Witches of Belvoir 'may have been framed' (2013)
bbc.com
bbc.com
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
> The sisters, who were known to be herbal healers, swore their revenge, the story goes.
A "witch" in certain contexts could be an evil apothecary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Hebrew_Bible
> The precise meaning of the Hebrew כָּשַׁף, usually translated as "witch" or "sorceress", is uncertain. In the Septuagint, it was translated as pharmakeía or pharmakous. In the 16th century, Reginald Scot, a prominent critic of the witch trials, translated כָּשַׁף, φαρμακεία, and the Vulgate's Latin equivalent veneficos as all meaning "poisoner", and on this basis, claimed that "witch" was an incorrect translation and poisoners were intended
Witch hunts and witch trials normally involved framing people for bullshit reasons, but that doesn't mean "witches" didn't exist at some point. They were just herbalists using science instead of magic.
That is a stretch. The witch in the book of Samuel summons the spirit of Samuel from the dead. So clearly she is more than just an herbalist or poisoner, even if the word could be translated like that. And I don't see any basis for "using science".
The definition of whichcraft in early-modern Europe was using magic to harm other people. Poisoning fell under this, but using herbal medicine for benign purposes was common and not illegal.