INTRODUCTION

This short though engaging treatise on necromancy or witchcraft ⁽¹⁾ raises far too many thorny questions than it answers. Gregory of Nyssa had intended it as a refutation to the position maintained by his illustrious predecessor, Origen. The latter's view with regard to the so-called "witch of Endor" (1Sam 28.7) maintained that she had seen Samuel instead of a demon ⁽²⁾. In this letter he sets forth the conviction that a demon had deceived Saul and presented him with a forged prophecy. Due to the brevity of Gregory's epistle and its straight-forward presentation, we find it easy to discover this central theme. Nevertheless, the relationship between the soul of a just person (in this instance, the prophet Samuel) and the tendency of evil to deceive persons is an important though delicate issue in the spiritual life. Witness, for example, the offense perceived by Eustathios of Antioch when confronted by Origen's commentary on the sorceress of Endor with regard to Christ's soul in the underworld. The latter maintained that Christ's soul was in Hades but differed from the others in that his will was not present there ⁽³⁾.

There exists little commentary upon the letter in itself by modern scholars. Despite this fact, it should be taken within the larger context of Christ's descent into hell, life after death and even the resurrection. Perhaps the most extensive contemporary treatment may be found in an article by K.A.D. Smelik ⁽⁴⁾ which situates the bishop of Nyssa's letter to his fellow bishop, Theodoxios, within the broader context of other Church Fathers and Rabbinic literature. Both Jews and Christians wrote on the same subject, that is, First Samuel, chapter twenty-eight, approximately up until the year 800. In brief, the rabbis considered necromancy wicked but admitted that the prophet Samuel was raided at Endor by a witch. On the other hand, Smelik divides Christian opinions on the matter into three categories:

I. Saul was resuscitated by a woman:

-Justin Martyer (Dialogues with Trypho: PG6.721)

-Origen (In Librum Regum homilia ii; Com. on Jn.20.42)

-Zeno of Verona

-Ambrose (Com. on Lk 1.33, PL15.1547)

-Augustine (De diversis quastionibus ad Simplic., De cura gerenda pro mortuis, De octo Dulcitii quastionibus, PL40.162f, De doctrina Christiana II, xxiii,35, Epistle 43)

-Anastasius Sinaita (PG89.581ff & 746).

II. Either Samuel or a demon in his shape appeared at God's command:

-John Chrysostom (Com. on Mat vi,3 (PG57.66), Com. on letter to Titus III,2 (PG62.678)

-Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Quast. in I Reg.28, PG.80.590; Quast. in I Paral., PG80.808

-Pseudo-Hippolytus

-Theodore bar Koni

-Isho'dad of Merv

III. A demon deceived Samuel and gave him a forged prophecy:

-Tertullian, (De Anima 57,8f)

-Pseudo-Hippolytus

-Ephrem (Com. on Sam.28 (in Opera Omnia, ed. P. Benedictus, ser. Syr.I (Rome 1737), p.387-90; n.3--Nisbian Hymn, 42,6 (CSCO 240,38f) & 57,15f(CSCO) 363,63)

-Evagrius Ponticus (Cephaleia Gnostica vi,61 (Patr.-Or.28,242f

-Pseudo-Basil (Com. on Is.8,19 (PG30.497)

-Jerome (Com. on Mat.6,31, PL26.46; Com. on Is.iii,7,11 (PL24.106)

-Philastrius

-Ambrosiaster (Quaestiones Veteri & Novi Testamenti

-Pseudo-Augustine, De mirabilibus Sacrae Scripturae ii,11(PL35.2179)

Gregory of Nyssa belongs to the third category which generally maintains that the woman had actually seen Samuel (1Sam 28.9) and not a demon in his form as the other two groups contend. Such an observation compels the reader to take a closer look at the actual text of First Samuel 28, an appeal Gregory of Nyssa makes at the beginning of his letter to his fellow bishop. This entreaty should be considered with the context of his two opening scriptural quotations, one by Christ (Mt 7.7), "Seek and you will find" followed by St. Paul (2Tm 4.13), "Attend to reading, Timothy, my son." His plea to attentiveness and a careful reading of scripture is certainly intended to impress upon his readers the necessity of not imposing their own preconceived ideas upon such a mysterious and thought provoking incident as recorded in First Samuel. To stress his intent, Gregory makes it a point to quote the unbridgeable chasm which exists between Abraham and Lazarus (Lk 16.26) because it prevented the devil from crossing as well as a person "established in the good" from crossing over to evil. Despite this insurmountable barrier, Gregory admits that demons attempt to deceive persons (to cross from the good to evil) through "omens, divinizations, oracles, rites to conjure up ghosts, ecstasies, possessions, inspirations and many other tricks." Furthermore, he singles out for condemnation sorcery (eggastrimuthos), "a form of magic believed to attract departed souls to life on high." This form which the woman at Endor has seen took on the appearance of "gods (theoi) ascending out of the earth" (vs.10). In the context of scripture "gods" represent beings from another world; by no means do they partake in attributes considered belonging to the supreme Divinity. Note that the Septuagint version has the word "gods" in the plural. Such difficulty of interpretation as revealed by this word has therefore given rise to a wide variety of misunderstandings regarding the original text as well as an equal variety of interpretations, a fact brought out by Smelik's article.

