What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah? (Part 1)

[Humble_Servant]

Genesis 10 is one of those geneaology sections–but instead of just the usual begats of father to son, it also tells the nations descended from each of Noah’s sons. So, Ham’s descendants include Cush, who sires Nimrod, who is said to found Babylon, Ninevah and a number of other named cities. He is also the ancestor of the Philistines, the Amorites and other peoples listed as such as opposed to by individual name. There is some confusion because this chapter is apparently one of those conflated from the two main source documents.

This chapter represents a remarkably good classification of the various peoples known to the ancient Israelites; it is theologically important as stressing the basic family unity of all men on earth. The relationship between the various peoples is based partly on linguistic, partly on geographic and partly on political grounds according to their languages, lands and nations. In general, the descendants of Japheth are the peoples of the Indo-European languages to the north and west of Mesopotamia and Syria; the descendants of Ham are the Hamitic-speaking peoples of northern Africa; and the descendants of Shem are the Semitic-speaking peoples of Mesopotamia, Syria and Arabia. But there are many exceptions to this rule; the Semitic-speaking peoples of Canaan, for instance, are considered descendants of Ham, because at the time they were subject to Hamitic Egypt.

I hope this isn’t jumping the gun too much on Dex’s next report, but I suspect that will focus more on the sermons that misused the curse in the1800s and only tangentially on this passage–it is after all only northern Africa that is mentioned.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Bosda: The comment about Canaanite mythology was from one of the resources that I used, and I don’t remember which one, nor where. I’ll try to find it.

scotandrsn, you are certainly free to speculate about the evolution of ancient Hebrew to your heart’s content, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the term “uncovering nakedness” changed between the J-authorship and the P-documents, and there is a reasonable amount of internal evidence to suggest that there was no such change. The more likely explanation is that this was a short-hand (J often uses such shorthand) to describe a well-known story.

Humble Servant, I’m not sure whom you’re quoting, but the next Part of the Staff Report will disagree profoundly: the table of nations is NOT a “remarkably good classification” at all. The notion that it must have been is part of the notion of biblical inerrancy; but the classification system does not hold up to any modern views whatsoever – not linguistic, not racial, not ethnic, not even geographic except in the vaguest terms. But more to come.

[Humble_Servant]

Sorry–forgot to give the cite for that quote–it’s the footnote to Gen. 10 in the New American Bible which is what I had handy when I looked for the verse.

I don’t have the skill to tell whether the “classification by land, language and nation” is accurate or not, but I don’t think the note’s conclusion stems from a bent toward inerrancy–I just read Genesis in that translation for another reason (which is why it’s still relatively fresh in my mind), and the other notes are generally skeptical, acknowledging that the lifespans are not literal, pointing out the repetitive sections from the 2 sources, etc. I initially read the note as saying that it is a fairly complete catalog of the peoples the ancient Israelites would have been familiar with, but you are correct to note that it may be saying more than that. I look forward to hearing what else there is to say about it.

I’m still curious as to my question in post #31, if you feel like responding.

[dougie_monty]

@Humble Servant

Sorry–forgot to give the cite for that quote–it’s the footnote to Gen. 10 in the New American Bible which is what I had handy when I looked for the verse.

I don’t have the skill to tell whether the “classification by land, language and nation” is accurate or not, but I don’t think the note’s conclusion stems from a bent toward inerrancy–I just read Genesis in that translation for another reason (which is why it’s still relatively fresh in my mind), and the other notes are generally skeptical, acknowledging that the lifespans are not literal, pointing out the repetitive sections from the 2 sources, etc. I initially read the note as saying that it is a fairly complete catalog of the peoples the ancient Israelites would have been familiar with, but you are correct to note that it may be saying more than that. I look forward to hearing what else there is to say about it.

I’m still curious as to my question in post #31, if you feel like responding.

