Philo of Alexandria · 1505 of 1726

Questions and Answers on Genesis 2 · Part 5

(65) Why is it that after the sons of the just man have been named Shem, Ham, and Japhet, he relates only the generations of the middle one, saying, "And Ham was the Father of Canaan;" and afterwards he adds, "These are the three sons of Noah?" (Gen 9:18). Mentioning four men, Noah and his sons, he says that these were obedient. Because the grandson Canaan was in his habits like his Father who begat him, on that account, instead of mentioning only one, he includes both in his enumeration, so that they are four in number, three in virtue. But in the meantime in the scripture he mentions only the generations of the middle one, on account of the just man whom he is going to speak of subsequently, because although he was his father, since Ham is the Father of Canaan, still he does not mention the father with blame, but with respect to the man with whom he thought it fair that the son should be a partaker, he yet did not give the father a participation with him. In the second place, perhaps he thus gives a premonitory warning also to those persons who by the acuteness of their mental vision can see a long way off what is at a distance, namely, that he designs to take away the land of the Canaanites from them after the lapse of many ages, and to give it to his chosen people who are thoroughly devoted to God. Therefore he chooses to designate the chief inhabitant of that region, namely Canaan, and to show that he both practised singular and peculiar wickedness of his own, and also all the wickedness of his father, so that in every part he might be convicted of an ignoble slavery and submission. This is the literal meaning of these words. But if we have a regard to the inward sense, he does not say that Ham had a son named Canaan, but he predicates offspring of him alone, saying, "Ham was the Father of Canaan." Since such a disposition as that of Ham is always the Father of such designs as those of Canaan, and that the very names themselves intimate this. For if we translate them into another language, Ham means heat or hot; and Canaan means merchants, or buyers, or causes, or recipients. Accordingly, he is not now speaking manifestly of generations, nor is he saying that one man is the Father or the son of another man, but he is evidently demonstrating the connection between one counsel and another, by reason of its alienation from all familiarity with virtue.

ABOUT THE CULTIVATION OF THE EARTH

(66) What is the meaning of the statement, "Noah began to be a cultivator of the earth?" (Genesis 9:20). He is here comparing Noah to the first created man who was formed out of the earth; for in that manner also does he speak of him when he came forth out of the ark; since both then and now there took place a first beginning of the cultivation of the land, each being after a deluge. For also, at the time of the original creation of the world the earth was, as it were, a lake, being covered by an inundation of water, for the sacred historian could not tell us that God said, "Let the waters be gathered together into one body, and let the dry land appear," unless it had previously been inundated with waters which now returned into certain depths of the earth. Nor again is the expression a purposeless one, "He began to be a tiller of the earth," for in the second generation he was himself the beginning of men, and also of seed, and of the cultivation of the land, and of the life of all other things. This is the literal meaning of the words. But if we look to their inner sense, a distinction is made between being a cultivator of the earth and a tiller of it; as the murderer of his brother is represented as tilling the earth, but not as cultivating it. For by the earth our body is symbolically represented, which is by its nature earthly, and which the unjust and wicked man tills like a lazy hireling, but which the man endued with virtue cultivates like a skilful manager of plants and an agriculturist of good works appointed to superintend it. Because the workman of the body, the mind, as being carnal, procures carnal pleasures; but the cultivator of the earth is careful to produce useful fruits, those, namely, which are to be obtained by the study of continence, and modesty, and sound wisdom; and he prunes away all superfluous excesses and bad habits which spring up around, like the thin and misplaced branches of trees.

(67) Why does the just man first plant a vineyard? (Gen 9:20). It was very natural for it to be a subject of anxiety and doubt to him in what quarter he was to find any plants after the deluge, when everything upon the earth was destroyed. Therefore it appeared natural, as was said a little while ago, that the earth was made dry in the spring season; therefore when the spring produced the buds of trees, the roots and stems of the 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?" (Gen 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? (Gen 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?" (Gen 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?" (Gen 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?" (Gen 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?" (Gen 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? (Gen 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.

(78) Why was it that Noah lived after the deluge three hundred and fifty years? (Gen 9:28). It is now declared that in two periods of seven years the form of the world was originally created and now renewed under Noah. But the wise man lives for a period of fourteen quarters of a century; and fourteen times twenty-five is equal to seven times fifty, or fifty times seven. And it is the principle of the seventh year and also of the fiftieth, which has an especial order of its own explained and ordained in Leviticus.

