Did Ham rape Noah?

[sethpayne]

I was reading in my NRSV translation of the Bible today and once again read Genesis 9:

20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their fatherâ??s nakedness. 24When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

â??Cursed be Canaan;

lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.â??

26He also said,

â??Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem;

and let Canaan be his slave.

27May God make space for* Japheth,

and let him live in the tents of Shem;

and let Canaan be his slave.â??

This passage has always puzzled me as I didn't understand how simply seeing your father drunk and naked qualified your posterity to be slaves. I turned to the footnotes/commentary in my Harper-Collins edition and saw this interesting tidbit:

For a son to see his father drunk and naked and to leave him in that state is a dereliction of filial duty. Ham's guilt is compounded by his telling his brothers. The brothers perform their proper filial duty by covering Noah without looking at his nakedness. Although the shame of seeing his father's nakedness is clear, the text also hints that sexual transgression (homosexual incest?) may have been involved since when he woke Noah knew what his youngest son had done to him. This hint may anticipate the licentiousness of Canaanites in biblical tradition.

I wonder if the rape of Noah is what the author was trying to subtly communicate. The Hebrew Bible is characterized by how discreet it is in regards to sexual activity -- especially when you compare it with the foundational stories of other cultures in the ancient near east. Myths and stories from other cultures are very explicit. Men and women didn't "know" each other, they "go it on."

If Ham did indeed rape Noah, this could indicate a significant power-grab on Ham's part. I'm thinking of Set and Horus of Egypt. Horus attempted to sodomize Set in order to establish his dominance over Set. Eventually, Set tricked Horus into eating Set's semen so that when Set's seed was "called forth" by the gods it showed up in Horus' belly. Anyway, the point here is that one male sodomizing another man was often seen as an act of aggression and represented a power relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

Anyway, did Ham try to grab power from Noah by violating him? Is this the real reason he was cursed so heavily? I'm interested to hear what people think about this very intriguing biblical passage.

[Lachoneus]

Anyway, did Ham try to grab power from Noah by violating him? Is this the real reason he was cursed so heavily? I'm interested to hear what people think about this very intriguing biblical passage.

It was another type of power grab and violation:

Incidentally the story of the stolen garment as told by the old rabbis, including the great Eleazer, calls for an entirely different rendering of the strange story in Genesis 9 from the version in our King James Bible. They seemed to think that the 'erwath of Genesis 9:22 did not mean "nakedness" at all, but should be given its primary root meaning of "skin covering." Read thus, we are to understand that Ham took the garment of his father while he was sleeping and showed it to his brethren, Shem and Japheth, who took a pattern or copy of it (salmah) or else a woven garment like it (simlah) which they put upon their own shoulders, returning the skin garment to their father. Upon awaking, Noah recognized the priesthood of two sons but cursed the son who tried to rob him of his garment. By an extremely common type of substitution, the simlah of Genesis 9:23 could very easily stand for an original tsimlah, a copy, imitation, pattern, or by an equally common type of transposition for Salmah, a garment or mantle, as in Micah 2:8. Even as it stands simlah means only a woven garment and can hardly refer to the original skin article. This is, apparently, the source of the widespread legend that Ham stole the garment of Noah and claimed to possess the priesthood by virtue of his illegal insignia. Ham's descendants, Cush and Nimrodâ??both Africans, though Nimrod in his wandering moved to Asia fnâ??made the same claim. It is interesting that according to certain ancient scriptures which the Latter-day Saints claim have been restored by revelation in our own age, Pharaoh (who represents the Afro-Asian line of Cush-Nimrod) was blessed as to the kingship but cursed as to the priesthood, and he offered Abraham the privilege of wearing his own royal insignia in hope that Abraham would return the compliment by allowing Pharaoh to wear his priestly ones (Abraham 1:26-27). According to a very old tradition, Pharaoh coveted the priesthood of Moses exactly as his ancestor Nimrod did that of Abraham, and it was said that the Pharaohs of Egypt dressed in a skin garment "to show that their origin was older than time itself."

Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites 169 (1988)

[sethpayne]

It was another type of power grab and violation:

Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites 169 (1988)

Yes. I remember reading that some years ago. I always thought it was an interesting insight. I wonder how late that garment tradition developed? On the surface it appears pretty "second temple" .... maybe one of the board's OT second temple scholars can shed some light...

[Sevenbak]

I was reading in my NRSV translation of the Bible today and once again read Genesis 9:

This passage has always puzzled me as I didn't understand how simply seeing your father drunk and naked qualified your posterity to be slaves. I turned to the footnotes/commentary in my Harper-Collins edition and saw this interesting tidbit:

I wonder if the rape of Noah is what the author was trying to subtly communicate. The Hebrew Bible is characterized by how discreet it is in regards to sexual activity -- especially when you compare it with the foundational stories of other cultures in the ancient near east. Myths and stories from other cultures are very explicit. Men and women didn't "know" each other, they "go it on."

If Ham did indeed rape Noah, this could indicate a significant power-grab on Ham's part. I'm thinking of Set and Horus of Egypt. Horus attempted to sodomize Set in order to establish his dominance over Set. Eventually, Set tricked Horus into eating Set's semen so that when Set's seed was "called forth" by the gods it showed up in Horus' belly. Anyway, the point here is that one male sodomizing another man was often seen as an act of aggression and represented a power relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

Anyway, did Ham try to grab power from Noah by violating him? Is this the real reason he was cursed so heavily? I'm interested to hear what people think about this very intriguing biblical passage.

I have understood that reference to mean that he stole his father's sacred garment while he slept.

[sethpayne]

I have understood that reference to mean that he stole his father's sacred garment while he slept.

Is there something in the text that pushes you in that direction? Or, are you persuaded by Nibley's idea?

[Sevenbak]

Is there something in the text that pushes you in that direction? Or, are you persuaded by Nibley's idea?

Is it only Nibley's idea? I think I've heard that from other sources, and I tend to agree.

[Stargazer]

In support of the OP's theory, when it comes to the idiomatic phrase "to see another's nakedness", in eastern languages that is a euphemism for sexual knowledge. You see this in the Bible itself, esp. Leviticus 20. Here's a sample:

And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

(Old Testament | Leviticus 20:17)

[sethpayne]

Is it only Nibley's idea? I think I've heard that from other sources, and I tend to agree.

No. I don't think it is only Nibley's idea. As was posted above, Nibley cites some rabbinic traditions that support this reading.

[Sevenbak]

No. I don't think it is only Nibley's idea. As was posted above, Nibley cites some rabbinic traditions that support this reading.

Thanks.

[e=mc2]

No. I don't think it is only Nibley's idea. As was posted above, Nibley cites some rabbinic traditions that support this reading.

He did. I also found some materials which might be of interest. I believe that John Tvedtnes has written the most extensively on this in one of the FARMS symposiums. Here is more research for you to enjoy.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/garment.htm

[Cold Steel]

There are many things in the Old Testament that leave one wondering what the rest of the story is, and this is one of them. Strange how adding details always makes things make more sense, eh?

Another story is the one about the daughters of Lot who got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him, apparently with the idea that the Lord had destroyed the rest of the Earth when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. (Is it any surprise why we have the Word of Wisdom today?)

The Secret Gospel of Mark has a story where a youth who "loved Jesus" spends a night with the Lord in a cave wearing only a "linen garment" over his body. Of course the homosexual community jumped on that one without any more knowledge than they had and made all sorts of demented claims. The account said that Jesus was teaching the youth the "mysteries" of the Kingdom of Heaven. Latter-day Saints, of course, can do their own extrapolation of these events and the sectarians will never know.

.

