Seth Kohrman

Abstract

The Bible (the Old and the New Testaments) condemned magic. The Church Fathers followed the biblical example and also denounced magic. However, magic continued to exist among Christians and was even largely based upon biblical passages for its source of power; thus, magic survived partially on account of Christians and their ironic use of magic with help of the very scriptures that censured it. I will demonstrate first through specific examples that the Old and New Testaments as well as the Church Fathers reviled magic; however, the authors of each of these writings had their own agendas for speaking out against magic, not because it was inherently evil, but because it was a scapegoat they used against their enemies and rivals. Finally, I will demonstrate again through textual examples that common Christians adopted magic into their own Christian beliefs and practices because they had no theological battles to lead, but rather were searching simply for comfort and support to overcome the trials of everyday life.

Introduction

Magic – the word alone conjures up images of witches and warlocks, spells and charms, cauldrons and broomsticks. It invokes thoughts of Halloween with children dressed up trick-or-treating and horror films on television. For most of Western Civilization, magic is but a term that the candy companies use to support their sales during the high season. However, in more secluded areas of the world, magic is still a very real phenomenon. This was also true of the ancient Mediterranean world.

Culture, ethnic history, language, location, and political systems are a few differences which divided the varied and numerous peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world. Despite all of this, pagans, Jews, and Christians alike held magic in common in that they believed in its existence. In the case of Christians, their two most influential sources, namely the Bible and the Church Fathers, spoke out vehemently against magic and its use. It is, however, my argument that the Bible ironically contributed to the survival and spread of magic in early Christianity. To be more precise, my thesis is that Christian magic, despite the fact that the biblical authors and the Church Fathers spoke out against it, survived nonetheless among Christians partially because Christians actually used biblical passages in their magic. Furthermore, the authors of the Bible and the Church Fathers did not revile magic because it was inherently evil, but rather because it was a scapegoat they used to battle their enemies and rivals. However, common Christians, who were not engaged in any theological battles for survival, were open to incorporating magic into their Christian beliefs. Examples from the Bible , the Church Fathers, and Christian magical texts will demonstrate respectively that the biblical authors and Church Fathers did warn against magic while early Christians still did use magic in their daily lives.

However, defining magic is a difficult task. I have already mentioned the modern understanding of it as well as that the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world believed in its existence. What was their understanding of it though? What constituted magic for them?

Fritz Graf provides the origin for the word magician from which the word magic consequently derives. He explains that the Greek word for magician is magos. The term originates with the Persians (in the pre-Christian era) for whom the magos or magoi were priests; they “form a secret Persian tribe or society, are responsible for the royal sacrifices, funeral rites, and for the divination and interpretation of dreams”. In other words, the Persian magoi were the “middle men” between the gods and the people.

However, the term quickly began to mutate as it spread among the ancient Greeks (still in the pre-Christian era). Although some magoi were religious leaders for Greek mystery cults, others struck out on their own, seeking to provide potions, charms, and spells to rich members of society who would buy them for heavy prices. Consequently, certain Greek authors began to view the magoi in a negative light.
During the Republican era of Rome, the magus was also originally the term Romans used to describe the Persian priest or holy man, but like in ancient Greece the term took on new meaning in the form of those in charge of mystery cults as well as the more negatively viewed independent, mercenary-like magi selling their spells for profit.

In general, magicians and magic were able to separate themselves from religion at times like an estranged spouse, but were never able to fully divorce from it. Magic was the power that magicians used to perform rituals, rites, spells, charms, and potions. In other words, magic was for the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean the connection to the supernatural. The supernatural was by definition religious in its nature because the gods were the supernatural beings which the people worshiped.

