Scott Hahn says that Ham (Cham) can be interpreted as having had sex with

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jehanne_Darc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jehanne_Darc

Guest
…his mother, that is Noah’s wife. In his audio CD series “Salvation History” Dr. Hahn says that Ham (Cham) “sees his father’s nakedness” (Genesis 9:24) and that is an allegorical way of saying that Ham had sex with his mother. So Canaan is the product of this insestuous union and the Canaanites continued in that lovely practice among other animalistic activities that the pagans ave always practiced.

I checked the Lain Vulgate and a few other sources, but I am not sure where to search for others who agree with Dr. Hahn.

What is his interpretation is based on?

I have heard and read a simpler explanation of the matter, that being Noah didn’t appreciate being looked at naked by his son and therefore cursed his son’s son Caanan.
 
Im no expert but I dont think that is a valid interpretation, if anyplace in the Bible is going to not hold back any details its Genesis.
He must have been mocking or showing disrepect to his father because he called his brothers to come have a look. His brothers refused to participate and made sure they didnt look.
 
I’ve heard this, too, from Mr. Hahn’s works. It does bear further study.

First of all, why would Noah curse Ham’s son for something Ham did. That’s not very righteous, wouldn’t you agree? Unless of course, the son was the product of the incest between Ham and his mother.

Second, there is another mention of “uncovering the nakedness” in the Leviticus 20:17 when Moses is describing incest.

The following comes from SalvationHistory.com
In Hebrew, this phrase (uncover the nakedness) is a figure of speech used to describe incest (Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18. Note: In other places besides the story of Noah and Ham, The New American Bible translates this phrase as “to have intercourse with.” The Revised Standard Version in all cases keeps the more literal translation “uncover the nakedness of.” See RSV-Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18).
Click to expand...
To uncover the nakedness of your father is to commit incest with your mother. To state it bluntly, in all its brutality - while Noah was drunk, Ham slept with his mother. We don’t know what Ham was thinking. It could be that he wanted to seize power from his dad and this heinous act was his way of insulting Noah and showing his total disrespect (see similar episodes in Genesis 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4; 2 Samuel 16:21-22).
Click to expand...
But notice that Noah doesn’t curse Ham. He curses Canaan - the son born of this incestuous encounter. Why Canaan? It’s another hint in the text of what Ham’s crime was. As we’ll see later, Canaan will be the founding father of a nation that will be known for its abominable practice of maternal incest (see Leviticus 18:6-18; Exodus 23:23-24).
Click to expand...
Canaan is the bad fruit born of Noah’s sin. But as Adam bore both Cain, the slayer of his brother, and Seth the righteous one, Noah too has a good seed: his firstborn son Shem, who had tried to “cover” his father’s nakedness (see Genesis 9:23).
Click to expand...
 
i think that what it means is that noah got drunk and passed out naked and ham saw him
 
Here’s that Haydock Douay-Rheims commentary on this subject:
Ver. 18. Chanaan, who, it seems, is here mentioned to his shame, having first discovered and told his father that Noe was drunk. He was probably but young at the time, being born after the deluge.
Ver. 20. A husbandman. Hebrew, literally “a man of the earth.” (Haydock) — To till, perhaps with a plough, which he is said to have invented. (Menochius)
Ver. 21. Drunk. Noe by the judgment of the fathers was not guilty of sin, in being overcome by wine; because he knew not the strength of it. (Challoner) — Wine, Though vines had grown from the beginning, the art of making wine seems not to have been discovered; and hence Noe’s fault is much extenuated, and was at most only a venial sin. (Menochius) — His nakedness prefigured the desolate condition of Christ upon the cross, which was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles. But by this folly we are made wise; we are redeemed, and enjoy the name of Christians. Sem and Japheth represent the multitude of believers, Cham and Chanaan the audacity and impudence of all unbelievers. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xii. 24; City of God xvi. 2; St. Cyprian, ep. 63. ad Cæcil.) (Worthington) — Like the Manichees, modern heretics are very free in condemning many innocent actions of the Patriarchs. (Haydock)
Ver. 23. Neither ought we to be so quick-sighted in discovering the faults of any: which we often represent as real, when they are only apparent. (Haydock)
Ver. 25. Cursed be Chanaan. The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs were prophetical: and this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father’s fault? The Hebrews answer, that he, being then a boy, was the first that saw his grandfather’s nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse. (Challoner) — Theodoret, q. 57. The children of Sem executed this sentence, in exterminating many of the Chanaanites under Josue. (Worthington) — They perished for their own wickedness, which God foresaw, and revealed to Noe. Cham was severely punished by this denunciation of his children’s misery. See Milton, xi. 754. xii. 27; Deuteronomy ix. 4. (Haydock)
Click to expand...
BEWARE of Scott Hahn’s interpretation of Scripture. He interprets Scripture in a very Protestant way and sometimes looks for novel ways to interpret the Bible which have no support in the Church Fathers.
 
