Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live!

[angrysoba]

With regard to James Stuart's personal background, is it not interesting that his predecessors in both kingdoms were extremely prominent and politically-active women (indeed in England his two immediate predecessors), and that James was brought up to despise his mother Mary, following her deposition when he was an infant?

No one want to argue that in England's case it was his immediate three predecessors?

It is interesting, yes. He would make a good case study for Freud, I think, who would probably not be surprised about James' sexuality. Maybe his ideas about witches were informed along the lines of his attitudes to his mother and auntie. Of course he was also brought up to despise his mother's and father's religion too and that of the predecessor but one. Altogether he had an upbringing not conducive to well-adjustedness - have you seen some of the clothes he wore? But the radical transformations that were going on in the reformation/counter-reformation years and the general attitude towards witches throughout Europe probably more strongly influenced policy. I think.

 

[angrysoba]

I know that Leumas mentioned this chapter and verse earlier but in my version, the KJV, it is written [Deut 18:10]:

10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Just to ask again, is anyone familiar with Wycliff or Tyndale's versions?

I think Hans makes a good point that there is good reason for translating the Hebrew version as witch and it is interesting that Luther did too. It is only a small point but if Wycliff and Tyndale also translated it as witch then there would be little point in blaming King Jimmy for the word being used in the KJV.

 

[Leumas]

I know that Leumas mentioned this chapter and verse earlier but in my version, the KJV, it is written [Deut 18:10]:

10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Just to ask again, is anyone familiar with Wycliff or Tyndale's versions?

I think Hans makes a good point that there is good reason for translating the Hebrew version as witch and it is interesting that Luther did too. It is only a small point but if Wycliff and Tyndale also translated it as witch then there would be little point in blaming King Jimmy for the word being used in the KJV.

Here is the JPS translation

10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer,
11 or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer.
12. For whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD thy God is driving them out from before thee.

 

[Craig B]

Hans

A most interesting analysis. Thanks.

There is, in addition, a striking pattern of geographical distribution of accusations of witchcraft within Scotland. The mania chiefly affected the lowland region of the then culturally very disparate kingdom, and was very much less prevalent in the Celtic and Norse periphery.

Tayside and the Highlands and Islands produced 6% each, 5% were from Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, and 2% from Central region. The remainder came from unknown locations. The population of early modern Scotland was more evenly distributed than it is today, so the preponderance of witches in Scotland's central belt is really striking.

I have no figures for the gender proportions in each area, but I will see if they are to be found.

Angrysoba

I thought of that, but one of them probably fails the "prominent and politically active" criterion.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I know that Leumas mentioned this chapter and verse earlier but in my version, the KJV, it is written [Deut 18:10]:



Just to ask again, is anyone familiar with Wycliff or Tyndale's versions?

I think Hans makes a good point that there is good reason for translating the Hebrew version as witch and it is interesting that Luther did too. It is only a small point but if Wycliff and Tyndale also translated it as witch then there would be little point in blaming King Jimmy for the word being used in the KJV.

For what it's worth, the Luther version reads:

10. daß nicht jemand unter dir gefunden werde, der seinen Sohn oder seine Tochter durchs Feuer gehen lasse, oder ein Weissager oder Tagewähler oder der auf Vogelgeschrei achte oder ein Zauberer

11. oder Beschwörer oder Wahrsager oder Zeichendeuter oder der die Toten frage.

12. Denn wer solches tut, der ist dem HERRN ein Greuel, und um solcher Greuel willen vertreibt sie der HERR, dein Gott, vor dir her.​

Which means more or less the same as in the KJV, with some nuance differences.

One relatively major difference of nuance is that in modern English "necromancer" has come to mean more like, you know, the D&D or WoW version, and everyone can agree that it doesn't even exist so no worries on account of that. You don't see people leading squads of zombies around. What Luther's version says is more explicitly "der die Toten frage", i.e., literally, "who asks the dead." I.e., a medium.

So I guess we should burn Sylvia Browne

Actually the whole 11 is a bit easier to understand in German, since the words haven't changed meanings as much. The German version doesn't say "charmer", it says "Beschwörer", i.e., "summoner." So again it would seem that some kind of medium is meant.

Verse 10 has similar differences, but basically same idea: any form of non-sanctioned divination is forbidden.

Anyway, for the last word in 10, "Zauberer" means pretty literally "sorcerer". You know, someone who uses magic. Interestingly enough this time it doesn't use the explicitly feminine form, though. But basically it's clearly still against magic users. That's still not something that originated with James.