About midway through Gregory's letter we obtain a true picture of an issue even more troublesome to his mind than sorcery. This problem is articulated in the correct interpretation of scripture, something which had continued to bother all theologians down through the centuries. Gregory asks, "How can servility to the letter of the text concur with the record of history? If Samuel is truly a vision, the sorcerer indeed sees gods." In other words, Gregory does not shrink back from the difficult problem presented by 1Sam 28; rather, he seeks a correct interpretation of the text in the spirit of Mt 7.7 and 2Tm 2.7 which set the tone of his search for greater understanding in his opening paragraph. To further clarify his position, Gregory quotes Ps 96.5, "All the gods of the nations are demons." The shift of emphasis now passes from the fact that the woman had summoned up Samuel over to the literal meaning of sorcery as implied by the letter's title, Peri Eggastrimuthou. As we have already seen, the Greek term, eggastrimuthos, more specifically refers to ventriloquism, the ability to project one's voice so that it can be associated with another object or person. This literal meaning fits in well with Gregory's interpretation of the demon and the way he had deceived the woman ⁽⁵⁾, that is, by simulating (or projecting) Samuel's voice. In this fashion Gregory escapes the difficulty of having Samuel associated with evil: "If this [vision] were truly Samuel, how could he be associated with evil?" Like many of his fellow Christian commentators on this passage, the bishop of Nyssa refers to the incident of Balaam. This man was a foreign priest-diviner, though not a member of the covenant community, who nevertheless remained obedient to the Lord speaking within him. In the incident which remains particularly important for Gregory, he refers to Balaam's freedom from association with omens in Num 24.1, "He did not go, as it was his custom, to look for omens." Gregory employs this thwarted tendency for soothsaying on Balaam's part as proof that the "demon who appeared as Samuel and simulated his words, had cleverly imitated prophecy ⁽⁶⁾."

Gregory of Nyssa brings to a resolution the question of Samuel's evocation from the dead by referring to the prophet Elias whom ravens fed without "defiled bread nor meat used for idols" during his stay in the wilderness. This incident reveals the uneasy association Gregory feels between sacrifices and their perversion, for he is quick to make special reference to the book of Leviticus which gives details about sacrifices and attendant rituals. At this juncture he quickly brings his letter to Bishop Theodoxios to a close citing his conclusion, namely, "the manner by which the [Holy] Spirit is present before baptism." Gregory admits that this problem of how the Holy Spirit affects persons cannot be answered. Furthermore, no clear reference to this matter exists in Gregory's letter but it reveals a concern of his: that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Person specially responsible for inspiring all holy persons such as the prophet Samuel. Once this inspiration has firmly been rooted within a person, there is no room for any external influence such as from demons as we have seen with regard to the witch of Endor.

* * * * *

The critical edition to Peri tes Eggastrimuthou may be found in Gregorii Nysseni Opera Dogmatica Minora, pars II, edited by Hadwiga Horner (Leiden, 1987, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1987), pages 101-8. The edition by J.P. Migne may be found in volume 45 (Paris, 1858), pages 108-113.

[J.101 & M.108] [Christ] says to his disciples, "Seek and you will find" (Mt 7.7). That is, he will reveal himself both to persons who are engaged in a diligent search in accord with this command and to those persons who are seeking [faith's] hidden mysteries. He who made this promise does not lie, for he has freely lavished upon us the magnificence of his gifts which transcend all our supplications. Therefore, "Attend to reading, Timothy, my son" (1Tm 4.13). I believe it is appropriate to speak of your goodness using the great Paul's words in order that the Lord may bestow upon you understanding in all things (2Tm 2.7). In this fashion you will be rich in every word and in all knowledge (1Cor 1.5). Now allow me to attend to your request since I have thought of suggesting a few words which pertain to what the Lord had recommended to you. In this way you may learn that we are to serve each other through love and by carrying out each other's will.