Anima_Christi said:
Here’s that Haydock Douay-Rheims commentary on this subject:

BEWARE of Scott Hahn’s interpretation of Scripture. He interprets Scripture in a very Protestant way and sometimes looks for novel ways to interpret the Bible which have no support in the Church Fathers.
Click to expand...
This would be a good time to tell me where Scott Hahn’s commentary is off.

Scott showed why he thought it may mean incest. Is his explanation wrong?
 
6glargento said:
i think that what it means is that noah got drunk and passed out naked and ham saw him
Click to expand...
Because gosh, if anything deserves a railing condemnation and a curse on a man’s offspring, that does!

Jeremy
 
From Genesis 19:
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
The Bible describes the Moabites and the Ammonites (enemies of the Israelites) as being the descendants of incestuous relations with a righteous man (Lot). Why then would we hesitate to think that the Canaanites were not also the product of an incestuous relationship? The interpretation makes sense.
 
Hahn is merely speculating on the fact that uncovering or seeing a man’s “nakedness” is a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse with his wife. Hence, you will read in Leviticus 18, “the nakedness of your father’s wife thou shat not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness” (18:8 KJV) and “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness” (18:16 KJV).

So while he is clearly in the minority, the fact of these Hebrew expressions lend credence to the possibility that Ham may have had incest with his mother (“his father’s nakedness”). I’m personally skeptical of this interpretation myself, but I wouldn’t scream BEWARE! at this. In fact, the curse of Canaan makes a bit more sense with this, much like the hated Moabites and Ammonites.
 
Peace and every blessing!
According to the Harper’s Bible Commentary, the stories in Genesis 1-11 are Near-Eastern myths picked up by Jewish religious writers after the exile.What are these stories really? Parables?
 
Atreyu said:
From Genesis 19:36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.The Bible describes the Moabites and the Ammonites (enemies of the Israelites) as being the descendants of incestuous relations with a righteous man (Lot). Why then would we hesitate to think that the Canaanites were not also the product of an incestuous relationship? The interpretation makes sense.
Click to expand...
My point was that as you show above Genesis has no problem giving the gory details on immorality, in the case of Ham, these details are not given which lead me to believe there was no incest/fornication.
porthos11 said:
I’m personally skeptical of this interpretation myself, but I wouldn’t scream BEWARE! at this. In fact, the curse of Canaan makes a bit more sense with this, much like the hated Moabites and Ammonites.
Click to expand...
I agree, there is no reason to go screaming “heretic” or “beware”, at this point its simply Hahns opinion trying to make sense out of the passage. He wasnt denying any doctrines or spreading heresy.
abeln said:
Peace and every blessing!
According to the Harper’s Bible Commentary, the stories in Genesis 1-11 are Near-Eastern myths picked up by Jewish religious writers after the exile.What are these stories really? Parables?
Click to expand...
They are real historcial accounts, they are not myth. While they are not parable they are still a lesson for us today.
 
abeln said:
Peace and every blessing!
According to the Harper’s Bible Commentary, the stories in Genesis 1-11 are Near-Eastern myths picked up by Jewish religious writers after the exile.What are these stories really? Parables?
Click to expand...
And Harper’s Bible Commentary is inspired work?

