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.
garysibio said:
This is an interesting discussion. I’ve long known that “uncovering nakedness” didn’t mean you saw them where the sun doesn’t shine but was a euphemism for sexual activity. I had always assumed that this passage was describing a homosexual rape of his father by Ham. The incest viewpoint seems to make more sense but it still raises a couple of questions.
  1. If uncovering his father’s nakedness refers to having sex with his mother, what does it mean when the other sons cover their father’s nakedness? Is this another euphemism? If the sex was with his mother, Noah wouldn’t be naked.
  2. Is Canaan the result of the relationship between Ham and his mother? Gen 9:22 says that Ham, the father of Canaan uncovered his father’s nakedness which would come across in modern English as meaning that Canaan was already alive but is there anything in the Hebrew that would imply otherwise?
Click to expand...
Two very good questions.

The first, based on Shem and Japheth’s actions in v.23 is the strongest support of the voyeurism interpretation. Clearly, Shem and Japheth going backwards and averting their faces is an act of filial piety and refers to literal seeing. If the narrative ended there, neither the ancient rabbis nor Hahn and Bergsma would have gone any further in search of an explanation. They do so based on what follows (the curse of Canaan, not Ham, because of “what his younger son had done to him”). But just because the voyeurism hypothesis has a very hard time explaining vv.24-27, the other interpretations are not absolved from explaining v. 23. Here is how Hahn and Bergsma explain it:
Noah becomes drunk and disrobes in “her tent” in preparation for intercourse [the translators who render it “his tent” are following the vowel points of the Masoretic rabbis but, as other scholars have noted, the consonantal form appears to have the feminine possessive suffix]. Noah is incapacitated by his drunkenness. Ham enters and “sees his father’s nakedness,” that is, engages in relations with his father’s wife. He exits and informs his brothers of his grasp at familial power, perhaps producing an article of clothing as proof of his claim. The brothers, in turn, act with great filial deference and piety in returning “the garment” to their humiliated father [the word in Hebrew has the definite article - translators who render this “a garment” are wrong]. They avoid not only the figurative “seeing of the father’s nakedness” (i.e. maternal incest) but the literal as well. In the aftermath of the event, Noah curses the product of Ham’s illicit union, namely Canaan, and blesses Shem and Japheth for their piety.

Your second observation is also very perceptive. If the narrative identifies Ham as the father of Canaan, doesn’t that imply that Canaan is already around?

No, but you are right to pick up on it.

Back up to v. 18. The whole narrative is introduced with the seemingly odd singling out of Ham’s paternity of Canaan “The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan.” None of the sons of Shem and Japeth are mentioned. None of the three older sons of Ham are mentioned. Why?

I would suggest that the whole purpose of this narrative is to show the illicit origins of the Canaanites whom the Israelites, newly freed from Egypt (Ham’s firstborn according to Genesis 10) were heading out to take the land back from.

On this interpretation, Genesis 9 is parallel to Genesis 19:30-38 which describes the origins of some other enemies of Israel, the Moabites and the Ammonites, as an act of drunken incest.

There is perhaps some confirmation of this interpretation in the opening verses of Leviticus 18. There, the LORD tells Moses to command the people to refrain, not just from the practices of the Egyptians whom they had just left, but also from the practices of the Canaanites where He is bringing them. And topping the list of forbiden practices is what? You guessed it. Incest.
 
Augustinson said:
He exits and informs his brothers of his grasp at familial power, perhaps producing an article of clothing as proof of his claim.
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken, this is assumed to be the first documented case of a practice later known to be the “Panty-Raid”.

Am I right? Did I see something about that in Leviticus? 🙂
 
I’ve tried to summarize the pros and cons for the three positions that I am aware of. I find myself leaning toward the third.

