JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES, VIII-XVII, Jeroboam to Herod: Solved

[rakovsky]

For Question 8, it's worth noting that Isaiah 19 says that the Land of Judah was a terror, not that Judah was a terror. The chapter never openly or specifically refers to direct war between a Jewish Kingdom and Egypt.
The KJV's concordance points to Isaiah 14:24, and verses 24-25 say:

24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot:

If you read Isaiah 19's reference to the "land of Judah" in a similar way, you could imagine that it was a terror in the sense that Egypt suffered defeat there. In the battle of Panaeum (in the Golan region) in c. 200 BC, the Egyptian Ptolemaic kingdom was defeated by the Seleucids, after which the region went to the Seleucids. (Michael Zank writes in his "History of Jerusalem Under the Ptolemies": "The century of Ptolemaic rule over Judah/Palestine and Phoenicia ends when Antiochus III. ("the Great"), scion of the Seleukids ruling the eastern parts of the lands conquered by Alexander, asserts his claim to the coastal cities and the rest of the southern Levant by several military campaigns. A decisive victory at Panias (Banyas) in 198 forces the young Greco-Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy V., to yield. After the Ptolemaic garrison is driven from Jerusalem, Antiochus, welcomed by an established pro-Syrian party among the priestly aristocrats who hoped for a more lenient system of administration, reaffirmed the right of the Yehudim to live by their paternal laws.")

Fred Miller, in his essay "Isaiah 19
: A Temple Built in Egypt", writes that

control over all of Palestine passed to the Selucids under Antiochus the Great about 180 BC and Helenization of the Jewish state was pursued in earnest. After the Macabbean revolt (circa 160 BC) the Jews reclaimed religious freedom first and political freedom followed shortly after the Hasmonean dynasty was established and an appeal by the Macabbees to the Roman Senate for protection brought recognition of an independent Jewish state which lasted about 100 years. ... Onias, son of Onias the high priest, was forced by a usurper to abandon his rightful claim to the high priesthood in Jerusalem, and he fled to Egypt, where he built an alternative Temple in Egypt over 150 years before the Christian era. ...after the death of Antiochus Epiphanies. Alcimus, not of the family of the priests, was then placed in the office by the Greeks who still ruled the area from Antioch. It was at that time that Onias, son of the previous Onias who had been deposed, fled to Egypt and received permission to build a Temple near Alexandria.

Based on the information above and on Wikipedia:

• Antiochus took power in Judea in 180 BC
• the unlawful priest Alcimus was appointed by the Seleucids after Antiochus' death (Antiochus died in 164 BC) and served in 162–159 BC
• the Jewish Maccabbean revolt of 167-160 BC succeeded
  
• the rightful high priest Onias IV took refuge in Egypt where he made a second temple in c. 154 BC (the date according to Wikipedia, which adds that he was dissatisfied with the Maccabees' refusal to give him the priesthood).
  

Miller also theorizes:

"The military strength of Judah prevailed during this period when at the beginning of the period the Romans protected the Hasmoneans and entered into a military alliance with them and afterward the Romans, first by Antony and later confirmed by Augustus, raised Herod the Great to be King of the whole region of Syria-Palestine. Thus Judah was a threat to Egypt during the Roman period of expansion."

But it's hard for me to see Judea being a threat to Egypt under the Romans. It seems more like that the land of Judah would be more of a threat in Antiochus' time and under Antiochus' rule as the Greeks could invade from there.

As for the five cities in Isaiah 19, Miller notes that many Jews lived in Egypt in Isaiah's era, and that Jeremiah 44:1 names 4 Jewish cities in Egypt:

Many Jewish exiles lived in Egypt. Beside those who had, previous to 600 BC immigrated for mercantile reasons, there was a mass immigration of the remnant of Jews who joined this dispersion after the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 585 BC. According to Jeremiah they joined cities that were already largely inhabited by Jews.

Jeremiah 44:1 says:

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews which dwell in the land of Egypt, which dwell at Migdol, and at Tahpanhes, and at Noph, and in the country of Pathros...

Miller notes:

To these earlier settlements Onias and his compatriots fled and thus a large third wave of immigration was brought about with many following Onias to the area near Heliopolis where Onias built his alternative temple. Thus a large Jewish community, well dispersed through all Egypt abounded. By the first century of the Christian era Philo is said to give the number of Jews in Alexandria alone at nearly one million.

As for the "City of Destruction", Miller does a good job showing that it refers to On/Heliopolis (in Greek) based on wordplay:

Heliopolis/On, located near the first juncture of the Nile delta on the east side, means in Greek: "City of the Sun." In Hebrew that name is Beth Shemesh (House of the Sun) and without doubt Jeremiah makes reference to Heliopolis/On in Jeremiah: 43:13 "He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire." The Egyptian name of the city is On. It is one of the cities of Egypt that Ezekiel 30:17 says will be punished and there is called AVEN in the KJV which in Hebrew has the same spelling as On. This may be a "play on Words" in Ezekiel because the word for iniquity or evil is also the same spelling and pronounced Ah-van or Ah-von. "Ah-von" is also a synonym for idol and is so used in Isaiah 66:3 (as if he blessed and ""aven" or idol. Thus, following the precedent set by Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah may be using alliterations to refer to Heliopolis and its idols to Ra the sun god. Jeremiah calls it Beth Shemesh which is Hebrew for Heliopolis and Ezekiel calls it "evil" (Ah-van) which are the Hebrew letters for On. This name and spelling is found in many Bible references (beginning with Gen 41:50 which refers to Joseph's father in law who was priest of On or Heliopolis and was a priest of Ra the sun god as his name indicates,.-- Potephe-Rah. He was priest of the Sun God in the "City of the Sun" or "ir ha-cheres" which is Isaiah's "play on words."

He also shows how the city was destroyed by the Persians and so were the idols, which explains why it could be called the City of Destruction:

The only difference in the use of these words is with "heth" in the first example that we transliterate "ch"and of "he" or "h" in the second which is the reading in the Masoretic of Isaiah. "Heres" means destruction while "Charas" or "Cheres" is a reference to the sun, although not the ordinary word for sun which is "shemesh." "Cheres" is translated "sun' in Judges 14:18 "before the sun went down;" and in Job 9:7 "Who commands the sun and it rises not." Thus in Isaiah 19:18 he names one of the 5 cities and identifies it through a "play on words" as Heliopolis, city of the sun. That city is first mentioned over a millennium before as an important city in Gen 41:50 and it was still an important city at Isaiah's writing. It was destroyed by the Persians and never rebuilt but a city was rebuilt close by in the actual environs of Heliopolis by Onias who built his Temple there and it became another refuge for Jews where people worshipped YHWH for more than 200 years. Thus the city of the Sun ('ir ha-cheres) was the city On (Aven) whose evil or idols (Ah- von) to the "Sun God" were destroyed physically by the Persians and spiritually by Onias.

It is not really relevant to question 8, but maybe worth mentioning here that Miller sees Onias as the "savior" spoken of in Isaiah 19 because the Hebrew translators made the word here, moshiy'a, mean "human lord" instead of "Messiah":

Onias was the rightful successor to the High Priesthood that was given by Antiochus Eupator to Alcimus (who did not come from the family of priests). Onias fled and built his alternative Temple for a witness that the one in Jerusalem was led by a corrupt priesthood.



The Great One Onias son of Onias felt that he was the great one spoken of. Josephus says that Onias relied on this prophecy in Isaiah and felt that he fulfilled it. Josephus said



"But then the son of Onias the high priest, who was of the same name with his father, and who fled to king Ptolemy, ....out of a desire to purchase to himself a memorial and eternal fame, he resolved to send to king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, to ask leave of them that he might build a temple in Egypt like to that at Jerusalem, and might ordain Levites and priests out of their own stock. The chief reason why he was desirous so to do, was, that he relied upon the prophet Isaiah, who lived about six hundred years before, and foretold that there certainly was to be a temple built to Almighty God in Egypt by a man that was a Jew."

Josephus Anitq. Book XIII:3:1

Savior and Great One: This verse has some interesting original language variations and the LXX adds an interpretation to indicate that they did not think it was a messianic prophecy. The Hebrew text says "He will send them a savior (moshiy'a) and a high one." "High one" is from (Rab), the word for Rabbi .The LXX reads: (Kai apostelei autois, kurios anthropon hos sosei autous, krinon sosei autous] Which means: "And he shall send to them a human lord who will save them, one judging will save them." The LXX is an interpretive translation and it indicates that the Hebrew translators in 285 BC did not think the passage refers to the Messiah and they made it clear that the one spoken of here is not a divine personage like the Messiah. They did this by adding words to the text. The LXX was translated more than 100 years before Onias built the altar in Egypt.

Miller imagines that Onias was a savior because Miller theorizes that peace with Israel was brought to Egypt because of the Temple built in Egypt. 

I feel like this answers the question well enough.

[rakovsky]

May 16, 2019 11:55:09 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 9) Did the Macedonians have some kind of uneasy arrangement with the Judean rebels whereby the rebels allowed them to stay?

In WWII Hitler maintained a large presence in Italy, an ally from the start. Had he not, when Italy changed sides he’d have lost a dangerous route right into what Churchill called his vulnerable underbelly. Likewise, had Alexander was protecting THE main route an army would take if approaching the eastern door to Egypt. And no one said “Nein” to Hitler or “Nay” to Alexander if they wanted a garrison anywhere!

