G
Gorgias
Guest
Those June retreats/conferences are amazing! (I hope I’m able to be there again this year.) You still leading LotH?
- Status
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Yep, that’s the plan
I heard that Dr. Hahn will not be there this year but I didn’t hear why. I presume it’s just a scheduling conflict (which was bound to happen eventually, given the big demands placed on his time). Nevertheless, the conference will still take place, and Dr. Brant Pitre and Dr. John Bergsma are supposed to be there (as usual), and I very much enjoy their lectures (finding their material very enriching & informative). I hope to see you there!
R
Ranp
Guest
That is a very good point. I greatly like Scott Hahn’s books. However, you are most right, no theologian respresents the truth. Only the Catholic Church is the pillar and grounds of the truth.
Ran
T
TrueLight
Guest
For those of you who live in NYC, I just noticed that Scott Hahn will be at the Divine Mercy conference in March.
J
johnbres2
Guest
I am not so sure about Scott Hahn as a teacher. I get the impression that he states his own opinion at times and passes it off as fact. The one example I can think of off the top of my head regards his statements that Ham “seeing the nakedness” of his father, Noah, means that Ham had sex with his mother. You can find this interpretation in his on-line scripture course at Hahn’s St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology website. Now, all you can tell for sure from the scripture account (in Gen. 9) is that Ham saw his father naked, and evidently told his brothers about it, who then covered up their dad. For Hahn to state affirmatively that Ham had sex with his mother is really going out on a limb. I did a little research on this and it is safe to say that Hahn’s position is in the extreme minority, but he doesn’t point this out. Instead, he states it as fact.
To me this seems a sort of intellectual arrogance, that I find distasteful in Hahn. There is a reason that Priests are taught in a “cookie cutter” fashion as an earlier poster suggested. The fact is that Hahn’s books and talks have a lof of similarly speculative theology being passed off as accepted doctrine. For me it means I cannot trust Scott Hahn’s teaching. He has a lot of very good stuff, but he does these forays out into left field all too often. I am much more comfortable following the writings and talks of a good priest, such as Thomas Dubay, S.M. HIs books and talks are great and it is all pure Church teachings, with none of his own private scriptural interpretations.
To me this seems a sort of intellectual arrogance, that I find distasteful in Hahn. There is a reason that Priests are taught in a “cookie cutter” fashion as an earlier poster suggested. The fact is that Hahn’s books and talks have a lof of similarly speculative theology being passed off as accepted doctrine. For me it means I cannot trust Scott Hahn’s teaching. He has a lot of very good stuff, but he does these forays out into left field all too often. I am much more comfortable following the writings and talks of a good priest, such as Thomas Dubay, S.M. HIs books and talks are great and it is all pure Church teachings, with none of his own private scriptural interpretations.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Dr. Hahn makes this interpretation of Noah’s nakedness based off of a passage in Leviticus that refers to looking “upon the nakedness of your father, for she is your mother…” (I can’t remember the exact passage off the top of my head. So he’s not completely going out on a limb. He’s just doing a bit of canonical interpretation.
I’ve never heard him state it simply as fact, as though this is the only way to interpret that passage. In the couple of classes I’ve had with him, as well as the various CDs I’ve listened to by him, he’s always said that this is just one possible interpretation. He usually goes on to give other possible interpretations, but makes it obvious that this is the one he prefers.
J
johnbres2
Guest
He certainly does state it as fact on his St. Paul website that I mentioned. Really, it is a fairly ridiculous interpretation, and for me casts Hahn’s overall judgment into doubt. There are other such instances too. He seems to walk out on a limb quite a bit and act like he is on solid ground.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m just curious why you see it as a “ridiculous” interpretation?
Have you seen his article on the topic? salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/JBL%20Gen9.pdf
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
To each his own, I suppose.
Dr. Hahn is obviously not gifted with infallibility, and he admits such - at least he has in all the classes I’ve taken from him. So we’re free to take what’s good from him, or what we find most palatable from him, and discard the rest.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Great article. Notice how from the start Drs. Hahn and Bergsma (another professor I had at Franciscan) do acknowledge that 1) this passage has been highly debated even since before the time of Christ, 2) there are three theories current that attempt to explain the text, 3) they are offering a fourth theory which, in their opinions, better explains the peculiarities of the text.
As an academic article it makes sense that they’re presenting the theory as though they’re right. No academic would take the article seriously if they presented it as, “ummm… well here’s a fourth option. I don’t know if it’s right or not, but have a look.”