Since, a proper understanding of Samuel is at this moment very important, with God's help and to the best of my ability, I will now offer [J.102] a few words. Some of our predecessors wished to consider as true Samuel's evocation [from the dead]. Furthermore, they offered their opinions on this topic because he had expressed grief over Saul's rejection (1Sam 15.35). Samuel continually besought the Lord saying, "Do you condone the witchcraft which Saul had banished from the people because it had deceived them?" For this reason the prophet was greatly vexed over the fact that the people had preferred a rejected person instead of the Lord. They [i.e., 'some of our predecessors'] claimed that God had allowed the prophet's soul to be conjured up through magic. Thus Samuel might behold the falsehood which God attributed to him because he expressed indignation [M.109] when the sorcery had conjured up his soul.

I next turn my attention to the chasm [Lk 16.26] mentioned in the Gospel which the patriarch [Abraham] said was established between evil and good persons. More accurately, the Lord of the patriarch said that the damned could not [J.103] pass over to the repose of the saints, nor could the saints pass over to them. I do not accept opinions with regard to this matter as true; only the Gospel should be trusted. Because Samuel was great among the saints and sorcery is evil, I do not believe that he who was included in [the patriarch's] repose could traverse that chasm which the impious could not bridge whether they willed it or not. Thus the devil could not freely cross the chasm and deprive the saints of holiness; he was unable to do this and could not attribute evil to anyone who did not want it. For a person established in the good cannot cross over to evil; even though a person might wish to do this, the chasm does not permit it.

What, then, is our opinion of these matters? The common enemy which is hostile to human nature watches man with the utmost attention. What are those occasions where a man can strike some one else, thereby depriving him of the life-giving God and freely abandoning him to destruction? Persons who are pre-occupied with the body and who want knowledge of the future, means by which they hope to escape evil or follow pleasure, are unmindful of God. In their treachery, demons devise many ways [to thwart such unmindfulness]: omens, divinizations, oracles, rites to conjure up ghosts, ecstasies, possessions, inspirations and many other [J.104] tricks. Any premonition considered as true but is the result of deception reveals the cunning demon, since this person has mistaken a false opinion for a correct one.

Furthermore, the devil resembles an eagle in flight. He closely watches us in order to frustrate any hope and expectation we may have; he wishes to excite us, make our ears itch, and to divert our attention. The malevolent devil imparts these signs to persons whom he has deceived through close observation. And so, demonic worship is a way of turning men away from God because they believe that demons are responsible for this action.

One such deception is sorcery [eggastrimuthos], a form of magic believed to attract departed souls to life on high. Therefore when Saul despaired at being saved from the alien tribes arrayed against him, he sought deliverance from Samuel (1Sam 28.4-5). Once the devil deceived the woman by becoming friendly with her and by using her sorcery, [M.112] he assumed numerous dark forms. However, he did not manifest himself to Saul; the phantoms which this woman's sorcery conjured up were visible only to her. At first the demon made his appearances believable while concealing (28.12) his true person [J.105]. This surprised Saul since the woman who had been deceived did not know the true power of sorcery. Because of her ignorance, she claimed to have seen gods ascending (28.13) and a man standing upright clothed with a double cloak.

How can servility to the letter of the text concur with the record of history? If Samuel is truly a vision, the sorcerer indeed sees gods. Scripture says of demons who are gods, "All the gods of the nations are demons" (Ps 96.5). Are we to equate Samuel's soul with the demons? Of course not. But any power obedient to demonic sorcery and other spirits associated with the deceived woman have indeed mislead Saul. However, she conjured up the demons through sorcery, that is, the form which Saul sought had simulated [Samuel's] voice. Also the response which the woman uttered in the spirit of prophecy seemed to be in response to an appearance. The demon rebuked [Saul] and did not want him to know the truth: "Tomorrow you and Jonathan will be with me" (28.19). If this were truly Samuel, how could he be associated with evil? But it is clear that instead of Samuel, the evil demon had appeared and said that Saul would be with him.