Let me be more clear about what I was asking. Alexander the Great led the Macedonians, who left a garrison by Jerusalem. Later, the Jewish rebelsled by the Maccabees recaptured Jerusalem and Judea from the Greeks successfully, but Josephus refers to the Macedonian garrison as still being near Jerusalem, for instance in the case of the Jewish leader Jonathan's passive measures against it. On top of that the Jewish rebels were allied with a Greek commander against another one. So I was asking if the successful Jewish rebels had a truce with the Macedonian garrison remaining there.

It sounds like it might have been a Ceasefire stalemate situation. The example you gave of Hitler in the alps might work- the Allies captured about all of Italy, but afterwards the Germans maintained forces in the northern Alps of Italy and then, instead of attacking the Germans there, the Allies left them there and instead invaded Germany via France.

[rakovsky]

Regarding Question 9 (Did the Macedonian Garrison have an uneasy arrangement with the Jews after the Maccabbean revolt), the garrison was situated with a settlement that included Greeks and their Jewish allies, so the garrison would have wanted to stay to protect the settlement. In The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa
, Getzel M. Cohen writes that the Macedonian Garrison in Jerusalem's "Akra" fortress had Macedonians, Jews who fled to live with them, and others like Cypriots, Phrygians, and Mysians. She cites Josephus' reference in Book XII. section 252:

He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, 1 for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities.

She writes that, "The Hasmoneans did not get full control of the Akra until 141 BC when Simon finally expelled its occupants." This would have been about 19 years after the end of the Maccabean revolt of 167-160 BC, and according to Wikipedia, Jerusalem was taken by the Maccabees in 164 BC.
She notes that Antiochus Sidetes in 1 Maccabees 15 considered the Acre/Citadel to be one of his poleis/cities, when he demanded it back from the Jewish leader Simon. 1 Macc. 15 says:

18. "He sent Athenobius, one of his Friends, to confer with Simon and say: “You are occupying Joppa and Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem; these are cities of my kingdom.

29
. You have laid waste their territories, done great harm to the land, and taken possession of many districts in my kingdom.
30. Now, therefore, give up the cities you have seized and the tribute money of the districts you control outside the territory of Judea..."

She notes that Simon refused to give back the Acre in 1 Macc. 15:33. She also points to the story of the siege of the Akra and its capture earlier in 1 Macc. 13. It sounds like the Akra had been blockaded by Simon instead of attacked and captured outright:

49
. The people in the citadel in Jerusalem were prevented from going out into the country and back to buy or sell; they suffered greatly from hunger, and many of them died of starvation.

50
. They finally cried out to Simon, and he gave them terms of peace. He expelled them from the citadel and cleansed it of impurities.

51
. On the twenty-third day of the second month,* in the one hundred and seventy-first year, the Jews entered the citadel with shouts of praise, the waving of palm branches, the playing of harps and cymbals and lyres, and the singing of hymns and canticles, because a great enemy of Israel had been crushed.e

52
. Simon decreed that this day should be celebrated every year with rejoicing. He also strengthened the fortifications of the temple mount alongside the citadel, and he and his people dwelt there.

Wikipedia gives more information about the garrison between Jerusalem's capture by the Maccabees in 164 BC and the Akra's capture in 141 BC, during which time the Maccabees besieged it:

In 164 BCE Judas Maccabaeus liberated Jerusalem and reconsecrated the Temple. Although the surrounding city had fallen, the Acra and its inhabitants held out. Maccabaeus besieged the fortress, whose inhabitants sent an appeal to the Seleucid king (now Antiochus V) for assistance. A Seleucid army was dispatched to put down the revolt. When it laid siege to Beth-Zur, Maccabaeus was forced to abandon his siege of the Acra and face Antiochus in battle. In the subsequent Battle of Beth-Zechariah, the Seleucids won their first victory over the Maccabees, and Maccabaeus was forced to withdraw.[21] Spared from capitulation, the Acra persisted as a Seleucid stronghold for 20 more years during which it weathered several Hasmonean attempts to oust the Greek garrison.[17][22]



Destruction



Judas besieging the Acra (Alba Bible, 1430)

Judas was killed in 160 BCE and succeeded by his brother Jonathan, who attempted to build a barrier to cut off the Acra's supply line.[23] Jonathan had already assembled the manpower required for the task when he was forced to confront the invading army of Seleucid general Diodotus Tryphon at Beth Shan (Scythopolis).[24][25] Having invited Jonathan to a friendly conference, Tryphon had him seized and murdered.[26] Jonathan was succeeded by another brother, Simon, who besieged and finally captured the Acra in 141 BCE.

[22] Schiffman (1991), pp. 77–79.

[23]Dequeker (1985), pp. 193–210.

This is kind of a weird issue, because it seems curious to me how the Akra could have a supply line so strong that the Maccabees would have to build a barrier to block the line, after Judea had already been conquered by the Maccabees. Maybe the Greeks gave up almost all Judea, except for the garrison and they kept sending convoys to it that the Jews weren't able to stop without a barrier?

It's status with the Maccabees seems confusing. A Biblical concordance notes that in 145 BC, the besieged Akra had complained to the Seleucid king Demetrius II that Jonathan the Maccabee was besieging them, so Jonathan allayed King Demetrius II with presents in 1 Macc. 11:

20. In those days Jonathan gathered together the people of Judea to attack the citadel in Jerusalem, and they set up many siege engines against it.

21
. But some transgressors of the law, enemies of their own nation, went to the king and informed him that Jonathan was besieging the citadel.

22
. When Demetrius heard this, he was enraged; and as soon as he heard it, he set out and came to Ptolemais. He wrote to Jonathan to discontinue the siege and to meet him for a conference at Ptolemais as soon as possible.

23
. On hearing this, Jonathan ordered the siege to continue. He selected some elders and priests of Israel and put himself at risk.

24
. Taking with him silver, gold and apparel, and many other presents, he went to the king at Ptolemais, and found favor with him.
...
41. Meanwhile Jonathan sent the request to King Demetrius to withdraw the troops in the citadel from Jerusalem and from the other strongholds, for they were constantly waging war on Israel.

The chapter in Maccabees says that the king at first promised to remove the garrison from the Akra in return for Jewish soldiers to support him, but then he gave up his promise when his position in Syria became more secure.

According to National Geographic's summary in "Jerusalem Dig Uncovers Ancient Greek Citadel":

In 164 B.C., Jewish rebels led by Judah Maccabee took Jerusalem and liberated the temple, an event commemorated in the festival of Hanukkah. But the rebels failed to conquer the Acra. For more than two decades, the rebels tried in vain to overwhelm the fortress. Finally in 141 B.C., Simon Maccabee captured the stronghold and expelled the remaining Greeks.

Maybe one way to resolve the issue is to suppose that the Seleucid were not really totally defeated in 160 BC, since they still had strongholds like the Acra. The revolt was generally a success in 160, but not fully, perhaps.

Also, it doesn't sound like there was constant control of the Temple by the Maccabees in 164-160 BC. In 161, Judas the Maccabee died and the Seleucid Bacchides set himself up in the Acra along with Alcimus, who in 160 BC ruined part of the Temple - the wall between the inner court and the court of the gentiles, according to A concise Dictionary of the Bible for the use of Families and Students (1865, p. 384).

The Concise Dictionary also notes that up until c. 154 the Akra was holding Jewish hostages, pointing to 1 Macc. 10, which talks about how the Seleucid king Demetrius gave favors to Jonathan, hoping for Jonathan's support for him against his rival, the Greek king Alexander:

6. So Demetrius gave him authority to recruit troops, to equip them with arms, and to become his ally; and he commanded that the hostages in the citadel should be released to him.

7. Then Jonathan came to Jerusalem and read the letter in the hearing of all the people and of those in the citadel. 8 They were greatly alarmed when they heard that the king had given him authority to recruit troops. 9 But those in the citadel released the hostages to Jonathan, and he returned them to their parents.

I feel like this addresses the question. The Maccabees must have been strong enough to take most of the country, but not enough to take the Akra, and there were times when they couldn't stop the supplies, although the Akra eventually gave up from lack of supplies, as 1 Macc. 15 says: "...they suffered greatly from hunger, and many of them died of starvation.
 They finally cried out to Simon, and he gave them terms of peace."

[alon]

Dec 2, 2019 16:08:53 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I think that since as you said, Yeshua did a good job of explaining things, or making them more plain and clear, then there was not the same open clarity and detail on the topic of Salvation in the TaNaKh. You can say that Salvation and the criteria of the judgment is fundamentally the same concept though. God would never have left such an important concept as salvation unclear. Nor does He ever demand either acceptance nor worship from any of us. He gave us free will and clearly told us of the choice before us. Man however did "simplify" things. Some say it is a matter of joining and supporting the right church. To some it is "belief" in God, others add saying that sorry "Sinners Prayer." Repentance is down-played or left out altogether. Same with obedience to God, which is replaced with following church doctrine and tenets. A true relationship with God is eschewed, and in the Catholic denominations is done away with completely. They confess to priests, and prayers are said to saints, not to God, often while kneeling before an idol, holding a medallion or Rosary beads. Meanwhile, many miss the mark entirely while thinking they are "saved."

Don't get me wrong, I do believe many Christians are saved. They do seek God, and do develop a relationship with Him. And Catholics, for all I said above often have an enviable faith. But most, sadly, are not. I don't know where the line is for salvation and damnation. All I'll say is the farther from Yeshua and His you are, the more danger you are in. As a PK in the era of revivals and visiting pastors and evangelists, I've overheard many talks where privately they shared this view. They all said in any of the congregations they've visited or pastored, at least half who thought they were saved were not! I believe that number is significantly higher than half, and many of them would not have disagreed. Yet they never went back to the basics and questioned how they and their church handled the important concept of salvation. I was a range coach in the Marines. When someone's scores were slipping (they were missing their mark), we always went back to the basics. They were doing something wrong there that caused them to miss. Tune up the basics, rounds started to find the target. 