------------

[Connolly]

Additionally, there are Jewish traditions that Ham passed the coat of skins on down to Nimrod, who became mighty because he wore it. This is an interesting tradition because it changes the tower story - ie, the tower was an unauthorized temple not an attempt to build something that actually reached heaven - and it explains the Lord's response as well.

[sethpayne]

He did. I also found some materials which might be of interest. I believe that John Tvedtnes has written the most extensively on this in one of the FARMS symposiums. Here is more research for you to enjoy.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/garment.htm

I think these garment traditions are interesting but I'm not persuaded. Noah knew what ham *did to him* -- not what Ham *took from him.* I think that is the most interesting part of the text ... the doing.

[Hoops22]

I think these garment traditions are interesting but I'm not persuaded. Noah knew what ham *did to him* -- not what Ham *took from him.* I think that is the most interesting part of the text ... the doing.

I agree. Ham uncovered Noah. If one will remember, nakedness in the garden was quite a problem as well. And, one critical issue with the death of Christ was His nakedness.

[Sevenbak]

Additionally, there are Jewish traditions that Ham passed the coat of skins on down to Nimrod, who became mighty because he wore it. This is an interesting tradition because it changes the tower story - ie, the tower was an unauthorized temple not an attempt to build something that actually reached heaven - and it explains the Lord's response as well.

Very interesting. I'd never thought about it in that light. A building to reach heaven. A temple to reach heaven. It actually makes a lot of sense. Given man's technological achievements in this day and age, why would God allow spacecraft etc, if his motivation was to keep man "out of the heavens"?

I'd love to read more about these Jewish traditions about a false temple built to "get to heaven". Do you have any references?

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Seth,

Did Ham rape Noah? I don't know.

Does the folk tale in Genesis present him as doing so? Absolutely.

[Sevenbak]

Another point to consider here is the blessings of the priesthood, or lack thereof. If it indeed was the stealing of Noah's sacred garment, and the ensuing meaning of usurping priesthood privilege, that would explain a lot about Ham and his descendants being denied said priesthood until the latter days.

[David Bokovoy]

The story is a parallel to the tradition regarding Lot and appears to serve the same purpose:

"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him... And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day." (Gen. 19:31-38).

[Ron Beron]

I would have to discount the rape scenario since Noah's nakedness was seen not acted upon. Another viewpoint is given some comparison in Leviticus 20:11 where it says, "The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness..." This as well makes little sense because the other two brothers cover their father up. A political interpretation might give some kind of justification for the subsequent hatred and enslavement of Canaan under their neighbors, the Israelites.

Another fascinating yet germaine entry is this account of Gilgamesh's encounter with the Mesopotamian Noah aka Utnapishtim who recounts...

Utnapishtim [says to him], to Urshanabi, the boatman: “Urshanabi, may the landing pl[ace not rejoice in thee], May the place of crossing renounce thee! To him who wanders on its shore, deny thou its shore! The man thou hast led (hither), whose body is covered with grime, The grace of whose members skins have distorted, Take him, Urshanabi, and bring him to the washing-place. Let him wash off his grime in water clean as snow, Let him cast off his skins, let the sea carry (them) away, that the fairness of his body may be seen. Let him renew the band round his head, Let him put on a cloak to clothe his nakedness, That he may arrive in his city, That he may achieve his journey. Let not (his) cloak have a moldy cast, Let it be wholly new.”

Here Gilgamesh's nudity is covered by cloth so that he might be made anew.

I think the truth is probably a bit more straightforward. Noah was seen by his son, Canaan, and rather than retreat mocked his father's nudity to his brothers which was an affront. His brothers tried to rectify the situation but was reproved by Noah upon his becoming awake.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Ron,

I would have to discount the rape scenario since Noah's nakedness was seen not acted upon... I think the truth is probably a bit more straightforward. Noah was seen by his son, Canaan, and rather than retreat mocked his father's nudity to his brothers which was an affront. His brothers tried to rectify the situation but was reproved by Noah upon his becoming awake.

I don't know what the truth is, but I have a good idea what the story means.