It seems reasonably close enough to the original Hebrew too. Incidentally that one too uses the same word as for the "witch" in Exodus, but without the feminine ending. So I guess Luther did a pretty good job.

The KJV loses that difference simply because most words in English don't really have male and female forms. So when they have an instance of female witch and an instance of gender-neutral witch, well, both will end up translated as "witch".

 

[sphenisc]

Wycliffe version here

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut 18:10&version=WYC

Tyndale here

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/deu.txt

I won't spoil the suspense.

 

[angrysoba]

Wycliffe version here

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut 18:10&version=WYC

Tyndale here

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/deu.txt

I won't spoil the suspense.

Oooh! Thanks so much!

Deut 18:10

10 none be found in thee that cleanseth his son, either his daughter, and leadeth by the fire, either that asketh questions of diviners that divine about the altars, and that taketh heed to dreams, and (to) chittering of birds; neither any witch be (among you), (let none be found among thee who maketh his son, or his daughter, to pass through the fire, or who asketh questions of diviners who divine about the altars, or who taketh heed to dreams, or to the twittering of birds; and let there be no witch found among you,)

It's a wiiiiiitch! Burn herrrrr!

10 Let there not be founde amonge you that maketh his sonne or his doughter go thorow fyre, ether a bruterar or a maker of dismale dayes or that vseth witchcraft or a sorcerar
11 or a charmar or that speaketh with a spirite or a sothsayer or that talketh with them that are deed.

Wow! This one is difficult to read but we still have witches and witchcraft.

Wycliffe's Exodus 22:18

18 Thou shalt not suffer witches to live.

 

[Complexity]

I am currently reading the Bible

I'm sorry.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I know. Like I said, I am a bit of a glutton for punishment, but I actually enjoy some of it. The book is a completely mental concoction of pyschopathic, genocidal freakery and yet it is oddly compelling. I have a new theory that there is something literally hypnotic about it, partly due to its repetitiousness. Hans has already explained why that might be and I suppose that the Bible wasn't meant to be read in the way that most of us read most books - I have heard the same about the Koran - yet the repeating exhortations to offer up a burnt offering as a sweet savour to the LORD and to smite and smite and smite and save nothing alive under pain of death is somehow burrows into your mind after a while.

________________________________________________________________

Anyway, I am now up to the Samuel I and I have come across a characteristically weird chapter in which Saul, the first Israelite king, has gone to meet a woman with a "familiar spirit", as mentioned before by Lameus.

7Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.

8And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.

9And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

10And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.

11Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.

12And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.

So, verses such as these were used as evidence that "familiar spirits" could be black cats or other pets of women accused of being witches?

How did the Biblical authorities explain the apparent power of women such as these to raise the dead? Is it that they simply agreed that witches and wizards really did possess powers that "the LORD" had?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think that the Malleus Maleficarum is pretty clear about how those powers come to be, as are all other treatises of witchcraft: they're from the Devil. It's right in the first chapter of the MM that while God is indeed mightier than anything else, the devil is mightier than any human, basically, and they point at Job as an illustration of the kind of powers the Devil has.

BUT just for the reference, the connecting witches to the Devil as a source of power is not the invention of deranged inquisitor Heinrich Kramer. It's actually St Augustine who did it, and Kramer dutifully cites Augustine on that matter.

Augustine essentially looked at the same problem you mention: WTH is the difference then between pagan magic and miracles like what Jesus or various saints did? So he figured out an explanation where magic comes from the devil. Also, devil magic had to be temporary, because only God can affect a permanent change, hence those pagans are deluded when they think their magicians and deities can do the same. (Full text of his book here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.toc.html )

Funnily this gets St Augustine quoted as both supporting and denying witchcraft, a pretty unique proposition. Technically he did deny permanent transformation powers, but that wasn't really a problem. The Malleus Maleficarum dutifully gives a nod to the idea that such stuff can't be eternal, but temporary transformations to animal or temporary spells that make someone's dick disappear are nevertheless enough for them to justify hunting down witches.

Aquinas also deserves a mention here as laying the foundation of woo beliefs that would later be distilled into the Malleus Maleficarum. You hear lots about Aquinas about his uncreated creator arguments and other such scholarship nowadays, but few people quote him any more about how demons try to corrupt people and women accept because they're basically scum. Or in fact, about how much magic and devil work revolves around sex. (Yeah, that dude didn't like women much either.) Kind of weird, because it's in the same book as his "proving" God, so you'd think anyone actually reading it and quoting it as the great enlightened mind that proved God, would notice that he's going at length about such stupid superstitions before even getting to God. You'd think it would shoot his credentials right there.