Some evidence is that I can't think of times when the TaNaKh's authors showed someone whom they consider evil as praising God in such extreme tones both before an after divine punishment. Pharaoh, when he saw God's power, relented and let the people go due to the plagues and his fear- Pharaoh was forced to. Pharaoh is seen as a negative figure despite his recognizing God's power. In contrast, in the case of the Babylonian king, he was impressed with God's power and reality due to the miracles, and praised God to all nations even after the 7 years' punishment. God did not demand the king's worship at the threat of punishment or reward, but rather the king gave it voluntarily both before and after the punishment.

[alon]

Dec 2, 2019 16:08:53 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

You asked, "'I think that if the author took a dim view of the king, he wouldn't have emphasized the praises and decisions of the king so much.' Is that backed by evidence or just an assumption?"

I wanted to know before I answered. Your reply based on comparison to other scripture was very good, and may be absolutely correct. As I indicated before, I'm not sure on this one. But I do consider an alternative, that the author wanted to point out that one can acknowledge God, believe in God, even worship God yet still not be saved. Given my post above and what I think of the state of churches today it makes sense an all knowing God would show us this. He doesn't leave us unprepared!   

[alon]

Dec 2, 2019 14:18:16 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 8 (about Isaiah 19 on Judah being a terror), I don't agree with the emendation to "city of the sun", but it looks like a literary association. Loeb's note says about Isaiah 19:

in vs. 18 some scholars emend "ir hn-heres " city of destruction " to "ir hu-heres " city of the sun," supposing this to be an allusion to the name Heliopolis "city of the sun."

I see that destruction is close to sun in Hebrew, off by a letter. Where did you find that? I've been looking, and all I find for sun is שמש, which is spelled the same as "shamash," or servant. I immagine it is pronounced differently for sun, though.

הֶרֶס hereç, heh'-res is demolition, or destruction. The closest I could get there was תמה, which would be the suns (or other source) warmth.


Anyhow, I need the reference before I can go on.

[rakovsky]

Dec 3, 2019 5:37:17 GMT -8 alon said:

Dec 2, 2019 14:18:16 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 8 (about Isaiah 19 on Judah being a terror), I don't agree with the emendation to "city of the sun", but it looks like a literary association. Loeb's note says about Isaiah 19:
I see that destruction is close to sun in Hebrew, off by a letter. Where did you find that? I've been looking, and all I find for sun is שמש, which is spelled the same as "shamash," or servant. I immagine it is pronounced differently for sun, though.

הֶרֶס hereç, heh'-res is demolition, or destruction. The closest I could get there was תמה, which would be the suns (or other source) warmth.


Anyhow, I need the reference before I can go on.

You asked where I found the quote from Loeb's above. You can find it in Book XIII, Chapter III, section 1. You can read it in HTML format here: archive.org/stream/Josephus02War13/Josephus%2007%20Antiquities%2012-14_djvu.txt
Unfortunately though, it does not give more information on the Hebrew of hehres vs. khehres on what I quoted.

It sounds like you are trying to confirm that "cheres" is one of the Hebrew words that means "sun". You can find this on BibleHub's Strong's page for cheres/Sun:
biblehub.com/hebrew/2775.htm
It is used this way in Judges 8:13; 14:18, Job 9:7.
Job 9:7 goes: "Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth (הָאֹמֵ֣ר לַ֭חֶרֶס וְלֹ֣א יִזְרָ֑ח) not; and sealeth up the stars."

[rakovsky]

For Question 10 (whether the Gadarenes really killed themselves), there is a curious issue that the Gospel story of the exorcism of the demoniac and the suicide of the pigs that get the demon is set either at Gadara or at Gerasa, which is near Gadara, or at Gergesa, which is on the Sea of Galilee. That is, different manuscripts say one or the other, according to Wiktionary. In Josephus' story, some Gadarenes "out of a dread of the torments they might undergo, cut their own throats in the night time, and some of them threw themselves down precipices, and others of them cast themselves into the river, and destroyed themselves of their own accord". I suspect that there is some overlap in the stories, and not just a random coincidence. Maybe the allusion would be that the people in Gadara who killed themselves were driven into a demonic state or had demons that drove them to kill themselves. The Gospel story would only serve as very circumstantial evidence that the Gadarenes killed themselves.

BroJangles writes on the Reddit page "Archeological evidence for Gerasene Swines":

Josephus does relate an anecdote about some Gadarenes throwing themselves into a river (not the Sea of Galilee), but Mark's version of the demoniac is the original one, and Mark said Gerasa. Matthew changed that to Gadara (possibly because Gerasa was 30 miles away from the lake. Gadara was closer but still 12 miles away from the lake. Mark often shows a confused or erroneous understanding of Palestinian geography)

But someone on Reddit cast doubt on his claim that Mark was mistakenly calling it Gerasa: "Had you opened up your trusty Nestle-Aland at page 102, you would have seen that Gadarene was indeed a textual variant for Gerasine in Mk 5:1. (In no lesser sources than the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.)"

Wikipedia's article on the Exorcism of the Gerasene swine says that in Matthew, "The location is also changed to the region of the "Gadarenes" (Gadara) as in most Bible translations. The King James Version in (Matthew 8:28) has the location as "Gergesenes" which corresponds to the modern "Kursi" (Kheras), the most plausible location of the Gospel event."

In Rome and the Friendly King (Routledge Revivals), David Braund gives more background on the Gadarenes' conflict with Herod:

Gadara had been given to Herod by Octavian but it was dissatisfied with his rule (78). Some Gadarenes brought accusations against Herod before Agrippa at Mitylene: the response of Herod's friend was to throw them in chains and send them back to Herod without so much as hearing their case (79). When Augustus visited Syria in 20 BC, the people of Gadara accused Herod of tyranny. Augustuss, unlike Agrippsa, duly held an inquiry, but after only the first day the Gadarenes saw that Augustus and his consilium were inclined towards Herod and so committed suicide.
Footnotes:
(78) Jos. AJ xv 217
(79) Jos. AJ xv 351.

The footnotes above point to:
AJ xv 217: "He also added to his kingdom Gadara, Hippos, and Samaria"
AJ xv 351: "However, some of the Gadarens came to Agrippa, and accused Herod, whom he sent back bound to the king without giving them the hearing."

You could suppose that the ones who committed suicide were scared to have the same fate as the Gadarenes who were arrested by Rome earlier.

This is the theory of Morris Jacob Raphall in Post-Biblical History of the Jews:

Augustus directed an investigation to be instituted, and summoned Herod before his tribunal; but before the day of trial the emperor so publicly and greatly manifested his favour and partiality to Herod, that the accusers, despairing of justice, and fearful of being handed over to Herod for punishment- as had happened to a former deputation of Gadarenes, who had accused him - committed suicide.

Since the previous deputation had been punished by Herod and the emperor allowed the punishment, the same could have happened in this case, so Herod would not have a need to secretly kill his accusers. That is, he did not need to kill them to stop them from testifying, because they already testified, and he did not need to kill them secretly to punish them, since based on precedent, the emperor might have allowed him to punish them.
On the other hand, I can imagine that Herod could have his soldiers secretly kill the Gadarenes as revenge instead of openly punishing them for complaining about them. This is in part because of Herod's brutality. For instance, AJ xv 247-252 says:

He was still sorely afflicted, both in mind and body, and made very uneasy, and readier than ever upon all occasions to inflict punishment upon those that fell under his hand. He also slew the most intimate of his friends, Costobarus, and Lysimachus, and Cadias, who was also called Antipater; as also Dositheus, and that upon the following occasion.

The other reason is because there were cloak and dagger intrigues in this era, where killings of political figures could be portrayed as suicides as I mentioned before under Question 7.
We don't have other information on this incident than what Josephus wrote. I think that this is as much as we can answer this question.

[rakovsky]

For Question 11 (whether Fate or Providence is a Spirit), Fate (Destiny) is used more in pagan philosophy, whereas in Christian theology, the term Providence (God's Foresight) is emphasized more. It is also easier to think of Providence (Foresight) being a spirit than Fate, since fate is more of an outcome, whereas Providence/Foresight is a direct power of God. 

The Greek word for Providence is πρόνοια. The ISB Encyclopedia says:

The corresponding Greek word, pronoia, means "forethought." Forethought and foresight imply a future end, a goal and a definite purpose and plan for attaining that end. The doctrine of final ends is a doctrine of final causes, and means that that which is last in realization and attainment is first in mind and thought.

Wikipedia' article on Divine Providence claims:

In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God." ... The doctrine of providence in Eastern Orthodoxy is set out by St John of Tobolsk: "St. John Damascene describes it thus: 'Providence is Divine will which maintains everything and wisely rules over everything'... Divine providence (Hebrew: השגחה פרטית Hashgochoh Protis / Hashgachah Pratit lit. [Divine] supervision of the individual) is discussed throughout Rabbinic literature, and in particular by the classical Jewish philosophers. These writings maintain that divine providence means that God is directing (or even recreating) every minute detail of creation.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says:

The Christian use of the term providence, besides being profoundly influenced by Greek and Roman thought, is based on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) story of the patriarch Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac, which is found in the book of Genesis. Abraham tells Isaac, “God will provide himself with a young beast for a sacrifice, my son.” The Hebrew language lacks a proper word to express the notion of providence, but the concept is well known in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In the New Testament, the Greek word pronoia and related words are used rarely, but in no case are they used in the later Christian sense of providence.