(79) Why among the three sons of Noah does Ham appear always to occupy the middle place, but the two extremities are varied; for when their birth is mentioned, Shem is placed in the first rank, in this manner, Shem, Ham, and Japhet; but when they are spoken of as fathers, then Japhet is mentioned first, and the beginning of the enumeration of the nations is derived from Japhet himself? (Gen 10:1). Those who inquire into the literal nature of the divine writings think thus of the order in which these men are mentioned, looking upon him who is the first named, that is Shem, as the younger; and upon him who is named the last, that is Japhet, as the elder. However they may choose to think of this let them, being guided by the principle of mere opinion. But we who look to the real meaning of these statements think that there is here a reference to the three things, good, bad, and indifferent; which last are called secondary goods; and we must therefore think that the sacred writer always puts the bad in the middle, so that being confined at either extremity it may be subdued on one side by the one, and on the other side by the other; so that, being confined, it may be kept in and subdued. But the good and the indifferent, or secondary good, change the order with one another; for when there is such great evil present, and yet not wholly and altogether, the good rejoices in the first place, having the position of the dispenser and chief of the whole. But when it is placed in the position of the will in a state of conspiracy, and injustice remains not only in the intellect but is also conducted to its end by unjust works, then that first good is changed from its original order into another place, together with all the good habits which depend upon it, rejecting all education and all arrangement, as being wholly unable to attain its proposed end, just as a physician does when he sees an incurable disease. But the elder good manages that virtue which is around the body and exterior to it; therefore, by observing the extremities with greater caution, and closing in the beast within its toils, it is sufficiently demonstrated that it does not dare to bite or injure any more. But while it feels that it has done no injury, it is transferred into a more secure and more permanent position, and then, a higher and better fortified place being assigned to it, it easily retains the lower position too as one easy to be preserved; for, in consequence of the superior power of its guardian, it is always practicable to watch it closely, since nothing is more mighty than virtue.

(80) Why do the people of Ceos, and of Rhodes, and the isles of the Gentiles, spring from Japhet? (Gen 16:4-5). Since he has the name denoting breadth (namely Japhet), being expanded in his growth and increase, that part of the things of the world which have been assigned by nature for the use of mankind, that is to say, the earth, can no longer hold him, therefore he passes over into the other part, that is to say, the sea and the islands belonging to it. This is the literal meaning of the statement. But if we look to its inner sense, all the external blessings which are bestowed by nature, such as riches, and honour, and principalities, are lavished and poured forth in every direction on those men into whose hands they come, and are also extended widely to others who are not so much within reach; so that in a greater, or at all events, in no less a degree do they surround and hem the man in, in accordance with the greediness of the lovers of riches and glory, since they are eager for principalities, and are never satisfied because of their insatiable desires.

(81) Why the eldest son of Ham is Chus. (Gen 10:6). The sacred historian has here produced a word most completely in accordance with nature, saying that Chus was the elder son of evil, Chus being the dissolved and loose nature of the earth, for the earth, when dense and fertile, and moist, is full of herbs, and hills, and trees, and is well arranged for the production of different fruits; but when dissolved and reduced to dust and dry, it is unfruitful and barren; and besides it is tossed about in the air, when it is raised from the ground by the wind, by its dust making the air all alive. Such as this is the first origin and the first shoots of evil being destitute of the generation of good pursuits, and the cause of barrenness to the soul and to all its parts.

(82) Why was Chus the father of Nimrod, who began to be a giant and a hunter before the Lord: on which account they said, "Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord?" (Gen 10:8). The father in this case, having a nature truly dissolute, does not at all keep fast the spiritual bond of the soul, nor of nature, nor of consistency of manners, but rather like a giant born of the earth, prefers earthly to heavenly things, and thus appears to verify the ancient fable of the giants and Titans; for in truth he who is an emulator of earthly and corruptible things is always engaged in a conflict with heavenly and admirable natures, raising up earth as a bulwark against heaven; and those things which are below are adverse to those which are above. On which account there is much propriety in the expression, he was a giant against God, which thus declares the opposition of such beings to the deity; for a wicked man is nothing else than an enemy, contending against God: on which account it has become a proverb that every one who sins greatly ought to be referred to him as the original and chief of sinners, being spoken of "as a second Nimrod." Therefore his very name is an indication of his character, for it is interpreted Aethiopian, and his art is that of hunting, both of which things are detestable: an Aethiopian because unmitigated wickedness has no participation in light, but imitates night and darkness: and the practice of the huntsman is as much as possible at variance with rational nature, for he who lives among wild beasts wishes to live the life of a beast, and to be equal to the brutes in the vices of wickedness.