There are three options for what is taking place here:

1) Ham literally saw his father unclothed.
  • Pro: The literal meaning of the text is “saw the nakedness of.”
  • Con: Nowhere in Scripture is there any condemnation of nudity unless the nudity is (1) sexual in nature and (2) it is outside of the marital relationship.
  • Con: They had just spent quite some time living together on the ark. I’m sure that they all saw each other naked quite a few times.
2. Ham engaged in an incestuous relationship with his mother
  • Pro: In Lev 18:6-18; 20:17; Ezek 22:10 the phrase is used to refer to incestuous relationships, not homosexual ones.
  • Pro: When Noah awakes he curses Canaan, Ham’s son. He doesn’t curse Ham. The Canaanites commonly engaged in incestuous relationships (Ex 23:23-24; Lev 18:6-18). It is unlikely that Noah would have made this curse if Ham had merely seen his father unclothed.
  • Con: Gen 9:21 states that Noah was laying unclothed in his tent. If Ham had sexual relations with his mother, this would be irrelevant.
3. Ham raped his father. (His father was drunk so he was unable to consent.)
  • Pro: Although a homosexual act, it would still be incestuous since the act was performed on his father, rather than someone unrelated.
  • Pro: According to current theories, rape is not sexual in nature but a demonstration of the rapists power over the victim. This fits with the idea that Ham was involved in a power play.
  • Pro: The text says that Noah’s other sons covered their father’s nakedness. If Ham had raped his father, he most likely would have left him naked to show what he had done. (Ham was bragging about what he had done.) The text also states that the sons walked in backwards. This implies that something truly revolting had happened to their father.
  • Pro: Gen 9:24 says that, when Noah woke up, he knew what Ham had done to him, not to his wife. It could be argued that, in having sex with his mother, he was doing something to his father but the plainest meaning would be that it was done directly to Noah.
  • Con: Regardless of how drunk Noah was, could he have slept through a rape?
Comments?
 
If anyone is still interested in digging into this issue in more detail, the Hahn and Bergsma article from the Journal of Biblical Literature (along with a good selection of his recent scholarly publications) is now available in its entirety on the website of Scott Hahn’s apostolate, the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.
 
garysibio said:
I’ve tried to summarize the pros and cons for the three positions that I am aware of. I find myself leaning toward the third.

3. Ham raped his father. (His father was drunk so he was unable to consent.)
  • Pro: Although a homosexual act, it would still be incestuous since the act was performed on his father, rather than someone unrelated.
  • Pro: According to current theories, rape is not sexual in nature but a demonstration of the rapists power over the victim. This fits with the idea that Ham was involved in a power play.
  • Pro: The text says that Noah’s other sons covered their father’s nakedness. If Ham had raped his father, he most likely would have left him naked to show what he had done. (Ham was bragging about what he had done.) The text also states that the sons walked in backwards. This implies that something truly revolting had happened to their father.
  • Pro: Gen 9:24 says that, when Noah woke up, he knew what Ham had done to him, not to his wife. It could be argued that, in having sex with his mother, he was doing something to his father but the plainest meaning would be that it was done directly to Noah.
  • Con: Regardless of how drunk Noah was, could he have slept through a rape?
Comments?
Click to expand...
  1. A homosexual act does not explain the cursing of Ham’s son.
  2. If Noah was ALREADY uncovered before the act what would be the purpose of covering Noah himself afterward?
I have personally been leaning toward the maternal incest encounter myself.
 
NotWorthy said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is way off - Ham sodomized his father plain and simple. My interpretation is just as good as yours or as good as Scott Hahn’s. Hey does that make us protestant?
 
seandoe said:
It is way off - Ham sodomized his father plain and simple. My interpretation is just as good as yours or as good as Scott Hahn’s. Hey does that make us protestant?
Click to expand...
It depends. When are you going to start building your church? 🙂

So, why did God punish Ham’s son for Ham’s sin?
 
We probably will never know for sure (in this life) what the details of the events were.

How reasonable is it to interpret events of so long ago, with a 21st century outlook? An earlier poster mentioned that he and his father and brothers saw each other’s nakedness all the time and it was no big deal. Well how do we know how much of a deal such a thing was in Noah’s time?

