The two versions of the Prophecy

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 143164

I'm wondering whether anyone else views Trelawney's version of the
Prophecy and Snape's role as eavesdropper as irreconcilable with
Dumbledore's version. The problem is exacerbated, or perhaps caused,
by Dumbledore's decision to show Trelawney giving the Prophecy without
showing the complete memory. All we have is Memory!Trelawney standing
up in the Pensieve and reciting the *uninterrupted* Prophecy,
punctuated with ellipses in exactly the same way as her second
prophecy in PoA (regarding the Dark Lord's servant) is punctuated, but
with no indication of an interruption, and Dumebledore's
unsatisfactory explanation that the eavesdropper, whom we find out
later is the young Severus Snape, heard only the first part of the
Prophecy (the same part that he reported to Voldemort) and then was
ejected from the building (presumably by Aberforth).

At this point Trelawney was in her trance and could not possibly have
been aware of an interruption any more than she was aware of the
Prophecy itself. (All she remembers is that she felt a little bit
strange, undoubtedly a prelude to her trance.) Yet she states that she
heard a commotion and saw Severus Snape standing outside the door with
the "uncouth barman." If Snape was detected and whisked away halfway
through the Prophecy *while she was still in a trance*, how could she
have seen him? And if the door was flung open *after* she came out of
her trance, how could Snape have heard only part of the Prophecy? I
suppose that Aberforth could have interrupted the interview by rudely
flinging the door open to reveal the eavesdropper just before the
Prophecy, in which case Trelawney went into Prophecy mode right in
front of Snape and he managed to hear nearly a third of it before
being whisked out, but that doesn't fit Trelawney's version of the story.

Also, Trelawney tells Harry that Snape must have been eavesdropping to
pick up interview techniques and that he was looking for a job at the
time. That's a very odd assumption considering the time frame.
Assuming that Trelawney did indeed see young Snape listening at the
door, she seems to have supplied her own after-the-fact explanation,
which does not in fact make sense considering that Snape was hired
almost two years after Trelawney was. Trelawney says in OoP that she's
been teaching for "nearly sixteen years" (quoted from memory); Snape
says that he's been teaching for fourteen years. We know from HBP that
he was already teaching at Hogwarts when the events at Godric's Hollow
occurred; he would have applied for the perennially vacant DADA
position before the start of term on September 1 and received the
Potions position (newly vacated by the retiring Slughorn) instead.
Harry at this time would have been thirteen months old. But
Trelawney's interview occurs nearly two years before this time, on a
cold, rainy night several months before Harry is born (probably around
April 1980 because DD refers to it as "sixteen years ago" as of June
1995, but an earlier date of December 1979 or January 1980 would fit
better with Trelawney's statement that she's been teaching "nearly
sixteen years") to fill what seems to be an unanticipated vacancy. But
not even Trelawney would expect a young man to be listening for
interview tips in the middle of the school year, much less a year and
a half to nearly two years before he actually applied. (If Snape also
applied in late August 1980 when Harry was not quite a month old and
was refused the position outright, why has JKR said nothing about it?
And even then, it would have been a bit early to be seeking interview
tips even if he suspected that DD was interviewing a job applicant.) 

As far as I can see, Trelawney's description of what happened makes no
sense (even accounting for her brains being addled by cooking sherry
and understandable forgetfulness regarding exactly when another
teacher joined the staff). Obviously, she's wrong about Snape's
reasons for eavesdropping, but that's not my point. It's the time
frame that's skewed here. More important, I can't reconcile her
version of events with Dumbledore's as he doesn't mention actually
seeing the eavesdropper, only that "he was detected and thrown from
the building"--most inconveniently stated using the passive voice so
that we don't know who did the detecting or the throwing. (I'm
assuming Aberforth, but where does DD fit in?)

Red-hen at http://www.redhen-publications.com/Loyaulte.html accounts
for the discrepancies with the theory that Dumbledore lied to Harry
and Snape (already DD's man at this early date) didn't hear any of it.
According to her, DD sent young Snape to LV with part of the Prophecy
to lure him into a false step--manipulative!Dumbledore at his most
heartless. I don't buy that explanation, but I don't see a better way
of reconciling the two versions, either.

Is Trelawney just confused? Is Dumbledore lying (or telling partial
truths)? Has JKR failed to make a basic consistency check to make sure
that the two versions complement each other and tell the same story
within the same time frame?

I'd be interested in hearing how various people reconcile the two
versions, regardless of what flavor Snape they prefer. (Grape!Snape,
anyone? ;-) )

Carol, who was amused to discover that Dan Radcliffe is a Snape!Lily
SHIPper and thinks that Snape will help Harry in Book 7