I have addressed the issue of “soul sleep” before, including in a review of Douglas V. Pond, a Seventh Day Adventist:
Something that is important to note that most of the “proof-texts” used by groups that hold to such a view derived from the Old Testament (via eisegesis, as we have seen) is that the ancient Israelites did not hold to “soul sleep” but instead believed that the dead still had conscious existence, as evidenced by the fact that they had a “cult of the dead,” gave offerings to the dead, and even when the authors of the Old Testament criticised such, never argued that the dead were unconscious or non-existent, something that would have been the death-blow to such a view.
As one scholar wrote about the cult of the dead and related issues in the Old Testament:
Was there a cult of the dead in ancient Israel? The Deuteronomistic legal material in the Hebrew Bible reveals restrictions against consulting the dead (Deut 18:9-11): presumably presenting offerings to the dead (Deut 26:14), and engaging in certain practices associated with death rituals such as self-laceration (Deut 14:1; but cf. Jer 16:6; 41:5) which seems to have been typical of Canaanite death cult practice. The Holiness Code also contains categorical prohibitions against people who turn to necromancy and demands the death penalty for any mediums or necromancers (Lev 20:6, 27). From such laws we may safely infer that cults of the dead existed and flourished in ancient Palestine to the extent that they were considered a thread to what eventually emerged as normative Yahwism. This seems to be supported by references to Manasseh’s necromancy (2 Kgs 21:6) and Josiah’s eradication of it (2 Kgs 23:24) however the Deuteronomist may be using stereotypical lists (or catalogues) of sins and reforms. Lastly, specific death cult vocabulary seems to underlie Absalom’s erection of a funerary monument as well as Jezebel’s burial (Lewis 1989: 118-122).
Two passages in the Hebrew Bible confirm the existence of the well known marzēaḥ banquet In Amos 6:7, the marzēaḥ banquet is described as revelry without any ties to death cult practices. Yet in Jer 16:5 the marzēaḥ has clear funerary connections. The context is one of mourning and bereavement. As with the Ugaritic mrzḥ, some scholars are the raison d’ȇtre for the marzēaḥ to be a banquet with the dead. Other scholars describe its primary function to be that of a drinking banquet which could, on occasions, be associated with funerary feasts. Another subject of debate is whether post-internment funerary offerings were presented see hints of long term offerings of some kind behind such passages as Deut 26:14 (‘I have not offered any of it [i.e. sacred food] to the dead’); Ps 106:28 (‘they ate the sacrifices of the dead’) and Isa 57:6-8 (‘Even to them [the dead] have you poured out libations and brought offerings’). Funerary offerings of food and libations are well attested in the archaeological data (Bloch-Smith 1992:25-62, 106-108) yet it is difficult to determine whether this was solely at the time of internment or whether such a practice was on-going as a part of the regular cult of the dead.
Due to Deuteronomistic polemic against death cult practices, it is surprising that we have an account of a necromantic ritual preserved in the Deuteronomistic History. In 1 Sam 28 king Saul uses a necromancer at En-Dor to conjure up the dead Samuel from the netherworld whose preternatural character is described as an ‘ělohîm (literally ‘god’ see above). Even the efficacy of the conjuring is left intact by the editor. Unlike Mesopotamian texts which describe necromantic procedures in detail (cf. Finkel 1983-1984:1-17), the En-Dor episode is remarkably brief about describing for us what was entailed in such an episode. Nonetheless, the narrative in 1 Sam 28 shows us that necromancy was well known in ancient Israelite religion despite efforts by Deuteronomists and those of like mind to eradicate the practice.
Necromancy was also criticized by certain biblical prophets. Isa 8:19 mocks the practice by comparing it to chirping and muttering (cf. Isa 29:4). Necromantic practices are similarly ridiculed in Isa 19:3 which describes the Egyptians’ resorting to necromancy because of their lack of any capacity to reason. This is ironic due to the virtual lack of necromancy attested in ancient Egypt. Van Der Toorn (1988:199-218) has also elucidated how communication with the dead lies behind Isa 28:7-22, a passage replete with death cult vocabulary (e.g. those making ‘a covenant with Death . . . a pact with Sheol’). In short, contrary to 1 Sam 28, no efficacy is ascribed to necromancy by these texts. The amount of literature against the practice of necromancy shows that many people in ancient Israelite society (including priestly and prophetic elements) felt that it was a legitimate form of divining the will of Yahweh. Other prophetic denunciations of death cult practices may be found in Ezek 43:7-9; Isa 45:18-19; 57:6; 65:4.
The traditions reflected in the wisdom literature expand the Deuteronomistic and prophetic polemic against necromancy to a new level. In Job 14:21 the dead are described as having no knowledge about the affairs of humans. Likewise, Eccl 9:4-6, 10 says quite bluntly that the dead know nothing, for ‘there is no work or reason or knowledge in Sheol’. Both of these views are strikingly different from the one in 1 Sam 28 in their appraisal of the ability of the deceased. A similar polemic against ascribing any power to the dead may be found in Ps 88:11 ‘Do the shades rise up to praise you?’ Whereas the Ugaritic Rapi’uma are very active, we have very few descriptions of the Israelite denizens of the underworld in an active role. The most activity is found in Isa 14:9 where the Rephaim are roused to greet the king of Babylon. For the most part, the biblical Rephaim are stripped of any power, malevolent or benevolent (cf. Isa 26:14). (T.J. Lewis, S.V. “Dead” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. Karl Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van Der Horst [2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 230-31)
