The Salem Witch Trials

Post Reply New Topic

I love the history of what happened I mean really killing people that your think where practicing witchcraft. Was nonsense to me it was both religiously and politically motivated killings of innocent people.

As with all witchcraft trials, it was just the first excuse found to get rid of undesirable. The difference being that in Europe, they didn't set up rigged trials, but instead normally pursued enquiries, and generally only punished witches for the damage they did, not for their beings witches. (I may be partly confusing heresy and witchcraft, though.)

It was all pointless murders I mean come on killing peopel for that is wrong period.

The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics. >Link<

You might not be aware of the fact that people (usually children) in Sub Sahara Africa are still being killed for this reason today! I don't know what their specific religious beliefs are.

Fortunately, most people pick and choose which rules of the Bible to follow.

That column is WAY off, though. I mean, you do realize that laws like that were meant to apply specifically to a Hebraic theocracy? If Yahweh is King of a nation, loyalty to any other deity cannot be tolerated. Attempts to manipulate supernatural forces, i.e. to bring gods and spirits under human subjection, cannot be tolerated.

I dunno what you mean by pickin' and choosin'. We live by all the laws that pertain to us. I'm not a Jew, so OT dietary laws meant to distinguish me from Gentiles do not apply to me. I choose to observe moral laws as closely as I can because I love God. I don't observe ceremonial laws because 1) I'm not a Jew, and 2) even if I was, it's impossible for me to go up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices in the temple (it was destroyed in 70 A.D.).

As a Christian, the blood of Christ cancels any need I'd otherwise have for offering sacrifices. But I DO observe the "Greatest Commandment," which as Jesus said is "the law and the prophets." The Decalogue even hits the high points of what it means to love God with all your being and to love others. Christians, whether they are aware of it or not, really do observe all the commandments.

Now, I do think it is admirable to try to live in a theocracy dedicated to worshipping Yahweh, but if the Bible proves anything it is that humans consistently fail at it. I believe King David once wrote that "no one keeps the law." Jesus warned of the dangers of measuring righteousness by adherence to the law without also following in the spirit of the law.

The Salem Witch Trials WAY missed the mark even as an attempted Christian theocracy. First of all, it's an example of "guilty until proven innocent" justice, and that's not what was meant by legal procedure outlined in the OT. I mean, sure...all it takes is two witnesses, and a trial has to be held among one's peers. But no superstitious "witch tests" are required. It is also known that the trials were a sham and intended to execute vengeance on one's enemies. OT law requires that false witness get the same treatment as those that they accuse. So, sorcery, with a mandatory death sentence, would also require the execution of false witnesses.

Maybe there were one or two true believers in Salem. But it appears to me that the religious community of Salem was really just a pseudo-Christian cult. I would say it is generally inadvisable for a group of Christians to form an exclusive theocracy because of the religious tendency towards legalism over genuine worship. It also violates the Great Commission, something that also seems to have been the point of ancient Israelite theology but got totally omitted in practice.

I understand also that a certain mould growing on the corn being grown contributed to the hysteria, seems most of the townsfolk were under the influence of a mild hallucinogen. This is a factor many people attribute to the salem witch trials.

In the early and High Middle Ages, it was heresy to believe in the existence of witches. Belief in witches was considered to be paganism. Only in the late Middle Ages (post Great Famine and Black Death) and particularly the Early Modern period did the witch hunt really get going.

Some have speculated that the belief in witches and witch-hunting was an effort to prove the existence of God. Because if you could prove the existence of the devil, in common-folk, then God would also exist, by extension.

Witch hunts had a lot to do with the witches alleged liaisons with the devil---they were often accused of having sex with demons or the devil.

So perhaps it was a result of the Church's fear of the budding scientific method, and the desire to physically prove the existence of the metaphysical. I don't know enough about the Renaissance to assert that science was becoming more threatening to theology in that period.

Ergot can't explain (IMO) the witch hunts that went on for those four hundred years in Europe. And the Salem trials were following the tradition set in Europe.

I think another factor was the misogyny...I secretly hypothesize that the witch-hunts were some kind of backlash to women's-movement stirrings, but I don't know if there is any evidence for that. Christine de Pizan wrote against misogyny right before the witch trials became more common--but during the witch trials, I doubt any woman felt comfortable taking issue with gender inequality or misogyny.

In Europe, people were equally insane at times. They had laws, especially a bit later on, but those laws were the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's current laws on witchcraft. It wasn't as bad as the persecution of heretics in the Middle Ages, though. There were sects didn't exactly stick to the then-accepted idea of religion. They were driven out of their towns and castles and categorically murdered for that. It was a crusade in France.

Additionally, people often misplace witch hunts as being medieval, while they were more common over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, lasted until the eighteenth century, and are still going on in parts of Africa. Often, people don't want school curriculum to become complicated. When I took history classes in secondary school, they explained it in a much-too-simple way: before 1500, there was plague and theocracy; after 1500, science and humanism started becoming common and traditional art forms were reintroduced. What they failed to include was that the Renaissance started in the 14th century in parts of Italy, and the Middle Ages effectively lasted until the early nineteenth century in technological and social terms in much of Europe. They also failed to tell that witch burnings took place almost exclusively in the Early Modern Period.