It also discusses Providence as being a term for God used by pagan writers:

In later Latin, after the emperor Augustus (died 14 CE), the word providence was used as a designation of the deity. Seneca, for example, wrote that it is proper to apply the term providence to God. Finally, providence was personified as a proper goddess in her own right by Macrobius, a Neoplatonic Roman author, who wrote in defense of paganism about 400 CE.

But just because pagan writers expressed Fate as a spirit doesn't mean that Christian writers did.

In "Theology in Mark and Q: Abba and "Father" in Context", MR D'Angelo - ‎1992 writes that in one writing, "divine providence as the director of history is linked to the title "father" (see Wis 14:1-3; 3 Macc 6:3-4)". I didn't find that in 3 Macc 6:3-4, but Wisdom 14 has:

1. Again, one preparing to sail and about to voyage over raging waves
calls upon a piece of wood more fragile than the ship that carries him.
2. For it was desire for gain that planned that vessel,

and wisdom was the artisan who built it;
3. but it is your providence, O Father, that steers its course,
because you have given it a path in the sea,
and a safe way through the waves,

I take this to mean that God's providence is steering the ship because God gave it a path in the sea. It gives a metaphorical image of "Providence" "steering" the ship, but it doesn't literally mean that Providence is a literally being at the wheel of the ship.

One reason why I asked the question about Providence, is because in theology, the Divine "Word" and "Wisdom" are considered Spirits, eg. the Word incarnated. For instance, the Wisdom of Solomon 1 says:

4. For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.

5. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in.

6. For wisdom is a loving spirit; and will not acquit a blasphemer of his words:

Wisdom of Solomon 7 says:

Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given me;
I called on God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.
...
21. I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,

22. for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.

There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy,
unique, manifold, subtle,
mobile, clear, unpolluted,
distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen,
irresistible...

Isaiah 11:2 refers to the "Spirit of Wisdom" resting on the Messiah, although it's not very clear if this means that it is an actual Spirit being, because it also refers to the spirit of counsel, etc.:

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD

By comparison, Providence is commonly referred to as an attribute of God or a phenomenon or a concept. But is it also a "spirit" like Wisdom is, and if it is a "spirit", does that mean that it is a being? 

The ST. FRANCIS XAVIER LAY MISSIONARY SOCIETY website has a prayer asking, "May your Spirit of Providence be with the
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER LAY MISSIONARY SOCIETY." But that doesn't really explain what it means.

Sister Karin Dufault in a Q&A on the Sisters of Providence website answers:

How have you seen the spirit of Providence in your ministry?

I think that Providence is God’s loving care for all creation, including all of us, whatever our roles in life or circumstances are. I have seen Providence at work in the daily life of ministry in so many ways. Definitely, Providence has been with us through some very troubled and difficult choices and times in our health-care ministry.

Our belief and trust in Providence keeps us going and provides the fuel that helps us find meaning and perseverance amid difficulties. It also helps us interpret the realities we see with faith, no matter what the outcome of our efforts. I have also seen Providence very active in and through the people I work with and those we serve.

But this is not really a theological explanation. I guess she could be talking about the "spirit of providence" as a metaphor for the concept or phenomenon of Providence, like one might talk about the "Spirit of Love", without meaning that Love is a spirit being like God's "Word" is.

Here is a piece of modern religious art from the Sisters of Providence Facebook page:

The Spirit of Providence is a glass mural located in the Gamelin building on the campus of Providence Health & Services in Renton. It blends textural elements of nature, Christianity and historic photography. Expressing the spiritual energy of our Mission, this artwork is a reflection of the heritage of the Sisters of Providence and all those who follow in their footsteps.

But this really doesn't give any explanation as to whether it is religious symbolic art symbolizing some kind of phenomenon, not a Being.

The Sisters of Providence of Saint Mary of the Woods website makes it sound like it is not a Spirit-being, but an attribute of God, when it says about Saint Mother Theodore Guerin:

However, her trust in Providence — the protective care of God — led her to Saint Mary-of-the-Woods where she accomplished amazing things.

Writing about the role of the Holy Spirit in a possible scenario where humanity is inspired by "the Holy Spirit" and a shift occurs favoring the powerless, Bernard Cooke, Loyola Professor of Theology, writes in Power and the Spirit of God:

Human life in such a context will be "controled" by the Spirit of God; that Spirit will be the power moving humanity eschatologically toward its fulfillment as "the reign of God." ... God's Spirit embraces and transforms what is often-sometimes pejoratively-referred to as "the secular world." This Spirit is coextensive with "the providence of God" and characterizes that providence as functioning in histry through the lives of women and men, most of whom are considered powerless.

I can see that the Providence is coextensive with the Holy Spirit, but this doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

The Catholic theologian Johann Drey urged Christians to "reverence in faith and humility the Spirit of providence, who has gathered up the division of the church into sects into his plan, even as the division of all the nations." This has the same challenge as Bernard Cooke's quote: whether this means that the Spirit of Providence is a literal being.

The American Congregationalist minister Henry Ward Beecher called "divine benevolence" the "animating Spirit of Providence" (Plymouth Pulpit: A Weekly Publication of Sermons Preached by Henry Ward Beecher, Volume 5), but he seemed to mean "spirit" here in terms of an attribute, like saying that happiness was an optimist's "spirit".

The Reformed theologian Van Til's The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture in one place puts "providence" next to "creation" as if they are things, not sentient beings, but later when he refers to Kant's idea, he talks about the "Spirit of Providence" in such a strong way about Providence, and writes in such a plain intellectual way that it makes it sound like Providence is a real Spirit way and that he doesn't mean this metaphorically:

Thus [according to the theologian Bavinck,] the inspiration of the Scripture is organically related to all the
work of the Spirit in the world, both in providence and in redemption.  ....
We have now heard two of the greatest of modern Reformed theologians set forth the
Scriptural teaching with respect to itself. The doctrine of Scripture is intricately
interwoven with all the main teaching of Scripture. This doctrine is interwoven with the
idea of the world’s creation and its all comprehensive providential control by God the
Father. We may say that the doctrine of creation and of providence form the foundation
of the idea of Scripture. But on the other hand we should know nothing about the truth of creation and providence if it were not the Scripture as God’s Word that tells us of them.
...
For Kant the world
offers man an infinite, indeterminate manifold of possible experience. That is to say, the
world must not be thought of as created by God, as controlled by the Spirit of Providence
and as redeemed by Christ.

But looking through the rest of this book by Van Til, I don't think that he means it as a real "Spirit", since he elsewhere puts providence only in lowercase and doesn't elsewhere specify that it's a "Spirit" or has one.

As for the Odes of Solomon, In Spirit Epicleses in the Acts of Thomas
, Susan E. Myers seems to see the Spirit of Providence as synonymous with God's Spirit in the Odes. I guess that this is logical - ie that the "Spirit" that is associated with God's Providence/Foresight/Supervision is God's "Spirit", the "Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit certainly plays a key role in world history and destiny. She writes:

The Spirit appears elsewhere in the Odes, not only in doxologies (Ode 23) or together with the Father and the Son (in the intriguing and difficult Ode 19), but also as the one who speaks through and inspires the odist (Odes 6:2; 14:8), who is worthy of praise (Odes 6:7; 13:2), and who exalts the odist to a heavenly place (Ode 36). When one is anointed, one is established in the "Spirit of providence" (Ode 3).

Commenting on Ode 36:8 (And my approach was in peace, and I was established in the Spirit of Providence.), in A Formcritical Study of Selected Odes of Solomon
, Gerald R. Blaszczak writes:

According to the loose parallelism of the verse, his being brought near is comparable to his being "established, settled, firmly set," 'strrt. As it was the Spirit of the Lord who rested upon him, and who lifted him up and placed him in the divine presence, as it was the Spirit, presumably, who bore him and made him (vss 3,5), so it is the Spirit who is identified as the agent by whom he was established, brought near in peace. The Spirit is here characterized as the Spirit of providence, mdbrnwt; it is the Spirit who has brought about the events described, the Spirit who acts according to the plan or providence of the Lord.

I take this to mean that the "Spirit of Providence" refers to God's Spirit, not that Providence is its own separate Spirit. In the passage above, Balszczak is referring to how in the earlier part of Ode 36 (vv. 1-5), the narrator talks about the Lord's Spirit:

I rested on the Spirit of the Lord, and She lifted me up to heaven;

And caused me to stand on my feet in the Lord's high place, before His perfection and His glory, where I continued glorifying Him by the composition of His Odes.

The Spirit brought me forth before the Lord's face, and because I was the Son of Man, I was named the Light, the Son of God;

Because I was the most glorified among the glorious ones, and the greatest among the great ones.

For according to the greatness of the Most High, so She made me; and according to His newness He renewed me.

"She" here is the Lord's "Spirit".

The term "Spirit" seems like a pretty broad term with different meanings according to the Topic entry on BibleHub (https://biblehub.com/topical/s/spirit.htm) for it. I guess that considering this broadness, it can be said that "Providence" is a "Spirit" in some sense of the word.

ATS Bible Dictionary
Spirit

A word employed in various senses in Scripture.
...
4. An ANGEL, good or bad; a soul separate from the body, Mark 14:26. It is said, Acts 23:8, that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits. Christ, appearing to his disciples, said to them, Luke 24:39, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
...
5. The DISPOSITION of the mind or intellect. Thus we read of a spirit of jealously, a spirit of fornication, a spirit of prayer, a spirit of infirmity, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of fear of the Lord, Hosea 4:12 Zechariah 12:10 Luke 13:11 Isaiah 11:2.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary includes these meanings:

6. (n.) Any supernatural being, good or bad; an apparition; a specter; a ghost; also, sometimes, a sprite,; a fairy; an elf.