Well, I’ll respond first. To me, the New American Bible is a manifestation of the fox guarding the chickens. To divide any part of the Old Testament into ‘source documents’ implies that Scripture is a product of ignorance and I would do just as well to toss it into the sewer, while acknowledging your omniscience and honesty. :rolleyes:
More to the point, I have documentation that the “Documentary Theory” as proposed by Julius Wellhausen–and accepted by the Catholic Church, for whatever reason–is shown to be ridiculous since many writings from that time and region gave that appareance.
As for “literal” I ask that you practice what you preach: that you don’t take speed laws as literal even when a cop pulls you over. And I’ll sure want to hear your explanation in traffic court.

[foolsguinea]

I think the truth behind this little folktale is simpler & sadder than any attempt to claim that “nakedness” means something else, or make Noah’s alleged behavior in this story make sense.

I think that this particular story is a folktale. We have no more reason to believe that this happened than that Hercules stole Hippolyta’s girdle or that Prometheus stole fire from Helios. In fact, we have a good deal less, for one simple reason:

The story was told among the Israelites for a contemporary purpose, just as it would later be told among the Anglo-Saxons in America for their own purposes. It is a myth, a lie told about an already defamed & defined victim class to claim an ancient directive to abuse them. The reason it’s in the book boils down to one sentence:
“Damned be Cannan, servant of servants may he be to his brothers!”

What many fail to realize when reading the Torah is that “saw his nakedness” isn’t a euphemism. We in modern English-speaking culture, just now recovering from Bowdlerism, imagine it’s the same kind of delicacy. But as this story shows, just seeing his father naked was a shame to Ham. The text of the Torah clearly indicates that the ancient Israelites, at least by the time of the “J” writer, had an almost psychotic abhorrence for nudity. It was not only a sin to engage in what we recognize as sexual congress outside of marriage; it was a great shame to see anyone but one’s spouse naked. It was a crime to see one’s relatives naked, tantamount to incest itself.

It seems that when the Israelites invaded the land of those they called Canaanites (the word, as Dex points out, connotes a humbling; perhaps this was a contemptuous catch-all for nations more properly known as Amorites, Perrizites, Amalekites, Jebusites, Hittites, et al.), they found an Anatolian-style pagan culture, that was more blatant about sex, had temple prostitutes, & was (at least somewhat) freer with nudity. But I’m out of my field here, so maybe someone up on the archaeology can tell us more. I’m pretty sure ancient non-Hebrews of the Levant revered sexually-identified fertility gods (Asherah & Baal), rather than the single uptight “Jah” of the Hebrews.

This story ties in Hebrew culture’s hatred of nudity with a condemnation of Canaan. It’s propaganda.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I want to caution y’all about NOT drawing conclusions, in an area where the experts (on all sides, in all religions and in all sciences) don’t have agreed conclusions. There are multiple viewpoints, each one internally consistent, and all of them requiring supposition, speculation, and extrapolation (which includes “faith”, whether faith in the Divine or faith in skimpy archaeology.)

In fact, it was exactly such suppositions – efforts to extrapolate from the bible so as to fit preconceived notions – that led to some pretty cruel injustices, as you will see in Part 2.

There is no answer to the what’s this all about question. The Staff Report is clearly and deliberatly NOT discussing the question of whether the story is “true”. I have done other Staff Reports discussing why water melted the Wicked Witch of the West and what kind of apes raised Tarzan. The Staff Report is involved in similar textual analysis, and the veracity of the story is irrelevant.

[John_W.Kennedy]

@Humble Servant

Hi John W.–I had to look this up–parataxis (adj.=paratactic) apparently means “the placing of clauses or phrases one after another without connectives.” I don’t know Hebrew, but am willing to grant that Hebrew grammar may well fit this definition. I miss the connection though on why this leads naturally to speculations on whether “drunk” is an intentional or accidental state. Could you expand on what you mean? I think I’m missing the logical link. Thanks.

