[HPforGrownups] Re: Religion in the Potterverse

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 40656

Dave writes:
> Fact is, it's in any case a mistranslation -- The original word is
> "poisoner", not witch/wizard/sorceress or whatever.

Pip Squeak replied:
>Sorry Dave, this is a very popular myth, based on the Greek 
>Septuagint translation using a word that can mean either 
>'witch' or 'poisoner'. The original Hebrew uses a word which 
>means 'user of magic' ONLY.
>See 
>http://www.witchvox.com/words/words_1999/e_sufferawitch.html
>for a non-Christian discussion of the original language.

The discussion which you refer to contains this passage:

"A collection of Torah and Haftorah readings, circa the late 40's-early 50's, with translation and commentary by the then Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, renders makesofha as "witch, " as does my copy of Ben Yehudah (the principle dictionary of modern Hebrew). The commentary in the British work goes on to note that a gentler interpretation of the passage calls for giving no credence to claims to witchcraft, since such claims are delusional. It distances the Torah exegesis from the use of the passage to justify the witch craze trials, noting how infrequently the death penalty is actually exacted under Jewish law. This is, ironically, the position of Catholic doctrine up until the beginning of the witch crazes, around the 12-13th century (viz. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror, for one account of the historical context of this sea change)."

I *think* what is being said here is that the "gentler interpretation" is that the bible basically says that witches aren't real and you shouldn't give claims of them any credit.  And that (here's where I may have misinterpreted what the writer is trying to say) the Catholic church itself took this view until they decided to use it to attack witchcraft (there *is* a long and rather unfortunate history of certain people of the Christian faith bending scripture to mean what they want it to mean)...

So, I guess you could argue that the passage in question was a bit of misdirection put in by wizards (in the Potterverse) that eventually backfired on them? I'm trying to tread lightly here as I know phenomenally little about most of this, but that does seem like a logical conclusion, doesn't it?  Assuming that I didn't misread the section from Pip Squeak's reference.  

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]