This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 3 international conference of rd the international Academic Network “Rewritten Bible” in Karkku, Finland, 20–23 August 2008. Philo on Jacob’s Ladder: Dream Interpretation or Allegory As Usual? Sami Yli-Karjanmaa (Åbo Akademi University) Asemalammentie 103, 41370 KUUSA, Finland Abstract: Philo’s interpretation of Gen 28:10–15 in theDe somniisand previous research related to it are examined. Philo’s classification of dreams, the interpretations he presents for the vision of the heavenly ladder, and his usual way of working with Biblical texts are compared. The clas- sification is found to be disconnected with the interpretations, which on the other hand are shown to contain ideas which Philo often repeats in his works and especially in his commentary in the Somn. of the events preceding the dream. The fact that Philo is interpreting a dream has no ef- fect on how he works with the text of the Genesis. Points for further research are identified. 1. Introduction 1.1 TheDe somniis and Philo’s Classification of Dreams Philo of Alexandria expounds the dream about the heavenly ladder which Jacob saw on his way to Mesopotamia (Gen 28:12–15)1 in theDe somniis (1.2–188) and briefly also in theQuaestiones in Genesim.2 He gives four, mostly allegorical interpretations. The interpretations form an intricate web of symbols related to “the mystical journey toward the contemplation of God”, as Sofia Torallas Tovar aptly formulates.3 In this paper I mainly discuss Philo’s interpretations of Gen. 28:12 and their basis. (See section 1.3 for the precise task definition.) At the outset of both books of the De somniis Philo presents a classification of God-sent dreams. These are of three types, and Philo wrote one book on each class. What was originally the first book has been lost, and the extant books 1 and 2 deal with the second and third class of dreams, respectively. The characteristics of the three classes of dreams, as described in the introductory passages ofSomn. 1 and 2, are given below. As this paper focuses on the first dream of the second class, the description of the other categories is more cursory. 1. In the first kind “the Deity of His own motion sends to us the visions which are presented to us in sleep” (Somn.1.1).4 A reasonably well-founded suggestion 1 ”And he dreamed, and see, a ladder set firmly in the earth, whose top was reaching into heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. 13And the Lord leaned on it and said, ’I am the Lord, the God of Abraam your father and the God of Isaak; do not be afraid; as for the land which you are sleeping on, I will give it to you and to your offspring. 14And your offspring shall be like the sand of the earth, and it shall widen out to the sea and to the southwest and to the north and to the east, and all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring. 15And see, I am with you, carefully guarding you in every way where you might go, and I will bring you back to this land, for I will not leave you until I have done all the things that I talked about to you.’” Unless otherwise indicated, the English translations of the LXX are taken fromA New English Translation of the Septuagint,© 2007 by the International Organiza- tion for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Philo’s deviations from the text of the LXX, see the Appendix. 2QG 4.29. This article focuses on the interpretations in theSomn. 3 Torallas Tovar (2003) 43. 4 Unless otherwise indicated, the translations of Philo’s texts are from the PLCL. 1 has been made by Torallas Tovar that the dream of this type, addressed in the lost book, was the appearance of the Lord to Isaac in Gen 26:2–5.5 2. “The second kind of dreams is that in which our mind ((cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:374)(cid:207)), moving out of it- self together with the Mind ((cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:374)(cid:207)) of the Universe, seems to be possessed and God-inspired, and so capable of receiving some foretaste and foreknowledge of things to come” (Somn.1.2).6 InSomn. 2.2 the description is very similar with some variation of vocabulary; in these dreams “our understanding ((cid:238)(cid:243)(cid:444)(cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:243)(cid:235)) moves in concert with the soul ((cid:256)(cid:253)(cid:237)(cid:447)) of the Universe”. A little later (2.3) Philo adds that the ”the Sacred Guide”7 interpreted these dreams ”neither with con- summate clearness nor with excessive indistinctness” and that the dream of the ladder ”was indeed enigmatic, but the riddle was not in very high degree con- cealed from the quick-sighted.” The second dream interpreted inSomn. 1 is also Jacob’s, the one about the markings of the sheep and goats and the exhortation to return home (Gen 31:10–13). 3. The third type of dreams ”arises when the soul in sleep, setting itself in motion and agitation of its own accord, becomes frenzied, and – – foretells the future” (Somn. 2.1). These dreams make up the most obscure category.They necessitate “a scientific skill in discerning the meaning of dreams” (Somn. 2.4; cf. 2.110). Dream type three is thus the only type in the context of which this science is mentioned. Three pairs of dreams are interpreted, those of Joseph, Pharao’s chief cupbearer and chief baker, and Pharao himself (Genesis 37, 40, and 41, respectively). In addition to this classification (henceforth “introductory definitions”), inSomn. 