J
johnbres2
Guest
Maybe so, but here is the entry Dr. Hahn is offering for public consumption at his St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology site (salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/genesis_east_of_eden_headed_to_egypt#II.A.):
"A. Ham’s Sin
Unfortunately, human history after the flood unfolds much as it did after creation.
As Adam (whose name in Hebrew literally means “ground”) was given a garden to till, Noah plants a vineyard and becomes “a man of the soil” (compare Genesis 1:2 and 7:11). And as the forbidden fruit of the garden proves to be Adam’s downfall, so the fruit of Noah’s vine - wine - becomes his. And like Adam’s fall, Noah’s exposes his sin and nakedness (see Genesis 3:6-7; 9:21) and results in a curse (see Genesis 3:14-19; 9:25).
What’s going on in the story of Ham uncovering “his father’s nakedness” (see Genesis 9:22)? In Hebrew, this phrase 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).
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).
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)."
As you can see, there is no statement here that this is one possibility–it is presented as truth. The plain language of the subject scripture indicates that Ham saw his drunken father naked, and somehow joked about it to his brothers. The brothers then covered the dad up. (btw, that last part makes no sense if Ham slept with his mother–how would the brothers cover this up by walking backwards and covering him?). Ham humiliated Noah in this way. To suggest that Ham slept with his mother when finding his father drunk does not make sense on the passage, and it does not accord with common sense.
I am not saying Dr. Hahn has no credibility, or that he is not a devout Catholic. I am just saying that in at least some instances, he is a bit “out there” in his theology, and that people have to observe what he says with an extra-critical eye.
"A. Ham’s Sin
Unfortunately, human history after the flood unfolds much as it did after creation.
As Adam (whose name in Hebrew literally means “ground”) was given a garden to till, Noah plants a vineyard and becomes “a man of the soil” (compare Genesis 1:2 and 7:11). And as the forbidden fruit of the garden proves to be Adam’s downfall, so the fruit of Noah’s vine - wine - becomes his. And like Adam’s fall, Noah’s exposes his sin and nakedness (see Genesis 3:6-7; 9:21) and results in a curse (see Genesis 3:14-19; 9:25).
What’s going on in the story of Ham uncovering “his father’s nakedness” (see Genesis 9:22)? In Hebrew, this phrase 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).
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).
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)."
As you can see, there is no statement here that this is one possibility–it is presented as truth. The plain language of the subject scripture indicates that Ham saw his drunken father naked, and somehow joked about it to his brothers. The brothers then covered the dad up. (btw, that last part makes no sense if Ham slept with his mother–how would the brothers cover this up by walking backwards and covering him?). Ham humiliated Noah in this way. To suggest that Ham slept with his mother when finding his father drunk does not make sense on the passage, and it does not accord with common sense.
I am not saying Dr. Hahn has no credibility, or that he is not a devout Catholic. I am just saying that in at least some instances, he is a bit “out there” in his theology, and that people have to observe what he says with an extra-critical eye.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK… so, given that the same language is used in Leviticus, then how do you make sense of Leviticus, “in plain language”? If you can’t, then you have to at least be open to the possibility that the notion is reasonable. (And, in fact, that’s exactly what Divino Afflante Spiritu (#23) is getting at – by virtue of advanced study in languages and culture, scholars have a particular competency in getting at the literal meaning of Scripture: if the literal meaning here is a Hebrew idiom, then why should we hold to a literalist interpretation when a idiomatic one makes more sense?)
By the way, you’re reading into the text. Where does it say that Ham “joked”?
And, if it was a simple viewing of Noah’s body, why does Noah curse Canaan rather than Ham? You have to admit: this analysis has a certain interior logic that the literalist/fundamentalist interpretation clearly lacks.
It seems to make sense: the phrase “uncover (one’s) father’s nakedness” is an idiom for “commit incest with a wife of one’s father”. The phrase “cover (one’s) father’s nakedness”, then, might plausibly suggest that one removes from plain sight the aftermath of the incestuous event. Moreover, if viewing the “uncovering” is sinful, then the “walking backward” – so that they don’t literally witness the scene – makes perfect sense.
Why? If it was common in those days to attempt to overthrow the patriarch by assuming his role (which is attested in the literature, and cited in Hahn’s paper), then a perfect time to attempt such a coup is when the patriarch is incapacitated. That would perfectly “accord with common sense”. Is it just that it’s very different than what you would expect, and something you’d never heard before? That doesn’t speak at all to the validity of the argument – but just to your preconceptions!