That’s the point. Ancient Hebrew frequently leaves out the logical link. When an ancient Hebrew writes, “Noah was the first farmer. He planted a grapevine. He got drunk,” there’s a good chance that what he actually means is, “Noah was the first farmer, and therefore when he planted a grapevine, he got drunk.”

You can’t say for certain that the “therefore” is intended, but it is a fact that ancient Hebrew frequently leaves “therefore” and similar links out.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Just to expand a bit on what John said: not only do ancient Hebrew texts use few conjunctions (other than “and”), they also use no (well, few) “being” verbs. There is no punctuation – the word “and” was commonly used to mark the beginning of the next sentence (one reason that the KJV is sometimes awkwards; with the invention of the period, there was no longer a need to begin each new sentence with “and”.)

A litteral word-for-word translation (my own) would be:

And-he-began Noah man the-dirt and-he-planted vineyard and-he-drank from-the-wine and-he-got-drunk and-he-uncovered inside his-tent

We understand that “man the-dirt” means literally “a man of the soil” or a “tiller of the soil.” But you can see how dangerous it would be for amateurs to try to interpret on their own. Even among experts, there’s difference of opinion, as John points out, on whether one can read that he didn’t understand that wine would make him drunk. Did that “and” mean “therefore” or simply “and”?

Note that there’s a poetry in the language, with the five and-he verbs coming at you very quickly in succession (OK, a few other words to interrupt). That implies action, motion, activity, to introduce the section. The next sentences are longer and slower.

[FriarTed]

@C K Dexter Haven

Just to expand a bit on what John said: not only do ancient Hebrew texts use few conjunctions (other than “and”), they also use no (well, few) “being” verbs. There is no punctuation – the word “and” was commonly used to mark the beginning of the next sentence (one reason that the KJV is sometimes awkwards; with the invention of the period, there was no longer a need to begin each new sentence with “and”.)

A litteral word-for-word translation (my own) would be:

We understand that “man the-dirt” means literally “a man of the soil” or a “tiller of the soil.” But you can see how dangerous it would be for amateurs to try to interpret on their own. Even among experts, there’s difference of opinion, as John points out, on whether one can read that he didn’t understand that wine would make him drunk. Did that “and” mean “therefore” or simply “and”?

Note that there’s a poetry in the language, with the five and-he verbs coming at you very quickly in succession (OK, a few other words to interrupt). That implies action, motion, activity, to introduce the section. The next sentences are longer and slower.

OK, this may clarify something I heard from weird avuncular Identity preacher Arnold Murray. He explained how God made all races of humans on the Sixth Day, but in Genesis 2, there was not a man to till the Earth- so God created a farmer, the individual Adam.
So did God form Adam FROM the dust of the earth or did He form Adam FOR the dust of the earth? Hmmmm!

NOT that I get any beliefs from Arnold Murray (not like I had from Gene Scott :eek: ), but I do find the old codger interesting!

[John_W.Kennedy]

@C K Dexter Haven

Note that there’s a poetry in the language, with the five and-he verbs coming at you very quickly in succession (OK, a few other words to interrupt). That implies action, motion, activity, to introduce the section. The next sentences are longer and slower.

C. S. Lewis wonders somewhere whether it isn’t a sign of God’s providence that the Psalms are written in the language that, out of all the languages on Earth, is the easiest to translate poetry from while still retaining its specific poetic quality. Homer’s vowel-drunk quantitative hexameters are completely impossible to reproduce in English, and 99.9% of English “haiku” don’t scan, but the rhythms of ancient Hebrew verse, being at least as much rhetorical as musical, easily go into any other language, even when, as sometimes, it is difficult to get at the exact sense.

[Voyager]

One thing that doesn’t seemed tied down is where was Canaan during all this? The curse on him would seem to imply that he had been born. If Noah got drunk from the wine made after a grape harvest, that would imply that Canann was conceived on the ark. (Would it take over 9 months to plant and harvest grapes?) If the story took place shortly after the landing, then Noah was being prophetic. Is there any evidence that Noah’s grandchildren were on the ark? The list of those boarding would seem to preclude it, since the women were actually listed in this part, and no grandchildren are.