If scripture shows [J.106] that it was Samuel who was

speaking, we should not alter the correct understanding of the text; however, keep in mind that scripture intends these words for anyone who believes that Samuel [is speaking]. We have learned that scripture frequently relates something apparent instead of that which is real. For example, refer to Balaam: "I will hear what God will speak in me" (Num 22.19). Later on Balaam knew that he did not please God by cursing the Israelites: "He did not go, as it was his custom, to look for omens" (24.1). For it was presumptuous of Balaam to think that he could speak with the true God. Scripture further shown that Balaam confused the true God with his thoughts about him. Because of this, the demon who appeared as Samuel and simulated his words, had cleverly imitated prophecy.

Inquiry concerning Elias is unnecessary since you have failed to mention him. God ordered him to drink from the brook (1Kg 17.4), and secretly instructed him to rescind the prophet's sentence against the Israelites. [Elias] alone drank from the brook which later [M.113] ran dry. He had no other means to slack his thirst because [God] refused his request for rain, yet the brook continued to provide him with water. Ravens also served the prophet by providing food, an example which the true God used to show the trust many persons [J.107] have in his assistance. These ravens did not bring defiled bread nor meat used for idols. Impious persons employ means as these as we see in the attempt to treacherously persuade Elias, for it is not fair to hold as liable for punishment persons looking to God. If bread is brought to him early in the morning and meat in the evening, this example mysteriously symbolizes enthusiasm for the virtuous life. We should consider early morning as pertaining to the commencement of a life according to virtue. We can thus easily understand Paul when he speaks of something more perfect which is held in store for those who are perfect: "Solid food is for the perfect, or those who have their faculties exercised" (Heb 5.14).

You are not ignorant of Moses' veil, reference to which may be found in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians (1Cor 3.13-18).

As for sacrifices, you may find information by more carefully examining the book of Leviticus in its entirety and by attending to the law contained there. Thus you may comprehend the part [of the text] along with the whole, for a part cannot be clearly distinguished apart from the entire text.

Your questions about the power of evil do not offer a clear solution because the angels do not associate with that archangel who became a deserter. An army in battle array clearly [J.108] requires leadership. In this manner the question with regard to how the one can participate in the many is solved, for soldiers who have deserted their leader have a certain bearing upon the matter at hand.

Last of all, we send to your reverence, with God's assistance, our conclusion (I mean the manner by which the Spirit is present before baptism) which contains further reflections and thoughts with regard to the text.

Erich Klostermann: Origenes, Eusthathius von Antiochien, und Gregor von Nyssa uber die Hexe von Endor (Bon: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1912). Series: "Kliene Texte fur Vorlesungen und Ubungen, 83. Available from: Hellenic Studies, 3100 Whitehaven St., Wash. DC 20009. Their cat. no.: BR65.o52x 1912. (This is only the translation).

* * * * *

Lynn Thorndike: A History of Magic & Experimental Science during the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era (NY: Macmillan 1923). "Turning back now to the subj. of the witch of E, we find that some of the ch frs agree with O rather than Tertul. that the witch really invoked Sam." (p.469).

2 opp. views of O: "Without mentioning O by name, that some previfus writers have contended that S was truly invoked by magic with div permis. in order that he mite see his mistake in having called Saul the enemy of ventrioquists. But G belives that S was already in paradise & hence could not be invoked from the infermal regions; but that it was a demon from the infernal regions who predicted to Saul, "tomorrow you & Jon. shall be with me." The logner treatise of Eust of A is a direct answer to O's orgument as its title, Concenring the Vent. against O, indicates. E holds that it was illegal to consult vents. in view of Saul's own previous action against them & other prohibitions in script, & that O's remakrs are to be deplored as tending to encourage simple men to resort to arts of divin. E contends that the witch did not invoke Sam but only made Saul think that she did, & that Saul himself did not see S. Pharoah's magicians similarly deceived the imagin. with shadows & specters when the pretended to turn rods into snkaes & water into blood. E dofes notagree with O that Sam was in hell. He holds that the predictions made by the pseudo-Sam were not impossible for a demon to make, & indeed were not stricktly accurate, since Saul did not die the very next day but the day after it, and since not only Jon. but his 3 sons were slain with him. Furthermore, David was already so prominenet in public affairs that a demon mite easily guess that he would succeed Saul." p.470-1.

* * * * *

Notes from The Witch of Endor, K.A.D. Smelik (New York: North Holland, 1979), p.160-179, an article from Vigiliae Christianae 33.

At Smyrna during Decius' persecution, 250AD, priest Pionius says Jews alleged that Jesus' resur. due to necromancy. Ref. made to 1Sam 28. Here infernal daemons assumed Sam's shape & showed themselves to the woman & to Saul.