1.190 Philo gives what I call asupplementary specification concerning at least some dreams of the second type: You see that the Divine word proclaims as dreams sent from God not only those which appear before the mind under the direct action of the Highest of Causes, but those also which are revealed through [the agency of] His interpreters and at- tendant messengers who have been held meet to receive from the Father, to Whom they owe their being, a divine and happy portion.8 The specification comes after Philo has introduced the latter of the two dreams of the second type, Jacob’s dream about the flock. Since an angel of God is explicitly men- tioned as a messenger in the dream, the specification seems to fit much better to the second dream than to the ladder dream. However, it can be concluded that the role of angels in mediating dreams applies to the dream of the ladder as well.9 It should be 5 Torallas Tovar (2003) 44. The fact that the appearance of the Lord is not mentioned to have been a dream would not necessarily have prevented Philo from including it in the lost book of Somn. I would like to add the second, nightly appearance of the Lord to Isaac in the same chap- ter (Gen 26:24) as a candidate. 6 The expression “out of itself” is rendering (cid:288)(cid:255)(cid:3)(cid:285)(cid:235)(cid:253)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:374), for which it is by no means the only possible interpretation; also “of itself” or “by itself” can be considered. See, e.g., the other occurrences of (cid:288)(cid:244) with a reflexive pronoun inSomn. (1.91, 191, 249; 2.40, 200). 7(cid:3)(cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:359)(cid:239)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:427)(cid:444)(cid:247)(cid:252)(cid:242)(cid:207), i.e., Moses (mentioned inSomn. 2.1). Philo usually comments on the Penta- teuch as if written by Moses, but the anomaly here, of course, is that in Genesis no interpretation is given for the dream of the ladder. 8 I have bracketed “the agency of” as the Greek contains no direct mention ofactivity on the part of angels ((cid:238)(cid:243)(cid:261)(cid:3)(cid:252)(cid:326)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:375)(cid:30)(cid:248)(cid:427)(cid:242)(cid:252)(cid:326)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:235)(cid:379)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:374)(cid:3)(cid:244)(cid:235)(cid:357)(cid:3)(cid:320)(cid:30)(cid:235)(cid:238)(cid:326)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:267)(cid:241)(cid:241)(cid:239)(cid:245)(cid:326)(cid:247)) and added the last two commas for clarity. The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae at www.tlg.uci.edu (© TLG & Regents of the Univer- sity of California) has been used in finding the occurrences of words. 9 The passage warranting this conclusion isSomn. 1.70: 2 noted that the introductory definitions of the second dream type do not mention such a feature, and there is thus a discrepancy between them and the supplementary specifica- tion. It may be useful to present the structure of theSomn. schematically as follows: Somn. 1 1.1–2, 190: 1.3–4: Quota- 1.5–132: 1.133–156: 1.157–188: 1.189–256: Classification tions from the Interpr. of Gen Interpr. of Interpr. of Interpr. of & description LXX: Jacob’s 28:10–11 (the the ladder & the Lord’s Gen 31:10– of dreams dream and (cid:570)(cid:463)(cid:462)(cid:462)(cid:449)(cid:459)(cid:456)(cid:462)(cid:460); see its angels words (Gen 13 the prefatory section 2.2 (Gen 28:12) 28:13–15) passage below) Somn. 2 2.1–4: Clas- sification & 2.5–302: Interpretation of the dreams in Genesis 37, 40, and 41 description of dreams 1.2 The Interpretations of the Dream of the Heavenly Ladder InSomn. 1.133–56 Philo gives four, mutually non-exclusive interpretations to the dream about the heavenly ladder and the angels ascending and descending on it before turning to the vision of the Lord in the same dream.10 (a) Cosmologically, the ladder symbolizes the air, which extends from earth to heaven. The air is full of incorporeal and immortal souls who descend to be bound in bodies and ascend again after being released at death at certain periods determined by nature. Some long for mortal life and return, while others pro- nounce the bodily life folly and flee toward the ether as from a prison or a grave.11 In what is almost a literal interpretation of the vision Philo adds that there are also the angels; they have never desired anything earthly, and they de- scend and ascend in their job of being mediators between God and human be- ings. The angels form an entirely parallel system of ascenders and descenders without there being anything suggestive of such duplicity in the dream itself. (Somn. 1.134–45.) (b) Anthropologically, the ladder is the symbol of the human soul, in which God’s (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243), or angels, ascend and draw the soul up with them, and descend, not cast- Meet and right then is it that Jacob, having come to Sense-perception, meets not God but a word of God, even as did Abraham – – [who had a] meeting with sa- cred Words of a kind from which the God Who is prior to all things has with- drawn, ceasing to extend visions ((cid:427)(cid:235)(cid:247)(cid:252)(cid:235)(cid:251)(cid:448)(cid:235)(cid:207)) that proceed from Himself, but only those that proceed from the potencies ((cid:238)(cid:253)(cid:247)(cid:444)(cid:246)(cid:239)(cid:254)(cid:247)) inferior to Him. The passage contains a clear reference to the vision which Jacob is about to behold in his dream: Philo uses the word (cid:427)(cid:235)(cid:247)(cid:252)(cid:235)(cid:251)(cid:448)(cid:235) about what Jacob saw while resting in “the place” inSomn. 