Valerie Flint makes the argument that magic as believed in by medieval people evolved directly from Roman pagan magic. She further makes the argument that there were more forms of magic used by pagans and Christians, in creating their religion allowed the less harmful forms of magic to persist while violently squashing the more harmful methods. She talks primarily about astrology which the Christians tried to prevent people from using but eventually had to conclude that as long as you claimed it wasn’t certain but rather probabilities, it was alright to use. She argues that only God can know for sure, but Christians can use various forms of divination to try to figure out what God has in store for them. Early in the Christian period, Flint argues, prophesy was considered acceptable prior to the birth of Christ, but forbidden after it. This later changed (53).
It is hard to understand how Flint’s claim that harmful versions of magic were prevented can be sustained given the more recent books that have been published that clearly show people using necromancy to divine the future. Necromancy is one of the forms of magic Flint specifically claims were not practiced by Christians. Other authors clearly show that it was used by both Christians and Jews.
Flint argues that who possesses magic is key to whether it was seen as harmful or helpful. Humans who dabble in magic are always seen as evil and need to be destroyed, but when Moses performed magic acts these were attributed as miracles. It’s not that they were attributed to God; they were not. Instead, they were seen as furthering human salvation, and therefore acceptable. Not all magic in the Bible was considered acceptable, however, and Ham, Noah’s son, is condemned as a magician.
For the first four centuries of Christendom we don’t hear from magicians at all and only hear from those they terrify (13). Later this changes and people begin writing spells either in code or even openly. Flint argues for a growing acceptance based on this fact, but one wonders whether it is simply because we have more documents overall about most things that these survived more from more recent times.
Flint seems to argue that medieval magic comes primarily from Rome, rather than adopting pieces of other people’s faith as they travelled through Europe. She does make the concession that the number 9 becomes popular in Christian magic based on the Germanic people’s considering 9 a powerful number (321), but other than that one example, almost everything she discusses came from Rome. This seems curious to me because the Christians adopted everything from Goddesses names to entire myths, so unless there was some specific reason that magic would not be borrowed, I don’t understand why it was so monolithic throughout Europe. I admit that I have only studied Germany myself, so maybe it was more monolithic than I suspect. Still, pagan cultures all had their own magic, and for that to have completely disappeared would be very curious.