Smelik's article give survey of most important Rabbinic & Xn interps. of 1Sam 28 from period before 800AD & a comparision of ea.

In OT: S. as persecutor of all necromancers has to resort to necromancy himself. Only witch, his former adversary, willing to be kind. This pericope gave expounders of ea. age trouble but esp. from Antiquity when Biblical exegesis more determined by dogmatic reasons. Pionius raised important quest: was S. raised by witch or must we understand script. in diff. way?

Rabbis: considered necromancy wicked but possible that S. raised at Endor.

Xn opinions divided into 3 basic views:

I. S. resusitated by woman:

Justin Martyr (Dialogues with Trypho, PG6.721),

Cyril (PG68.432) refuts Sam was resuscitated; a daemon pretended to be him. But he thinks God announced S. impending death to aggravate his suffering, tho' doesn't say explicity that daemon prophesied at God's command.

Third group most authoritative. Eustathius, ch.11, says daemons can't summon sts. As Nyssa & Ambrosiaster claim, God didn't want to answer S. thru living prophets (cf. vs 6); why would he thru one raised from the dead? Nyssa says that a necromancer can only raise dead from Hell, the woman can't have raised Sam even if he would be willing to pass to Hell, because of the chasm. Cyril infers same from Rev 6.9: says souls of just in Paradise under an altar where demons can't come, so it was impossible. He reminds also of Jesus' promise, Jn 10.27-9. Since Sam was pious man, he must have been alive, thus making literal sense of 1Sam 28 absurd.

Devil can transform to righteous man, 2C 11.14f., so it's obvious that a daemon posed as Sam to deceive S. Thus he tried to give impress. that he controls ritous when dead. It'd be useless to live for God since treatment after death not diff. for pious than from wicked. Accord. to Eust., this is devil's main incentive, to worship him, not God.

Why does vs 12 say explicitly that woman saw Sam & not a daemon in his shape? Group 3 says it's instance of biblical practice to use condensed expressions for ex, re. Balaam where daemon plainly called "god," tho' obvious to them that Israel's God not meant (Nyssa). Most writers compare 1Sam 28 with story re. Balaam & refer to Gen 18: angels=men. Aug. says Sam's appararition called "Sam" by way of abbreviation (De div. qu. ad Simpl. ii,3,2) because we do same in colloquial speech.

Eust. (chap.9) re. Ex 7.12 says staffs of Egyptian sorcers turned into serpents which is unseemly but Eust. says it's daemonic decit. Thus not nec. to notify reader of 1Sam 28 that necromancy was fraud; moreover, script. says woman didn't resuscitated Sam, only that she saw him (Procopius).

What about "And S. knew then that it was Sam" (vs14)? S. was vexed by demons many yrs, so couldn't make distinc. bet. reality & delusion. For Eust. & Ambrosiaster, Sam only existed in sick mind of S.

Indications that this Necromancy Delusive

Vs 13: woman says she sees gods (plural) coming from earth. Rab. trad. says Sam & Moses appeared. They are "gods" because Ex7.1 M so called & Sam, same rank as M (Ps 98.6 & Jer 15.1) entitled to this name.

O. thot "gods" as "souls of riteous" (lxx maintained the plural) & got strong opposition from group 3 such as Eust. & Nyssa who thot "gods" demons (cf. Basil, PG32.692, letter 189). Nyssa proves this by ref. to Ps95.5. Eust.: Devil calls up army of forged souls of riteous & tries to prove his div. & make S. worship him, v.14.

In the alleged Sam, many missed firm reproach of S. by Sam: instead of rebuking him for turning to a sorcer forbidden by Lev 19.31 & for adoring him, the apparition only asks why S. disturbed him. Eust., as representative of Group 3, shows how they are determined by dogmatic considers.: Eust. judges this passage not prophetic because what's said isn't in conformity with his opinion as to what a prophet should say in order to be a prophet.

Sam says S will be with him next day, but Group 3 says that place of riteous & wicked are dif. Rab. liter. say S pardoned, but this isn't what Xns say; some say diff. interp. needed. "With me" indicates dead as Sam. Lxx translates, "tomorrow, you & your sons with you will fall", but Grk Frs. like O, Eust, & Ny read, "will be with me. Easier solution for Group 3: Devil is speaking, so S will be with him in hell.

