'A theological, ancient Hellenistic, and psychological look at the dreams of Pharaoh's chief cupbearer and chief baker (Genesis 40: 5-13, 16-18)'
.
1.1. Theological Perspectives on Dreams
According to biblical point of view, God can speak through dreams, as in Genesis 15:13 when God appeared to Abraham in a dream, and as were Urim in 1 Samuel 28:6 (cf. Eusebius,
Onir. 1.1, Herodotus,
Hist.7.16.2,and Cicero,
Div.1.45;
introduced in 1.2 Philosophical Perspectives on Dreams further on).
In ancient Israel, Judaism, Greek, and the New East, prophets sometimes visited sanctuaries in order to obtain oracles
(Metzger & Coogan, 2004; Gnuse, 1997, p.51), although there was in Jewish tradition also a reluctance to have dream incubation. The ancient Israelites no doubt shared many of the prevailing ideas about dreams and considered their dreams a legitimate source of divine guidance. Dreams of theophanies and with other divine direction are usually regarded as prophecies that contain messages from God, and on the other hand, a biblical prophecy is not necessarily a dream
(see Rossel, 2003). Especially the dreams or visions that were experienced by prophets were frequently regarded as vehicles of divine revelation (Num. 12:6-8).
However, the distinction between dreams and visions is not always clear. Some biblical dreams and visions both constitute theophanies or appearance of God’s angels, eg. God’s appearance and speaking to Abraham while he falls sleep deeply (Gen. 15:12-13), Jacob’s dreams at Bethel about the vision of the staircase between heaven and earth and God’s angels ascending and descending on it (Gen.28:10-15), Jacob’s nightly message vision received directly from God to go to Egypt (Gen. 46:2-4).
In some old Jewish and Christian traditions, even some visions are described as possible means of divine communication as well, eg. Paul’s dream in Acts 16:9-10, which legitimates his new move from Asia to Europe ...
There are two kinds of biblical dreams: one is called message (or called non-symbolic) dreams, and another is called symbolic (or called allegorical or enigmatic) dreams(for a survey of the message versus symbolic dream-genre. The biblical message dreams (eg. Gen. 20:3, 6; 31:24; 1 Kg.3:5; Matthean infancy dreams in Mt. 1:20-22; 2:12-13, 19-20) convey direct patriarchal information or divine revelation that is immediately comprehensible. These dreams are described as for the sake of simplicity, having no visual content of any import to the message, that is, God or angels speak directly in the dream, and no interpretation is needed
(see Pirson, 2002, p. 41-42 for a review).
On the other hand, the symbolic dreams which are experienced by non-Israelites are almost always obscure in content, convey through images regarding the future, and need interpretation. Conversely, for Israelites, the symbolic dreams are always self-explanatory. For example, Joseph’s dreams are defined by most scholars as symbolic in nature.
According to Botterweck and Ringgren (1977), a symbolic dream can be interpreted in three different ways: (a) intuitively through the agency of a qualied individual; (b)through the use of collections of dream omina;
[and] (c) through appeal to a deity ...
The relationship between message and symbolic dreams, according to Lasanté
(2001, p. 75), are two aspects: first, since it is believed that message and symbolic dreams developed from distinct “religious” practices, i.e. message dreams from incubation rites and symbolic dreams from one iromancy
(Husser and Munro, 1999, p. 100), therefore, there is little relation between message and symbolic dreams. Second, they share similarities based on the so-called “phenomenological foundation of universal experience” and develop their distinctions due to variations of that experience (for further explanation on the experience,
see Lasanté, 2001, p. 10-11). Another typology of biblical dream incubation is provided as intentional (1 Kg. 3:5-15), incidental unintentional (Gen.46:2-4, 1 Sam. 3:2-14), and accidental unintentional (Gen.28:12-15) dreams
(Gnuse, 1993).There are two types of considerations when approaching biblical dream interpretation
(Hendel, 2011), although on the whole, the Bible says considerably little on the subject of dream interpretation. First, the dreams of kings, like the dreams of prophets, as well as the dreams with divine symbols have special significance as indicating long-term communal and spiritual events.
1.2. Ancient Hellenistic Perspectives on Dreams
In antiquity, dreams were dividedly understood as a means of how divinities communicate to humanity as well as just daily thoughts. For example, in Homer’s
Iliad, Agamemnon’s dream is sent from a god, but his
Odyssey 19.535 ff. expresses that only some dreams have prophetic significance. Herodotus in the fifth century BC seems to argue in his
The Histories that divinities arrive via dreams that contain inevitable truths about the future. However, Herodotus also records Artabanus’s interpretation on his own dream in rational terms: “but (dreams) are not divine, child. For the things of a dream are the sorts of things that have been wandering about amongst men just as I, being much older than you, will teach you. These visions of dreams are accustomed to wander about, things that someone is thinking of during the day” (The Histories 7.16. β.2)
(Greek translation quoted from Cox, 2011, p. 25).
