I saw a television program about the story of Noah that was very interesting, and it brought up something I had never heard about but made a bit of sense.
In Genesis 8:20-26 Noah invents wine and gets drunk on it. After this his son Ham sees him naked and tells his brothers Shem and Japheph about it, and they cover him up. When Noah wakes up and finds out he curses Ham’s son Canaan to be a slave to his brothers.
There are a some logical inconsistencies in this version - Ham sees Noah naked because he passed out uncovered and tells his brothers, who go in there and cover him up. This does not seem too unusual, yet also does not seem like a horribly shameful thing - if it was such a horrible thing to see your father naked, why did Shem and Japheph enter the tent to cover him up, why not just tell everyone to stay out of the tent and wait for Noah to wake up in the morning? Aside from that, one would think that male family members would see each other in a state of undress rather often. And why is Canaan punished?
The program said the reason this does not make sense is that it has been edited, that it is heavily implied in the original text that Ham either walks in on his son molesting the unconscious Noah or somehow took part in the rape. The point of the story was probably to show that even after God destroyed all but the most righteous man and his family there was still particularly vile sin going on.
This much I can answer: Shem and Japheph took special pains to ensure that they would not see Noah naked. If I recall correctly, they walked into the tent backwards, carrying the blanket between them, and didn’t even look back once they had the blanket on him. For reasons unclear to our culture, it apparently was considered a big deal back then to see one’s father naked.
Correction, that was Genesis 9:20-26, not 8:20-26. Sorry about that.
I have found another interpretationg of the story here that says that when they say Ham ‘uncovered his nakedness’ this may have meant that he had sex with Noah’s wife, or perhaps came upon Canaan having sex or after having sex with Noah’s wife. It seems that in Leviticus there is a long list of sexual prohibitions that uses ‘uncover nakedness’ to mean have relations with, and also says ‘The nakedness of thy
father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s
nakedness.’ Thus one might say after finding out someone had sex with a man’s wife that they ‘uncovered his nakedness’.
I believe one interpretation is that Ham castrated Noah, so that he would not have any more children. I’m not sure about Canaan - I can try checking that at home.
Chronos is right about the efforts taken by the two sons. They both entered walking backwards carrying a blankey between them to cover their father and then they carried him out to bed.
While Ham gets IMHO a royal screw job for basically walking into a barn the same way anyone would. At least as the text implied there was no reason for him to avert his eyes upon entering, so his viewing of Noah naked and passed out drunk was inadvertant and probably did not justify his enslavement. Then again the Old Testament god is a pretty spiteful dude. I don’t remember the exact story but there is one about an old fella who is teased by a few kids in a village so GOD sends bears to the town to kill ALL the children in the village. These two stories seem to go hand in hand with the Old Testament GOD. Not the kind of cat I would choose to associate with. Wasnt a big fan of public works projects either, at least according to the citicens of Babel.
Maybe this is why all my ancestors had such a hard time believing in a savior named Jebus. I mean the kind of guy they were used to dealing with would have to go through some serious personality changes to get all nicey-nice all of a sudden. Then again setting up your only kid to get pinned to some birch wood is kind of extreme “tough love”. Whatever the case may be I’m sticking with the Greek Pantheon because at least they are consinstently screwed up and don’t try to cover it up.
Sorry, Zen, I think you’ve missed the point. The usual interpretation of the text is NOT that Ham inadvertently walked in on his naked and drunk father. The offense was that Ham didn’t DO anything, except walk back out and blab about it.
The other two brothers, knowing what they might see, go in carefully backwards to cover their father. They are thus honouring their father, by protecting (and covering) him. What is important is NOT that they walk in backwards, but that they go to cover him.
The Biblical text is amazingly consistent (even if you believe in multiple authors.) The commandment to “Honour thy Father and thy Mother” is a very serious one, and Ham’s acts fail to do that, both by a sin of omission (failing to cover his father) and by a sin of commission (gossipping to his brothers about what he saw.)
The God described in the Old Testament is NOT a “petty spiteful dude” unless you choose to read it that way… just as you can read WIZARD OF OZ as a political polemic or MACBETH as a condemnation of homosexuality, if you so choose.
The Old Testament describes events, in a fairly crisp style, and lets you draw your own conclusions. However, the text describes a God whose justice is very exacting.
According to the Midrash, Ham and Canaan castrated Noah.
However, whether or not you choose to consider the Midrash an authoritative Biblical commentary, it should be clear that Ham/Canaan were not cursed for merely “walking into a barn the same way anyone would.” They were cursed for having mocked their father’s shameful state rather than doing what they could to alleviate it, as Shem and Japheth did.
I believe you’re referring to the story of Elisha, the protoge of Elija, the one who was taken up to heaven in the whirlwind.
The kids met Elisha as he came into town, and began mocking him, saying “Go up, thou bald head! Go up, thou bald head!” Basically, they were saying “Hey, if you’re so great, let’s see you go up in a whirlwind, too, baldy!” The implication is that not only were the children mocking Elisha, they were mocking the power of God, so He decided to show them who was boss by sending two “she bears” into town which “tare forty and two” of the children into little pieces.
Yup. Ham said to himself, “When daddy dies, I get to split the whole planet three ways with Shem and Yaphet. If he has more kids, though, our shares will be smaller and smaller. Better make sure we’re the only children.” Thus, castrating Noah (I guess tubal ligation for Mom wasn’t feasible).
As for Canaan, he was just cooperating with his father, but it’s still a rotten thing to do to his grandfather.
When they “saw” Noah naked, was that the past tense of “to see”(as with eyeballs) or “to saw” (as to cutting off)?
Explains why we don’t know what went on.