In the absence of anything more substantial than what’s been written here, I find it reasonable to take the passage at face value - especially since Ham’s brothers covering their father’s nakedness seem only a fitting response to voyeurism.
 
Is it not the role of the theologin to explore the polyvalent nature of scripture? There are obviously many ideas about the definition of ’ uncovering nakedness’.
 
I agree with Hahn because I think I understand where he is coming from and it seem to make sens.
First he covental view of salvation history makes perfect sens. So he reads everything from the point of view of covenant; keeping or not the ‘covenant’.

In the case of Noah, he sees his failure in parallel with the failure of Adam. And also as a kind of continuation.

I think the father of the tribe was to be the king of that same tribe. So the ‘family’ character of bond of people is always kept and human solidarity is always kept.

I think the purpose of this story of ‘uncovering nakedness’ is to show the sin of Noah and his son which caused an other fall of humanity. The point is to show that Noah got drunk and lost a part of his ‘kingship of humanity’ a fact which still follow us today.

Ham was occupied with the same spirit of pride (as Adam and Eve, and Cain,…) and had a different idea of world government. I think this is the purpose of telling the story. Notice that it was his sons (Ham’s sons who turned out to be the most powerful nations on Earth…).

I think Ham made a ‘coup’ to his father. He announced the coup by may be demonstrating that Cannaan was not Noah’s son but his own son. This may be what is meant by ’ telling his brothers’.
May be he was seeking their recognition as their new King.

The fact that they ‘covered their father’s nakedness’ would mean that they decided to remain royal to their father dispite that he was weak and an other man took his wife.
I think this point of ‘wife’ was critical in showing a man’s honor as well as dishonor. If a man could not watch over his wife (family), how could he be qualified to watch over a kingdom.

To me the rest of the story shows how this fit in. Ham spirit of tryhing to rule over the world is clear in his sons. He must have tough his sons about this attitude. Beside Cannan who went to a land which was not his (father’s - Notice that the land of Cannaan was in the land of Shem; an other evidence of intent to overthrow the legitimate rulers, and line of succession…- Plus was the first born of Ham from the new ‘mother of humanity’, so he could be around Salem to overflow Shem), other sons of Ham (Egypt, etc) are great powers on Earth. And they have their way of governing which is not the way of God.

Legitimately, the Father was to be the ruler of people who came from him, then if he dies, his first born son was to replace him. This is in the keeping with the covenant which want childreen to respect their father and also brethreen to respect their elders.

I think this was the original intent of God.
After Noah, Shem was supposed to replace him in governing humanity. And then descendents of Shem were to keep governing humanity as long as ‘first born sons’ don’t sold their birth right for example.

It is from this same line of thought that it makes perfect sens that the priest Melkizedek was Shem. The word’ Melkizedek’ is not a name, but a title which indicate a ‘king’; ‘King of the righteousness’.

I think that from Salem, Melkizedek (Shem) was supposed to be rulling the world in peace and righteousness. But as the book says, the world was troubled already, buy who???
by the sons of Ham. Cannaan being right around the corner of Salem.

The story also explains why the land of Cannaan turned out to be the Promised Land. Why? because it was a ‘birthright’ of descendants of Shem, Canaan had taken it by force. So descendents of Shem kept this fact at sight and were probably hoping and waiting for when God will give them back their land.

An other thing to notice is that the people of God had a different way of governance. In a sens God was their ruler. And from their point of view ‘fame’ was from God it was not up to them to work for their fame and glory. But it is the opposite view in the ‘rebellious camp’. Key words like ‘egypt’, ‘nimrod’, ‘cannaan’, etc all from Ham, resonnate with self-made men/nations.

This attitude was later adopted with other people who are not from Ham, and at the end, we basically have only the nation of Israel in Egypt, trying to keep the law of God. It was kept closer to God, not because God made some albitrary desision, but I think because in his will which does not change, it was meant always that it had to be that way. It is what I see as ‘power hierarchy in charity’. God being love. His government is according to love. The ‘Father and the first born son’ are the standard for government in charity. Because people are not just to be governed as any people, but as family. The ruler was supposed to see his subjects not just as any human by as his own family as his own blood. And Jews are just this. They are our elder brother from the elder patriarch of humanity (Shem).
 