1.4, 133 as well. That “potencies” is to be equated with the (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243) is clear not only from the context but also from the fact that Philo says about “the place” both that it is filled with incorporeal potencies ((cid:267)(cid:251)(cid:254)(cid:246)(cid:444)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:243)(cid:3)(cid:238)(cid:253)(cid:247)(cid:444)(cid:246)(cid:239)(cid:243)(cid:207), Somn. 1.62) and that it is full of incorporeal “words” (cid:7)(cid:267)(cid:251)(cid:254)(cid:246)(cid:444)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:243)(cid:3)(cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243), Somn. 1.127). 10 Cf. Colson in PLCL IV, 581: “It must be remembered that when [Philo] gives two alternative meanings for a passage, he does not think, as we should, that onemust be the right one. To his mind they may both be intended.” 11 The theme of my forthcoming dissertation is Philo’s relation to the doctrine of reincarnation. This passage (Somn. 1.138–139) contains his clearest statement in favor of the tenet. There are others that seem to refer to it (esp.QE 2.40, perhapsCher.114), but the question cannot be solved without an analysis of Philo’s wholeoeuvre from the viewpoint of his soteriology, an- thropology and individual eschatology, both in itself and in relation to other, primarily Greek and Jewish texts bearing on the subject. 3 ing the soul down but condescending out of love and helping those that are still undergoing purification in the body like in a river. (Somn. 1.146–49.) (c) In the third interpretation, Philo compares to a stairway the life of the Practiser (cid:7)(cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:267)(cid:251)(cid:244)(cid:242)(cid:252)(cid:447)(cid:207)), which is rife with ascents and descents. (Somn. 1.150–52.) (d) Finally, the human affairs with their ups and downs ”are naturally likened to a ladder”. (Somn. 1.153–56.) A further mention of the ladder is found in an interpretation of Gen 18:33 inQG 4.29.12 InSomn. 1.157–188 Philo presents his comments on the latter part of the dream, the Lord’s words to Jacob. These are also summarized and briefly discussed below, see p. 20. 1.3 The Research Task There are four main elements involved in the research task: i. The interpretations Philo gives for iii. Philo’s usual allegorical-exegetical the dream of the ladder (Somn. methodology and general agenda 1.133–188) (esp.Somn. 1.5–132) ii. Philo’s characterization of dreams iv. Greco-Roman theories and classi- of the second type (Somn. 1.1, 190; fications of dreams 2.2–3) I argue below for my contention that Philo’s interpretations of the ladder dream (i) are not informed by the introductory definitions of dream type two (ii) but guided instead by his general agenda and ways of working with biblical texts (iii) and that the ladder dream is to be regarded as mediated by angels or (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243) in accordance with the supple- mentary specification ofSomn. 1.190. The influence exerted on Philo by representatives of classical dream-interpretation (iv) is also addressed as it has been the focus of studies reviewed below (pp. 5–10). 2. Earlier Research Earlier research on the De somniis has focused on three areas: the relationship between the treatise and classical theories of dream interpretation, the structure of the books or that of the interpretations contained therein, and the contents of the interpretations. I first comment on studies related to the first point and then others that mostly deal with the second and third point. 12 The text of Genesis runs, ”Then the Lord went away, when he had left off speaking to Ab- raam, and Abraam returned to his place.” Philo comments on this inQG 4.29: The one who is begotten and brought into being is not wont to be God-possessed always, but when he has been divinely inspired for some time he then goes and returns to himself. – – But it is necessary that the most pure and luminous mind should be mixed with the mortal (element) for necessary uses. This is what is in- dicated by the heavenly ladder, (where) not only an ascent but also a descent of the angels is mentioned. The last “this” apparently refers to the compulsory nature of the mind-body union. Philo seems to present a fifth interpretation for the dream: the ascent and descent are those of the soul or mind when it enters and exits a contemplative state. (Cf.Spec. 3.1–6, where Philo tells of his own experiences of the ascent and descent of the soul as mental events.) 