Although magic was intertwined with the supernatural for Christians, the general view of it was negative during the centuries following the lifetimes of Christ and his apostles. Francis Thee explains that the Church Fathers did, in fact, consider there to be a connection between their religion (meaning Christianity), as well as other religions, with magic. However, they viewed magic as the antithesis of true religion. Thee’s thesis is that Julius Africanus, a 2nd century Christian historian, abhorred magic as the Church Fathers did, but his understanding as to what he termed magic was very different; consequently, much of what the Church Fathers would have considered to be magic, Africanus considered to be science. Thus, there is a crossroad. Although there are numerous articles and books which scholars have written discussing the definition of magic among ancient peoples, one gathers from the above example of the Church Fathers and Africanus that there was no hard, definitive definition among the ancient Christians themselves regarding what precisely constituted magic.

Andy Reimer sums up the difficulty (for the ancients and for modern scholars) of positively defining magic:

One of the difficulties in the study of magic in the ancient world is the fact that the term “magic” is itself disputed. While some scholars have suggested that a moratorium be imposed on the term, many others – including several contributors to the present volume – continue to speak of an entity known as magic. I have elsewhere summarized the history of the definition of “magic” in biblical scholarship within the last century as well as pointed out some lingering side effects of these definitions within scholarship that deals with particular sorts of ancient texts. At the risk of gross oversimplification, I would argue that insights borrowed from social anthropology earlier in the twentieth century led to the notion of magic as rites and formulas conceived to coerce and manipulate preternatural forces or beings. Magic was seen to be fundamentally as ex opera operati activity – particular words and actions guaranteed particular results. Within this framework magic stands in opposition to religion, which is supplicative rather than manipulative in its approach to the numinous. However, the observation that religion seems at times to manipulate while magic appears to supplicate began to unravel this approach nearly as soon as it was applied to ancient texts. Enter the sociology of knowledge, developed later in the century, which insisted on the social construction of the term “magic”. This approach suggested that the term “magic” was little more than a negative label for deviance applied to one’s religious opponents. As Robert M. Grant observed, “your magic is my miracle, and vice versa”.

To summarize Reimer, the term magic is similar to the term Gnosticism. Each term is, in fact, a de facto winner because no other solution can be agreed upon by scholars. That does not signify, necessarily, that the term is correct. It is simply the best that scholars are able to agree upon currently.

Having discussed briefly the complex and difficult history of the definition of magic among the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean as well as among modern scholars, it is important now to set down the definition of magic for the purposes of this discussion. Although Reimer points out complications of certain existing definitions of magic, these same definitions may nonetheless be useful. Accordingly, the definition of magic which I will use throughout this discussion is twofold: first, magic is the attempted manipulation through prayers, charms, and spells to direct a supernatural being to perform one’s desires; second, magic is the derogatory term used by rival factions within Christianity to slander one another.

The preaching of the Church Fathers against magic often coincides with their denunciation of the works of some other Christian(s); this is the reason for my use of the second definition of magic I listed above, namely that it is the supernatural workings of an opponent group being spoken out against. Furthermore, the first definition I listed above that I will use for the term magic is appropriate for this discussion because the Christian magical texts I will examine do attempt to manipulate a supernatural creature into doing the bidding of the caster.

It is important to mention at this juncture that this is a case study. The number of Christian magical texts that exist today is overwhelming. Future study of a larger portion, if not its entirety, of ancient Christian magical texts would be ideal to demonstrate that Christians pulled from Bible examples to cast their spells and charms over angels and the like.

Old Testament Evidence against Magic

One word that the Hebrew Old Testament uses for magicians and magic is chartom; this word literally means engraver or writer, but it is used strictly in a derogatory manner and consequently is typically translated into English as astrologer, diviner, or magician. There are numerous accounts of chartom in the Old Testament. Five of these are strictly commands against magic and its use. Exodus 22:18 reads, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Leviticus 19:31 reads, “Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God” while Leviticus 20:6 reads, “And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.”