And there are people still believing in the supernatural

The reasons for persecution of religious dissidents in the Middle Ages and for witchcraft trials later on were completely different, however: the former was a "universal" concern, mainly a matter of papal authority in the post-Gregorian Church; the latter is just generalized persecution of marginals on a local scale, with presumed witchcraft as an excuse. Even though some scholars and clergymen have come out in favour of witchhunts (such as the author of the Malleus Maleficarum), many more were against them. It was more a question of peasants pestering each other with the local priest as judge than anything truly organised. I don't think they can really be compared as phenomena.

Lol, yeah, pretty dumb.

I knew someone who claimed to believe in the supernatural and I highly respected him. However there was always this lingering doubt in my mind that he was a narcissist just trying to play people. Even if that was the case, I still saw him as mostly a decent human being.

I guess I will never really know the answer to that question.

He was not a witch though obviously. I think he suffered some mental abnormalities from years of LSD abuse.

To quote Jesus from the Bible:"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18).

The ten commandments were issued to the children of Israel in the old testament. Are you saying those don't apply to Christians either?

On the other hand, I have heard that sacrifices were no longer required, as you said.

I found the part of the Bible which preceded the quote about witches. I made bold the relevant parts. This follows the ten commandments:
Exodus 20

And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. 24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
<< Exodus 21 >>
King James Version
 

1Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. 36Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

<< Exodus 22 >>
King James Version
 

1If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
5If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
6If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
7If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
10If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: 11Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. 12And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 13If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.
14And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. 15But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Christians weren't around then, so the god of the Bible was giving these laws to all his followers. The children of Israel were the only followers around at that time.

The word "witch" is inherently ambiguous. In that case, it is the translation of a Hebrew word, whichever it is, with certainly different denotation and connotation in its own language and in its own time. If it is said to apply to anything, it is because it is wanted that it apply, not because it does.

Um...this argument fails from the outset. I mean, even the bolded part you used to make your point kills your point: Thus thou shalt say to the children of Israel... Not "to the nations." Not "to Christians." Doesn't matter if there weren't Christians yet.

And, NO, the children of Israel were NOT the only followers at that time. Abraham was the ancestor of the Israelites and worshipped Yahweh without having any special ancestral ties to Yahweh worship. Melchizedek was a priest of Yahweh, and, again, there were no ancestral identifiers. Circumcision was not even unique to the Israelites when that was instituted. Hebraic monotheism wasn't even unknown to Canaan when Moses led the Israelites back. What made Israel special was that Yahweh called them out to be a nation of priests, the light of the world. The surrounding nations and people did not receive the same call--merely a call to repentance from wickedness. It's up to the nations as to whether they will choose to worship Yahweh or not. And it is up to all people whether they accept Jesus as Christ or not.

Now, there are some interesting things to note about Exodus 21 and 22. It appears that most of these are law-and-order kinds of laws, just establishing basic justice and rules of acceptable conduct. Verse 18, that you have bolded, seems out of place given the laws preceding it. Sorcery is outright condemned to death elsewhere, but HERE, given the context, it could be that the word for "witch" has been mistranslated. I'm not a big fan of old skool King Jimmy, though I do like the NKJV. The word that has been used for "witch" could also be translated "poisoner." If this had to do with holiness laws, "witch" would work, but I'm not 100% sure this works based on the context. Poisoning would be a deliberate murderous act, and the only restitution for murder is "life for life." So all it really accomplishes is clarifying that poisoning is murder and should be treated as same, which MIGHT be otherwise problematic given the subtlety of the crime. Poisoning wouldn't have the obvious signs that stabbing or beating would have. I'm just guessing here, but it might be that a poisoner could just claim accidental death, and this verse just drives the point home that deliberate poisoning is just as punishable as more obvious forms of murder.

[UPDATE] Just checked out the interlinear on verse 18. I've had a Wiccan friend tell me that the word is supposed to be "poisoner," and I still don't see how given the context that it HAS to mean "witch." I've also seen stuff on the internet that suggests that King James had this translation specifically because he had a witch phobia or some such. Whether this is true or not, it doesn't seem likely that Biblical scholars of even King Jimmy's day would have caved that much in producing the Authorized Translation. And even if they had, subsequent revisions of the English text should have corrected it. Further, the Leningrad Codex is a long-established ancient manuscript on which the Authorized Version was based, though it also sources the Vulgate and the LXX. So the problem with the word for "witch" is not a matter of King Jimmy's preferences--it's a question of what the word actually means. According to the interlinear, the original word in question is "M'khashepah." There's not an EXACT English equivalent, but the word "witch" is closest to it. The word refers, as I understand it, to a person who speaks words that cause harm. The words in question are understood to mean in an incantation or spell form...so, the closest you can get in English is "sorceress" or "witch." Nothing about a poisoner. Looks like my Wiccan friend is dead wrong. So even if by context it doesn't have to mean "witch," there's not a different word there. So I stand somewhat corrected.

[UPDATE #2] OK, I just had a big "DUH" moment... It turns out that the Hebrew does NOT translate as poisoner, but "sorceress." I thought about it for a minute and realized I hadn't checked out the LXX. It turns out the Greek word for "sorcerer/sorceress" is also translated as "poisoner." It has a number of meanings, actually, among those being "spell-giving potion." It's also the same root word from which means "drugs" and from which we also get "pharmacology." Also checked out the context a little bit closer and noticed that following this law there are more laws referring to pagan practices. So it's not an out-of-place insertion, and most likely our words "witch" or "sorceress" really are the preferred equivalents.