Dream State: Hiccups and Pun Intended.
In my last post I began to cover some of the “in general” struggles I have with Mr. Milligan’s dream guide. This was more for the purpose of deconstructing the book to show how there is a nature deficit leaving someone like myself susceptible to further fear and disembodiment. Also, it’s just good to set all this up so its understood how nature has a language piece in symbol meaning. Symbols are a language all their own. You may remember I showed how it was poor form to use the bible to interpret your own dreams. Moments, seconds, minutes, hours, days, and yes weeks later, I still say the same thing I did then. The bible is not a dream dictionary. If you want to examine and learn from how ancient Israelite culture handled dreams and when and how they occurred - there is certainly wisdom to be had. But looking up lizards to find out what it means to you from the pages of the bible is a bad, bad, bad, idea. Did I say it was bad? YeS.I.dId.AdNaUsEAm.
There is more in the water little fishy.
Do you remember when I wrote[?]:
“Despite all the talk about being biblical, between the flaps of the text, Milligan readily admits that symbols derive their meanings from numerous sources.
The biggest source for meaning are the inherent characteristics of whatever the symbol involved [46-48]. Next to this category is personal meaning to the dreamer, cultural meaning from the wider society, and then, also the bible. For Milligan though, the most reliable source of information about numbers comes from the bible. In fact, Milligan argues the bible is the only legitimate source for understanding numbers [p.s. he’s wrong actually, with love, T. Snickerpuss.] [49].”
Yep, I wrote that. I want to point out some water when it comes to dream interpretation, biblical keys, and Mr. Milligan’s dream dictionary developmental process. And in order to do this, I must begin with and point out that interpretation matters along with translation. Also, so does Mr. Milligan’s own nature deficits and disembodiment.
Milligan is not shy about locating symbolic meaning everywhere in the bible’s texts. His book makes that abundantly clear. In fact, he is so GOOD at it, I find myself wondering if he was caught in the world of allegorical interpretation. I should say whirlwind because the way he floats his ship on the sea of symbol, I’m see [sea] sick. Get it, see sick. WHA!
Allegorical interpretation is in fact, a real interpretative method. Ancient Jewish people did this at certain points of time - but without losing the more mundane and plain meaning of the text. A “for instance,” would be a similar tactic Mr. Milligan employs with the dietary laws found in the Old Testament. He believes there is a spiritual based meaning [“the law is spiritual] that runs along similar fault lines of some Jewish writers like - I want to say it was Philo of Alexandria - use [Milligan 131]. The difference is literally there was no advocacy for not abstaining from pork, if you get my drift. Milligan appears to dance with the pig at the party in spite of the requirement being a requirement in the text.
As an example of what to expect in allegorical land:
He writes about fish as a symbol in Chapter 11 [bold emphasis mine]:
“The waters brought forth the fish and fowl. Water often depicts things that are spiritual, and because the fish and fowl were brought forth from water, their source reveals that they relate to spiritual things—especially things that relate to the soul. For instance, Jesus used fish as a type of ‘lost souls.’ He said to Peter and Andrew, ‘Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men’” (Matthew 4:19b) [128].
Milligan uses the KJV which makes the Genesis 1 creation story sound like the fish and fowl came out of the water. Your bible translation matters, as I have already demonstrated in my previous hiccup - er- post. The KJV is an older version written with a political agenda by a king who loved hierarchy. It’s not one of the best translations out there. Why is that? Because scholarship has more manuscripts and a better understanding of those texts. That’s what happens with time and discovery. Translations are political creatures even if theologians think they are merely theologians. At any rate, this version relies on older texts.
If, however, I step back for a minute with Milligan’s assertion about fish representation, I hiccup. My thing is, weren’t these dudes fishermen? Don’t you see it? They were fishermen. It’s a pun. I will make you fishers of men….hello. It doesn’t have to be an extravagant allegorical wonderkin moment unless you want to be “biblical.” And I mean “biblical” in the egregious form of it - a whistle that panders to laying claims to authority and expertise. But this is Mr. Milligan and how his mind and theology work. Jesus said it so symbolically it means this when in reality he was probably making wise fun talk. Milligan sees patterns in the text in this type of way. It does make my head spin, but that’s just my issue. With that said, if someone wants to do this, they obviously can but it doesn’t mean it isn’t a reach. ReAcH fOr tHaT aPpLe.