In Plato, dreams are used to figuratively refer to something fleeting and/or unreal, and an epistemological distinction is specified: the one who has false knowledge or opinion is seen to be dreaming while the one who has true knowledge is regarded as being awake
(Reddoch, 2011).Therefore, the lives of most people who have false knowledge may be characterized as a dream in which reality is not truly comprehended. Plato continuously presents dreams as both the fulfilment of our desires (non-predictive) in
Republic IV 571B-572B and of “inspired prophesying” from the divine origin in
Timaeus 71D-72B. Plato proposes that God devises for a dreamer divination through sleeping or illness when the dreamer is not in rational mind
(King, 2004, p. 38).
On the contrary, Aristotle in his treatise of
De Divinitatione per Somnum (On Divination by Dreams ) is skeptical of the divine inspiration of dreams (462b 21-23) and thinks that most dreams are simply the result of coincidence or simply the result of statistical probability (463b 12-22) ...
On the basis of Philo of Alexandria in the first century [AD], the one whose dreams are obscure is the one whose moral and spiritual progress is not sufcient to enable clarity of mental vision
(Hay, 1991; Reddoch, 2010, p. iii). He makes references to dreams which are usually ontological and epistemological metaphors. He declares that the dreamer is one who is subject to an epistemological limitation and thus is asleep to the truth, whereas the dream interpreter is the one who is equipped with knowledge and thus is capable of dispelling ignorance
(Reddoch, 2011). As concerns Joseph, for Philo’s understanding, he often loses his status as a dreamer but instead of as a dream interpreter.
However, Philo also criticizes that although Joseph is successful in Egypt as a dream interpreter, as a dreamer, his first two dreams lack mental clarification and require prophetic interpretation assistance as well. Furthermore, Joseph is vain-glorious in his own dreams since he dreams of future power and glory. In addition, Philo also treats the biblical dream narratives as exegesis of allegories.
The part legendary history of Alexander the Great in the first century BC is accounted of divination through dreams. While according to Eusebius in the second/third century AD (
HE II.18.4), there were unknown two books dealing with non-prophetic dreams not sent by God in the oneirocritical tradition.
The extant
Oneirocritica, the only surviving work from Artemidorus in the second century A.D, is the earliest Greek work on the subject of dream interpretation.
Oneirocritica contains five books in which the first two argue theoretical and technical accounts on the interpretation of dreams, and the rest of the three introduce a collection of 95 dreams and their connotations ...
2.2. An Ancient Hellenistic Look
Driven by Philo of Alexandria’s oneirocritical concerns, headdresses a philosophically oriented exegesis on the chief cupbearer’s and chief bakers’ dream narratives in his treatise of
De somniis II and reminders his readers that the two officials’ dream narratives are closely related. Furthermore, since the two dream narratives are interpreted as complementary symbols both for nourishment of food and drink and offer the opportunity to discuss related vices, gluttony, they also complements his interpretation of Joseph’s dreams ...
Philo connects the association between grape wine and drunkenness and considers the chief cupbearer’s dream ultimately as an allegory for thoughtlessness and folly
(Reddoch, 2011; Torallas, 2003, p. 44). At here the chief cupbearer’s dream narrative is to be regarded as negative in Philo’s eyes since it does not simply prepare for necessary nourishment intending for basic body strength and well-being needs (cf. Philo’s praise on Jacob’s austerity when sleeping on a rock in Genesis 28:11, as well as the command “now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink” in Judges 13:4a and Judges 13:14a to Manoah’s wife by the angel of the LORD), but associates with indulgence in pleasure and enjoyment comparing with austere way of life (
Somn.I.155-163 and
Somn. II.48-51) ...
Joseph is described actually as a veiled symbol for the corrupt Roman leadership in Alexandria in
De somniis II. It is noteworthy that in Philo’s another treatise,
De Iosepho, Joseph is described as a leader primarily for his virtue. Philo’s two contradictory interpretations of Joseph have received considerable scholarly attention,
eg. Harold (1986,1987). However, another approach
(e.g., Reddoch, 2011) emphasizes that Philo’s treatment of Joseph does not conflict since Philo sees Joseph as a multi-faceted character ...
If
[?] distinguishing between God with Pharaoh, as well as between the high priest in the sanctuary as a servant of God with the chief cupbearer as the high priest of Pharaoh, the high priest in the sanctuary serves God Who is completely without passion and pours a pure drink, whereas the chief cupbearer is said to serve one who is intemperate, lacks self-mastery, and disperses destruction (
for a more detailed interpretation on God’s complete pure nourishment in relation to Philo’s understanding of ethical standard of human beings, see Winston, 1984, p. 400; also Philo develops the idea of God’s high priest allegorically representing as the father of holy
logoi, contrasting to the chief cupbearer as the eunuch who is sterile [
Somn. II.185-189]).
The prominent spiritual functions of the high priest in the sanctuary as an agency of God to redeem souls are contrasted with the chief cupbearer whose functions are superuous and detrimental for saving souls. Philo differentiates Pharaoh who is conjuncted with Egypt and thus the gluttony of drunkenness (i.e. thoughtlessness) with the temperance of God (Reddoch, 2010, p. 239).
https://www.academia.edu/25023110/A_the ... _13_16_18_