try to do more work as time permits. I agree with most of the comments about problems with the article. SteveH 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential References

Here is a couple of articles I found that might serve as good resources. I haven't had a chance to read to them in detail just yet, but they looked the most promosing from the hits on Google. Feel free to add your own. (Nimrand)

The first one cannot be used. Personal sites hosted on geocities do not meet reliability requirements. The second looks good, though, as it has been published in two places. Frater Xyzzy 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if I'm reading it correctly, the first one has also been published "Hayes, Stephen. 1995. Christian responses to witchcraft and sorcery, in Missionalia, Vol. 23(3) November. Pages 339-354." If nothing else though, it has references to lots of other resources as well. Nimrand 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the first one, and it is a reproduction of an article in a peer-reviewed journal, and I've added some of the references in the bibliography. It does not, however, cover the whole of the topic. SteveH 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add a second citation to a sentence if both sources verify the statement? Nimrand 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If you think an extra citation may be useful to a researcher who wants to verify the statement or find more information on the subject, then go ahead. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian mysticism and witchcraft For details on this subject see Francis Barrett's "The Magus" 1801 copyright 1967 by University Books, Inc. ISBN 0-8065-0462-5 Published by Citadel Press. See also "The great Grimoire of Pope Honorius" 1492 as well ISBN 1-879000-09-1. Trident Books copyright 1999 The main part of this system is much like the Goetia. Basicly invoking God to have the power to control Demons. It is a Christian take on king Solomons Magic which is basicaly the same system. Also the Moromons use Talismans from the Greater Key of Solomon. Why I have no idea besides possibly a Masonic influence.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds interesting. I'll take a look at it when I have time to do some reading.  :-). Nimrand 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check

I would really appreciate any comments regarding the neutrality of this article. I have made a lot of changes to it since the POV-check tag was added, but my knowledge of the subject is limited, and there aren't a lot of acedemic resources on the Internet on the subject (lots of propoganda though :-)). And, I did not write much of its content, and don't know where the information came from. I have cut out the things that to me were clearly biased. But, I it would be very helpful to have other's perspectives as to what neutrality issues remain, besides the fact that it needs quite a few more sources. There are also many things on the subject the article does not cover, which in and of itself could be a neutrality issue. Nimrand 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have thought of this earlier, but this article could perhaps be greatly improved by renaming it Christian views on magic. As it currently stands this article is hampered by multiple widely-varying and poorly specified definitions of "witchcraft", which is a much more complex concept than "magic". Witchcraft could be an earth-based pagan religion; it could be a pact with diabolical forces; it may or may not involve the practice of magic; its practitioners may or may not exist purely in the realms of fantasy! This article would be more interesting and useful if it took a wider look at magic, and discussed witchcraft from within that context. "Witchcraft" is such a loaded and difficult term, most academic historians tend to avoid it wherever possible, instead talking about "sorcerers", "magicians" etc!
Also, there's lots of interesting ground to cover regarding magic within Christianity: the difference between "miracle" and "magic", what/when magic is diabolical, and so on. These are topics that the article is currently heading towards, but can't really be discussed because these practices are not normally termed "witchcraft" when practiced within a Christian faith, even by those who disapprove. I think a name change would make the article more interesting and easier to understand. The specifics of the term "witchcraft" are better dealt with in Witchcraft and Witch-hunt. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. We might have to completely reorganize the article, but I think its the right move.Nimrand 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Translations of the Bible Verses

As I explained in my edit comment, having 20 or so translations of the same verse adds nothing to this article; particularly since most of them are almost identical. Two or three at the very most would be sufficient. A more useful use of that space would be a well-cited discussion regarding the translation issues surrounding that verse.Nimrand 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the focus on the bible verses and imposing of a particular POV based on those verses (rather than providing well-cited information regarding the topic of the article) that nearly got this article deleted a few months back.Nimrand 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I propose renaming this article Christian views on magic.

Most of this article is relevant to Christian views on magic, rather than witchcraft in any narrow sense. The one section that focuses particularly on the phenomenon of "witchcraft", as it was termed during the witch-trial period, is largely lifted from the Witch-hunt article, and better dealt with there.