It’s important to understand Mr. Milligan, as he builds his dictionary understanding, is going to be working some theology and building that theological understanding into symbol meaning to interpret dreams. It is a circular process by its nature. It also goes twisted serpent quite quickly. Another example of this behavior is when Milligan works through numbers in both the descriptive chapter and in the dictionary. Once he establishes what numbers mean in terms of symbol, he then applies that to passages with numbers in them to get a “deeper” meaning - so to speak.[1] The question is - what if his original number interpretations are good interpretations? Oh well for you?
Another, “for instance,” when it comes to numbers, Milligan believes the number 5 means “service.” In his numbers section he clearly states he’s deriving the meaning of the number five from Genesis and day five of creation [51-52, 127]. He interprets this day as service because the creatures created where to serve God. Now keep in mind, the passage doesn’t say that explicitly. It’s an interpretation.[2] Also, it’s important to note that Genesis 2 has an alternative universe of creation and is generally regarded as a second origins story that sits side by side with the one Milligan is using. Milligan states after reiterating five means service and animals were created to service God [which is striking as one would think the sun, moon, and stars likewise would be in service] that “This information also helps us to see how creatures are used as symbols” [127]. This matters later for he will state that animals were probably created to represent certain aspects of humanity when referring to the dietary list of unclean animals [130].[3] But the order in which they were created really doesn’t tell anyone that much about how creatures are used as symbols unless you actually want it to tell you something. Inherent character traits actually will tell you more since that deals directly with the created being used in symbol meaning making.
Milligan is talking to the bible in his dictionary. I’m not convinced, exactly, that the bible is talking to him. It isn’t just the theological justification for having dreams on their own merit. In order to build symbols, and as Mr. Milligan correctly states, we have to assign meaning to a given mental representation. This will always involve stories.
This may not be concerning to some people. It has been for me because as I thumb through the dictionary, I started to notice an interesting pattern. While Milligan claims to give the reader biblical “keys,” the dictionary is one big fun time in culture - and not bible culture. In other words, Milligan does not extract symbol meaning from the bible like he recommends. He oversimplifies a great deal and states clearly in some places that all of this is just as plain as the day is long. It’s not actually. He creates meaning for his symbols and then assigns the bible. Somewhere it’s called proof texting.
Let me show you what I mean with the dictionary and how it works.
Color Me Raven - and Pass the Rolaids.
Milligan’s entry for raven/crow is “confusion.” As with all his definitions, there are more offerings, but this word is the word that is italicized and followed by a colon for all the other possibilities [192]. It is difficult to comprehend from where this definition arises; that is to say if it arises from something within Ira Milligan’s personal relationship with these amazing birds or from the bible itself.
At any rate, here is the definition in his dictionary section:
CROW/RAVEN — Confusion: Outspoken person, usually operating under the influence of a spirit of envy or strife (which causes confusion and disorder); hateful; direct path (straight line, as in ‘as a crow flies’); God’s minister of justice or provision. [192].
Most entries in this section have bible verses associated with the entry. In this case, Milligan cites James 3.16, Isaiah 34.11, Psalm 35.26, Proverbs 30.17, and 1 Kings 17.4,6.
My only direct understanding of this interpretative link for”confusion” comes from Isaiah 34:11 which he cites in the scripture part of the dictionary. It’s curious the next entry is an outspoken person which he links to a person causing strife. Apparently being “outspoken” makes you a purveyor of strife. Keep in mind, being outspoken literally mans to be frank or candid. I guess being direct “usually means you’re operating under a spirit of envy or strife.” Good grief. That’s the twisted serpent right there. This will be important. When he cites the verse, he doesn’t cite the entire verse, but only from where the verse speaks of ravens. Then he cites the rest of the verse linking them to confusion. He basically does what is below, only I’m using the AMP version:
“…the raven will dwell in it.
And He will stretch over it (Edom) the measuring line of desolation
And the plumb line of emptiness.”
The whole verse reads:
“But the pelican and the porcupine will take possession of it;
The owl and the raven will dwell in it.
And He will stretch over it (Edom) the measuring line of desolation
And the plumb line of emptiness.”