#3 comment on lack of originality in prophecy given by the apparition: "& what was obvious to conceive from what had appeared, he told(...)in the cast of a prophecy."

O.: in his sermon on 1S 28 (cf. frag. xiv, CGS 6,299 which has completely dif. view) says he was troubled by this story & doesn't dare to deviate from it, even tho' says woman saw Sam. O aware of 2C 11.14f. For him, prophecy of apparation can't be by demon since no demon can ever pronounce upon kingship of Lord's chosen people. Re. Sam in Hades, O refrains from pneumatic remarks but adheres to letter of text a lot which is unusual. But this wasn't acceptable to Jerome (PL23.691) & to Euth.

Grk uses for sorcerey is eggastrimuthos, "ventriloquist."

#2 like #3 holds middle position: object against assumption that evil woman had power over riteous Sam but don't think the necromancy was a complete fraud; they assum God wanted to notify S in this way about his death.

Nyssa some "predecessors" supossed Sam grieved by S's repudiation & that he repraochfully confronted the Lord with S's merit for having exterminated necromancy (vs 3). In order to show Sam that he was recommending S unjustifiably, God permitted the prophet's soul to be raised thru this type of magic.

Analysis

Need to resolve important quest: how can it be that altho' all these writers suppose script inspired, some had no objection to rejecting the literal sense of 1S28 by saying that Sam himself didn't appear? Reason: Bible is unity, so when a pericope taken literally suggests an unseemly interp., this can't have been the inspired writer's intention. Thus this interp. can't be correct. Thus when Sam seems forced to appear by nec. script. to be understood in dif. way.

General tendency of Xn writers this time to consider nec., like all pagan mantic as demonic decit. Cf. Lactantius, for nec. invented by demons to deceive mankind: PL6.1036. Chrys. says nec. practiced in his time, PG57.403 re. how a bishop resuscitated a monk near Edessa.

In Gospels, demons prophesy & in Acts apostles war with demonic powers of sorcery: chs. 8,13,16,19. Pagans often confused Xn miracles with magic & were thus interested. Moreover, sorcery assoc. with pagan gods.

#2 & #3 opinions are what we expect from this period. In East, power in demons believed stronger than in West. O. was original so probably thot it challenge to stick to lit. sense of Sam. Aug. revised his view & adhered to lit. interp. He willing to oppose lit. exegeis when believed it to be in opp. to general tendency among orth. thinkers.

Both Rabbis & Xns tended to object to Sam being seen by S due to latter's confused state of mind, so not hard for witch to give him illusion that Sam appeared. This tendency not in OT spirit; rationalisitc kind of exegesis.

* * * * *

Quasten: Eust. important rep. at Council of Nicaea, 325. Arios rec'd theol. training in school of Antioch so got disciples from here. Accused in Xogy as successor to Paul of Samosata & forerunner of Nestorius but frags. of his wks refute this. E. 1st to attempt a Logos-Man Xgy against predom. Logos-Sarx doct., so he's important in hist. of dogma. In L-S teach. perceived danger that Arians could use it to show X assumed a hum. body without a soul & then attribute all the changes to the L himself & thus deprive of his div. Thus E resorts to L-M formula & makes sharp distinc. bet. the 2 nats. in C. Since E stresses whole man in X against L-S Xgy, his formulas can be misunder. such as anthropos theophoros, making him suspect of Nest.ism.

Grillmeier, p.296f.: E often offended by O's remarks (Alex. school) re. remarks on X's soul in underworld which O presents on witch of Endor, remarks which seem before Arian dispute. O sees dif. bet. X's soul & other spirits in the fact that while it was in Hades with others, by his will it was above (O, In 1Reg.28) (Eust, De Engastrimytho 17:ibid, 44.). E says that by this O makes X ordinary man but superior like prophets. O doesn't take into consider. X's div. nat. Feature of E's Xgy: emphasis on div. element in features of X's human.: "And what, then, is there strange in saying that when he (tempter) beheld X's countenance & saw indeed that within he was God, & by nat. the true Son of God, & perceived the pure, undefiled, unstained man that surrounded him--a most beau., sanctified, inviolable temple--he none the less to test him out attacked without hesit., fighting agains God as is his wont" (De Egast., 10). E's most valuable recogn: insite into unity of subj. in X. Logos is subj., so that all that X does or suffers in the flesh can be predicated of the L. Interesting to thind this Xgy on Antiochene soil when considering doctrinals trads. which came from there. E's dispute with Arian L-S Xgy reveals his divisive Xgy. E, in contrast to Athan, recognizes real 'sp.al' sufferings in X & their principle & subj, the soul of X. Here is his new position concerned with 2 things: recog. of completeness of X's humanity & distinc. of the nats. Even tho' his opponents belonged to the L-S xgy, valuable features of the old trad. stressed here. E stresses distinc. of 2 nats so much that it threatens to become a separation of persons. Thus we have counterpart of L-S framewk with its exaggerated interp. of unity, a Xgy of the L-Man type which endangers unity. E wanted to disting. the nats, yet to explain unity was difficult.