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Hahn does admit in the paper co-authored with Dr. Bergsma that the interpretation offered by our esteemed brother is possible, and has the support of antiquity (as do ac couple other interpretations). That is the only caveat I will add to your excellent response.
C
Contarini
Guest
It seems that Hahn speaks more positively in his “popular” writings than when writing more academically. That’s normal and appropriate. I do find him a bit too brash and confident in the former context, but it’s a tough balance to walk. And he deserves a lot of credit for exposing people to creative and thoughtful interpretations of Scripture they wouldn’t hear about otherwise.
The problem isn’t that people read Hahn, but that they don’t read other writers–or if they do, they read writers who are shallower and less scholarly. So Hahn has a reputation as the great Biblical scholar for many conservative Catholics, giving his often minority views unwarranted centrality.
Edwin
The problem isn’t that people read Hahn, but that they don’t read other writers–or if they do, they read writers who are shallower and less scholarly. So Hahn has a reputation as the great Biblical scholar for many conservative Catholics, giving his often minority views unwarranted centrality.
Edwin
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I have listened to several audios about his interpretation of the Bible, its all about the Mass and Euchurist, even Revelation. And he speaks it with authority, and well I with the most respect feel he is making the Bible say whatever to full fill his beliefs.
of course much like some others do also.
of course much like some others do also.
J
johnbres2
Guest
I tihnk Hahn’s interpretation of Gen. 9:20–that Ham had sex with his own mother–has some plausibility. My issue with Hahn is that he states it as fact in his on-line study guide. I find this careless and unjustified, and think it is a serious matter, since he has a large readership. His interpretation is merely possible. Yes, the passages in Leviticus equate “uncovering the nakedness of” with having intercourse, but the context in the Genesis story is different. Here, Noah himself got drunk and took off his clothes. Those of you with some experience with large alcohol consumption may recall that people do have an increased tendency to become naked when drunk. Ham saw his father naked and told his brothers. There are no modern translations that say he had intercourse with his mother, even though those same translations do use the term intercourse for “uncovering the nakedness” of in Leviticus.
It seems that Hahn is offering a challenging suggestion and pushing the limits of exegesis here. Perhaps that is a theologian’s job. But he is on a slippery slope here, and perhaps offering us his “private interpretations” of scripture, which may be his wont due to his Protestant upbringing.
It seems that Hahn is offering a challenging suggestion and pushing the limits of exegesis here. Perhaps that is a theologian’s job. But he is on a slippery slope here, and perhaps offering us his “private interpretations” of scripture, which may be his wont due to his Protestant upbringing.
R
Roy5
Guest
Hahn is a creative scholar and certainly an energetic promoter of his interpretation of Catholicism. He can rattle off more commentary in a few minutes than anyone I know.
Code:
I have to say, in all honestly, that he is too much of a fundamentalist for me. Not precisely a literalist, perhaps, but someone who finds deeper meaning for just about everything in the Bible. In his well-intentioned efforts to connect the dots, he weaves tapestries that can appear beautiful but which I sometimeso controversial and even misleading..
Hahn can sound much too certain about his interpretations of the Bible which I often find open to question. He speaks with a dogmatism that can grate after awhile. He can sound a lot like Protestant fundamentalists who engage in similar exegesis.
That's my response. I suspect I am one of few who admire his zeal but am troubled somewhat by his self-assured dogmatism.
R
Ranp
Guest
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church does allow private interpretations as long as it does not conflict with Church teachings. So the question becomes, “Does Ham having or not having sex with his own mother” conflict with Church teachings in any manner? I fully agree with what someone else said earlier, when you present a theory you have to present it as if it is true. Why else would you present it if you didn’t think it was true? If readers are not educated enough to understand the difference between a theory and a fact then reading theology is going to be a major challenge for them.
Ran
G
Gorgias
Guest
Except that the Genesis story doesn’t say “he took off his clothes”. It simply says, in passive voice, that he became uncovered. There’s a different mode of expression that is used in the Hebrew when the notion of “stripping off one’s clothes” is intended (cf Hosea 2, 1 Sam 19).
Now who’s being careless, and wandering into the realm of “merely possible”?
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
PRAYERS NEEDED ALERT!!!
Dr. Hahn is going into emergency surgery for his colon.
peace,
Phil
Dr. Hahn is going into emergency surgery for his colon.
peace,
Phil
- Status