Philo: Questions and Answers on Genesis, II

vine could easily be found by the just man still alive, and might thus be collected by him. But we have to consider why the first thing he did was to plant a vineyard, and why he did not rather sow wheat and barley, since the latter are necessary productions of the earth, without which life cannot be supported, but the former is only a material for superfluous pleasure. The answer is that Noah, adopting a salutary design, consecrated and offered up to God those things which are necessary to support life and which require no co-operation for the production of the fruit; but the superfluous plants he devoted to men; for the use of wine is superfluous and not necessary. As therefore God ordered fountains of water fit to drink to burst up from the earth without the cooperation of man, so he also of his own accord granted to man in a similar manner wheat and barley, in order that he himself might be the sole giver of each kind of food which serves for necessary eating and drinking. But he did not take away the power nor grudge them providing for themselves by their own industry those things which contribute to pleasure.

(68) What is the meaning of the statement, "He drank of the wine and was drunken?" (Genesis 9:21). In the first place, the just man did not drink the wine, but a portion of the wine, not the whole of it; in which case an incontinent and debauched man does not quit his means of debauchery, till he has first swallowed all the wine that there is before him; but by the religious and sober man everything necessary for food is used in a moderate degree. And the expression, "he was drunken," is here to be taken simply as equivalent to "he used the wine." But there are two modes of getting drunk, the one is that of an intemperate sottishness which misuses wine, and this offence is peculiar to the depraved and wicked man; the other is the use of wine, and this belongs to the wise. It is therefore in the second of these meanings that the consistent and wise Noah is here called drunken, not as having misused but as having used wine.

(69) What is the meaning of the statement, "He was naked in his house?" (#Ge 9:21). This is a praise of the wise man both in the literal sense of the words, and also in their hidden meaning, that his exhibition of nakedness took place not out of doors but in his house, being concealed by the roof and walls of his house; for the nakedness of the body is concealed by a house which is made of stones and beams of wood: but the covering and clothing of the soul is the discipline of wisdom. Therefore there are two kinds of nakedness, one which takes place by accident, which is the result of an involuntary offence, because the just man, using, if I may say so, his honesty as if it were a garment with which he is clothed, stumbles out of his own accord like men who are intoxicated, or who are afflicted with insanity; for in such men their offences are not deliberately committed: but it is his task and pleasing duty to clothe himself, as with a garment, with the discipline and study of honesty. There is also another kind of nakedness of the soul which is caused by perfect virtue, which expels from itself the whole carnal weight of the body, as if it were flying from a tomb, as indeed it has long been buried in it as in a tomb; as also it avoids pleasures, and also a great number of miseries arising from the different passions and many anxieties arising from misfortunes, and indeed all the evil effects of these different circumstances. He therefore, who has been able with distinction to pass through such various and great dangers, and to escape such injuries, and to emancipate himself from such evils, has attained to the destiny of happiness, without any stain or disgrace; for I should pronounce this to be the ornament and badge of beauty in those individuals who have been rendered worthy to pass their existence in an incorporeal manner.

(70) Why is it that the sacred writer has not simply said, Ham saw his nakedness, but Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father? (#Ge 9:22). By stating the fact thus, he both blames the son in the father and the father in the son, as performing together in common the deed of folly, and iniquity, and impiety, and every other kind of wickedness. This is the literal meaning of the statement; and as to the inner sense, we must look at that in the same manner in which we have hitherto treated these subjects.

(71) What is the meaning of the statement, "He told it to his two brothers out of doors?" (Genesis 9:22). The sacred historian is here adding to the gravity of the transaction. In the first place, because he did not report the involuntary evil of his father to one brother only, but to both of them; and no doubt if he had had any more he would have told it to them all, as he did in fact to every one he could; and he did so with ridicule in his very words, making a jest of what ought not to have been treated with laughter and derision, but rather with shame and fear mingled with reverence. In the second place, when the historian says he told it them, not in the house but out of the house, he evidently points out that he displayed his father when naked, not only to his brothers, but also to the bystanders with whom they were, both men and women. This is the literal information conveyed by the words. But if we look to their inward meaning, then we shall see that a depraved and malignant habit of life is full of derision and contempt: and it is a bad thing to judge of the miseries of others even by one's self like a chastising judge. But in this case what has happened is worse than this, for any man with a joyful mind to ridicule the involuntary misfortune of a devoted disciple of wisdom, and to make a song of and proclaim abroad his misery, is the part of a thoroughly hostile accuser, who ought rather to have pardoned such an occurrence than to have added accusation or vituperation to it. Moreover, because these three things are, as I have said before, as it were brothers together; namely, good, bad, and indifferent, being all the offspring of one parent thought: in accordance with each of these principles, they have been found to be overseers, some celebrating virtues with praise, others upholding acts of malignity, and others supporting riches and honours and other good things which, however, are not attached to and which are external to the body. The overseers who emulate wickedness rejoice at the fall of the wise man, and ridicule and disparage him, as if he had done no good by the part which he adopts and to which he applies himself as better for the mind, or for his body, or for his external circumstances, to his internal virtues or to any of the good things which are around and exterior to his body. Unless indeed that man alone is eminently able to attain his object, who applies himself to iniquity, as that alone is accustomed to confer advantages on human life. Pronouncing these and similar precepts, those who are overseers of iniquity ridicule those who devote themselves to virtue, and to those things by which virtue is produced and consolidated: as some look upon those things to be which are around the body, and outside it, and which may be regarded in the light of instruments serving to that end.