As I expressed earlier on this talk page, the term witchcraft is immediately problematic, since it has so many quite distinct definitions for different people; any discussion of witchcraft will have difficulty being anything more than a discussion of what different groups think the word means (which we already have in the Witchcraft article). We had a small section regarding this problem in this article, but I removed it because it was quite incorrect, based on a misunderstanding of the cited source. I couldn't figure out how to salvage anything from it.

Where this gets really interesting though, is when we start considering what Christian views on magic are. "Witchcraft" certainly comes into this discussion, but we will be at less pains to present that term as it is understood by all different parties; we also get to touch on the interesting subject of what separates certain rituals of Christianity from magic, what the difference is between miracle and magic, etc. It just seems that this name change would allow much freer discussion without constantly stumbling over terminology and trying to avoid passing the boundaries of the term "witch", a term that has many narrow definitions but few broad ones. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we will have to eventually reorganize much of the article due to the renaming, but I believe it will be for the best.Nimrand 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to be renamed, but am less than enthusiastic about the choice of the word magic. I would suspect that most people probably associate the word magic with stage magic and suspect that using that term may simply create another sort of problem with the title. Perhaps sorcery or conjuring or something along those lines might be more accurate? Labyrinth13 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
How about Christian views on magic and the occult? And even if most people (other than anyone who has ever had experience with a fantasy novel or RPG) think of magic as rabbit-out-of-a-hat sleight of hand, there are some Christian denominations that oppose that too -- I can't remember which ones, but I do remember being pamphletted back in university. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is getting more and more problematic, isn't it? I mean, the word occult is a bit loaded and can mean different things to different people. It really is beginning to appear to me that since the subject of this entry is covered already in other Wikipedia entries (as noted by Fuzzypeg above), that it might just be a candidate for merging elsewhere or even deletion? Just a thought. Labyrinth13 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If it were to be merged, the most appropriate place would be Magic and religion. I don't share your concerns about the term "magic", since in the context of Christianity or religion it seems fairly clear what it's referring to. But regardless, a merge may be appropriate, as long as we don't mind making that article a bit top-heavy in its Christianity section... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with move: This article currently talks about witchcraft. Christian views on magic could be a notable article, but it would have entirely different content than this article.--Kevinkor2 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with move: I still think the move is appropriate. Firstly, I doubt the term will cause confusion, particularly since there already Wikipedia articles that use the term "Magic" broadly. Also, I have to disagree with Kevinkor2. The whole point is that the current title forces the article to stay within the topic of the amorphously defined term "Witchcraft". Changing the name to "Magic", which includes "witchcraft", will allow a much broader and comprehensive treatment of the topic.Nimrand 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with move On further consideration and reading the other comments here, changing to magic seems to be the better choice. Using the term witchcraft can too easily be misconstrued as being biased toward certain religious beliefs or taking an anti-Wicca or anti-Pagan stance (adherents of those religions often practice what they call witchcrat). Using the word magic seems less loaded and confusing. Labyrinth13 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology Problem

Fuzzypeg, what part of the text did I misunderstand or misrepresent? Here is some of the text that can be found in from the article I cited:

