This theory came to me after realizing that the grammar was a bit backwards in the prophecy and, lo and behold, there's a reason. I think I've stumbled upon something but I want to know what all of you think. Is this a feasible idea? Do I have something here?

*************************

“The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches…born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies…and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives…the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies…” (OotP37)


As can safely be assumed, we all know what this quote is. This prophecy is what drove Voldemort to kill Harry’s parents and this prophecy leaves us pondering just how the seventh book will end. J.K. Rowling, as you all know, is very particular with her words. Nothing is random in her writing and everything can mean something. This prophecy is no different.

Hermione states in the Philosopher’s Stone that witches and wizards have absolutely no logic. When she and Harry were trying to figure out the potions riddle, she claimed that a witch or wizard would be down in that chamber forever trying to figure out how to walk through the flames while a muggle could solve the problem with ease; in which she proceeded to do. We have been set up from the beginning, my friends, to watch out for riddles and puzzles that muggles should be able to deduce. This prophecy is the apex of those riddles. I believe that a vital point has been grossly overlooked. I also believe the grammatical structure of the prophecy is giving us a lot more than what we’re getting.

My point is I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘the other,’ stated twice in the prophecy, is not a reference to Voldemort or Harry but to a third party. Let me explain.

First, before I delve deeper into the words already given to us, I want to point out the stark difference between the words ‘kill’ and ‘vanquish.’ To kill someone is to take their life away so that they cease to exist. To vanquish someone is more to banish them, cast them into exile, strip them of power and destroy but not necessarily kill. A king can be vanquished yet still be alive. Voldemort was vanquished yet still existed in a meager form. That is a very important aspect of my theory.

Second, I want to look at the grammatical structure of the phrase ‘neither can live while the other survives.’ If that statement pertains to only two people, it doesn’t make any sense. Basically, it’s saying that if one comes out the victor, he’ll die anyway. This is where you’d point out that it means both Harry and Voldemort are meant to die and then use my definition against me and compare ‘live’ and ‘survive.’ Even if you define these words by a means of a pulse or to pull through something, in this case, still does not make any sense. For the purpose of this essay, I’m going to assume that Harry and Voldemort are the two in this prophecy. That statement is saying that neither Harry nor Voldemort can live while either Harry or Voldemort survives. If either one of them comes out on top, then that person will die. I beg you to think, when has Rowling ever been wholly simplistic in referencing future books? When have any of her hints ever been simple enough to deduce in the context of the stories given? And how many times did you go on to read the next book only to slap yourself on the forehead and go ‘duh’ for not reading the clues before? Do you really think Rowling would leave us with a conclusion as simple as ‘they both have to die’ without there being some kind of ridiculous twist?

This is where my theory begins.

First, take a look at when the prophecy was made. Harry hadn’t even been born yet and Voldemort was in full steam. Now, I want you to take a look at the first and last part of the prophecy—

“The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches…born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies—…the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies…” (Hyphen mine)

The only reference to death here is the end of a month but the reference to Voldemort is ‘vanquish,’ not ‘kill.’ Dumbledore stated that when Snape told Voldemort the prophecy, he [Voldemort] was the one that made it come true. Now, why are we thinking this ‘vanquishing’ is going to happen in the seventh book? Why aren’t we thinking that it’s already happened, that Harry’s fulfilled his part of the prophecy already? A little more than a year later, the boy with the power to ‘vanquish’ the Dark Lord, born to parents who ‘thrice defied him,’ succeeded in vanquishing Voldemort. He had the power to do it because Lily had bestowed it upon him. Voldemort has already been vanquished. Now it’s time for him to die.