Eustathius of Antioch and his Place in the Early History of Christian Doctrine by Robert V. Sellers (Cambridge U Press:1928)

75: His Ed Engastrimytho contra Origenem written after 311 re. witch of Endor to counter O's which was popular ⁽⁷⁾. 76: central pt is that power to send for souls from Hades not to demons but to God. E say this incident as devil's trick, for both woman & S both driven by demon within. The witch, excited by demon within her, described marks of Sam thru her craftiness & in conseq the demented S thot it was the prophet. 77: If Sam appeared in bodily form, why didn't S see him? E calls woman an Engastrimythus declaring that everything she does is trickery (get Lampe's ref. here). To illustrate, E gives ex of false prophets on Mt Carmel & magicians (1K 18.29) (Ex 7.10-12). That it was devilish trickery, E shows from fact that S fell down to worship, something devil liked. If it were truly Sam, he'd rebuke S.

78: The Engast. declares nothing new, for Sam earlier said king. to be removed from S. O rebuked for not paying close attention to words of script. Also, O's stupid if believes words of a demented woman. O says X was in Hades which is incorrect; rather, soul of hum. tabernacle descended there & redeemed souls of like nat; Logos present everywhere due to his div.

79: O also says holy souls of prophets came up since woman saw gods ascending; O wants to add angels. O holds that demon couldn't know that the king. granted to David. Name Engast. means "a myth in the belly" & myth is fabrication.

80: Justin (Dia.105) says all souls under demons power while Sam called up by witch. Tertul (De Anima, 57) take opp. view: Sam not brot back by the Engast. but was trick of devil. Method. of Oly. also wrote wk Adversus Origenem de Pythonissa which is lost. Nyssa has same view as E: woman saw demon which assumed fig. of Sam.

81: E stressed literal, not alleg., interp. of script & thus true Antiochene.

* * * * *

Outline of G. Nyssa's treatise

101: intro. re. X's admon. to seek him since he doesn't lie. This in contrast to woman's deception. Quote of 2Tm 2.7 to attend to reading; possible admon. to O for lack of it?

102: "some of our predecessors" thot sam's evocation from dead true; also, God allowed his soul to be conjured up thru magic but was indignant at this.

Chasm of Lk 16.26: can't be traversed (103) by sts. nor devil. G. now offers opinion: devil as enemy watches to trip up man. Demons have many ways to deceive such as possessions, etc.

104: one decept. of devil is sorcery, eggastrimuthos, to attact departed to on hi. Phantoms conjured up by woman visible only to her. Devil made his appearances true but concealed his true person. 105: This surprised S since woman didn't know true power of sorcery; in her ignorance, she saw gods ascending & man uprite with cloak.

"How can servility to letter of the text concur with the record of hist?" If Sam vision, sorcer does see gods. Since scrip. says that the gods of the nations of demons, is Sam's soul to be equated with them? Any power related to sorcery has deceived both the woman and S. Sam, a just man, can't be associated with demons; for this reason it was the demon which appeared, not Sam, and S did not see him.

106: Script. intends this incident for anyone who believes that Sam is speaking. It frequently speaks of appearances, not reality as in the case of Balaam who confused God with his thots about him.

Elias' nourishment by ravens is mentioned (107).

108: An army requires leadership, and soldiers cannot desert their leader. G concludes with a mention of baptism.

Group I

JUSTIN (PG 6.721; Dialogues with Trypho, chap.105; The Fathers of the Church, Christian Heritage, Inc.: New York, 1948, p.312. trans. by Thomas B. Falls)

"Now, I have proved that souls survive [after death] from the fact that Sam's soul was invoked by the witch, as S. demanded. And it seems that the souls of other just men and Prophets were subjected to such powers, as is evident from the facts in the case of this witch. Thus, God thru His Son also teaches us (for whom these things seem to have happened) always dto do our utmost to become righteous & at our death to pray that we may not fall into any such power. For, the Memoirs of the Apostels said that, as He was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said: 'Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.'

