Did Ham rape Noah?

[David Bokovoy]

I think the â??intrigueâ?? is man made. Such an act never occurred.

Zemah

Of course the intrigue is man made. God didn't write the account. And I too, very much doubt that such an act over occurred.

To mix in Egyptian lore with biblical disclosure is none productive. The whole presentation of the OP is ugly.

Do you honestly believe that biblical authors existed in a cultural vacuum? That they were not influenced by the mythology, religious/political views, literary styles, etc. of their era?

[Ron Beron]

I think the 'intrigue' 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

Interesting thought considering you use a sacred wedding motif from Song of Songs as part of your signature. In reality OT life is indeed, none too pretty, but it was part of that life and since we have little clarity in what actually happened we can only go by what others have said through the centuries.

[David Bokovoy]

Interesting thought considering you use a sacred wedding motif from Song of Songs as part of your signature. In reality OT life is indeed, none too pretty, but it was part of that life and since we have little clarity in what actually happened we can only go by what others have said through the centuries.

That's a very good point, Ron. Zemah's signature is certainly an important example of erotic Near Eastern imagery that has influenced the Bible.

Loren Fisher and F. Brent Knutson wrote a fascinating article on an enthronement ritual at Ugarit that I know you would find interesting if you haven't read it already. They link the ritual account with sacred marriage and Song of Songs 5:10-16. It's in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 157-167.

best

[trim]

I would think that Ham seeing Noah's nakedness may refer to Ham's disregard of Noah's priesthood authority. From my 21st century western LDS mind that would make sense, but I don't have evidence for such an interpretation.

As I have started to look at the Bible with a historical-critical view it seems there is a tendency to see very little in the Bible as historically accurate and the stories are very seldom literal. I suspect that is the case here.

Marc Brettler wrote a book for novices like myself titled How To Read The Bible. In it he discusses a number of instances in the OT that have entirely different meaning that the traditional Christian interpretation when the historical context and critical evaluation is done. Often the historical-critical reading carries more meaning for me, even if it does challenge the historicity. Brettler makes an interesting comment in his conclusion:

The historical-critical method...assumes that we can no longer recover the single truth of what the Torah describes as Revelation, nor of other religious issues that the ancient Hebrew texts address.

I would think that most LDS believe that there is a way to recover the 'single truth', although I do understand what Brettler meant.

[David Bokovoy]

Marc Brettler wrote a book for novices like myself titled How To Read The Bible.

I wouldn't believe anything that Marc Brettler writes.

[Zemah]

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.

The difference in all that you mention and what the opening poster said is that all the debauchery spoken of in the Bible is written into the Word of God, but the idea that Ham raped Noah is not. This is the invention of uninspired minds and is ugly, not because of its sexual nature, but because it makes Ham a sodomite and so curses him unto a destruction the likes of those in Sodom and Gomorrah, which is far worse a curse than God or Noah placed on Ham. In fact, no curse was placed on Ham except that his descendants through his son Canaan would be of a slave class of people.

The sodomization of the episode adds nothing to the storyline and diminishes two very important figures in the Bible.

Zemah

[Zemah]

Do you honestly believe that biblical authors existed in a cultural vacuum? That they were not influenced by the mythology, religious/political views, literary styles, etc. of their era?

Biblical authors wrote the Word of God, so technically God is the author.

Biblical interpreters often write garbage, as demonstrated here by the assertion that Ham raped Noah.

Like we do today, they lived in a culture of sin that continually pulled them down from the mark of God recorded in His Holy Word; but while writing the message of God they lived with the Holy Spirit.

Zemah

[cjcampbell]

Ham was so hard up he had to rape a 500 year old man? I don't think so. If Ham had raped Noah, the penalty for Sodomy would have been death by stoning, not a curse on Canaan.

I think the story is a reference to something that was a well-known incident in the time of Moses, but which has been forgotten today. Any speculation on the details of the story is just that -- speculation. If anything, the story makes much more sense if it is Ham that discovers his son, Canaan, raping Noah, runs out and tells the others, and Shem and Japheth run in and put a stop to it. Ham's only offense, then, is not having killed Canaan on the spot, but instead giving Canaan an opportunity to escape with his life. But that only makes some sense because the story is so fragmentary.

The Israelites viewed the Canaanites as being corrupt and licentious. See Leviticus 18, for example. Further, the only other story in Genesis where someone gets drunk is the account of Lot -- and this story, too, is associated with licentiousness.