But, anyway, a lot of the woo belief that went into the burning ages comes from Aquinas, and he's cited lots too.

 

[Beerina]

Or, consider Deuteronomy 13:1 - 3:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and he says, "Let us go after other gods," which you have not known, "and let us serve them," you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

It's amazing how fine-tuned memes were at spreading, evolving by adopting fancy rationale to shut down the opposition, even over 2000 years ago.

I note this is still going on today with the battles between church and state -- on both sides. Or politics, for that matter, long on narratives and short on any actual scientific proof.

 

[angrysoba]

I think that the Malleus Maleficarum is pretty clear about how those powers come to be, as are all other treatises of witchcraft: they're from the Devil. It's right in the first chapter of the MM that while God is indeed mightier than anything else, the devil is mightier than any human, basically, and they point at Job as an illustration of the kind of powers the Devil has.

I might get round to browsing the Malleus Maleficarum once I'm done with the Bibbly.

BUT just for the reference, the connecting witches to the Devil as a source of power is not the invention of deranged inquisitor Heinrich Kramer. It's actually St Augustine who did it, and Kramer dutifully cites Augustine on that matter.

Hmmm, I should have expected that the idea would be somewhat old. It seems clear that a lot of ancient texts go on about wizardry and magick and whether it be practised for good or for evil.

Augustine essentially looked at the same problem you mention: WTH is the difference then between pagan magic and miracles like what Jesus or various saints did? So he figured out an explanation where magic comes from the devil. Also, devil magic had to be temporary, because only God can affect a permanent change, hence those pagans are deluded when they think their magicians and deities can do the same. (Full text of his book here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.toc.html )

Funnily this gets St Augustine quoted as both supporting and denying witchcraft, a pretty unique proposition. Technically he did deny permanent transformation powers, but that wasn't really a problem. The Malleus Maleficarum dutifully gives a nod to the idea that such stuff can't be eternal, but temporary transformations to animal or temporary spells that make someone's dick disappear are nevertheless enough for them to justify hunting down witches.

That's interesting in that - as far as I understand - the witchfinder's thought that witches were not evil incarnate, as far as I understand, but somewhat possessed and that there would be some ceremony mourning the dead woman and praising that she had been cleansed and is at peace. As far as I understand. This might be slightly off but I seem to remember this coming from Carl Sagan's book or maybe it was some folksong about burning witches for their own good.

It's a pity that the witches stuff appears in City of God as I have seen the book in the shops and it looks massive. I think I'll want to avoid something of so forbidding a length after the Bible. Is anything similar in the Confessions as I do own a copy of that; yet another unread book on my shelf.

Aquinas also deserves a mention here as laying the foundation of woo beliefs that would later be distilled into the Malleus Maleficarum. You hear lots about Aquinas about his uncreated creator arguments and other such scholarship nowadays, but few people quote him any more about how demons try to corrupt people and women accept because they're basically scum. Or in fact, about how much magic and devil work revolves around sex. (Yeah, that dude didn't like women much either.) Kind of weird, because it's in the same book as his "proving" God, so you'd think anyone actually reading it and quoting it as the great enlightened mind that proved God, would notice that he's going at length about such stupid superstitions before even getting to God. You'd think it would shoot his credentials right there.

Well, it doesn't surprise me that much given that I am reading a book about some lovey dovey guy called Jesus who only appears after 800 pages of glorious massacring of the men, women, infants, sucklings and that this lovey dovey guy claims to be the son of the very LORD who ordered all the massacres. One would think that would blow his and the book's credibility right there but apparently it was wildly popular for at least a millenium and a half.

But, anyway, a lot of the woo belief that went into the burning ages comes from Aquinas, and he's cited lots too.

I know that Anthony Kenny is something of an authority on Aquinas, particularly his proofs of the existence of God and I have one of his books too, an introductory text to medieval philosophy. One day, I'm going to have to get round to reading these things.

 

[angrysoba]

The word translated as "witch" in Ex. 22:18 is kawshaf in Hebrew, based on a root that means "to whisper" as in a secretive whispered spell. The witch of Endor in 1 Samuel is in Hebrew a baalat ob, meaning the wife or mistress of a ghost, i.e. a spirit not content to remain in Sheol. In the New Testament, the young woman in Acts 16:16 who has a "spirit of divination" has, in the original Greek, a pneuma pythonos, or a "pythonic spirit." The python in question is the oracular serpent Apollo slew, but whose spirit was still residing in Delphi; hence the priestess who gave forth prophetic utterances there was called the Pythia.