4 2.1 Studies on Philo and Classical Dream Interpretation13 Philo’s classification of dreams has been the main material analyzed in studies that have sought to compare theDe somniis with representatives of classical dream interpretation. Several scholars beginning with Paul Wendland have noted that Philo’s classification exhibits features that are also found in Quintus’s description in Cicero’s De divinatione 1.64 of the dream categories used by the Stoic philosopher Posidonius of Apamea (d. c. 50 B.C.E.).14 Claims of Philo’s “using” Posidonius’s classification are found in re- search literature, but, as a rule, without any elaboration ofhow he did this. Posidonius classified dreams according to their origin, and his first class of dreams cor- responds roughly to Philo’s third (the soul is the source), and vice versa (God is / gods are the source). Similarities have also been seen between the second dream types. The description of Posidonius’s second class runs in its entirety as follows: “second, the air is full of immortal souls, [already] clearly stamped, as it were, with the marks of truth.”15 As this is supposed to be a description of one of the “ways” (modi) of dream- ing, something seems to be missing: what the reader tends to assume is that the dreamer can somehow be in contact with these souls and thereby receive some portion of their truth.16 Colson is somewhat skeptical about a direct use of Posidonius by Philo, but he does note “distinct points of contact” with the description in De divinatione 1.64 and the dreams ofSomn. 1.17 As for the dreams of the second kind, Colson says that Philo’s (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243) inSomn. 1.127 are not unlike Posidonius’s immortal souls.18 He also refers to Somn. 1.241 where Philo says that it was the Logos and not God himself the dreamer beheld.19 Colson’s conclusion (based on his discussion of all three classes) is that while 13 As I am not discussing the influence of other dream theories on Philo’s unless they have been seen to have an impact on his actual interpretations, I examine these studies very selectively. 14 See PCW, and further, Hilgert (1987) 398–399. 15 The Latin contains no counterpart for the ”already” which I have bracketed: ”altero, quod plenus aer sit inmortalium animorum, in quibus tamquam insignitae notae veritatis appareant.” 16 Thus for example Kessels (1969) 408 writes, “[The second] class originates from cooperation with the souls in the air, as Cicero puts it.” According to Dodson (2003) 305, in this type there takes place “the soul’s contact with other intermediary souls.” 17 PLCL V, 593–94. 18 Here Philo says that the “place” of Gen 28:11 where Jacob was to dream ”is full of incorpo- real ’words’; and these words are immortal souls.” In the sequel these (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243) are the stones one of which Jacob puts at his head. Philo comes even closer to Posidonius inSomn. 1.135–37 where he says, e.g., that “The air [symbolized by the ladder] is the abode of incorporeal souls” and that the “citizens – – [of the air are] imperishable and immortal souls”, but Philo’s context is not the classification of dreams but the interpretation of one particular dream. Harmonizing Posi- donius’s and Philo’s ideas would imply that the immortal souls of the air can impart dreams in which they themselves appear. While this is not impossible, the occurrence of these souls in both thinkers within the context of dream interpretation but in different positions is puzzling and would seem to require a more satisfactory explanation. 19 This applies at least to Jacob’s dream about the markings of the flock; Colson thinks it might include the ladder dream as well (PLCL V, 422). Philo’s conception of the Logos is far too complex a subject to be brought up here in any detail. But a rough sketch is that for Philo the Logos is theimage of God of Gen 1:27. The human mind ((cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:374)(cid:207)), made as it isafter that image, is the logos in the human being (Her. 230–231). One of the many complications is that Philo can write abouttheDivine Logos and God’s (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:243) in plural in a manner that makes them seem al- most interchangeable (Somn.1.62, 68–69). 5 Philo “probably had the Stoic classification in mind, he has put it into a very different shape.” Claes Blum also considers Posidonius as Philo’s “ultimate source”, and claims that Philo “use[d] the system of Posidonius – – for interpreting the dreams of Genesis.”20 A. H. M. Kessels repeats these views and says Philo “explain[ed] the dreams he found in the Old Testament by means of this system.”21 Kessels appeals to Blum’s having “shown” that Philo’s second class of dreams “does go back to the same origin as Cicero’s second category”.22 By this he undoubtedly means the conclusion Blum draws from the following passage inDe divinatione 2.119 where Cicero utilizes, and at the same time blurs, Posidonius’s classification in his attack against divination (defended by Quintus): ’Our souls’ (according to the view of your school) ‘are divine and are derived from an external source; the universe is filled with a multitude of harmonious souls; therefore, because of its divinity and its contact with other souls, the hu- man soul during sleep foresees what is to come.’ Based on this, Blum, although admitting that the identity of the second classes is less evident than that of the other ones, concludes, “[Cicero] no doubt means to say that dreams of [the second] type are produced by (cid:251)(cid:253)(cid:246)(cid:30)(cid:444)(cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:243)(cid:235), or, as Philo puts it, through (cid:251)(cid:253)(cid:241)(cid:244)(cid:448)(cid:247)(cid:242)(cid:251)(cid:243)(cid:207) of the soul with other souls.”23 Yet if we once more take a look at what Philo in fact says about the second class, Blum’s argument makes no sense: – – our mind ((cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:374)(cid:207)), moving out of itself together with the Mind ((cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:374)(cid:207)) of the Universe, seems to be possessed and God-inspired, and so capable of receiving some foretaste and foreknowledge of things to come. (Somn.1.2) The similarities are restricted to a reference to divinity exhibited (Cicero) or experienced (Philo) by the soul and the possibility of knowing future things. Philo does not say the dreamer’s soul moves “with other souls” but with God.24 The difference between Philo’s first and second classes is not so much one of source but of the initiator of movement; God or the soul. Unlike in Posidonius, God is essential in both. Robert M. Berchman presents an overview of dream theories before Philo and compares them with theDe somniis in his article which “attempts to demonstrate that Philo’sDe Somniis belongs to a long oneirocritic tradition, and that his understanding of prophecy, divination, and magic must be assessed from an oneirological perspective.”25 He pays much attention to Philo’s dream terminology and finds an elaborate, not three- but five- fold classification of dreams in theDe somniis – not presented in any one place but in- ferable from different passages in the work. Berchman’s study has not without some 20 Blum (1936) 59, 68. 21 Kessels (1969) 396. Neither Blum nor Kessels presents any analysis of how Philo actually used Posidonius’s system. 22 Kessels (1969) 397. 23 Blum (1936) 66. 24 A similar kind of carelessness with respect to Philo’s actual words is shown by Kessels (1969) 398 who says that Philo mentions “dreams directly sent by the gods” inSomn. 2.3. Although Philo can sometimes use the word ”god” in plural without criticism (e.g., about the heavenly bodies inOpif. 27; cf.Timaeus 41a), there is no question of his monotheism in general and of there being the one and only God behind the “god-sent” dreams in particular (seeSomn.1.190, 229). 25 Berchman (1987) 404 and (the same article) (1998) 116. 6 reason been criticized for a presentation of evidence that is “at best reckless and at worst misleading.”26 While Philo himself unequivocally declares the dream of the heavenly ladder to belong to the second type, Berchman says it contains an “aspect” of the third type, which class he calls “chr(cid:413)smos oreid(cid:448)lon” or “Oneiroi-Eidola”.27 Berchman’s evidence is the oc- currence of the word (cid:239)(cid:364)(cid:238)(cid:254)(cid:245)(cid:248)(cid:247) in interpretation (d): “I must not fail to mention another idea ((cid:239)(cid:364)(cid:238)(cid:254)(cid:245)(cid:248)(cid:247)) which is present in the vision” (Somn. 1.153).28 But the dreams of the third type are supposed to contain a “deep and impenetrable – – enigma” (Somn. 2.4), and the ups and downs of human affairs hardly fit this description. Thus Berchman’s meticulous system of designations is put in question. My contention that there is no difference between how Philo interprets the ladder dream and other material of the Pentateuch is accidentally supported by Berchman. After de- scribing the way in which Artemidorus of Daldis (1st/2nd century C.E.) in hisOneiro- critica (2.27) treats the well as a dream symbol he proceeds to state that “Jacob’s dream – – offers the symbol of the well to teach the benefits of knowledge and the difficulties involved in acquiring it.”29 What Berchman fails to notice is that the well of Gen 28:10 (LXX) is not part of the dream. It may be that Berchman means that Philo applies the art of dream interpretation in his exegesis as a rule and not just for dreams, but unfortu- nately this remains unclear as he writes, “Oneirocriticaltopoi abound in theDe somniis. Their use suggests that they serve as an integral part of the exegetical arsenal employed by Philo.” In any case, he produces no evidence to the effect as regards the dream of the ladder. Sofia Torallas Tovar does not in her dissertation refer to Berchman’s work.30 The aim of her study is to determine the contents of the lost book of theSomn.by analyzing the structure of the extant books of theDe somniis and the roles of the patriarchs (as well as of Joseph) therein. She notes the connection between Philo’s and Posidonius’s dream types and sees important similarities. In a later article she says Philo “used” the three- fold classification “when he commented on texts from Genesis that included dreams.”31 For the second dream category she takes together Philo’s mention of the Mind of the Universe inSomn. 