Deuteronomy 18: 10-11 reads, “….that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” Finally, Jeremiah 27: 9 reads, “Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, ye shall not serve the king of Babylon.” Each of these five Old Testament snippets has a basic thread in common – they speak out against magic and its kind. They also have in common the fact that each is spoken as if it came directly from Yahweh. It is not the topic of this discussion to discern whether or not Yahweh truly exists and whether or not he actually spoke these words to his people. Either way, each of these five commandments is in line with the definition of magic being used in this discussion. That is to say, it is religious propaganda warning against the leaders of other religions. From the perspective of a believer in the Old Testament such as were the Church Fathers, these passages would immediately suggest, if not demand, two facts from the believers; first, magic is wicked and does not come from God and second, those who practice magic must be condemned if not killed outright. Even if these passages actually came from Jehovah, they are nonetheless religious propaganda preaching against other religious practices in order to preserve one’s own religious practices.

There are several more stories in the Old Testament that are longer and more detailed. Deeper discussion of a selection of these stories will provide further evidence that magic was not necessary evil by nature, but was rather a term used to differentiate and alienate the practitioners of other religions. Although the Church Fathers as zealous followers of the scripture may have taken a similar interpretation of these passages, other Christians may have been more lenient in the manner in which they viewed them (the passages) and consequently were nevertheless open to the concept of using magic in their daily lives along side their Christianity.

The story of Joseph of Egypt and the Pharaoh is the first major piece of religious propaganda against magic. In Genesis 41, the Pharaoh of Egypt has had a dream which disturbs him. In the morning he gathers all his magicians and wise men to him and asks them for the interpretation of the dream, but no one is able to explain it to him. Thus, the story begins with the failure of the magicians. They are unable to perform the interpretation of the dream as the Pharaoh desires. However, the chief butler tells the Pharaoh about Joseph and his ability to interpret dreams. The Pharaoh has him brought forth and he interprets the dream for the Pharaoh. The chapter does not only concentrate on the fact that Joseph was able to interpret the Pharaoh’s dream and prospered greatly because of it, but it also emphasizes the fact (by mentioning it twice ) that the magicians were unable to do so. Again the text asserts that magic is useless while one may do all things with the help of Yahweh.

The contest between Moses and Aaron and the magicians of the Egyptian court in Exodus 7-9 is somewhat more complicated. Exodus 7:10-12 reads:

And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.

When one reads between the lines, one is able to see that the writers of the text had a genuine reason to be afraid of the magic of other religious groups because there were times when it actually worked, or at least they believed that it did, as pictured by the magicians being able to turn their staffs into serpents the same as Aaron did. However, the power of Yahweh was nevertheless demonstrated as Aaron’s staff serpent devoured the staff serpents of the magicians.

The battle continued as Yahweh commanded Aaron to stick his staff in the river at which time the water turned to blood and all the fish died. Once again though, the Egyptian magicians were able to mimic this feat.

Next Aaron put forth his staff and made frogs come forth from the river, but again the Egyptian magicians did the same. Then Aaron brought forth lice upon the land and when the magician went forth to do the same they were unable to do so. Thomas Römer explains that although the magicians do have power, that power is nothing in the end in comparison to the priestly power which Moses and Aaron have received from Yahweh.

1 Samuel 28, 1 Chronicles 10 accompanied by, is another fascinating battle between Yahweh’s servants and magicians. 1 Samuel 28: 3 reads, “Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.” However, only four verses later Saul commands his servants to find a woman, a magician, who is able to speak with the dead. He disguises himself and goes to see the witch who is able, in fact, to raise the spirit of the prophet Samuel from the grave in order that Saul may speak with him. It is evident from the chapter that there is an abhorrence of magic. First of all, Saul dresses up to hide who he is when he goes to see the witch of Endor because he had recently cast out all the magicians from Israel. Then the spirit of Samuel reprimands him for using a witch to conjure up his spirit when he should have instead spoken to the Lord.

1 Chronicles 10:13 partially contributes Saul’s death to his having called upon a witch and magic for help, “So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it.” All of these verses demonstrate that it was incorrect what Saul did from the point of view of the text.

