Литература Второго Храма к Берешит 20:3

There are also distinct points of contact between Posidonius’ second kind and the dreams of this book. In the first vision it is the Logos which Jacob “meets,” and the Logoi are described in § 127 in words which recall the “animi immortales” of Posidonius. Also the point is made in § 241 that it was God’s “image,” not God Himself, which the dreamer beheld. In the second vision it is the Angel who speaks, and the point that God uses His ministers for this purpose is stressed in § 190. Whether any such connexion can have been made between Posidonius’s third kind and Philo’s first, i.e. the dreams treated in the lost book, seems to me more doubtful. If, as Wendland supposes, these were the warnings sent to Abimelech (Gen. 20:3–7), and to Laban (Gen. 31:24), it is true that in both these cases “God” is said to have come and spoken, but would Philo have admitted that these were real visions of the Self-existent? Moreover the main ideas underlying the two classifications are different. With Posidonius it is the distinction between the natures of the divine monitors, with Philo the presence or absence of human volition. The conclusion seems to be that while he probably had the Stoic classification in mind, he has put it into a very different shape.