(72) What is the meaning of the statement, "Shem and Japhet, taking a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father, and they themselves did not see it?" (#Ge 9:23). The literal meaning of the statement is evident; but with respect to the inner sense contained in it, we must say that the light man who is in too great haste only sees those things which are before his eyes and exposed to his sight: but that the evil man also sees those things which are at his back, that is to say, the future. And since what is posterior is postponed to what is anterior, so is what is future to what is present, the sight of which is peculiar to the virtuous and wise man, who in truth is a second Lynceus, being according to the fables gifted with eyes in every part. Therefore every wise man, who is not so much man as actual intellect, walks backward, that is to say, he sees what is behind him or future, as if it were placed in brilliant light; and seeing every thing on all sides of him with a perfect sight, and looking all around him, he is found to be armed, and protected, and fortified, so that no part of his soul is ever found naked or in an unseemly plight, on account of any accidents which occur unfortunately.

(73) What is the meaning of the statement, "And Noah became sober after the wine?" (Genesis 9:24). The literal meaning is too notorious. Therefore we need only here speak of what concerns the inner sense of the words. When the intellect is strengthened, it is able by its soberness to discern with a certain accuracy all things, both before and behind it, both present, I mean, and future; but the man who can see neither what is present nor what is future with accuracy, is afflicted by blindness; but he who sees the present, but who cannot also foresee the future, and is not at all cautious, such a man is overcome by drunkenness and intoxication; and he, lastly, who is found to be able to look all around him, and to see, and discern, and comprehend the different natures of things, both present and future, the watchfulness of sobriety is in that man.

(74) Why is it that after the sacred historian has enumerated Ham in the middle of the offspring of Noah, or has placed him in the middle between his brethren, he nevertheless points out that he was the younger, saying, "Noah saw what his younger son had done to him?" (#Ge 9:25). This is a manifest allegory, because he here takes as the younger, not him who was so in age and in point of time, but him who was younger in mind; since wickedness is unable to attain to a perception of the learning which is proper to the elder; but the elder thoughts belong to a will which is truly growing old, not indeed in body, but in mind.

(75) Why did Noah when praying for Shem speak thus: "Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant?" (#Ge 9:23). The names Lord and God are here used together on account of his principal attributes, both of benevolence and of kingly power by which the world was created; for as king he created the world according to his beneficence; but after he had completed it then the world was arranged and set in order by his attribute of kingly power. Therefore he at that time rendered the wise man worthy of a common honour, which the whole world also received, all the parts of the world being formed in an admirable manner with the attributes of the Lord and God, doing so by his especial prerogative, munificently pouring forth the favour and liberality of his beneficent power. And it is on this account that the beneficent power of God is mentioned twice. Once, as has been already stated, being placed in opposition to his kingly power; and a second time without any such connexion, in order, forsooth, that the wise man having been rendered worthy of his gifts, both such as are common to him with others and such as are peculiar to himself, he might also be rendered acceptable both to the world and to God; to the world on account of the excellence imparted to him in common with it, and to God for such as was peculiar to himself.

(76) Why, when Noah prayed for Japhet, did he say, "God shall enlarge Japhet, and bid him to dwell in the house of Shem: and Canaan shall be their servant?" (#Ge 9:27). Without examining the literal statement, for the meaning of that is plain, we had better approach the inner sense contained in it, and examine that, in which the second and third blessings mentioned are capable of an enlarged and ample extension. As, for instance, good health, and a vigorous state of the outward senses, and beauty, and strength, and opulence, and nobleness of birth, and friends, and the power of a prince, and numbers of other things. And on this account he said, "God shall enlarge," etc. Because taken separately, the abundant possession of such numerous and great blessings has of itself been injurious to many persons who have scarcely dwelt with justice, or wisdom, or any other virtues, the complete possession of which dispenses to man in an admirable manner the advantages which are external to and which surround the body; but the deprivation or absence of them leaves him without the enjoyment or use of them; and man, if deprived of all good protectors, and of the use of these enjoyments, is exposed to as much suffering as he is capable of. Therefore he prays on behalf of he man who has those things which are around and exterior to the body, that he may dwell in the house of the wise man; so that attending to the rules of all good men he may see and regulate his own course by their example.

(77) Why because Ham had sinned did God pronounce that his son Canaan should be the servant of Ham and Japhet? (#Ge 9:27). In the first place, God pronounced this sentence because both father and son had displayed the same wickedness, being both united together and not separated, and both indulging in the same disposition. But in the second place, he did so because the father would be exceedingly afflicted at the curse thus laid upon the son, being sufficiently conscious that he was punished not so much for his own sake as for that of his father. And so the leader and master of the two suffered the punishment of his wicked counsels, and words, and actions. This is the literal meaning of the statement. But if we look to its inward meaning, then in reality they are no more two different men than two different dispositions. And this is made plain by the names given to them, which manifestly denote the nature of the facts; for Ham being interpreted means heat or hot; and Canaan means merchants of causes.