It seems most likely that if Canaan was cursed, it was because he was somehow a participant in the offense with Ham. Ham's other sons are not cursed, after all. And if any of Ham's sons were black, it was not the ancestor of the Canaanites, so the curse was not a black skin, either. I think it is most likely that whatever curse was put upon Canaan as a slave people expired long before the time of David. It probably lasted no more than a few generations.

[baddonkey]

I don't see what Ham would have gained by raping Noah. I think I read somewhere that he tried to castrate him though.

[cjcampbell]

I don't see what Ham would have gained by raping Noah. I think I read somewhere that he tried to castrate him though.

Some people have inferred this because Noah had no more children after the Flood. That is the only evidence offered that Ham castrated Noah (the other theory along these lines being that Ham cast a magic spell on Noah that made him impotent). Personally, I think it is much more likely that Noah had no more children because he was 500 years old.

[Zemah]

Interesting thought considering you use a sacred wedding motif from Song of Songs as part of your signature. In reality OT life is indeed, none too pretty, but it was part of that life and since we have little clarity in what actually happened we can only go by what others have said through the centuries.

That's a very good point, Ron. Zemah's signature is certainly an important example of erotic Near Eastern imagery that has influenced the Bible.

Loren Fisher and F. Brent Knutson wrote a fascinating article on an enthronement ritual at Ugarit that I know you would find interesting if you haven't read it already. They link the ritual account with sacred marriage and Song of Songs 5:10-16. It's in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 157-167.

best

Song of Songs is a hopeful piece of Millennial emotion (as written/translated in the Jerusalem Bible). I pray it will someday be accepted into the LDS Churchâ??s standard works along with the Book of Wisdom. I believe it demonstrates that man does not have a monopoly on expressive love.

As to whether it was influenced by earthly cultures: Why diminish its beauty in God?

I can appreciate it more believing it is the work of God; it speaks to my heart as the Bride and Bridegroom exchange their feelings and hopes for each other.

Zemah

[selek]

Biblical authors wrote the Word of God, so technically God is the author.

While I certainly don't agree with the OP and am skeptical of many of the allegations already made, your statement above does not follow.

"Biblical authors" and "God" are two different parties, Zemah. While you might be able to argue that God dictated the Bible, the basic fact is that the narratives as we have them today were passed down orally for many generations before they were ever commited to writing.

They have also been revised, editted, and interpreted many times since then.

Biblical interpreters often write garbage, as demonstrated here by the assertion that Ham raped Noah.

This is crushingly circular logic, and doesn't pass the snicker test.

This is the sort of self-referencing, wholly self-righteous drivel I expect from Eevies such as Billy and "revelation". Even though I tend to agree with you that the rape allegation is spurious, you'll need to do much better in making your case.

Like we do today, they lived in a culture of sin that continually pulled them down from the mark of God recorded in His Holy Word; but while writing the message of God they lived with the Holy Spirit.

This sounds suspiciously like an "inerrant scripture"/sola scriptura argument.

[Zemah]

Please, enough with the make believeâ?¦rape, castration, Canaanâ??s involvementâ?¦this is all speculation.

From what I could determine from some old rabbinical teachings on the matter (shown in quotes) is that it was considered a disgrace and an insult for a son to see his father exposed in drunkenness; Noahâ??s â??nakednessâ?? was his drunkenness not necessarily the fact that he had no clothing on. Hamâ??s crime was to â??leer at Noahâ??s debasementâ?.

Regarding the curse: Since God had blessed Noahâ??s three sons in Genesis 9:1, â??Noah could not curse what God had blessedâ?. So he punished Ham indirectly by cursing his youngest son Canaan.

The importance of this whole episode is that after the flood there would be a slave class of people maintained in the Word of God.

Zemah

[selek]

The sodomization of the episode adds nothing to the storyline and diminishes two very important figures in the Bible.

Zemah

Which, in turn, leads to the Seinfeld line, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

[selek]

Please, enough with the make believeâ?¦rape, castration, Canaanâ??s involvementâ?¦this is all speculation.

Indeed it is, as many have acknowledged.

Regarding the curse: Since God had blessed Noahâ??s three sons in Genesis 9:1, â??Noah could not curse what God had blessedâ?. So he punished Ham indirectly by cursing his youngest son Canaan.

And this isn't speculation?

Also....are you really eager to argue that once blessed, Noah's sons could not lose their blessings through transgression, disobedience, and revolt?

The importance of this whole episode is that after the flood there would be a slave class of people maintained in the Word of God.