I forgot all about this thread, but I came upon another Catholic page a few months ago that gave strong and almost explicit evidence from Scripture that Scott Hahn is correct: The passage in Gen 9:24 of “seeing his father’s nakedness” means Ham slept with Noah’s wife.

I ORIGINALLY thought Hahn’s interpretation was gratuitous but after reading an article a few months ago my opinion changed 180 degrees.

**The key is this: what does “father’s nakedness” mean? **
bible.cc/leviticus/18-8.htm
Leviticus 18:8
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
The context talks of “uncovering nakedness” of near kinsmen which is obviously a reference to having intercourse with relatives. Thus what Gen 9 is actually saying is that Ham slept with his mother or stepmother and THAT is why the context of Gen 9 says “Canaan was the son of Ham” because Canaan was born as a result of this illicit act. To mention Canaan in this situation if it was not about an illicit sexual act would make no sense.
 
Jehanne_Darc said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hahn’s position is tenable. I would offer a more subtle and complex explanation.

Ham showed immodesty by seeing his father naked. Ham was the progenitor of a people (a tribe) who had many sexual sins. The point that Scripture is making is that immodesty leads to greater sins. The fault of the tribe is traced back to the father of the tribe, Ham.

So this interpretation contains a teaching that applies today: smaller sins can lead to greater sins of the same kind; avoiding even the lesser sins helps one avoid the greater sins.

When there are several different possible interpretations of a passage, I prefer the interpretation which inherently contains a lesson from God, because that is why God wrote Scripture, to teach us.
 
garysibio said:
I’ve tried to summarize the pros and cons for the three positions that I am aware of. I find myself leaning toward the third.

There are three options for what is taking place here:

1) Ham literally saw his father unclothed.
  • Pro: The literal meaning of the text is “saw the nakedness of.”
  • Con: Nowhere in Scripture is there any condemnation of nudity unless the nudity is (1) sexual in nature and (2) it is outside of the marital relationship.
  • Con: They had just spent quite some time living together on the ark. I’m sure that they all saw each other naked quite a few times.
2. Ham engaged in an incestuous relationship with his mother
  • Pro: In Lev 18:6-18; 20:17; Ezek 22:10 the phrase is used to refer to incestuous relationships, not homosexual ones.
  • Pro: When Noah awakes he curses Canaan, Ham’s son. He doesn’t curse Ham. The Canaanites commonly engaged in incestuous relationships (Ex 23:23-24; Lev 18:6-18). It is unlikely that Noah would have made this curse if Ham had merely seen his father unclothed.
  • Con: Gen 9:21 states that Noah was laying unclothed in his tent. If Ham had sexual relations with his mother, this would be irrelevant.
3. Ham raped his father. (His father was drunk so he was unable to consent.)
  • Pro: Although a homosexual act, it would still be incestuous since the act was performed on his father, rather than someone unrelated.
  • Pro: According to current theories, rape is not sexual in nature but a demonstration of the rapists power over the victim. This fits with the idea that Ham was involved in a power play.
  • Pro: The text says that Noah’s other sons covered their father’s nakedness. If Ham had raped his father, he most likely would have left him naked to show what he had done. (Ham was bragging about what he had done.) The text also states that the sons walked in backwards. This implies that something truly revolting had happened to their father.
  • Pro: Gen 9:24 says that, when Noah woke up, he knew what Ham had done to him, not to his wife. It could be argued that, in having sex with his mother, he was doing something to his father but the plainest meaning would be that it was done directly to Noah.
  • Con: Regardless of how drunk Noah was, could he have slept through a rape?
Comments?
Click to expand...
could a fourth possibility be that Ham dressed up as his mother, and Noah “accidentally” sodomized Ham? this would “prevent procreation”, as mentioned in reply #24. it would also be more reasonable than Ham performing an “operation” (which i assume meant surgical operation?).
 