However, none of it refutes the fact that in the story the witch of Endor is indeed able to conjure up the spirit of the prophet Samuel. Brian Schmidt suggests that this encounter was an example of Mesopotamian religion leaving its mark of influence on Israelite culture and religion. There is real concern on the part of Saul (otherwise he would not have cast out the magicians from Israel) and on the part of the author(s) of this text (otherwise the story would not have been included in the text) concerning the apparent growing strength of magic and its users among the children of Israel. As we will see, this worry passed on to the New Testament authors and the Church Fathers in Christianity.

New Testament Evidence against Magic

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament has numerous occasions which mention magicians and cite their use of magic. However, because of space constraints I will only examine four of these occasions as being exemplary of the whole. All four of these examples are in the Book of Acts. I will also discuss Christ and the difference between him and magicians.

Acts 19:11-16 reads:
And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Here is a New Testament story equivalent to that of Moses and Aaron in the Old Testament as they battled the Egyptian magicians. Although they are able to perform some type of magic, it is but a cheap imitation of the true religion and power of God. However, one is able to see why common Christians later on would believe that they (meaning the Christians themselves) were able to use magic to control demons and angels or to call upon God. The Jews were not able to because they had lost the favor of God and were no longer his chosen people while the Christians and now were and they should be able to work such miracles even as the apostle Paul did.

Acts 16: 16-19 reads:
And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers.

Again one may see the difference, and in this case the irony, between a prophet of God who holds true power, and magicians who use cheap tricks to gain lucre. The irony lies therein that Paul heals the woman who is possessed so that her magical power is gone, but her masters are the magicians and now their source of income is gone. The text is making sport of magic in a sense. Nevertheless, one sees once more that magic does exist. The fact that the woman is able to divine is not disputed.

Acts 13 gives the account of the magician Bar Jesus and Paul. There is something different about this event because the antagonist, Bar Jesus, is not only a magician who attempts to imitate Paul and the true power of God, but there may also be an attempt to tie him to Christ through his name since “Bar Jesus” literally means “Son of Jesus” or “Son of Joshua.”

The most well-known story in the New Testament concerning magic though is unarguably that of Simon Magus in Acts 8. Simon is the ultimate magician. Klauck points this out by citing verse 10, “This man is the great power of God.” He further explains that this does not necessarily mean that the people believed Simon to be a god or even a supernatural being, but he most definitely held such power. Ayse Tuzlak points out that Simon, despite all the influence and prestige that he already held, did receive baptism and become a Christian. This point may be a very subtle jab at magic and magicians from the author(s) of the text. Feeling threatened by a character as charismatic as is Simon Magus, the author(s) are happy to report that he was baptized and become Christian. The subtle jab occurs in the sense that although Simon Magus did hold much power, it was not enough in the face of Philip and consequently he realized that he needed the power that Philip had in order to be able to truly work miracles.

Finally, Stephen Ricks reports that Jewish and pagan writers called Jesus a magician. He explains that the difference between magic and miracles may only be one’s point of view:

In reply to this assertion, these early Christian writers made no effort to distinguish Jesus’ actions from those of a wonder worker. Rather, they affirmed the divine source of his power and the prophetic predictions of his life and activities. It was a question not of the form of the wonders, but of the relationship of the purported doer to the person speaking or writing. Thus, members of the Christian community saw Jesus as God-inspired, and therefore not a magician. Jews and pagans, on the other hand, who viewed the Christians as the “outsiders,” viewed Jesus’ miraculous acts as either fraudulent or demon-inspired, but in either cause “magical.” In effect, whether Jesus was viewed as a magician or not was almost solely dependent upon whether he was seen as an “insider” or an “outsider.”

Morton Smith, in his book Jesus the Magician, gives an exhaustive account of this same argument. He examines the Jewish and pagan texts as well as the Christian texts during the course of his assessment of Jesus as either the Son of God or a magician using the power of demons to manipulate the populace. In the end, his conclusion is the same as Ricks’ – it depends on the point of view. Jews and pagans saw Jesus as a magician who had fooled the multitudes into following his every command while the Christians believed that he was truly the Son of God who had come to heal them and ultimately to save them. Jewish, pagan, and Christian writings vividly reflect these points of view. We will see further examples of this in the evaluation of certain writings from the Church Fathers.

