Reaction:
Versnel examines the question of whether “magic” and “religion” can—or should—be treated as distinct categories. Although acknowledging that traditional definitions of magic are flawed, he resists abandoning the term “magic” entirely, as it would be, as he put it, “unworkable” and would be “putting the cart before the horse” (177).
I agree with Versnel’s claim with regard to traditional definitions of magic in particular due to our starting point often being our own Western context, which in the modern day has been influenced considerably by Judeo-Christian (especially Protestant) thought. The statement he chooses to start with (“Magic does not exist, nor does religion. What does exist are our definitions of these concepts”; 177) is deliberately provocative, and, I must admit, it did bother me a bit. Although I do think that there is a grain of truth in this statement, I was immediately made slightly uncomfortable with this reduction—I still feel this way about the statement. The flexibility he advocates for, I do think, is needed to a degree precisely because there are frequent moments of overlap between what might be called “magic” and what might be called “religion,” as well as because there is a need to consider cultural differences (emic vs etic; "scholarly discourse is always etic"; 185).
Part of what is frequently cited as distinguishing between magic and religion is the idea that magic is manipulative, whereas religion is supplicatory (i.e., to the divine). Versnel demonstrates that for the Greeks and Romans (I specify them rather than “ancient authors/people” because they are the sources of his evidence), they recognized such differences.
We have often seen how many ancient peoples view what they perceive as "magic" within their context as something fearful or negative, so I have no disagreements with that portion. The distinction that he draws between curse tablets and “judicial prayers” is interesting, but I do not know nearly enough about the two to confidently react.
I appreciated Versnel's tackling of the issue of trying to distinguish magic and religion without, whether consciously or subconsciously, being able to separate themselves from their own views/context. For example, how the same thing could be called "magic" or a "miracle" depending on the context of the one defining the object (189). I liked the example he gave of how a pagan amulet could be called magic while a crucifix works miracles, or vice-versa.
Discussion questions:
- To what extent do Versnel’s “judicial prayers” and curse tablets represent genuinely distinct categories in ancient practice, and where do we find significant overlap that challenges his model?
- How should we balance emic and etic perspectives when our sources are predominantly elite, male, and often hostile to the practices they describe?
- In what ways do accusations of “magic” in ancient texts function as rhetorical weapons rather than neutral descriptions, and how can we detect this in our evidence?
- How might gender, class, or ethnicity shape who gets labeled a magician in the ancient world, and what implications (if any) does this have for our modern categories?