In researching the attitude of any ancient people to “magic”
it is hard to escape the preconception caused by the modern usage of the
term. “Magical thinking” – as opposed to
scientific thinking – is one that does not pay sufficiently close attention to
the links between cause and effect; and posits that certain words, emotions or
rituals (contrary to the evidence) have an impact that clear-minded thing would
not impute to them, on the basis of ‘supernatural’ causes. In other words, our sense of ‘magic’ is bound
up with concepts of rationality; and the clear demarcation of different
contemporary practices between the rational and irrational. In times past,
there was less differentiation in the sense that even those most normalised
ritual practice, is bound up with spiritual teleology; and where even the most
esoteric practice would be conceptually anchored in the beliefs of the
community.
Does the fact that the Ziz (featuring G-d’s name and
worn by the High Priest) was considered to have ‘powers’ make it ‘magic’? Whilst the attribution of powers to headwear
may be considered without rational basis today, it is institutional behaviour
carried out regardless of its underlying motivation. If the link between magic
and ritual is unclear, it may seem less clear between magic and science and technology. Practices designed to engineer an outcome
(e.g. curing malaria, ‘fevers and chills’) through the use of ‘tools’,
especially when weakly connected to specific theological elements, skirt the
boundary. For example, the child’s linen T-Shirt
discovered by Yigal Yadin in the Cave of Letters – which had pouches for
shells, salt crystals and seed - may seem more magical as it has no “Jewish
connection” as such, and is designed only to alter nature to bring about an
effect. However, the ‘magical’ (in the
pejorative sense) nature of this can only be judged by the ‘known’ properties
of the age, and not current standards.
It is no surprise then that Philo can claim both that
Mosaic legislation is designed to remove the reciters of incantations from the
polity; and yet be admiring of the Magi who have the ‘oriental wisdom’
to manipulate nature. Or equally, how
Josephus can forbid the Israelites from owning pharmakons (including
poisons) and rail against the goetes (sorcerers/charlatans); and
nonetheless support exorcisms. One may
be tempted to ask “What is their view on magic?” and expect a consistent answer
on epistemological grounds. However,
magic may not necessarily be the optimal lens to ask these questions
One alternative lens could be to look at certain activities
through the prism of ‘folk’ versus ‘elite’ practices; and the layers of
influence between them. The lack of
extant writings on so-called magic practices (e.g. magical recipe books for the
creation of incantations) may indicate that these matters were not of scholarly
interest and not the subject for professional vocation. This is not then to deny the presence of such
conceptions amongst the populace; or its disapproval (within bounds) of the
elite. Certain practices (the cutting of
roots and use of plants) may be considered to have its origin (as in Jubilees)
in demonic forces, but the mere use of plants by the common man is not enough
to qualify in this manner.
This dovetails into another approach to viewing these
practices, which is through the prism of “deviance”. In 4QSongs of the Sages the maskil recites
sectarian hymns to ‘frighten’ the demons and spirits, and to protect the Sons
of Light from deviancy from the rules of the community. If, the signs of malignancy are breaking the
rules; and its cure is engagement is participation (including in the rituals
the maskil performs ex officio) then the ‘magic’ of the hymns is
secondary to the deviance it prevents. Similarly, any ‘magic’ that encourages healing
without adverse theological harm, but doesn’t touch upon the norms of the
community, would be free from censure.
The danger point is where ritual and beliefs co-incide in a way that is
(at least) tangential or independent of the main communal priorities; and that if (mis)used could cause
deviance from those communal boundaries.
The presence of magic could then be explored through the
sociological functions of the actions, rather than theoretical basis that
underlie them
No comments:
Post a Comment