7. (n.) Energy, vivacity, ardor, enthusiasm, courage, etc.
9. (n.) Temper or disposition of mind; mental condition or disposition; intellectual or moral state; -- often in the plural; as, to be cheerful, or in good spirits; to be downhearted, or in bad spirits.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary says:

By extension when applied to a person ruah [;jWr] comes to mean vital powers or strength. It is the spirit that sustains a person through illness ( Prov 18:14 ), but the spirit of the troubled person can be crushed ( Psalm 34:18 ). This dynamic force can be impaired or diminished as well as renewed or increased. It was a drink that caused the spirit (strength [sunistavw]) of Samson to return and revive him ( Jud 15:18-19 ) and the coming of the wagons from Egypt that revived Jacob's numb heart ( Gen 45:26-27 ). Spirit also bespeaks limitations. When taken back, the person returns to dust ( Psalm 104:29-30 ).



The spirit of the Lord is the creative power of life ( Psalm 33:6 ). When it descends on the judges it activates and enables them to do great exploits ( Judges 3:10 ; 14:6 ). By contrast, there is no spirit in idols of wood and stone. They are inert and have no power to awake and arise ( Hab 2:19 ).



Ruah can also refer to feelings. The queen of Sheba was left breathless when she saw the wisdom and wealth of Solomon ( 1 Kings 10:5 ). She was overcome by astonishment. Eliphaz accuses Job of venting his anger on God ( Job 15:13 ). Ahab was dispirited and sullen because of Naboth's unwillingness to sell his vineyard ( 1 Kings 21:4 ). "Shortness" of spirit is impatience, whereas "longness" of spirit is patience ( Prov 14:29 ). To be proud in spirit is to be arrogant ( Eccl 7:8 ). The suspicious husband is said to have a (fit) spirit of jealousy ( Numbers 5:14 Numbers 5:30 ).

Ruah can also refer to the will. Those whose spirits God had stirred up went up to rebuild the temple ( Ezr 1:5 ). Caleb had a different spirit from the other spies ( Num 14:24 ) and thus was resolute in his assessment relative to the conquest of the land. The psalmist prays for a steadfast spirit ( Psalm 51:10 ).

Since Ruah/Spirit can refer to the "will", then it fits what St. John Damascene said: "Providence is Divine will which maintains everything and wisely rules over everything..."
The ISB Encyclopedia includes similar definitions:

(2) human feelings of various kinds, as anger (Judges 8:3 Proverbs 29:11), desire (Isaiah 26:9), courage (Joshua 2:11);

(3) intelligence (Exodus 28:3 Isaiah 29:24);

(4) general disposition (Psalms 34:18; 5l:17; Proverbs 14:29; 16:18; 29:23).

I feel like this information answers the Question. As far as Josephus' passages on Fate, he doesn't clearly show that he thinks that "Fate" is a being. He is writing to a Greek audience, and the "Fates" were part of Greek mythology as gods, but Josephus didn't believe in their mythology. He easily could have been referring to Fate metaphorically as "she":

whether fortune have not greater power than all prudent reasonings;
whence we are persuaded that human actions are thereby determined beforehand by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Fate, because there is nothing which is not done by her;

On closer inspection, he is defining Fate as "an inevitable necessity", not as a literal being.

Likewise, when he considers "whether fortune have not greater power than all prudent reasonings;
", he is not saying that Fortune is a literal being, because earlier in Book XVI, Josephus wrote about Herod: "In truth, a divine power had given him a great many instances of good fortune
". Here, fortune is a result, a set of events, and they are caused by the divine power. This would not fit with fortune being itself a being. Beings are not "caused" so much as created.

Also, in Book 16, Chapter 3:2 (Manuscript Section 73), I don't think that Josephus wrote that "Divine Providence" conferred advantages on Herod as Whiston translated it, but as "divine power" as Loeb's translated it, because I don't see "pronoia" (Providence/Fate) in the Greek text, δαιμόνιον is a noun meaning divine power / Divinity (according to www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=daimo%2Fnion&la=greek&can=daimo%2Fnion0&prior=to\), and because Loeb's translation is usually better. Here is the Greek:

τῷ γὰρ ὄντι πλεῖστα μὲν καὶ παρ᾽ ἐλπίδας τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς εὐτυχίαν (good luck, success) αὐτῷ τὸ δαιμόνιον (divine power / Divinity) προσετίθει, μέγιστα δὲ τῶν οἴκοι καὶ μηδὲ προσδοκώμενα δυστυχεῖν αὐτῷ συνέβαινεν, ἑκατέρου προϊόντος ὡς οὐκ ἄν τις ᾠήθη καὶ παρέχοντος ἀμφήριστον τὴν ὑπερβολήν, εἰ...

Loeb's translation
In truth, a divine power had given him a great many instances of good fortune, even more than he had hoped for, in external affairs...

So he was saying that a Divine power gave Herod good fortune, not that "Providence" did.

[rakovsky]

May 16, 2019 18:59:06 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 12) What do you think about Josephus' claim that defendants' calling on God in court to prove their innocence is a sign that they are guilty? Why wouldn't an innocent person say an open loud prayer before a court asking the Lord to prove his innocence?

To say it is a sign of either guilt or innocence is nonsense. There are those who do so for show, so that men might think them innocent ecause they appealed to God. Remember Bill Clinton? Every time he got in trouble (which was often) he would find the biggest Bible he could and get photographed by a sycophantic media in front of a church with the pastor. That kind of show is insulting to both God and our own intelligence. On the other hand, I agree with you that an innocent man might pray for deliverance.

Yes, Dan, I agree. It looks like a "common sense" issue. A person could be innocent and accused in court and face a severe penalty, and in court be overcome with emotion, crying aloud to God for salvation and for their innocence to be proven. Lots of emotional unexpected things happen in court that go against court rules, and there are times when people are so overcome with emotion that they pray aloud, and innocent people can easily pray that false accusations are disproven. I really don't see how praying for innocence to be proven in court proves that the praying person is guilty.
Josephus claims:

Antipater fell down on his face, and appealed to God and to all men for testimonials of his innocency, desiring that God would declare, by some evident signals, that he had not laid any plot against his father.
This being the usual method of all men destitute of virtue, that [despite not caring about God when they sin,]...when once they are found out, and are in danger of undergoing the punishment due to their crimes, they endeavor to overthrow all the evidence against them by appealing to God
...

But actually, Josephus is not saying that this is a sign that the person is guilty. I misread the passage. Rather, Josephus is claiming that men destitute of virtue have this as their usual method, where they try to refute the evidence by appealing to God.
So actually one could imagine that this is not really a sign because as you said, both the guilty and the innocent can do this.
But still, there is another problem: Josephus is making it sound like this is a "usual method", whereas in fact, I don't think that it is. A guilty person who has no virtue could insist that they are innocent and could appeal to God for proof of it, but I don't think that this is a usual method.
I think that many people with no virtue would just not bring up God when it comes to the topic of their own judgment. 

[rakovsky]

Also regarding Questions 7 and 10 (about Hyrcanus' and the Gadarenes' suicides), I found the Haaretz article "The Myth of Masada: How Reliable Was Josephus, Anyway?", in which Elon Gilad theorizes that the story of suicide at Masada was invented. I feel that there is at least a grain of truth in Gilad's comments, because I agree that the speech by Ben-Yair at Masada couldn't be recorded very accurately:

But even granting the possibility that Josephus did have sources for the events that transpired, it does seem a bit suspicious that the end of the siege at Masada is so similar to the end of the siege at Yodfat in his telling. Furthermore, Josephus provides a beautiful speech allegedly made by the leader of the Sacarrii, Eleazar Ben-Yair, to the bravest of his men: “We have it in our power to die nobly and in freedom. Our fate at the break of day is certain capture, but there is still the free choice of a noble death with those we hold most dear.”

Josephus clearly made up this speech, since by his own telling, all those who would have heard the speech would have killed themselves.

We must conclude that Josephus had no problem making stuff up. This is not surprising. It was the norm among ancient historians to sacrifice truth and accuracy for beauty and rhetoric.

Indeed, the decision of vanquished warriors to kill themselves rather than fall into the hands of their enemies was rather a recurring motif among ancient historians, appearing in many histories (Prof. Shaye Cohen of the Harvard Divinity School compiled a list of 16 examples in an article published in 1982). It is not a stretch to imagine that Josephus would borrow this theme from one of these other histories and apply it to the Sacarrii in order to make them, and by extension Jews, seem more noble and praiseworthy in the eyes of the Romans. After all, this is clearly the goal of his books.

It is likely then that the mass suicide atop Masada was made up by Josephus. Indeed, at least some of the details of the story provided by Josephus have not been supported by archaeological excavation at Masada.

I guess that there could have been some survivors who later told the contents of Ben-Yair's speech, but this doesn't seem realistic. It seems more likely that Gilad is right about Josephus using suicide as a motif for defeated or outmatched warriors. It doesn't mean that all his stories of suicide are mistaken, but it makes them doubtful.

[rakovsky]

May 16, 2019 19:52:57 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 13) Do you think that Matthias' idea below is correct? Should one's devotion to piety whereby death walks with them because of the piety cause one to endure death with pleasure?