1.2 and the supplementary specification about the role of angels in Somn. 1.190 (both quoted above on p. 2). She writes: This Mind of the Universe is the Divine Logos, who occupies in this case the same level as God’s messengers, the angels, in this hierarchy of the Divine. In this type of dream, God does not appear to the dreamer, but he sends his angels to deliver His message.32 26 Dodson (2003) 308. Somewhat illustrative is that Berchman says (p. 415) of Philo’s second dream type, without reservations, “Philo calls this dream, the chr(cid:413)smos.” In reality, Philo both uses other terms too for this type (such as (cid:321)(cid:247)(cid:235)(cid:250), e.g., Somn. 1.159), and applies (cid:237)(cid:250)(cid:242)(cid:251)(cid:246)(cid:449)(cid:207) in connection with dreams of the first type as well (Somn. 2.3). 27 Berchman (1987) 414–416. Should this be the case, that would have to be taken into account in the search for the basis of Philo’s interpretation of the ladder dream. 28 See Colson’s text-critical notes about the exceptional use of the word (cid:239)(cid:364)(cid:238)(cid:254)(cid:245)(cid:248)(cid:247) here; PLCL V, 600–601. 29 Berchman (1987) 421. 30 Torallas Tovar (1995a). 31 Torallas Tovar (2003) 42. 32 Torallas Tovar, (1995b; this is an English abstract of her dissertation published as a web page, so there are no page numbers). The part “God does not appear to the dreamer” is of course not 7 Torallas Tovar thus equates the immortal souls in Posidonius with the angels, the Logos and the Mind of the Universe in Philo. Placing the Logos on the same level with angels is supported by Philo’s text in, e.g.,Somn. 1.115, 148, 239. However, the identifica- tion of the Logos with the Mind of the Universe is problematic. Were it correct, that would mean the contradiction between the introductory definitions and the supplemen- tary specification of the second class of dreams noted earlier (section 1.1) did not exist. In order to assess this question it is worthwhile to look atSomn. 1.228–230 (to which Torallas Tovar does not refer): Philo makes there the point that (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207), without the defi- nite article, like in Gen 31:13, means the ”chief Word” of God ((cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:239)(cid:251)(cid:236)(cid:450)(cid:252)(cid:235)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:207)(cid:3)(cid:267)(cid:253)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:374) (cid:245)(cid:449)(cid:241)(cid:248)(cid:207)). InLeg. 3.29 the Mind of the Universe is identified with (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) (without the arti- cle). Based on these two passages, Torallas Tovar’s identification would seem to hold. However, the Mind of the Universe is equated with(cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207), with the article, in Gig. 40 andMigr. 4, 192, and the same identification is deducible fromOpif. 7–8.33 The bal- ance of evidence is against the identification of the Logos with the Mind of the Uni- verse.34 Torallas Tovar makes a similar point about a discrepancy regarding the third type of dreams as I am arguing for regarding the second kind: description and interpretation do not coincide (as far as the introductory definitions are concerned): In the description at the beginning of book II, these dreams are the visions that the soul sees due to its kinship <with> the Divine. But throughout book II they are presented as those of the soul drowned in passions – – .35 However, the mention of kinship with the Divine is not found in Philo. It is in Cicero’s description of Posidonius’s first type of dreams that we read, “the soul is clairvoyant of itself because of its kinship with the Gods” (De divinatione 1.64).36 Nevertheless I agree literally true for either of the dreams inSomn. 1 (Gen 28:13, 31:13), but see Philo’s discussion on whom the dreamer actually sees, e.g., inSomn. 1.70, 228–230, 241, and above, p. 2. 33 Furthermore, given that the nature of Philo’s interpretations is not seldom somewhatad hoc, and that the distinction between (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) and (cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) is clearly demanded by the situation, one should be careful in making conclusions about any wider applicability of the differentiation. See, e.g., Somn. 1.69–70 and 2.2–3 where Philo uses both (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) and (cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) for God. See also below, foot- note 40. 34 As regards the closely related term (cid:295)(cid:3)(cid:252)(cid:326)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:318)(cid:245)(cid:254)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:256)(cid:253)(cid:237)(cid:292) (the Soul of the Universe) inSomn. 2.2, it is equated with God inLeg. 1.91 with slight hesitation. But Philo rejects such terminology in Migr.179, 181 – apparently because of the danger of suggesting ”that God is contained in the universe” (so Colson in PLCL I, 478). InMigr. 