"Many Wiccans believe that their religion goes back to pre-Christian times in North-Western Europe, and that the witch hunts that culminated in the Great Witch Hunt of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries constituted a persecution of their religion, a Christian attempt to eradicate their religion and culture. They identify themselves with those who died in the Great Witch Hunt in much the same way as Christians identify themselves with the martyrs who died in the persecutions of Decius, Diocletian or Stalin; or as Jews identify themselves with those who were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. This view is derived mainly from Margaret Murray's book The witch cult in Western Europe (cited by Hutton above). Murray, an Egyptologist, asserted that there was a witch cult that represented a pre-Christian religion in Europe; that Christianity was accepted only by the upper classes in society, and that the witch cult continued underground until it was violently eradicated in the Great Witch Hunt. Between the 1930s and the 1960s Murray wrote the article on "witchcraft" in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and so long after her views had been rejected by specialists in the field, they were accepted by non-specialists.3 As Hutton (1991:335) notes:
By assuming that witchcraft and paganism were formerly the same phenomenon, they (Wiccans) are mixing two utterly different archaic concepts and placing themselves in a certain amount of difficulty. The advantage of the label "witch" is that it has all the exciting connotations of a figure who flouts the conventions of normal society and is possessed of powers unavailable to it, at once feared and persecuted. It is a marvellous rallying-point for a counter-culture, and also one of the few images of independent female power in early modern European civilization. The disadvantage is that by identifying themselves with a very old stereotype of menace, derived from the pre-Christian world itself, modern pagans have drawn upon themselves a great deal of unnecessary suspicion, vituperation and victimization which they are perpetually struggling to assuage."

Nimrand 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The section I removed claimed that modern religious witchcraft "combines elements of both paganism and witchcraft, two things which were entirely separate at the time the Bible was written." "Paganism" is a slightly unfortunate choice of words in the cited article, being highly interpretable (much like the term "witchcraft"); in this historical sense we can probably assume it means either "non-Abrahamic religion" or "non-Roman" religion. So, apparently, religion and witchcraft were entirely separate in biblical times.

But what the cited article actually says is that "religion" and "witchcraft" are not synonyms, not that they have no relationship. For comparison, try the statement "farming and ploughing were entirely separate in biblical times" — clearly false. Farming is not ploughing and ploughing is not farming; also, farming may not (and often does not) involve ploughing; but the two are not "separate". The Missionalia article is saying that modern witches tend to treat witchcraft and paganism as synonyms, that the old paganism of Europe was witchcraft and modern witchcraft is merely a survival of this old religion. (I note that this old theory of Murray's is no longer a common view amongst witches...)

I'd like to try to explain a little further why this statement stuck out like a sore thumb to me:

Both history and modern anthropology gives us many examples demonstrating that while religion may not involve sorcery, sorcery is almost invariably built on religious world-views, to the extent that for magical practitioners, the religion and the sorcery are so deeply intertwined they are virtually indistinguishable. "Biblical times" is not mentioned in the cited article, but one would expect things to be roughly the same then as in any other pre-scientific, pre-industrial society. A few scholars like Hutton (cited in the Missionalia article) have claimed that historically there was no European witchcraft (note: not than that the old witchcraft was distinct from Paganism); however he and his ilk are minority voices in the field, and the growing consensus (Eva Pocs, Gustav Henningsen, Bengt Angkarloo, E. William Monter, Carlo Ginzburg, etc) is that remarkably widespread witchcraft beliefs conforming to the "witchcraft" stereotypes existed across Europe, and that they originated in old beliefs regarding relationships between the living and the dead, humans, gods and spirits, etc. They did not originate in the hysteria, torture and leading questions of the witch trials, although they were partly shaped by them. The beliefs are not generally described as "belief systems" rather than "religion" or "paganism" in the scholarly works, since the latter terms have their own specific colourings, but it would clearly be misleading to say that "paganism and witchcraft" or "religion and witchcraft" were entirely separate in ancient times.

Another quibble with what was written: The wording that appeared in the removed section of this article implied (in mildly patronising terms) that suggesting a connection between "paganism" and witchcraft was a modern "complication", presumably by Wiccans and other modern witches who arbitrarily decided to recast the term "witchcraft" to suit their own needs. As I've tried to show above, this is not a new "complication", and despite the popularity of Hutton's books, the jury is still out on whether modern witchcraft is a complete invention or whether it inherits from the older witchcraft and cunning-folk traditions throughout Europe. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some sources for development of the article

I'm just recording some hopeful looking sources here so I or anyone else can sift them for good info. More may come later.

Fuzzypeg☻ 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg☻ 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Should a Christian Do Magic? An interesting analysis of stage magic by "Gospel magicians" who preach with the aid of sleight of hand and ventriloquism! Fuzzypeg☻ 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/Talk%7EChristian_views_on_magic_9831.html"