Matthias was a leader in a rebellion against the most powerful nation with the best led army on earth. He was speaking as a motivator of his men as well as letting his foe know this was not going to be easy. Keep your morale up and the enemies down.

And that aside, men have always found there are things worth dieing for. There have always been Americans who would die for freedom. And there are many who will die for their beliefs.

So yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Matthias. He isn’t saying they look for martyrdom. He’s saying if that is what their lot is to be, then they will embrace it willingly. And that kind of army is to be feared. These are not suicide bombers serving a demon. They are the Army of the Living God, and by His grace they will fight and if necessary die, taking many with them. And if captured, tortured, and killed they will not renounce their God giving obeisance to some demon.

Sure, Dan, what you are saying makes sense, that he is being a motivator and that there are things that people would die for, and that they embrace martyrdom as their lot. Still, I am looking for something more specifically as to whether the concept of death walking with someone because of piety should lead them to endure death with pleasure, as Matthias' declaration goes:

• "...And with pleasure we will endure death or whatever punishment you may inflict on us because we shall be conscious that death walks with us not because of any wrongdoing on our part but because of our devotion to piety."
  

In the speech, he is not saying that walking with death, by itself, makes them happy, but rather it gives them pleasure in that they receive death as a result of their piety. That is, their piety is so important and sacred to them, that suffering death is pleasurable when they know that the death comes as a result of it. 
Piety is an extremely good, moral thing to which he was devoted, and since in his case he was receiving death as a result of the piety, the death made him happy as it was the result of a good, moral thing.

In Josephus' other telling of the story, in Wars Book I, Matthias answers Herod's question ('And why so exultant, when you will shortly be put to death?'
) with: "'Because, after our death, we shall enjoy greater felicity.'"


One explanation that comes from putting these two passages in Josephus together is that they are happy because suffering for their piety entails that after their deaths they will enjoy greater happiness. Otherwise, why would they enjoy greater felicity than now? You could say that due to piety they will receive greater happiness as a reward in the Afterlife. Along with this, their death comes to them as a result of their piety.  If they simply were pious but did not suffer, they would naturally be reward by God in the Afterlife. But it seems that since they suffer for their piety, then God must reward them for that. God demands obedience for His people and rewards piety in the Afterlife, and in Matthias' case the suffering and death resulted from the piety that brought them the reward in the Afterlife. Had they not been pious, they would not have suffered, but nor would they receive their reward for piety in the Afterlife. So it could be that considering that suffering and death by themselves would be negative, like a punishment, then God would have to give some reward that compensates for this suffering.

Along with this explanation, in contrast, if they failed to observe piety, they would not receive a reward in the Afterlife. I suppose that in this case the pious person is faced with a choice of whether to (A) accept piety, suffering, and receive a reward in the Afterlife, or (B) reject piety, reject suffering, and fail to receive a reward (or even be punished in the afterlife). So when faced with this dilemma, in Matthias' explanation, the suffering brings him pleasure in that it is associated with his piety and expectation of a future reward.

The issue of reward for suffering reminds me of Hebrews 11:35, where Paul writes:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
...And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35. Women received their dead raised to life again.

Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36. Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, [k]were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— 38. of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.

39. And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40. God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

Greg Koukl theorizes in "Obtaining a Better Resurrection" that a person's spiritual strength transfers into the Afterlife, so that the person who became enriched by persevering through adversity in this lifetime will receive a greater spiritual reward:

What does this term "better resurrection" mean? Well, it seems from other passages that there is a suggestion that the quality of spirituality, the fitness of our souls, in the after life, in the resurrection, is somehow commiserate with the spiritual exercise that we do in this life. This is why Paul made the comment there to Timothy about physical exercise vs. spiritual exercise, which he calls godliness.



When it comes to this phrase "obtaining a better resurrection" I suspect what that means is that because they were allowed to suffer for their faith their spiritual selves were being built up and strengthened and increased, brought to a deeper or a richer maturity. Paul talks about this in other passages, as well, when he talks about his physical body as wearing down or being beaten up. But his spiritual man, his inner man, is being built up and is flourishing. So it looks like God gives opportunities through suffering to increase the flourishing of our spiritual selves.



This is, by the way, almost the universal testimony of Christians who have survived deep personal conflict and pain and suffering. They reflect on it and they know intuitively that what has been accomplished, as God has worked through them, is the deepening of their spiritual nature and an enrichment and maturing of their inner selves, their inner man, and they wouldn't want to exchange that for anything, even if it meant that they wouldn't have to go through the pain that they went through.



This allows us to look at our trials and tribulations not as a curse, but as a grace because God is giving us an opportunity to grow in the inner man in a way that will have eternal implications and consequences--a kind of growth that we wouldn't have been able to have if He didn't allow us to go through this, and a kind of growth we wouldn't have been able to catch up with in the after life. It's a one shot deal in these circumstances, and I suspect that this is why we are encouraged in the Scriptures to engage suffering, to embrace it and trust God and live godly through the process. Peter says in 1 Peter 4, "I believe that for those who suffer according to the will of God we are to entrust ourselves to a faithful Creator in doing what is right." Maybe this is an answer to the question.

I read a theory that Heb. 11:35 about receiving a better resurrection was connected with 2 Macc. 7, which describes the martyrdom of a youth under Antiochus' rule who refused to eat pork:

7. After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?” 8. He replied in the language of his ancestors and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. 9. And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”

That is, as a reward for his dying for God's laws, God will raise him and his brothers to "an everlasting renewal of life." In 2 Maccabees 7, the youth is not just saying that he will be rewarded for his piety in the Afterlife, but specifically that he will be rewarded for dying for God's Laws, which goes beyond the explanations of Matthias that Josephus quoted. However, the declaration by the youth in 2 Macc. would justify Matthias' declaration. ie. the concept of being rewarded for dying for God's laws would explain why Matthias would assert that he will enjoy greater happiness in the afterlife.

So it looks to me like Matthias' idea in the Antiquities is correct, but it needs more explanation in order to make it more understandable. Sure one's devotion to piety whereby death walks with them because of the piety should tend to cause one to endure death with pleasure, at least in some sense, like in the sense that they will have an expectation that God will give them a greater reward as a result of their perseverence.

In the Saint Eufemia story, the pagan judge has Christians watch the deaths of martyrs to get them to apostasize, but Eufemia says that it is her "pleasure" to go to martyrdom "tofore" (before) the saints:

...when Eufemia saw even thus tofore her the holy saints, she was the more constant by the steadfastness of the martyrs, and spoke to the judge, and said that she suffered wrong of him. Then the judge was glad, weening that she would have consented to do sacrifice, and when he demanded of her what wrong he had done to her, she said to him: For sith I am of noble lineage, why puttest thou tofore me the strangers and unknown, and makest them go to Christ tofore me? For it were my pleasure to go thither by martyrdom tofore them.
(Golden Legend – Life of Saint Eufemia)

I think that this doesn't give much detailed explanation, but it does suggest the idea of suffering in some sense being a pleasure. Like here in the passage above, she is not scared away by watching the martyrdom, but rather wants to make it come on sooner for her.

In the story of the 3rd or 4th century martyrdom of Agapius in "Martyrs of Palestine", Agapius' declaration reminds me of those of the martyrs in 2 Macc. 7 and in JosephusthatI quoted earlier:

6. But the athlete of religion was first summoned by the tyrant and promised liberty if he would deny his profession. But he testified with a loud voice that, not for any fault, but for the religion of the Creator of the universe, he would readily and with pleasure endure whatever might be inflicted upon him.

7. Having said this, he joined the deed to the word, and rushed to meet a bear which had been let loose against him, surrendering himself most cheerfully to be devoured by him.

Rev. Lawrence Porter in "St. Lawrence’s Deathon a Grill: Fact or Fiction?" quotes St Ignatius' sense that his mistreatment was making him more into a disciple but that more had to happen to "justify" him, and that he would be eaten with pleasure:

Ignatius of Antioch was fed to the lions. On his way to Rome, under armed guards, he wrote a letter to the church at Rome regarding his end there, saying:"From Syria all the way to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts,on land and sea, by night and day, chained amidst ten leopards(that is, a company of soldiers) who only get worse when they are well-treated. Yet because of their mistreatment I ambecoming more of a disciple: nevertheless I am not thereby justified. May I have the pleasure of the wild beasts that havebeen prepared for me; and I pray that they prove to be prompt with me. I will even coax them to devour me quickly."

N. Verbin gives a weird, unhealthy-sounding interpretation of embracing martyrdom in "Martyrdom: A Philosophical Perspective":

Boyarin considers the righteous person’s loving submission to God, his “afflictions of love,” and Rabbi Aqiva’s martyrdom as instances of Jewish masochism. Appealing to Dr Ruth Stein’s statement that “the abuse, humiliation, despair, and the terrible no-exit dependency on a powerful malevolent or opaque other [may be generative of] what later becomes a masochistic personality,” he states: We discover this element here at the psychosocial level, where God has apparently sent suffering without cause, that is we find here such a no-exit dependency on an opaque Other, and the response is – as in clinical masochism – eroticisation of the pain itself. ... Not only does the pain undergo a process of eroticisation but it is also transformed into pleasure, according to Boyarin. Relying on Jessica Ben- jamin, he states: “. . . the already existing pain is transformed into pleasure through interpreting it and experiencing it as submission to an idealized figure.”
...