181 Philo says that according to Moses ”neither the universe nor its soul is the primal God ((cid:317)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:326)(cid:252)(cid:248)(cid:207)(cid:3)(cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207))” thus implying that there indeed is such an entity as the soul of the universe. No other candidate can be thought of as the Logos; after all, Philo goes as far as calling the Logos “the second God” (QG 2.62). Is then the entity with which the soul moves with the Logos inSomn. 2.2 but God inSomn. 1.2? The introductory definitions ofSomn. 1 and 2 are otherwise in mutual harmony, although Philo seems to have made it a point to change almost all the terminology he uses in the describing the first and sec- ond dream classes; thus, e.g., “they Deity” ((cid:252)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:358)(cid:248)(cid:247)) ofSomn. 1.1 becomes “God” ((cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207)) of Somn. 2.2. The context of theMigr. passage is polemical while that of theLeg. is not, and the less complicated assumption is that in theSomn. Philo once again accepts the appellation “Soul of the Universe” for God. 35 Torallas Tovar (1995b). 36 It might be thought that because of the divine element involved, this type should be matched with Philo’s first and not third type. However, in Posidonius’s third kind the divine aspect is even stronger: “the Gods in person converse with men when they are asleep” (Div. 1.64). Posi- donius’s first dream class is actually relatively close to Philo’s second, although there God- possession is the cause of the soul’s clairvoyance. 8 with Torallas Tovar’s opinion that such a discrepancy might reflect the possibility that Philo did not invent the classification he mentioned but simply adopted Posidonius’s. In any case dream theory has a limited role in theSomn., as also Torallas Tovar writes: “Philo uses a classification of dreams to construct a treatise whose real aim is to present the types of soul and their possibility of communicating with God.”37 The most recent study I have found related to the dream-interpretation aspects of theDe somniis is Derek S. Dodson’s article. Its purpose is “to (1) survey Greco-Roman dream theories and classifications and (2) to interpret Philo'sDe somniis in this context, par- ticularly in light of Artemidorus”. The article presents a clear and fairly comprehensive overview of the subjects mentioned with the reservation that it cannot be said to “inter- pret Philo’sDe somniis” but certain limited aspects thereof. As noted on p. 7, Dodson criticizes Berchman; he does not refer to Torallas Tovar’s work. Dodson discusses Philo’s second type of dreams based onSomn. 2.3 (see p. 2 above). According to him, these dreams “originate from the soul’s interaction with the divine intermediary, whether angels, the archangel, or the logos.”38 This statement raises some questions. Somn. 1.148, to which Dodson refers when attributing the mediation of the dream to angels, is part of interpretation (b) where the ladder represents the soul. In that passage Philo says that “in the understandings of those who are still undergoing cleansing – – there walk angels, divine words”. Jacob, as the archetypal Practiser, is not yet perfect (Somn. 1.213) and is thus counted among those needing further cleansing.39 The next entity in Dodson’s list of intermediaries is “the archangel” ofSomn. 1.157. He has apparently not noticed that God is meant here, for God could not be properly called an “intermediary” of God-sent dreams.40 In addition, Philo makes no mention of “the soul’s interaction” with the archangel, or its resulting in a dream. The last one is “the logos”, for which Dodson refers toSomn. 1.190 and 1.230. In the former (quoted above on p. 2) Philo says that angel-mediated dreams too are God-sent. Given the connection between angels and the Logos this naturally makes the latter a qualified intermediary. However, by referring also toSomn. 1.230 (which contains Philo’s statement, discussed on p. 8Error! Bookmark not defined., that (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) without the definite article means the Logos) Dodson appears to imply that Philo somewhere 37 Here Torallas Tovar refers to E. Vanderlinden, ‘Les divers modes de connaissance de Dieu selon Philon d'Alexandrie’,Mélanges de Science Religieuse, p. IV (1944), pp. 285-304. It is not clear whether the whole idea comes from Vanderlinden, whose work I was unable to obtain, and, if so, what are that author’s grounds for this conclusion. 38 Dodson (2003) 311. 39 See PLCL X, 336–348 for J. W. Earp’s extensive summary of how Jacob is presented in Philo’s works. According to Earp, Jacob symbolizes the type who learns by practice, “making gradual progress, with toil” (p. 337). His advancement takes him all the way to perfection. “Philo mostly thinks of Jacob reaching perfection after his wrestling victory, when he becomes Israel” (p. 347). 40 InSomn. 