Basically, the injunction against men or women who cast spells, have concourse with ghosts (often seen as serpentine), or who are diviners is a ban on any of the competition, as opposed to a ban on purveyors of falsehoods. Consider that the young woman with a pythonic spirit who plagues Paul and Silas in Acts, follows them about saying that they are servants of the true god. Or, consider Deuteronomy 13:1 - 3:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and he says, "Let us go after other gods," which you have not known, "and let us serve them," you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Ah, yes. I have just read through those bits in the last couple of days.

I love that one about God testing you with people who appear to have magic. I think in my version God "proveth you" which reminded me that prove once meant the same as test hence expressions such as "the exception which proves the rule" and "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

ETA: In fact, doesn't he say in that one that God will send a Prophet and you will know who he is quite obviously from what he says. However, you will also meet false prophets who may trick you and you must put those to death.

Yeah thanks a lot, LORD!

 

[angrysoba]

Ah, yes! It was from the same chapter of Deutoronomy that we've already discussed, Deut 18:15

15The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Okay, and...

18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

When the LORD says you had better listen then, you better listen, BUT...

20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Jeez!

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Is this one of the reasons that Jesus' death and resurrection were seen as fulfilling prophecies? i.e he says, "I will be back!" or something like that and also all the tombs suddenly open at the point at which Jesus dies and the Roman soldier, played by John Wayne, says, "He truly was the son of God!"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That's interesting in that - as far as I understand - the witchfinder's thought that witches were not evil incarnate, as far as I understand, but somewhat possessed and that there would be some ceremony mourning the dead woman and praising that she had been cleansed and is at peace. As far as I understand. This might be slightly off but I seem to remember this coming from Carl Sagan's book or maybe it was some folksong about burning witches for their own good.

I'm pretty sure that the Malleus Maleficarum goes on at length about how witches ARE evil, and in fact more evil than any other form of heresy. See a whole half of the 2nd chapter for example. It goes at length about how while other heretics don't (necessarily) have some explicit compact with the devil, witches did enter an agreement with the devil and are all about opposing God and defiling his creation.

That said, burning witches was often rationalized as for their own good, and some form of purification so they may get to heavens. Not surprising either. As I was saying, it was a massive campaign of terror, and of unprecedented cruelty. It created massive revulsion in the population as it is, so you had to rationalize it SOMEHOW so those people don't just run you through and free the witch.

By the time the mania went over the peak and public opinion was forcing a gradual reduction, they even rationalized it as, I kid you not, that the Devil anesthetizes the witches while they're burned. And, you know, they're just screaming a bit for show, nothing more.

And by unprecedented terror and cruelty, I really mean that. While being put on a pile of burning wood was horrible as it is, a LOT of people basically looked at some women screaming in agony for up to an hour and went "bah, it sucks, it barely took just under an hour to die." And proceeded to find ways to make it more horrible.

E.g., a thing they discovered fairly early was that they could tie the condemned to a massive stone pillar, that takes very long to heat up, so they're only cooked from one side. Suspending someone OVER the fire was used in excesses like those of Savonarola, though those for accusations of heresy rather than witchcraft. (Incidentally, he shows the danger of going overboard, as eventually he gets a taste of his own medicine.) Piling the wood around the accused at a small distance instead of under him/her also was used.

But then came the smart cookies who figured out they can essentially bake someone in an oven, to make it last longer. (Plus the sensory deprivation part when being put in a dark oven.) In France and Spain they built quite a bunch of those. And in Germany, the scene in Hansel and Grettel where the godless witch is thrown into the oven and screams horribly, or for that matter that they felt a need to throw a "godless" in there, is sometimes hypothesised to have been inspired by such an execution.

Which I guess also had the "nice" side effect of having some permanent structures dedicated to burning people alive, to remind the population of the threat in between actually getting around to burning someone.

So, yes, plenty of horror to go around. You had to go just enough overboard to keep the population scared witless, but rationalize and handwave it enough so they still go with it instead of throwing you into your own oven.

 

[RobDegraves]

I'm pretty sure that the Malleus Maleficarum goes on at length about how witches ARE evil, and in fact more evil than any other form of heresy. See a whole half of the 2nd chapter for example. It goes at length about how while other heretics don't (necessarily) have some explicit compact with the devil, witches did enter an agreement with the devil and are all about opposing God and defiling his creation.