I feel like Verbin is overdoing the issue of pleasure in pain. It's not that the martyr is enjoying the pain itself directly, it's pleasure in hope of reward. Maybe it is hard to explain the problem in Verbin's logic. Maybe the pain is a sign that the person is achieving martyrdom and therefore can expect a reward. This is kind of a weird issue anyway, which is why I asked the question in the first place. It reminds me more of something that I saw in a war movie once, where someone referred to the experience of being wounded in combat by saying that "Pain is good because it means that you are alive." It's not that the soldier wants to be in pain for the sake of pain, but it has a positive aspect in that it shows the wounded soldier that he is still alive. 
Verbin makes more sense when he tries to categorize Rabbi Akiva's martyrdom:

Both Talmudic versions emphasise that Rabbi Aqiva did experience the pain of his execution and that despite the horrendous pain was at peace, considering the pain and the loss of life as a loving sacrifice to God, which provides him with the opportunity to love God as fully as possible. Rabbi Aqiva was “neither a sorcerer nor a mocker.” He was neither Maimonidean nor free of pain when dying to sanctify God’s name. To summarise, we may distinguish four different types of martyrs on the basis of their differing relations to the torture that they endure: (i) the mystic-martyr, who does not feel the pain of his execution; (ii) the Socratic or Maimonidean martyr, who feels the pain of his execution but who ascribes no significance to the pain; (iii) the masochistic martyr, who feels the pain and ascribes significance to the pain but nevertheless desires the pain in and of itself, experiencing it as pleasure; and (iv) the “exemplary martyr,” the martyr who feels the pain and ascribes significance to his pain, considering it an offence that compromises his happiness but nevertheless rejoicing at the prospect of enduring the pain as a means of expressing his love for God, which provides him with the opportunity to love God fully, with his whole heart and soul. The death of such a martyr, which is depicted in the Talmudic narratives about Rabbi Aqiva’s execution, reveals extraordinary love and commitment towards God. Characterising such a manner of dying as “exemplary” is presupposing a conceptual link between “love” and “giving up” or “sacrificing,” supposing that the greater one’s sacrifices are for one’s beloved, the greater one’s love is for one’s beloved. Compromising the integrity of the body, enduring torture is assumed to be a great sacrifice. Losing one’s life, dying for one’s beloved is assumed to be the greatest sacrifice, which marks the epitome of love.

It seems like Matthias would be something like category IV, since he would feel pain, ascribe significance to it, and rejoice over enduring it in association with his piety for God.


The "AKATHIST TO THE HOLY GREAT MARTYR AND HEALER PANTELEIMON" distinguishes implicitly between earthly pleasure and spiritual pleasure, saying that Panteleimon gave up the former. So the martyr would not be getting some kind of earthly, masochistic pleasure out of his death. It could only be in some spiritual sense, like looking forward to a future reward:

Seeing you to be a chosen vessel, the Lord loved the beauty of your soul; for, despising all earthly glory and pleasure, you longed to adorn yourself with the crown of martyrdom, wounded with divine love and singing inspiringly: Alleluia!
... Rejoice, you who gave away everything to obtain Christ! Rejoice, you who vanquished love for the world by love for God! Rejoice, for instead of the pleasures of the world you accepted for Christ cruel sufferings! Rejoice, for you became a partner of Christ's Passion! Rejoice, you who overcame all the passions! Rejoice, you who through Grace were adorned with dispassion!
... Rejoice, you who despised earthly pleasures! Rejoice, you who were above material comforts! Rejoice, for you regarded as nothing all the beautiful things in this world! Rejoice, for you shook yourself free of fleeting glory! Rejoice, you who remained free from the nets of the devil! Rejoice, you who vanquished the wiles of the torturers! Rejoice, you who did not spare your life for Christ! Rejoice, you who were shown to be an enemy of hostile flesh! Rejoice, you who oppressed the spread of polytheism! Rejoice, you who by the power of God defeated the idols!

Here, it says for St. Panteleimon to rejoice because he accepted suffering for Christ and became a partner in Christ's Passion. So the idea in common with Matthias' situation is that in both cases, the martyr is suffering for God and rejoicing for that.

St. Cyprian addresses this issue in Epistle 55, pointing to the Sermon on the Mount's words about rejoicing when one suffers:

And again He says, Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and shall separate you from their company, and shall cast you out, and shall reproach your name as evil for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy; for, behold your reward is great in heaven.


3. The Lord desired that we should rejoice and leap for joy in persecutions, because, when persecutions occur, then are given the crowns of faith, then the soldiers of God are proved then the heavens are opened to martyrs. For we have not in such a way given our name to warfare that we ought only to think about peace and draw back from and refuse war, when in this very warfare the Lord walked first—the Teacher of humility, and endurance, and suffering—so that what He taught to be done, He first of al did, and what He exhorts to suffer, He Himself first suffered for us.

So I think that the answer to the question is that there are some indirect ways, aspects and senses in which Matthias was right to see pleasure in his martyrdom, although not in the martyrdom by itself. It was not an issue of him enjoying the martyrdom itself or looking for suffering.

[rakovsky]

May 16, 2019 19:52:57 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 14) What do you think about Josephus' prophetic or ominous story about Glaphyra's dream? Do you believe that the dead can actually visit the living in their sleep?

Ecclesiastes 9:5 (ESV) For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

Isaiah 8:19 (ESV) And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?

That one would apply to prayers to saints as well.

1 Timothy 4:1 (ESV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

My personal belief is that those are demons who give prophetic dreams to the ungodly. Demons can guess future events with some accuracy. Any time you are dealing with spirits not of God, they are demons.

Dan C

1 John 4:1 (ESV) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Dan, I asked you what you thought about the story and whether the dead can visit the living in their sleep, so your answer is not "wrong".
However, I think that Ecclesiastes 9 does not really rule this out. It says that the dead know nothing and get no more reward, but this part of Ecclesiastes I think is used as a Socratic inverse or straw man of the narrator's beliefs. At least this is my take on the Book of Ecclesiastes. The "preacher" in the story says provocative statements like these, saying that everything is vanity, and seemingly encouraging spiritual carelessness as a result, but then when it gets to the end, the narrator explains that the words of the wise are like "goads", which seems to suggest that the preacher's words like Chp. 9:5 are provocative "goads" meant to get the reader to engage with the topic. The Book ends with the preacher or the narrator implying that the souls of people go to God and that God gives everyone their reward, which contradicts the idea in 9:5 that there is basically nothing beyond the grave and no reward for the dead, since apparently many people die without getting the spiritual rewards that they desire for their works on earth.

Also, Isaiah 8 doesn't rule out the possibility of the deceased communicating things to the living, like in Glaphyra's dream. Rather, Isaiah is warning against using mediums for living people to communicate inquiries to the dead, which would be in the opposite direction.

1 Timothy and 1 John warn against trusting false spirits, but they don't say that spirits of the dead can't communicate things to the living.

Actually, as a matter of literary interpretation, my take on the story of Samuel, Saul, and the Witch of Endor is that Saul really succeeded in contacting Samuel's ghost. The story openly presents Samuel as the being whom the Witch saw, rather than presenting the being as a demon. The problem in the summoning was rather that Saul used a medium to communicate with Samuel in violation of the .

So conceivably God could allow the deceased to communicate with the living, the story of Saul and the Witch being one such instance. But to theorize that the deceased, without the request of the living like that of Saul, can visit the living in dreams seems like a different issue. I don't remember any other such dream-visitation cases in Jewish or Christian religious literature, but it seems like such cases might exist. Of course, I guess that even if they were found to exist, you could still choose to disbelieve the stories as scientifically or theologically unlikely, etc. I feel like more could or should be said on this Question.

In the case of Glaphyra, a psychologist could theorize that her body could sense that she was nearing death, and that she also felt guilt over remarrying twice after her marriage to Alexander, and so these factors provide a naturalistic explanation for Glaphyra's dream.

[rakovsky]

Also about Question 14, Josephus provided an earlier account of Glaphyra's dream in Wars of the Jews Book II:

I cannot also but think it worthy to be recorded what dream Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, had, who had at first been wife to Alexander, who was the brother of Archelaus, concerning whom we have been discoursing. This Alexander was the son of Herod the king, by whom he was put to death, as we have already related. This Glaphyra was married, after his death, to Juba, king of Libya; and, after his death, was returned home, and lived a widow with her father. Then it was that Archelaus, the ethnarch, saw her, and fell so deeply in love with her, that he divorced Mariamne, who was then his wife, ,and married her. When, therefore, she was come into Judea, and had been there for a little while, she thought she saw Alexander stand by her, and that he said to her; "Thy marriage with the king of Libya might have been sufficient for thee; but thou wast not contented with him, but art returned again to my family, to a third husband; and him, thou impudent woman, hast thou chosen for thine husband, who is my brother. However, I shall not overlook the injury thou hast offered me; I shall [soon] have thee again, whether thou wilt or no." Now Glaphyra hardly survived the narration of this dream of hers two days.

In Unveiling the Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Margaret S. King notes that in the dream, Alexander rebuked Hlaphyra

for marrying his brother in defiance of the law outlined in Leviticus 18:16. The law states a man cannot marry his brother's widow unless there were no children involved... If there were children, he was forbidden from considering such a marital union. Glaphyra was so terrified of her dream that she died from shock two days later.

In Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, on the other hand, Robert Karl Gnuse notes that Glaphyra was not Jewish. It seems strange then that she would be punished for violating this ritual section of the . Gnuse writes that

The prediction of the future by a deceased person in a dream is very typically Greek, and nothing is really equivalent to it in the biblical tradition. ... The Greek style of this dream contrasts with Archelaus' dream, for now visual symbols capable of interpretation have been replaced by a dream image speaking a message.