It begs an interesting question. If ravens represent confusion in this passage, where does the owl, the pelican, and porcupine figure in? Who knows really. That’s the problem with proof texting your way to symbol meaning using the bible. If you’re going to use bible citations, wouldn’t you want to be culturally specific to the bible for clarity sake??? This is also a translation example. Like I said, Milligan is using the KJV. His translation reads “as the measuring line of confusion” [192]. In English, confusion and desolation as words without context are not similar. Confusion can be associated with chaos in certain contexts and certainly the destruction of the city is the evaporation of order into chaos. There would no doubt be a great deal of confusion. But the bible is using a specific word to describe a specific context - and it’s not “confusion.” Keep in mind, I’m working this for a modern reader, not someone from the era of King James. More on this angle later.
Screenshot of Dictionary.
In context then, please note how translations use language to convey the meaning of these words. This section in the bible has to do with the destruction of Edom. Basically, God is going to lay the place to ruins and it’s going to be so ruinous the wildlife is going to do some occupying [see all of Isaiah 34]. Some wildlife is listed in verse 11. To give you some idea, in Isaiah the word for “confusion” is “desolation” for the AMP or in the NET version’s case “ruin.” That’s not the same thing as our English definition. This type of “confusion” is referring literally to the desolation of land [to give an idea the formlessness found in Genesis 1 uses the same Hebrew word used here in Isaiah].
Let’s look at the word via Websters website. I’ve provided two screenshots to make my point here. First, look at the current English definition. It has nothing to do with ruin or desolation as far as land, animals, and scattering people through an act of divine violence. Elsewhere in Milligan’s options he cites James 3:16 about envy and strife and confusion [192]. This is not the same thing! This isn’t directly related to the ruination of land but it fits his option for an outspoken person [a.k.a, apparently a frank person out of order] motivated by such a spirit as represented in the James verse. I’m still limping through the weird causal association between outspoken and a spirit causing confusion via envy and strife. What does being candid have to do with creating confusion? Saying what you think is not a crime or demonic activity. But I guess if the feathers on your head disapprove? Shrug.
Screenshot Two of Dictionary
Look at the second screenshot for the dictionary around the etymology section. At one point the concept of confusion encompassed ruin, disgrace, and disorder. It details the bits and bobs of the word and its meaning and its origin. Now, look again at the top - the meaning has changed and seems to be absent of some key ingredients. This would make huge sense given the points in time of bible translations. At one point, no doubt around the KJV, the word would make sense to their times and audience. Now we have a double whammy going on - translation plus the word meanings during the time period for that translation.
In other words, the word “confusion” has its own English meaning to English readers that is probably more in line with the state of being confused which involves an issue with thinking or acting with clarity. It can be being in disorder but that is not desolation. It can also mean chaotic or jumbled [The Free Dictionary]. Another word that is similar is bewilderment. Keep in mind, when most people see the word confusion, their not going to be thinking ruined land and they are probably not going to be thinking about formlessness or Hebrew concepts of chaos and order. It’s like vultures, you know. What do you picture?
Yet another example of another citation for this passage is the use of Psalm 35:26. Once again, the times of the translation matter. The Amplified translates it this way [italics mine]:
“Let those be ashamed and humiliated together who rejoice at my distress;
Let those be clothed with shame and dishonor who magnify themselves over me.”
Milligan’s version uses “confusion” and the AMP here uses “humiliated.” I am not sure which meaning he is using this cite for in the dictionary. It could be the outspoken person or even the “hateful” description. With that said, the theme is confusion and here, the word used for confusion is more associated with shame. Gesenius reports it is shame arising from disappointed hope [Blueletterbible.org]. It’s not the same as desolation, and it’s not the same as instability or disorder from James. It’s also not the same as our English definition of confusion that shows up in his translation. While it may make sense to an earlier period of time that had a wider definition, it doesn’t make sense to a modern reader. Well, I should say, when I thought of confusion, I didn’t think the way these citations were working. Just because the same word is there, doesn’t mean I, as that 21st century reader, am grasping the differences of word development along the space-time continuum. It could be Milligan has missed this point as well. Or maybe he just doesn’t care!