[Trunk]

All I know is that all that talk about ham, drinking, and sex got me all het up.

[FriarTed]

@Voyager

One thing that doesn’t seemed tied down is where was Canaan during all this? The curse on him would seem to imply that he had been born. If Noah got drunk from the wine made after a grape harvest, that would imply that Canann was conceived on the ark. (Would it take over 9 months to plant and harvest grapes?) If the story took place shortly after the landing, then Noah was being prophetic. Is there any evidence that Noah’s grandchildren were on the ark? The list of those boarding would seem to preclude it, since the women were actually listed in this part, and no grandchildren are.

Any grandchildren seem to have come about either during or after the time on the Ark (which lasted about a year IIRC).

My theory suggests that Canaan didn’t even exist at that time- that it was a derogatory name Noah threw at Ham, comparing him to Cain. Ham later showed his defiance to Noah by placing it upon his son.

OR perhaps if Canaan was born, Noah was telling Ham, “Like father, like son”- as Ham showed disrespect to his father, Canaan would follow the example on down to the degradation of his descendants.

Btw “servants of servants” isn’t the worst curse Noah could have placed on Ham-Canaan’s lineage. And it indicates that the story was older than the Conquest stories stories. Noah’s curse gave the Canaanites the option of surrender to subjugation & eventual assimilation before the Shemites & Japethites. By the time of the Conquest, that option was not given to some particularly depraved Canaanite communities.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

The curse on him would seem to imply that he had been born. If Noah got drunk from the wine made after a grape harvest, that would imply that Canann was conceived on the ark. (Would it take over 9 months to plant and harvest grapes?) If the story took place shortly after the landing, then Noah was being prophetic. Is there any evidence that Noah’s grandchildren were on the ark?

I think the presumption is that this story happened some time after the Flood. Certainly, long enough for Noah to have planted a vineyard, harvested the grapes,and fermented them into wine. And, of course, one presumes that Canaan was born and grown at least to adolescence – we presume that Noah wouldn’t curse an infant, I think. I don’t claim to have read everything ever written on the topic, but I did read pretty extensively, and no source indicated any presumption that Canaan hadn’t been born yet.

And, as I think I mentioned in the Report, one line of reasoning holds that Ham had sex on the Ark despite God’s (implied) instructions, and that Canaan was conceived during the Flood. Thus, the curse on Ham is focused on the child born from, ah, inappropriate intercourse.

Note that the same cast of eight people emerge from the Ark, so Noah’s grandchildren were all born post-Deluge.

[Voyager]

@C K Dexter Haven

I think the presumption is that this story happened some time after the Flood. Certainly, long enough for Noah to have planted a vineyard, harvested the grapes,and fermented them into wine. And, of course, one presumes that Canaan was born and grown at least to adolescence – we presume that Noah wouldn’t curse an infant, I think. I don’t claim to have read everything ever written on the topic, but I did read pretty extensively, and no source indicated any presumption that Canaan hadn’t been born yet.

That makes sense, but this argues against the theory that Noah got drunk as a reaction to the horror of the Flood. The parallel with the similar Lot story seems more satisfying, which would imply that Noah brought wine onto the Ark. But then we have the Canaan problem.

Makes you want to go back in time to either figure out what the redactors meant, or teach them about consistency.

Note that the same cast of eight people emerge from the Ark, so Noah’s grandchildren were all born post-Deluge.

In the ancient world, weren’t children not really people until a certain time passed, because of the high number of early deaths? I believe I read somewhere that a bris is not done until 8 days have passed because at that point there is more chance the child will survive. So I suppose it is possible that children were on the ark but not mentioned, like the daughters of Adam.