ORIGEN (Sources Chretiennes #328; Homelies sur Samuel Homelie v, p.175-77; 189-; trans. by Pierre et Marie-Therese Nautin, Les Editifons du Cerf: Paris, 1986)

"Since history concerns Saul and necromancy (eggastrimuthos), it is nec. that there is a truth in the tex. Who, then, after having quit this life, wishes to be under the power of a demon? (cf. Justin, 105.4), in order that the witch does not simply evoke the first persons who have come to believe but the prophet Sam which God said by the mouth of Jeremiah: 'Though M & Sam stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people' (15.1). And then the prophet [David] says in his hymns, 'M & A were among his priests, Sam also was among those who alled on his name. He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud' (Ps 99.6-7). And again, 'If M & S stood before me and beseeched me,' etc, is it not true if a person of this importance was under the earth and who was evoked by necromancy, a demon had power over the soul of a prophet? What, then, can we say? Are not these things written? Are they true or not? If anyone says that they are not true, one encourage unbelief & it will fall back on the head of those who say it, but if they are true, then we are confronted with a question and a further difficulty."

We well know that certain of our brothers resist scripture and say, "I do not believe in witchcraft. When witchcraft pretends that it has seen Samuel, it lies; Samuel was not evoked, does not speak. However, there are false prophets who affirms, 'Here the Lord speaks while in fact he is not speaking. Thus this small demon lies while announcing that he can evoke whatever Saul asks: 'Whom shall I summon?' Summon for me Samuel.'" This is what those who say who pretned that this history is not true. Is Samuel in hell? Samuel summoned by witchcraft, the most

1. The Greek title to Gregory's treatise is Peri tes eggastrimuthou, "Concerning Necromancy." As defined by A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell and Scott, Oxford 1966, p.477), the word eggastrimuthos is defined as a ventriloquist, that is, it refers to a person who can project his or her voice without the movement of lips. More specifically, such a ventriloquist referred to women who were believed to deliver oracles from their belly. The Latin title is De Pythonissa which suggests Puthikos, the old name for Delphi, the famous place for oracles.

2. "Some of our predecessors [that is to say, Origen] wished to consider as true Samuel's evocation [from the dead]."

3. "Some distinguishing marks of a 'unitive theology' are also evident elsewhere in Eustathius, particularly in his idea of the divinization of Christ's soul and body and their participation in the properties and being of the Logos. Here we feel reminded of Origen, who saw the soul of Christ completely steeped in the fire of the Logos, though it is just in this context that the opposition between the Antiochene and the Alexandrian becomes apparent. Eustathius is offended above all by the remarks about the soul of Christ in the underworld which Origen produces on the occasion of the question of the 'Witch of Endor...'The Alexandrian sees the difference between the soul of Christ and other spirits in the fact that while it was below in Hades with the others, by will it was above. The Antiochene says that by doing this Origen makes Christ an ordinary man, just as he cannot show how the prophets were superior to other men. For all souls, even those of the most wicked men, have a longing to be above and not below." Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. one (Atlanta, 1975), p.298.

4. The Witch of Endor, an article from Vigiliae Christianae 33 (New York, North Holland, 1979), p.160-79.

5. It is interesting to parallel this relationship with the serpent in the garden of Eden Gen 3 2-14. In this instance the serpent or devil deceived the woman in a manner similar to the way the demon had deceived the witch of Endor.

6. On Gregory's position, refer to the remarks by Lynn Thorndike (A History of Magic and Experimental Science during the First Thirteen Centuries of Our era, New York: MacMillan, 1923, p.470): "But Gregory believes that Samuel was already in paradise and hence could not be invoked from the infernal regions; but that it was a demon from the infernal regions who predicated to Saul, 'tomorrow you and Jonathan shall be with me.' The longer treatise of Eustasthios of Antioch is a direct answer to Origen's argument as its title, Concerning the Ventriloquist against Origen indicated."

7. P.76, Ft.#1: Sum. of O's interp. of Endor story: Sam in Hades preparing souls for X's coming. To persons not holding that Sam was in Hades but affirm that the woman lied when she saidshe saw him, he pts. out that script doesn't say, "The woman saw a demon which pretended to be Sam" but "The woman saw Sam". A demon couldn't know that S & his sons were to die next day. The gods whom the woman saw ascending, were souls of holy prophets plus Sam.