Why care? Certainly the theme is probably relatively accurate at least in his translation. This will only be glorious using his translation. Using my preferred translations [plural] however, could make it look like Milligan hasn’t done any real leg work in helping his reader understand that his translation, among other things, is leading him down a particular road. All the references are seemingly linked directly to a scriptural cite [save one which is a cultural idiom] but simply change with context so why take any issue? I figured it out after all. It’s misleading as a rabbit riding a reindeer. At the time, I didn’t even have a glimpse of this issue on the broader face of my dream interpretation life. That directly impacts my relationship with the divine, not just what the divine may be saying to me in a dream. Using Milligan’s dictionary could spell disaster and honestly for me, it did - a catastrophe!.
I would think since folks like Milligan want to be “biblical” recognizing all the metaphor and symbol use by these dead [these people are dead and the culture has changed] authors what would probably be more appropriate is to derive from scripture the metaphorical meaning for raven/crow over finding it for oneself through cherry picking scripture. Isn’t that biblical? Isn’t that staying within the context if you’re telling readers the bible is a source for understanding exactly what the hell your dreams mean? Really? Where Milligan got this idea is difficult to pin down in the first place. Instead, seek out the passage where the bird shows up and see how the bible’s authors, editors and redactors specifically use it over creating symbol meaning and then looking for scripture to support that meaning all over the spectrum.
Milligan however, insists that Genesis is the helpful location for seeing how creatures are used as symbol. He writes about the fifth day and what animals were created for -to serve God. It doesn’t say this in the actual text. It’s a creation story for pete sake [written more likely in block logic]. The proposal that the creation story gives information and a clue to see how creatures are used as symbols is an INTERPRETATION outside of the original intent of the story. And what at least appears most nonsensical, is the random assignment of day five as a category for God’s service. Why would land animals be the one’s confined to the service idea and not water animals like whales or even humans who are clearly planted in the gArDen tO sErVe GoD? All of creation points and speaks to God’s glory. If Milligan chose to actually examine how the text speaks about these animals across texts, one would have the bible speaking to them. That means, I would imagine, recognizing when the bible is using symbol, metaphor, and simile plus digging around to figure out how the culture would have understood the passage. In this case, the James 3:16 and Psalm 35:26 would not be cited because these passages have no raven/crow citations or references. Instead, the following passages where the two birds appear would be cited:
Isaiah 34:11
Proverbs 30:17
1 Kings 17:4, 6
Genesis 8:7
Lev. 11:15
Deut 14:14
Job 38:41
Psalm 147:9
Song of Solomon 5:11
Luke 12:24
By doing this, you can see how the bible “uses” the raven/crow as symbol or literally the animal [e.g. metaphorically, etc.] in scripture. To Milligan’s absolute credit, 1 Kings is cited as the provision piece which fits with the bible. In a sense, Proverbs 30 isn’t a big deal about calling a raven a “minister of God’s provision or justice if that’s what he is doing [Milligan 192]. However, it’s important to understand that this is Milligan’s iNterPreTaTion of the event. It seems this proverb is kind of like a “may it be” and it does appear ravens really do peck the eyes out as a natural behavior or inherent characteristic. With that said, if we’re going to try and be biblical, we can glean from the bible contextually the following:
Ravens/Crows: “to be black;” God’s messenger [providing food], Sign of God’s goodness and provisioning toward His creation [he provides for the ravens], follows desolation/ruin, “leaving home” [The Arabic root means to leave home], the color black, unclean or inedible, flying to and fro, pecks at the eyes, sign of judgement [ancient culturally related].[4]
This entire list feeds off the listed bible passages in context. No confusion, no weird spirit stuff, no hate, no weird bible citing. It is plain and simple. By the way, oreb, the Hebrew word for raven/crow comes from a root meaning “to be black.” In Song of Solomon [see 5:11], the color of a raven is used as descriptor for the color of the man’s hair. This why I started out with “to be black” as an initial meaning.
When it comes to this entry, this is just the bible’s possibilities which is only one of the four on Milligan’s symbol meaning creation list. What I love is there are two inherent characteristics used - they are black and they peck at eyeballs [see Song of Solomon 5:11 & Proverbs 30:17]. But what else could be used? One could go further and attempt to figure out Hebrew culture or ANE views of ravens. That’s a lot of work and would probably be pretty foreign to most moderns today, especially non-Jews. In other scholarship places I have found raven’s are seen as divine messengers [generally positive] [Van der Toorn Et. al 688]. Jewish folklore associated the raven as a sign of evil [pre-saging], mainly related to Isaiah 34:11 [Jewish Virtual Library].