Church Fathers’ Evidence against Magic

As is the case with the Old Testament and the New Testament, the sheer number of examples among the Church Fathers concerning the topic/battle of magic is overwhelming. Certain Church Fathers such as Origen (2nd Century AD) addressed magic in way of defense ; that is to say, he wrote apologetic work against antagonists who held that Christians worked magic and dealt with demons. Other Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (2nd Century AD) went on the offensive so to speak; he accused other Christian groups of magic in order that he might discredit them and slow down or even stop the numbers of those who were flocking to their banners and brand of Christianity.

Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is the ultimate example among the Church Fathers of an attack on magic. This entire piece of writing, specifically an attack on Gnosticism, is dedicated to that topic alone. It is sound reasoning to suggest that Irenaeus held his negative view of certain other Christian groups because of his reading and understanding of the scriptures with which he was very familiar; Roberts and Donaldson list well over 1000 quotes/citations in Irenaeus’ writings from 54 of the 66 books in the Bible.

One example from Irenaeus and his hatred for magic, or rather his hatred of his rival Christian leaders and their groups, is the following. He speaks out against one Marcus:

But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed with the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and the ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist…Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish color so that Charis, who is one of those who are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by his magician, may also flow into them….It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy and also enable as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy.

Irenaeus takes the accusation of magic to new extremes because he is no longer just accusing other religions and their clergy of magic, but now he is attacking members of his own religion. He is placing them on the same level, if not actually a lower level, as the pagans and Jews. However, it is his jealousy and anger of opponent factions of Christianity that drive him, not a hatred magic. Magic is only the vehicle which he uses to accuse and discredit.

Christian Magical Texts

It is apparent from the evaluation of Old Testament, New Testament, and Church Fathers texts that these prominent authors used magic as a scapegoat against their enemies be they members of anther culture/religion or of the same religion. However, we will now see that this was not the case for common Christians. They did not use magic as a scapegoat, but rather embraced it in order to find comfort in their daily difficulties.

Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith have compiled a wonderful list of ancient magical texts into one volume. This volume is made up of primarily Coptic texts, but there is a specific group of Greek texts from Christian Egypt; it is this group of 33 texts that I will examine to demonstrate the use of the Bible in Christian magic. 32 of the 33 texts date to between the 3rd Century AD and the 8th Century AD; the last one dates to the Byzantine Period. Obviously, this is a small case study of Christian magical texts concentrated in a specific area (Egypt), but I believe it to be representative of the whole. Almost every one of these 33 texts mentions the name of Christ of at least some other Bible figure. Nine of the 33 texts actually insinuate or directly quote Bible passages.

Oxyrhynchus 1384 (5th Century AD) contains medical/healing magic and specifically mentions the Holy Trinity.

Papyrus Berlin 21911 is an amulet. Amulets were typically small pieces of papyri which people, after writing on them, folded up into small squares, punched holes in them, and drew string through them to wear them like necklaces. Papyrus Berlin 21911 reads, “Having received grace from your only begotten son, stop the discharge, the pains of the eyes of Phoibammon son of Athanasios. One who dwells with the help of the most high [will] abide in the shelter [of the god of] heaven.” This is a prayer to Mary, the mother of Jesus. It ends with a quotation from Psalms 91:1.

A healing ostracon dating to the 7th-8th Century AD refers to the New Testament account of Christ and the lame man at the Portico of Solomon (John 9:1-12; Acts 3:11).

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1077 (6th Century AD) is an amulet with a healing spell. It quotes Matthew 4:23-24, apparently with the hope that its wearer will be healed even as Christ healed people during his lifetime, “Curative Gospel according to Matthew. And Jesus went about all of Galilee, teaching and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease [and every disease] and every infirmity among the people. And his fame spread into all of Syria and they brought him those who were ill, and Jesus healed them.”