Where does the Church teach that these stories came from Near-Easter myths?
 
The introduction to the Book of Genesis in the Catholic Study Bible seems to support this view. I also heard a theologian from the Maryhill School of Theology say that the story of creation is a myth.
 
Mechon Mamre
Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes. 4 Mine ordinances shall ye do, and My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. 5 Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD. {S} 6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am the LORD. {S} 7 The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. {S} 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. {S} 9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. {S} 10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thine own nakedness. {S} 11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. {S} 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. {S} 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister; for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. {S} 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. {S} 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son’ wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. {S} 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. {S} 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen; it is lewdness. 18 And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime. 19 And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness. 20 And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.

Or the American Bible
Lev 18
The LORD said to Moses,
2
"Speak to the Israelites and tell them: I, the LORD, am your God.
3
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you once lived, nor shall you do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; do not conform to their customs.
4
My decrees you shall carry out, and my statutes you shall take care to follow. I, the LORD, am your God.
5
Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. I am the LORD.
6
1 "None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.
7
You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her.
8
You shall not have intercourse with your father’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
9
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere.
10
You shall not have intercourse with your son’s daughter or with your daughter’s daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family.
11
You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father’s wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister.
12
You shall not have intercourse with your father’s sister, since she is your father’s relative.
13
You shall not have intercourse with your mother’s sister, since she is your mother’s relative.
14
You shall not disgrace your father’s brother by being intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt.
15
You shall not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, and therefore you shall not disgrace her.
16
2 You shall not have intercourse with your brother’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
17
You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her.
18
While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife.
19
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.
20
You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor’s wife, defiling yourself with her.

I believe that Dr Hahn may well have the correct take on this scripture. Ham’s curse was put upon him because he had carnal relations with Noah’s wife, his own mother.
 
jemfinch said:
Because gosh, if anything deserves a railing condemnation and a curse on a man’s offspring, that does!

Jeremy
Click to expand...
Dude, you forgot one of these: :rolleyes:

Interesting thread, timely too as I am reading Genesis.👍
 
Hello. I’m not much of a Bible scholar, but it seems obvious that Hahn is pointing at something that just is not there. Even if one were to follow this whole ‘uncovering nakedness’ trail it still doesn’t lead to incest. There is nothing to substantiate his claim that uncovering nakedness is an old Hebrew idiom for anything. Any more than Shem and Japeth covering their father’s nakedness means that the wine is all gone. Though it might.👍
 
There’s no question that the phrase “uncovered the nakedness of” if a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse, and I seen others indicate that it is an idiom for incest.

Let’s remember that while Dr. Hahn isn’t infallible, he has read more fathers, books, and scholarly work on Scripture than the vast majority of anyone else, particularly those here. 😛 I think that at least out of humility we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt unless someone can provide a solid reason why it is incorrect.
 
Porthos11, I don’t get the trash talking. Unless you are Scott Hahn. Anyway, it does not say that Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness, it says he SAW his nakedness and then told his two brothers. No place here is his mother even mentioned. If one were to follow Hahn’s logic we would have to conclude that Ham had his way with old Noah while he slept. Sure that could account for Noah’s indignation but why would Ham then run and tell his brothers about it?
Very clearly, Hahn is reading something into the scriptures that is not there.
 
Hi,

I dont disagree with Scott but at the same time I think this is one of those passages that is just a mystery and obviously bad enough for Ham to be cursed and all his offspring. Did you know that the middle easterners derive from Ham:eek: Whatever Ham did he really made Noah and God angry:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top