There is a tendency amongst later Jewish commentators to soften the accountâ??s obvious sexual connotation by suggesting that Ham merely laughed at Noahâ??s nakedness.

In spite of these later efforts to sanitize the tale, I canâ??t imagine that biblical authors would have ever portrayed the lone man who found favor with deity petty enough to curse his grandson and his posterity over the mere fact that their father/patriarch teased Noah about being naked.

I think biblical authors would have given Noah a bit more credit.

Later efforts at sanitizing the account ignore not only the explicit sexual imagery itself, but fail to consider the purpose for these sorts of portrayals in the Bible, which is why I tried to draw attention to the parallel account of patriarchal drunkenness and incestuous sexual impropriety.

Biblical authors led a sustained literary campaign to portray the indigenousness population of Canaan as sexual deviants (for a helpful resource see Randall C. Bailey, â??They're Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The Polemical Use of Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon Narratives,â? Reading From This Place; vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995): 121-138.

If we had an opportunity to ask the Moabites and Ammonites concerning the origin of their name, I have a hard time believing that they would have responded, â??Well, you know, Moab, â??from the Father,â?? and Ammon, â??son of my kin,â?? because our people stem from an incestuous drunken familial relationship.â?

Not so likely.

Rather, in an effort to create a piece of political propaganda, the author of the Noah pericope appears to have drawn upon earlier myths such as the Canaanite story of El-Kronos who emasculated his father and perhaps the Hurrian legend of Kumarbis.

For those interested in the text, I would recommend Anthony Phillips, â??Uncovering the Fatherâ??s Skirt,â? Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 38-43.

Phillips illustrates that Deut 23:1b serves as a command prohibiting sexual relations between a son and his father. The biblical law serves as an example of the Deuteronomist's campaign against alleged Canaanite homosexual practices as specifically reflected in Hamâ??s rape of Noah.

best,

--DB

[Zemah]

Anyway, did Ham try to grab power from Noah by violating him? Is this the real reason he was cursed so heavily? I'm interested to hear what people think about this very intriguing biblical passage.

I think the â??intrigueâ?? is man made. Such an act never occurred. To mix in Egyptian lore with biblical disclosure is none productive. The whole presentation of the OP is ugly.

Zemah

[USU78]

I think the â??intrigueâ?? is man made. Such an act never occurred. To mix in Egyptian lore with biblical disclosure is none productive. The whole presentation of the OP is ugly.

Now just hold on a durntootin' minute, Z. Ugly sexual misconduct and politics are all over Genesis and Judges, as well as elsewhere.

The Master's own line includes an ancestor fathered via an intended liaison with a prostitute (which in reality was a widowed daughter-in-law -- a horrible breach of taboo).

Tamar was raped by her half-brother.

The concubine (sex slave) of a Levite was gangraped and murdered, then dismembered by her husband/master and the pieces sent to tribal capitals.

Why all the squeamishness about Ham's misdeeds? It's not like they aren't out there and have been read snickeringly by schoolboys since time immemorial.

[David Bokovoy]

Now just hold on a durntootin' minute, Z. Ugly sexual misconduct and politics are all over Genesis and Judges, as well as elsewhere.

The Master's own line includes an ancestor fathered via an intended liaison with a prostitute (which in reality was a widowed daughter-in-law -- a horrible breach of taboo).

Tamar was raped by her half-brother.

The concubine (sex slave) of a Levite was gangraped and murdered, then dismembered by her husband/master and the pieces sent to tribal capitals.

Why all the squeamishness about Ham's misdeeds? It's not like they aren't out there and have been read snickeringly by schoolboys since time immemorial.

Couldn't agree more.

I would also add to that list the story of Eglon, the king of Moab. I don't know that I've ever read an account with more scatological and sexual imagery than the story of Ehud from the book of Judges. It's one more prime example of the way biblical authors sought to sexualize the portrayal of the indigenous population of Canaan.