Now take a look at the middle section of the prophecy—

“…and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives…”

This is where you say Voldemort already marked Harry as his equal with his scar. And this is where I say Harry is not Voldemort’s equal. Let’s face it. Harry is a seventeen-year-old boy going into his seventh year at Hogwarts. Voldemort is rightly in his eighties and has seen and done things no wizard can ever imagine and the only person that could rightly compete and match Voldemort was Dumbledore. Harry’s strong will to carry on, coupled with Dumbledore’s good timing, got him through the numerous obstacles he’s come across. Harry only knows spells taught in books thanks to Hermione (save Sectumsempra and Levicorpus), he can’t perform any of the Unforgivable Curses (as much as he hated Bellatrix, he didn’t have it in him to use the Cruciatus Curse correctly, which I will get back to) and Harry has had to rely on outside help in every book (Dumbledore’s knowledge of the Mirror of Erised, Fawkes, Dumbledore and the Time Turner, Priori Incantatem and Dumbledore, Snape and McGonagall, Dumbledore and the Order and Dumbledore, the D.A. and the aurors). Harry cannot take on Voldemort on his own and come out on top.

So who does Voldemort mark as his equals? Death Eaters. While he is their Lord, he has branded them with his mark, making them equal to him in purpose, mentality and disdain for muggles. The ‘he’ is a Death Eater. ‘He has the power the Dark Lord knows not.’ Remember the time the prophecy was given. This ‘him’ was marked as an equal yet held power no one knew about because he kept it hidden. Can you see where I’m going with this, who I’m alluding to? ‘The other’ is a third person; the same person marked as an equal by Voldemort and possesses hidden powers.

Severus Snape.

At the time the prophecy was made, Snape was still quite young and still working for Voldemort. I believe we haven’t seen Snape’s full potential magical abilities. We know he’s a potions master and a skilled Occlumens but surely that can’t be it. And we’ve only seen Snape through the Harry filter, a somewhat unreliable viewpoint of things or people he doesn’t like. Snape is also very well known for keeping to himself and I think Snape has abilities that he even kept from Dumbledore. I don’t think Severus reached his full potential until he was an adult and working at Hogwarts so it’s highly likely that Voldemort didn’t know what Severus could do. I don’t even think Severus knew what Severus could do at that point.

The most important aspect is that ‘the other’ will kill ‘either.’ Harry doesn’t have the power to kill. We’ve seen that. Coming back to Bellatrix, Harry performed the Cruciatus Curse on her in the fifth book but to no avail. As much as he hated her, he didn’t want to really torture her. Bellatrix said it herself at the Ministry in the fifth book—you have to really want to hurt the person in order for the Cruciatus Curse to work. I think it’s safe to assume the same is true for Avada Kedavra. I believe Harry can hate someone with every inch of his being but when it comes down to causing serious pain or death, he can’t do it. That’s where ‘the other,’ whom I believe is Snape, comes in.

Snape has the power to kill a person. It’s proven not only by the Dark Mark he bears (I doubt Voldemort would brand someone that couldn’t kill a muggle) but by his ability to kill Dumbledore. It’s here that I come to my conclusion.

The prophecy, as stated by Sybill Trelawney, is a two-part prophecy. Part one (book-ending the second part) speaks of a boy who wasn’t born at the time the prophecy was given, who had to vanquish the Dark Lord. The second part speaks of ‘the other’ who was marked as Voldemort’s equal and has the ability to kill him.

The first part has been satisfied. A boy born at the end of July had vanquished Voldemort already. It doesn’t say it’s going to happen again. The second part has yet to be fulfilled since Voldemort is still alive. It takes two people to destroy Voldemort, Harry and Snape, each playing their specific roles in the prophecy.

[either must die at the hand of the other]—Either Harry or Voldemort must die at the hand of Snape.

[for neither can live while the other survives]—This last part can go a couple of ways but to top my theory, it only goes one—Snape must die for one of them to survive so he dies killing Voldemort, thus saving Harry.

Harry is hell-bent on destroying all the horcruxes so Voldemort can be killed. Harry succeeds in destroying them and then Snape can successfully kill Voldemort. Rowling has spoken of a character getting a reprieve. This would redeem Snape in Harry’s eyes, and everyone else’s for that matter. It’s his ultimate redemption. Snape sacrifices himself to save Harry and kill Voldemort, satisfying the whole of the prophecy.

So that means, in the end, Snape is good and the prophecy is speaking of three different people, not two.