I think that Gnuse is making a good theory that whereas Glaphyra's husband Archelaus was Jewish and had a dream with a Jewish style (Gnuse goes into more detail about this in his book), Glaphyra's dream matched a Greek style, due to the theme of a deceased person making a prediction. Gnuse theorizes that the dream shows that her marriage was a moral violation.

There is kind of a weird issue with the story of the dream, wherein Glaphyra hugs Alexander, showing her love, and Alexander's response, despite his rebuke of her, also includes a strange blessing- that her death will take away her at her mistake and she will go to be with Alexander. So in a sense, the death was not really necessarily portrayed as fully bad. In fact, based on the logic of Alexander's declaration in the dream, living on in would seem to be worse.

Derek Dodson in Reading Dreams notes that Josephus gives a rationale for including the dream in the Antiquities, ie. that

they provide examples of the immortality of the soul and God's providence in human affairs. Then, as if anticipating an objection, [Josephus] states, 'Such things can be disbelieved by anyone, but while having his own opinion he should not hinder the one who adds them for the purpose of virtue.'

This pretty much characterizes what I found about her dream online. There is not much commentary about it.



Flannery-Dailey, in his book Dreamers, theorizes that Judaism had a concept that the deceased could function as messengers in dreams, that this is in “true Graeco-Roman fashion", and that this concept “would be anathema to biblical authors.” (SOURCE: LIEN-YUEH WEI, DOCTRINALISING DREAMS: PATRISTIC VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF DREAMS AND THEIR RELATION TO EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES ) Lien-Yueh Wei doesn't really go into what would make the concept anathema, but she makes a good note that the Bible doesn't contain any explicit narrations of such stories.

In "Communication with the Dead in Jewish Dream Culture", Galit Hasan-Roke notes:

There are numerous and varied appearances of the dead in dreams in rabbinic literature. ... in the Palestinian Talmud (Ma 'aser Sheni 4-5)...

A man came to Rabbi Yossi ben-Halafta and told him: I saw in my dream that I was told: Go to Cappadocia and you will find your father's fortune . He [Rabbi Yossi] asked: Did that man's [the dreamer's] father ever go to Cappadocia in his lifetime? H e answered : No . H e [Rabb i Yossi] said to him: Go and count ten rafters in your house and you will find your father' s fortune under rafter kappa.


The interpretation of Rabbi Yossi seems to refer to the position of the Greek
letter kappa in the alphabet as tenth, rather than to its numerical value, twenty,
 paralleling the numerical system practiced in the Hebrew alphabet . (In the Babylonian Talmud version , Berakhot 55b, "kappa" is interpreted as the term for the rafter and the number ten is derived from the end of the word "docia" —"deka").

It's hard for me to judge how common these stories are in rabbinic tradition, but I noticed that Galit Hasan-Roke cited another story, involving Rav Seorim, Rava, and Rav Nahman.

Perpetua was a famous Christian martyr of the 3rd century AD. Lien-Yueh Wei, in his dissertation, "Doctrinalizing Dreams", writes about the story of one of her dreams before she was martyred:

In her second dream Perpetua saw her long-dead younger brother Dinocrates,

who had died horribly of cancer of the face at the age of seven, coming out of a gloomy place where there were many others. He was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy, pallid colour countenance and the wound on his face which he had when he
died. “Where Dinocrates stood there was a pool full of water, and its rim was higher
than the child’s height,” so that he could not drink. After knowing his current
situation by this dream, Perpetua prayed for him every day, and believed that her
prayer would mitigate his suffering. A few days later, she learned through a message
in another dream that the condition of Dinocrates had greatly improved. Owing to the
efficacy of her intercession by prayer, he was now clean, well dressed and refreshed.
Even the dark place turned bright and “that pool had its rim lowered to the level of
the child’s waist.” He began to play as children do.28


It was through the divine messages in the second and third dream that
Perpetua realised that she, as a martyr, had acquired a special patronal relationship

with the Lord, and also a privilege that made her capable of making supplication to
Him on behalf of others, including the deceased. Thus she could bring divine mercy
to them through her intercession, which could even ameliorate the dead’s suffering in
the place outside this world.29 She now understood that her suffering and martyrdom
would benefit not only herself, but also others. It was also through these two dreams
that the state of the dead boy was witnessed by the living (probably for the first time
in Church history), and then comprehended by church fathers through Perpetua’s
dream diary. Augustine even appropriated the accounts of these two dreams for his
argument regarding the afterlife.

Lien-Yueh Wei notes that St. Athanasius the Great theorized then when people were asleep they could meet angels or saints. In contrast, Augustine disputed this perception:

Augustine acknowledged both the phenomenon that people in their dreams
can see the appearance of the dead, or learn things which they did not know from the
dead, and the phenomenon that some prophetic or admonitory messages imparted by
the dead in dreams can be true. However, he insisted that what the dreamers see are
actually the images or resemblances of the dead, rather than the real souls or bodies
of the dead. These phenomena happen never by the workings of the dead, but by the
workings of angels through the images of the dead, with the command or permission
of God. The dead themselves have nothing to do with these phenomena, and can
never know that their appearances have been seen by the living in dreams. Hence,
these phenomena can verify neither that the dead are able to relay messages to people,
nor that they hold the capability of intruding into the lives of people.73


Augustine provided a dream report, with which he was associated, as an example to clarify his argument. One day when Eulogius, Augustine’s disciple and a rhetorician at Carthage, was reviewing a lecture on a rhetorical work of Cicero intended for delivery the following day, he came upon an obscure passage and could not determine its exact meaning. During the night, Augustine, while his body remained in Milan, appeared in Eulogius’ dream, and expounded the passage to him. However, after returning from Milan to Carthage and hearing this dream reported by Eulogius, Augustine stressed that it was not him or his soul, but his image which was beheld by Eulogius in the dream, for he himself was far across the sea at that moment, engaged in other matters and ignorant of Eulogius’ concerns. He deserved no credit for helping Eulogius, as he was not involved in any part of the process.

Some dream reports may convince people of the possibility that the dead can
enter into people’s dreams. Nonetheless, the phenomenon of the dead appearing in
people’s dreams does not necessarily denote either that this happens by the power of
the dead, or that the dead seen represent the real body or soul of the dead. In any case,
the dead whom a dreamer sees in dreams are only likenesses or images which result
from divine dispensation, or merely from the imagination of the dreamer.

Wei notes that

On the other hand, some church fathers held this belief [in the dead visiting the living in dreams]. For example, Potamiaena, after his death (martyrdom), appeared in the dreams of the living in order to exhort them, according to Eusebius. Historia Ecclesiastic 6.5.7 (SC 41.93). Gregory the Great also reckoned that a saintly man after his death could appear to his followers. Dialogorum 4.49 (SC
265.168-72).

[alon]

Dec 3, 2019 19:33:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

May 16, 2019 19:52:57 GMT -8 alon said:

Ecclesiastes 9:5 (ESV) For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

Isaiah 8:19 (ESV) And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?

That one would apply to prayers to saints as well.

1 Timothy 4:1 (ESV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

My personal belief is that those are demons who give prophetic dreams to the ungodly. Demons can guess future events with some accuracy. Any time you are dealing with spirits not of God, they are demons.

Dan C

Dan, I asked you what you thought about the story and whether the dead can visit the living in their sleep, so your answer is not "wrong".
However, I think that Ecclesiastes 9 does not really rule this out. It says that the dead know nothing and get no more reward, but this part of Ecclesiastes I think is used as a Socratic inverse or straw man of the narrator's beliefs. At least this is my take on the Book of Ecclesiastes. The "preacher" in the story says provocative statements like these, saying that everything is vanity, and seemingly encouraging spiritual carelessness as a result, but then when it gets to the end, the narrator explains that the words of the wise are like "goads", which seems to suggest that the preacher's words like Chp. 9:5 are provocative "goads" meant to get the reader to engage with the topic. The Book ends with the preacher or the narrator implying that the souls of people go to God and that God gives everyone their reward, which contradicts the idea in 9:5 that there is basically nothing beyond the grave and no reward for the dead, since apparently many people die without getting the spiritual rewards that they desire for their works on earth.

Also, Isaiah 8 doesn't rule out the possibility of the deceased communicating things to the living, like in Glaphyra's dream. Rather, Isaiah is warning against using mediums for living people to communicate inquiries to the dead, which would be in the opposite direction.

1 Timothy and 1 John warn against trusting false spirits, but they don't say that spirits of the dead can't communicate things to the living.

Actually, as a matter of literary interpretation, my take on the story of Samuel, Saul, and the Witch of Endor is that Saul really succeeded in contacting Samuel's ghost. The story openly presents Samuel as the being whom the Witch saw, rather than presenting the being as a demon. The problem in the summoning was rather that Saul used a medium to communicate with Samuel in violation of the .

So conceivably God could allow the deceased to communicate with the living, the story of Saul and the Witch being one such instance. But to theorize that the deceased, without the request of the living like that of Saul, can visit the living in dreams seems like a different issue. I don't remember any other such dream-visitation cases in Jewish or Christian religious literature, but it seems like such cases might exist. Of course, I guess that even if they were found to exist, you could still choose to disbelieve the stories as scientifically or theologically unlikely, etc. I feel like more could or should be said on this Question.

In the case of Glaphyra, a psychologist could theorize that her body could sense that she was nearing death, and that she also felt guilt over remarrying twice after her marriage to Alexander, and so these factors provide a naturalistic explanation for Glaphyra's dream.

Some good points. And I agree, this would make a fascinating study if one had the time and inclination.

I always took Ecclesiastes 9:5 to mean no more earthly reward.