If we ignore this trend, we overlook and misinterpret one of the major themes running throughout the Hebrew Bible.

It's very similar to the way that the "others" are represented in the Book of Mormon as naked, blood thirsty hunters running around the wilderness. Not only is this an important narrative technique but it makes an account like the story of Enos who goes into the wilderness to hunt beasts of the forest but then experiences a spiritual transformation so much more meaningful.

In my opinion, we miss a variety of important observations in the texts when we ignore these issues.

[Lightbearer]

I was reading in my NRSV translation of the Bible today and once again read Genesis 9:

This passage has always puzzled me as I didn't understand how simply seeing your father drunk and naked qualified your posterity to be slaves. I turned to the footnotes/commentary in my Harper-Collins edition and saw this interesting tidbit:

I wonder if the rape of Noah is what the author was trying to subtly communicate. The Hebrew Bible is characterized by how discreet it is in regards to sexual activity -- especially when you compare it with the foundational stories of other cultures in the ancient near east. Myths and stories from other cultures are very explicit. Men and women didn't "know" each other, they "go it on."

If Ham did indeed rape Noah, this could indicate a significant power-grab on Ham's part. I'm thinking of Set and Horus of Egypt. Horus attempted to sodomize Set in order to establish his dominance over Set. Eventually, Set tricked Horus into eating Set's semen so that when Set's seed was "called forth" by the gods it showed up in Horus' belly. Anyway, the point here is that one male sodomizing another man was often seen as an act of aggression and represented a power relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

Anyway, did Ham try to grab power from Noah by violating him? Is this the real reason he was cursed so heavily? I'm interested to hear what people think about this very intriguing biblical passage.

No I think if Ham had raped him he would not have just been "cursed" he would have been put to death. I think it had more to do with the garment of the Holy Priesthood and hence the "curse" and it's relationship to the priesthood itself. Perhaps those who would parade around using garments to protest the Church should give pause to what may have really happened here.

[Ron Beron]

Hello Ron,

I don't know what the truth is, but I have a good idea what the story means.

There is a tendency amongst later Jewish commentators to soften the account's obvious sexual connotation by suggesting that Ham merely laughed at Noah's nakedness.

In spite of these later efforts to sanitize the tale, I can't imagine that biblical authors would have ever portrayed the lone man who found favor with deity petty enough to curse his grandson and his posterity over the mere fact that their father/patriarch teased Noah about being naked.

I think biblical authors would have given Noah a bit more credit.

Later efforts at sanitizing the account ignore not only the explicit sexual imagery itself, but fail to consider the purpose for these sorts of portrayals in the Bible, which is why I tried to draw attention to the parallel account of patriarchal drunkenness and incestuous sexual impropriety.

Biblical authors led a sustained literary campaign to portray the indigenousness population of Canaan as sexual deviants (for a helpful resource see Randall C. Bailey, "They're Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The Polemical Use of Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon Narratives," Reading From This Place; vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995): 121-138.

If we had an opportunity to ask the Moabites and Ammonites concerning the origin of their name, I have a hard time believing that they would have responded, "Well, you know, Moab, 'from the Father,' and Ammon, 'son of my kin,' because our people stem from an incestuous drunken familial relationship."

Not so likely.

Rather, in an effort to create a piece of political propaganda, the author of the Noah pericope appears to have drawn upon earlier myths such as the Canaanite story of El-Kronos who emasculated his father and perhaps the Hurrian legend of Kumarbis.

For those interested in the text, I would recommend Anthony Phillips, "Uncovering the Father's Skirt," Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 38-43.

Phillips illustrates that Deut 23:1b serves as a command prohibiting sexual relations between a son and his father. The biblical law serves as an example of the Deuteronomist's campaign against alleged Canaanite homosexual practices as specifically reflected in Ham's rape of Noah.

best,

--DB

This kinda reminds me of a Jeff Foxworthy line, "You know you're a Canaanite when your family tree does not fork."