1.157 Philo explicitly identifies the archangel with the Lord ((cid:617)(cid:246)(cid:447)(cid:247)(cid:253)(cid:239)(cid:3)(cid:238)(cid:284)(cid:3)(cid:252)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:321)(cid:247)(cid:235)(cid:250) (cid:288)(cid:251)(cid:252)(cid:242)(cid:250)(cid:243)(cid:241)(cid:246)(cid:445)(cid:247)(cid:248)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:288)(cid:30)(cid:357)(cid:3)(cid:252)(cid:294)(cid:207)(cid:3)(cid:244)(cid:245)(cid:448)(cid:246)(cid:235)(cid:244)(cid:248)(cid:207)(cid:3)(cid:252)(cid:316)(cid:247)(cid:3)(cid:267)(cid:250)(cid:237)(cid:444)(cid:241)(cid:241)(cid:239)(cid:245)(cid:248)(cid:247), (cid:244)(cid:450)(cid:250)(cid:243)(cid:248)(cid:247)) and in 1.158 with God – and although he does not use the definite article with (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207), the context makes it clear that not the Logos but God is meant. On the other hand, inConf. 146 andHer. 205, which are the other two passages where Philo uses the word (cid:267)(cid:250)(cid:237)(cid:444)(cid:241)(cid:241)(cid:239)(cid:245)(cid:248)(cid:207), he explicitly equates the term with the Logos. This is hardly a question of Philo being uncertain about the real identity of “the archangel” but rather of him calling both God and the Logos by the name “the Ruler of the angels,” as Whitaker trans- lates inSomn. 1.157. 9 names (cid:249)(cid:239)(cid:449)(cid:207) as a mediator of dreams of the second kind, but he does not point to, nor am I otherwise aware of, such a statement. 2.2 Dream Interpretation vs. Philo’s Ordinary Exegesis Irmgard Christiansen’s monograph is one of the basic works on Philo’s methodology of allegorical exegesis.41 In the footnote that serves as a general introduction to theSomn. Christiansen notes Philo’s mentions of the three classes of dreams but she does not con- nect them with other dream classifications.42 In her analysis of Philo’s symbolical exe- gesis she takes one example from Philo’s interpretation of the verses preceding Jacob’s dream (called (cid:252)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:248)(cid:448)(cid:246)(cid:243)(cid:248)(cid:247), the prelude, by Philo in 1.133) and another from the dream-interpretation section. Christiansen is the only scholar in this brief review to note the importance of the (cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:248)(cid:448)(cid:246)(cid:243)(cid:248)(cid:247).43 In it, Philo goes through the symbolism of Gen 28:10–11, which he calls (cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:244)(cid:235)(cid:252)(cid:235)(cid:251)(cid:244)(cid:239)(cid:253)(cid:293)(cid:3)(cid:267)(cid:247)(cid:235)(cid:241)(cid:244)(cid:235)(cid:448)(cid:235) (necessary prefatory passage) of the vision (Somn. 1.4). Christiansen rightly states that the (cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:248)(cid:448)(cid:246)(cid:243)(cid:248)(cid:247) “ist nicht nur eine formale, sondern vor allem auch eine inhaltliche Einleitung.” However, the reason she emphasizes it seems to be that it contains “Jakobs Bekehrungsgeschichte” whereby Jacob becomes (cid:317)(cid:250)(cid:326)(cid:247), Israel (Somn. 1.129).44 My own view is that the importance of this section does not lie so much in this detour but in what Philo states: it is “necessary” for the understanding of the vision that Jacob saw in his dream. This subject is returned to in section 3 below. Christiansen’s work is useful for answering the question if Philo’s method in the (cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:248)(cid:448)(cid:246)(cid:243)(cid:248)(cid:247) (or elsewhere in his works) is different from what he applies in the interpre- tations of the ladder dream. She presents a general structure for his symbolic exegesis as follows:45 (1) Philo first introduces a scriptural concept. (2) He then declares what “other” the concept symbolizes. (3) Finally he presents the evidence for this symbolic relation, often using the definitions of the concept and the “other”. In this way the sameness of both notions is established.46 Christiansen uses as examples two passages from theDe somniis (1.102–104; 1.133–56) and two from theLegum allegoriae (2.72–76 & 79–81; 3.90–93).47 In the first of these, Philo comments on Ex 22:27 about the restoration of the indebted neighbor’sgarment – the scriptural concept. He then states unequivocally, “Well, then, we say that a garment is a figure ((cid:251)(cid:450)(cid:246)(cid:236)(cid:248)(cid:245)(cid:248)(cid:247)) for rational speech.” Finally comes the evidence (here, as often, beginning with (cid:241)(cid:444)(cid:250)) in the form of functional equivalence: both garment and rational speech protect, cover, and adorn a person. Christiansen shows that Philo applies the complete scheme of symbolic exegesis in in- terpretations (a) and (b) of the ladder dream but a reduced version in (c) and (d). He declares the ladder (the scriptural concept) to be the symbol of the air and of the human soul. As the definitive characteristics of the ladder Christiansen presents, first, its being 41 Christiansen (1969). 42 Christiansen (1969) 49–50. 43 Philo’s words inSomn. 1.133 can be understood to refer either to Gen 28:10–11 or his exposi- tion thereof: ”Such then is the prelude of the God-sent vision, and it is now time to turn to the vision itself”. I use the term (cid:30)(cid:250)(cid:248)(cid:248)(cid:448)(cid:246)(cid:243)(cid:248)(cid:247) for the latter. 44 Christiansen (1969) 49. 45 Christiansen (1969) 75. 46 Christiansen (1969) 47. 47 Christiansen (1969) 48–74. 10