Actually, the duality of Christianity rather insists on making witches pure evil. Magic could only come from one of two sources... God or Satan. Anything else was just more Satan in disguise. In many places, particularly Ireland but in many other locals, there was always a lot of tension between the Church and the locals who rather insisted in keeping things like the Wee folks happy. Of course, pagan practices were not seen as the same level of threat to the Church as heresy was, so often the Church just ignored it.

And by unprecedented terror and cruelty, I really mean that.

Oh you bet ya. That couldn't be more true.

I think it is fairly indicative that people used to bribe the guard to strangle them before they were taken to the stake so that they would not experience being burned alive or whatever other fun the Inquisition might have in mind.

If you think horror movies are scary... don't read about the Inquisition. I think Freddy Kruger would have be appalled and terrified if he had to deal with those people.

As far as the people revolting... keep in mind that the Church was always careful to keep the nobility on it's side and there was a good reason for that.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

In England, yes, most witches were strangled before lighting up the fire. Mostly right there at the stake, second place going to a good ol' hanging followed by burning the corpse. In France or Germany, however, the VAST majority were burned alive and screaming.

And, as I was saying, some people could still look at that and think, "bah, she just screamed for nearly one hour. WTH are we supposed to do the rest of the evening, since reality TV hasn't been invented yet? Gotta find some way to make it last longer." And at that, "I know, let's burn her children too, after we tortured them to testify against her mom."

It's the kind of thing that gives me nightmares more than reading about the executions themselves. That someone would look at the most horrible way to die, ever, and think it's still NOT cruel enough for their fellow human, not that's a level of scary that Freddy Krueger doesn't even come near to.

I know that about 1 in 30 is a sociopath, and 1 in 100 is a full-fledged psychopath, and that even a tiny town would have a dozen or two psychopaths running around, and figuring out it's safer to just burn someone for witchcraft for fun than just abduct them and cut bits out in the basement... but still, that's just the kind of thing that gets me disgusted of the whole species...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Always seems to be an admonishment against the female gender. Were warlocks OK?

In other OT scripture, we find an entry for "thy rod and thy staff comfort me" so perhaps the answer is "yes?"

I understand that there is some evidence that the word "witch" was used to placate King James VIII.

Not the James we were discussing.

One relatively major difference of nuance is that in modern English "necromancer" has come to mean more like, you know, the D&D or WoW version, and everyone can agree that it doesn't even exist so no worries on account of that. You don't see people leading squads of zombies around. What Luther's version says is more explicitly "der die Toten frage", i.e., literally, "who asks the dead." I.e., a medium.

So I guess we should burn Sylvia Browne

That was worth opening up this thread to read.

The German version doesn't say "charmer", it says "Beschwörer", i.e., "summoner." So again it would seem that some kind of medium is meant.

Verse 10 has similar differences, but basically same idea: any form of non-sanctioned divination is forbidden.

Economists and weather forecasters are to be burned as well, then. Hmm, maybe this is what OWS is all about ...

Anyway, for the last word in 10, "Zauberer" means pretty literally "sorcerer". You know, someone who uses magic. Interestingly enough this time it doesn't use the explicitly feminine form, though. But basically it's clearly still against magic users.

There's a D & D joke in there, I'll not try to find it.

Each time you used Zauber, or one of its forms, I flashed back to the first time I heard, in German, the title to the Mozart Opera "The Magic Flute." I thought it was about something sour ... but I misheard, which became clear when my father explained it again. "The sour what?"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Technically, yes, that's what the ancient Red Sea Pedestrians were trying to convey: ANY form of unsanctioned reading the signs or forecasting is forbidden. As Tim was saying, they're not concerned with types of harm, they're simply issuing a blanket interdiction on the competition.

The thing is, it's not even an interdiction of divination per se. Those guys used divination extensively. In Josephus for example we see someone prophecise even whether some other guy will come to Straton's Tower or not. Really, according to one tradition, they had millions of minor prophets across the centuries. Well, I doubt that they really counted them, but it shows how widespread that was.

The difference was really whether one was a "spokesperson" for God, speaking God's words, which was ok (at least as long as it didn't turn out to be a lie from God, in which case you'd get killed), or any other source, including, spirits, omens, signs, weather, etc, which was not OK. Basically if someone tells you what stock to buy because the voices in his head tell him stuff, that's OK divination. (No, seriously. See, bat kol.) Someone reading any other signs for that is not OK.

 

[Leumas]

(No, seriously. See, bat kol.) .

I wonder if that is the origin of the expression "He's gone BATTY".