Papyrus Berlin 11858 is an amulet which calls for the help of God and saints by reciting a version of the story of Peter sinking in the sea from Matthew 14:22-33.

Papyrus Berlin 9096 has a description on it explaining that the person who wears the amulet should be protected and healed according to the biblical passages recorded on it which include Psalm 91:1, John 1:1-2, Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, Luke 1:1, Psalm 118:6-7, Psalm 18:2, and Matthew 4:23.

Egyptian Museum 10263 (4th-5th Century AD) is a longer text which calls upon Christi personally to protect the owner of the spell against both illnesses and being treated ill by others.

Cologne 851 (7th Century AD) actually provides the name of the owner of the amulet, Joseph. He is using the magic to protect himself against fever. The words of the spell are directed specifically at Jesus.

Amsterdam 173 (4th-5th Century AD) also provides the name for whom the amulet is for; in this case, the person’s name is Megas. Again, this spell refers directly to Christ,
“O by Jesus Christ heal Magus whom D……bore [of] every disease, and pain of the head and temples, and fever, and shivering fever.”

Another amulet references Lazarus and Peter’s mother-in-law because this particular magical spell is for a woman who needs to be healed:

Holy, holy, holy, lord … and who has healed again, who has raised Lazarus from the dead even on the fourth day, who has healed Peter’s mother-in-law, who has also accomplished many unmentioned healings in addition to those they report in the sacred gospels: Heal her who wears this divine amulet of the disease afflicting her, through the prayers and intercession of the ever-virgin mother, the mother of god, and all…”

Papyrus Ianda 14 quotes the Lord’s Prayer and a description on it explains that it is an amulet to be worn to ward off demons.

The difference between prayers and magical amulets is that when one prays one is asking/pleading for intervention. There is an inherent humility to the practice itself. On the other hand, magical amulets almost seem to expect the healing without having to actually ask for it. It seems that just quoting scriptures is sufficient for the wanted/needed healing. One could even argue that there is a certain amount of ignorance or perhaps pride involved in the amulets as compared to a prayer, but that may be presuming too much. Either way, it is apparent that common Christian did use magic and they did at least partially gain this practice, or at least the form in which they practiced it, from the Bible and Christianity itself. It would seem that they also believed sincerely that the magic would help. Perhaps they even saw the magic as a short of prayer.

Conclusion

The Bible and the Church Fathers speak out aggressively against magic. However, the use of magic among early Christians survived nonetheless in part because of the Bible itself. The authors of the Bible and the Church Fathers in their writings were often fueled by a sense of the need to protect their own religion from other religions and their practices creeping in on theirs. One way in which they combated this was to label it all as magic and thus as not actually coming from God, but rather being a cheap imitation typically aided by demons. However, common Christians who were not authors such as those of the canon or the Church Fathers did not have theological agendas. They were not worried about the battle between godly power and the power of demons or with the theological battles of divers Christian groups. Rather, they were preoccupied with their own troubles and they acted as they understood to practice their religion. For some, that meant that they participated in magic typically in the form of amulets in the hope that Christ would be with them and bless them and heal them.

It is important to reiterate that this study is a case study. It has only examined a minority of the texts involved in the overall conversation. The discussion would most definitely benefit in the future from more thorough and complete research including the examination of all Old Testament, New Testament, Church Fathers writings, and if possible, all ancient Christian magical texts.