Or, perhaps God accelerated growth - which would be necessary to give the new carnivores food. Under this model, Canaan could be conceived after the landing and have grown to adolescense by the time of the first harvest.

[histybuff2b]

Has anybody out there seen the book After the Flood by Bill Cooper? The premise of the book is that if all those people listed in the genealogies after Noah really exisited, then there should be some evidence for them in ancient cultures. He seems to reason that if Japheth is just a myth, then his fame should be limited to those circles, but if he was real, then as “father” of a continent (area) he should at least make it into a few of the family scrapbooks of the non-Jewish peoples. And, surprise, he actually provides some plausible examples! Such as the his name in the vedas of India where it appears in Sanskrit as Pra-Japati, Father Japheth. There’s many more examples but the bylaws to the message board seemed clear on copyrighted material so I’ll limit the examples. (I’m new to this message board stuff.) As I recall, his claim is that he found direct or indirect evidence in other cultures for about 80+% of the people listed in Noah’s genealogies. The whole back 1/4 of the book is footnotes and appendices. At least by my reading of those, he appears to have done some genuine research using credible sources and not just old booklets from “whacked-weirdo-society” groups. I’d be interested to know if anybody else has read this and what they know about his sources. (The author is from England and most of his sources are from English Universities and publishers).

[FriarTed]

@histybuff2b

Has anybody out there seen the book After the Flood by Bill Cooper? The premise of the book is that if all those people listed in the genealogies after Noah really exisited, then there should be some evidence for them in ancient cultures. He seems to reason that if Japheth is just a myth, then his fame should be limited to those circles, but if he was real, then as “father” of a continent (area) he should at least make it into a few of the family scrapbooks of the non-Jewish peoples.

I always thought it interesting that Japheth was regarded as father to the IndoEuropeans & the Roman name of the chief god is Jupiter. I think that a Iapetos also figured in Greek mythology but I’ll have to look further into that.

[Chronos]

I always thought it interesting that Japheth was regarded as father to the IndoEuropeans & the Roman name of the chief god is Jupiter. I think that a Iapetos also figured in Greek mythology but I’ll have to look further into that.

“Jupiter” is just the nominative form of his name, and it’s probably related to “pater”, for “father”. I’ve heard the name rendered as “Sky-father”, but if so, it’s from an older word for “sky” (by Classical times, the Latin word for “sky” was “caelum”).

If you really want to wonder, though, the root for all the other forms of the name “Jupiter” is “Jov-” (as in “Jovis” for the genitive, and the Anglicised form “Jove”). Which bears some passing resemblance to the Tetragrammaton. Anyone know if there’s anything to that one?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Assuming that the “J” in “Jove” is indeed a J-sound or an I-sound rather than a Y-sound, there’s not much connection between “Jove” and the Tetragrammaton … except for having a V in the third place. Not a huge coincidence.

[foolsguinea]

I feel reasonably confident that “Jupiter” is not the same as “Japheth.”

The Romans called their king of gods “Iovis” which we have turned into English “Jove.” “Jupiter” is a contraction of “Iou-Pater,” or “Father Jove.”

Despite its apparent resemblance to “Yahweh,” “Iovis” was formerly “Diovis” ( http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/Z0012500.html ) & is a form of the same name as Greek “Dios,” also known as Zeus. “Dios” of course is also the word for God in Spanish (the most widely spoken modern dialect of Latin), & the Latin word for a god was “Deus.” These are apparently true cognates, there being a Proto-Indo-European stem along the lines of “dyeu-” ( http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE117.html ) from which Greeks, Romans, & Hindus got their words for deities (there it is again).

So, “Japheth”/“Jupiter” is pretty solidly a fortuitous coincidence. Some cross-pollination between roots of Hebrew “Yahweh” & Latin “Iovis”? Well, it’s hard to rule everything out, but it would probably be really ancient, & it could just be a coincidence. Languages are like that.