[Genesis]
{9:18} And so the sons of Noah, who came out of the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Now Ham himself is the father of Canaan.

This passage is concerned with explaining something about the Canaanites, that is why it is repeatedly mentioned that Ham was the father of Canaan.

{9:19} These three are the sons of Noah. And from these all the family of mankind was spread over the whole earth.

Here again, the concern of the passage is to say something about the peoples descended from Noah’s three sons.

{9:20} And Noah, a good farmer, began to cultivate the land, and he planted a vineyard.
{9:21} And by drinking its wine, he became inebriated and was naked in his tent.

Noah was inebriated and naked, therefore the nakedness is not that of his wife.

{9:22} Because of this, when Ham, the father of Canaan, had indeed seen the privates of his father to be naked, he reported it to his two brothers outside.

When telling us that Ham saw Noah naked, Scripture reminds us that Ham was the father of Canaan. Why would this be repeated when it was stated only a few verses earlier? Because that is the point of the passage, to explain why the Canaanites behave the way that they do (not having the modesty of the Jews).

Ham did not have sexual relations with anyone, for the passage says that he reported to his brothers that his father was naked.

{9:23} And truly, Shem and Japheth put a cloak upon their arms, and, advancing backwards, covered the privates of their father. And their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s manhood.

Notice that Shem and Japheth, the fathers of the other peoples descended from Noah showed modesty, walking backwards so as not to see their father’s nakedness. Again, we see that this refers literally to nakedness, and not to a metaphor for some sexual act. There is a contrast here between the modesty of Shem and Japheth, and the immodesty of Ham, which is being used to comment on the differences between the peoples descended from each.

{9:24} Then Noah, awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him,

What he had done was not respect his father’s modesty; this immodesty is particularly offensive because it was father and son. The passage must be interpreted in the light of ancient Jews mores.

{9:25} he said, “Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants will he be to his brothers.”
{9:26} And he said: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, let Canaan be his servant.
{9:27} May God enlarge Japheth, and may he live in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”

Again, we see that the point of the passage is to say something about the peoples descended from Noah. Why is Canaan cursed and the other peoples blessed? Because Ham had a fault in himself, which led to the sins and afflictions of the Canaanites (immodesty leading to other sins).

The Jews were very modest. They did not walk around naked in front of one another, even when they lived in close quarters. Even devout Jews who are a married couple behave very modestly. One should not impose the mores of modern society on the ancient text; this leads to misunderstandings.
 
Hi. New here.
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.)
Click to expand...
I believe that many of you have adequately covered (no pun intended) the fallacy of the incest, and homosexual arguments.

Please reconsider St. Augustine: With Noah as a type of Christ, his nakedness represents Christ being made sin for us. The voyeurism represents dwelling upon his death, and being glad of it, rather than seeing His resurrection and conquering of sin and death.

The same lesson comes from Jud 12:6 “Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth:” The single head of grain dies, the plural is like waves of water, which is a picture of the living water of the resurrected Christ. One dwells on the death of Christ, the other glories in His resurrection.

One might suggest that the dwelling upon the incest and homosexual themes falls into the same voyeuristic category of glorying in the earthly rather than the sublime.
 
rcjones said:
Hi. New here.

I believe that many of you have adequately covered (no pun intended) the fallacy of the incest, and homosexual arguments.

Please reconsider St. Augustine: With Noah as a type of Christ, his nakedness represents Christ being made sin for us. The voyeurism represents dwelling upon his death, and being glad of it, rather than seeing His resurrection and conquering of sin and death.

The same lesson comes from Jud 12:6 “Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth:” The single head of grain dies, the plural is like waves of water, which is a picture of the living water of the resurrected Christ. One dwells on the death of Christ, the other glories in His resurrection.

One might suggest that the dwelling upon the incest and homosexual themes falls into the same voyeuristic category of glorying in the earthly rather than the sublime.
Click to expand...
The incest interpretation makes the most sense:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3787754#post3787754
 
I’ll have to remember that. Thanks.

Voting for your own posts makes them more true…

😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top