References

1. I will not address any Old or New Testament apocryphal texts as evidence either for or against magic because of the very nature of apocryphal text, that is to say, because they themselves are in disputation as to whether or not they are scripture or canonical in anyway.
2. I will often use the terms “early Christians,” “Christians,” or “common Christians” throughout my paper. These all refer to the same group and that group is simply Christians who are not the authors of the biblical books or the Church Fathers.
3. Scholarly writings and topics concerning ancient magic are abundant. The books and authors which I have chosen, I have chosen because they are representative of the general agreement among most scholars in the field concerning the origin of the terms and topics I discuss here.
4. Fritz Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (trans. Franklin Philip; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997), 20.
5. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World, 20. Graf is paraphrasing Xenophon’s description here.
6. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World, 26-7.
7. Magus is the Latin equivalent of the Greek magos.
8. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World, 36.
9. Francis C.R. Thee, Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984), 5.
10. Thee, Julius Africanus, 5-6.
11. Thee, Julius Africanus, 6.
12. Andy M. Reimer, “Virtual Prison Breaks: Non-Escape Narratives and the Definition of Magic,” in Magic in the Biblical World (ed. Todd Klutz; New York: T&T Clark, 1999), 125-7.
13. Karl Elliger and Willhelm Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. By Karl Elliger and Willhelm Rudoplh; Stuttgart: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 66.
14. F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, “Chartom,” BDB 355.
15. I am using the King James Version of the English Bible so all references hereon refer to that specific version of the English Bible.
16. KJV, Exodus 22:18.
17. KJV, Leviticus 19:31.
18. KJV, Leviticus 20:6.
19. KJV, Deuteronomy 18:10-11.
20. KJV, Jeremiah 27:9.
21. Page length will not allow for in-depth discussion of each of the stories in the Old Testament dealing with magicians and magic. Those which I will not discuss include Joshua 13, 2 Kings 17 and 23, Isaiah 8, Ezekiel 12-13 and 22, Daniel 1 and 4, Micah 3 and 5, and Malachi 3.
22. KJV, Genesis 41:1-8.
23. KJV, Genesis 41:9-57.
24. KJV, Genesis 41:8, 24.
25. KJV, Exodus 7:10-12.
26. KJV, Exodus 7:20-22.
27. KJV, Exodus 8:6-7.
28. KJV, Exodus 8:17-18.
29. Thomas C. Römer, “Competing Magicians in Exodus 7-9: Interpreting Magic in the Priestly Theology,” in Magic in the Biblical World (ed. Todd Klutz; New York: T&T Clark, 1999), 22.
30. KJV, 1 Samuel 28:3.
31. KJV, 1 Samuel 28:7-20.
32. KJV, 1 Samuel 28:7,3.
33. KJV, 1 Samuel 28:16.
34. KJV, 1 Chronicles 10:13.
35. Brian B. Schmidt, “The ‘Witch’ of En-Dor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient Near Eastern Necromancy,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power; Religions in the Graeco-Roman World vol. 129 (ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki; New York: E.J. Brill Publishing Co., 1995), 126.
36. KJV, Acts 19:13-16.
37. Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity. (trans. Brian McNeil. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 100. Klauck writes, “Anyone who wishes to misuse sacred Christian names for magical aims is laboring under a fundamental misunderstanding. The intended miracle will rebound on him and punish the plagiarist.”
38. KJV, Acts 16:16-19.
39. Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity, 49. Bar Jesus literally means “son of Jesus” in Aramaic.
40. Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity, 15. KJV, Acts 8:10.
41. Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity, 15-6.
42. Ayse Tuzlak, “The Magician and the Heretic: The Case of Simon Magus,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World; Religions in the Graeco-Roman World vol. 141 (ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki; New York: E.J. Brill Publishing Co., 2002), 416.
43. Stephen Ricks, “The Magician as Outsider in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power; Religions in the Graeco-Roman World vol. 129 (ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki; New York: E.J. Brill Publishing Co., 1995), 141.
44. Ricks, “The Magician as Outsider,” 141-2.
45. Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1981).
46. Naomi Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; New York: Routledge, 2001), 18-20.
47. Origen, Against Celsus (Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol. IV; trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. New York: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 395-669.
48. Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World, 17-18.
49. Irenaeus, Against Heresies ((Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol. I; trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. New York: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 315-567.
50. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 598-602.
51. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 334
52. Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith, eds., Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: Harpers San Francisco, 1994).
53. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 31-57.
54. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 31.
55. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 32.
56. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 32-3.
57. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 33.
58. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 33-4.
59. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 35-6.
60. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 37.
61. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 37-8.
62. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 38.
63. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 45-6.