Finally, I’ve also read that in ancient times, ravens/crows were part of a maritime culture. In fact, so were doves. It was believed they could find land so they were taken aboard ships and sent out to direct maritime travel toward land [See the Jewish Virtual Library]. This may explain why Noah used a raven first [See Genesis 8:7-12]. I think this is important up against the commonalities with the Babylonian creation myth as well. I’ve noticed in my ANE search, finding unified scholarship on raven symbol meaning has been difficult, and somehow I don’t think a dead and foreign culture is going to be real helpful to a modern dreamer. Of course, one gets trapped in some ANE research needs to remain faithful to context and what the hearer would have understood if you’re going to be culturally astute and frankly, “biblical.”
Inherent characteristics are plenty here but none are given in Milligan’s description near as I can tell. There is one cultural statement [“as the crow flies”] as part of a “direct path” meaning [Milligan 192] that resonates in my knowledge of American culture. It could be a carryover to the directional nature of the bird from maritime spaces. It seems Milligan may be using his own scriptural method here for symbol meaning. How biblical someone wants to make that is up to them. But if you’re going to use the bible as a dream dictionary, Milligan shows poor form. If you’re going to make a dream dictionary for non-Jewish types, you might need to figure out what symbols mean that are not represented in the bible since, once again, the bible is confined to a land and to a people with specific ecological webs for the area.
Speaking of which, have I talked about inherent characteristics Milligan style? No? Oh dear. I’m going to need another Rolaid.
Notations
[1] I’m going to be real honest here. Some of Milligan’s understanding of bible numbers is really fishy. That is cultural and he has NO citation of sources that show where scholarship has perceived these numbers and what they mean. It would be uber wise to make sure, from a cross-discipline field, to find out if Milligan is accurate in his interpretation. Other wise, it’s just an interpretation that isn’t grounded in a cultural context. It’s far more likely to be grounded elsewhere then while calling itself biblical. At what point, I ask, is something really “biblical?” Is it just biblical because someone found it there? {heavy sigh}
[2] This is a good example of why I think Milligan’s number section is real fishy. Is that cultural context? It’s an interpretation based on a wider theological umbrella Milligan operates from. Also, language confines our worlds as much as it describes them. Not all cultures have a similar concept of time bound to their language. Another for instance here, is that the Genesis creation story is written in block logic, not a linear progression. In this concept of time, the first few days are about creating the initial foundations of the world. The second half is the filling of that creation. The sequence is found in blocks of logic - like the same activities - grouped together. I’m not an expert here, it’s just what I’ve seen floating around the internet. How much would this shift in understanding shift the interpretation and the meaning of the numbers?
[3] This is how it happens. Humans are at the center of the planet so animals were created for humans and for God. The sheer notion that humans share traits with animals escapes even the most basic understanding that we too - are animals. Instead, it works in reverse order. Here, characteristics of humanity are found in these animals for dietary purposes and they were put on the list to help humans make some weird connection. Milligan writes, “There are quite a few more unclean creatures on God’s list of “Thou shalt not eat….,’ but usually it’s not difficult to see why He made each one. The individual characteristics of each one reflect some aspect of humanity” [130]. It’s not difficult to see. Meanwhile, many readers more trained have been trying to figure out these dietary codes for years…but it’s easy! It’s about portraying aspects of humanity that are unclean and uncovered!
[4] Regarding the arabic meaning. I located this from an Encyclopedia on blueletterbible.org which is no longer available. I’m just noting that here.
Bibliography
Bible, Amplified. The Amplified Bible. Zondervan, 2004.
“Confusion.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confusion. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
“Israel Environment & Nature.” Raven, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/raven. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
Michael Jerrard Raven Photograph. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/@michaeljerrard
Milligan, Ira L. The Ultimate Guide to Understanding The Dreams You Dream: Biblical Keys for Hearing God’s Voice in The Night. Destiny Image, 2012.
Toorn, K. Van der, et al. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible DDD. Brill ; Eerdmans, 1999.
Tyler Quiring Crow Photograph. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/@tylerdq
Vivek Doshi Crow Typical in Israel Photograph. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/@viveksphoto