This is easily the most blasphemous thing I've seen on the boards, Zemah. CFR. Back it up.

[Zemah]

While I certainly don't agree with the OP and am skeptical of many of the allegations already made, your statement above does not follow.

"Biblical authors" and "God" are two different parties, Zemah. While you might be able to argue that God dictated the Bible, the basic fact is that the narratives as we have them today were passed down orally for many generations before they were ever commited to writing.

They have also been revised, editted, and interpreted many times since then.

This is crushingly circular logic, and doesn't pass the snicker test.

This is the sort of self-referencing, wholly self-righteous drivel I expect from Eevies such as Billy and "revelation". Even though I tend to agree with you that the rape allegation is spurious, you'll need to do much better in making your case.

This sounds suspiciously like an "inerrant scripture"/sola scriptura argument.

All I am saying is the Bible is the word of God (so long as it is interpreted correctly). Sound more like the eighth Article of Faith.

The interpretation presented here, that Noah was raped, is total speculation that cannot be supported by any translation. In my book this amounts to garbage, not circular logic.

You call the allegations spurious, which is the same as calling it a bas**** of an idea; it truly is "of illegitimate birth". I can agree with that so long as I am not called upon to nurse it. As garbage I can just throw it out on the trash heap where I believe it belongs.

Zemah

[David Bokovoy]

The importance of this whole episode is that after the flood there would be a slave class of people maintained in the Word of God.

If you're joking, it isn't funny. And if you're serious, it only illustrates how problematic and even dangerous it is to try and impose contemporary beliefs onto the account beyond its original meaning.

The original meaning couldn't be any clearer. All attempts to connect this account with Priesthood, African slavery, garments, etc. are simply a highly problematic modern effort to impose a reading upon the text that would have shocked both the original author and his ancient audience.

[David Bokovoy]

Ham was so hard up he had to rape a 500 year old man? I don't think so. If Ham had raped Noah, the penalty for Sodomy would have been death by stoning, not a curse on Canaan.

The rape had nothing to do with being "hard up."

Sexual assault is a horrible crime, often designed by it's perpetrators as an act which establishes a relationship of power over the victim, something that the ancients understood and often addressed in their literary accounts, including Genesis 9.

And besides, the story isn't concerned with biblical legal standards and/or penalties (in fact, from a biblical perspective, no such law or act had ever yet appeared/occurred).

From a biblical perspective, human beings hadn't even invented alcohol until Noah began to produce the beverage, let alone commence to deal with the moral and legal ramifications of sodomy.

I'm afraid that you may be stretching to read much more into the text than the original author could have possibly intended.

The tale represents one more example, of which there are many, of a deliberate effort to connect sexual deviance with the indigenous population of Canaan.

Biblical authors did that.

It's really quite simple.

No need to try and mystify the tale.

[Zemah]

This is easily the most blasphemous thing I've seen on the boards, Zemah. CFR. Back it up.

First please explain your accusation.

Zemah

[Ron Beron]

That's a very good point, Ron. Zemah's signature is certainly an important example of erotic Near Eastern imagery that has influenced the Bible.

Loren Fisher and F. Brent Knutson wrote a fascinating article on an enthronement ritual at Ugarit that I know you would find interesting if you haven't read it already. They link the ritual account with sacred marriage and Song of Songs 5:10-16. It's in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 157-167.

best

Thanks David. I don't have that one. I have recently read Cyrus Gordon's book on the subject.

[Ron Beron]

This is the invention of uninspired minds and is ugly, not because of its sexual nature, but because it makes Ham a sodomite and so curses him unto a destruction the likes of those in Sodom and Gomorrah, which is far worse a curse than God or Noah placed on Ham.

Zemah

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't only in their prurient behavior but also in their lack of warmth toward the stranger. Nowhere in the Bible does it state their sin was one of sodomy, but in Ezekial it says, "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me" (16:49-50).

Amos also warns Israel that they will be overthrown because the poor are oppressed and the needy are crushed (4:1). In Isaiah: the people of Jerusalem and Judah "proclaim their sin like Sodom" (3:9). Because of sodomy? No, but of having "hands are (that are) full of blood" (1:15); "the spoil of the poor is in your houses" and for "grinding the face of the poor" (3:14, 15). Indeed, "the daughters of Zion are haughty" and are "glancing wantonly with their eyes" (3:16). Also in Zephaniah: "Moab shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah" (2:9), for these have filled houses "with violence and fraud" (1:9).

[Ron Beron]

Song of Songs is a hopeful piece of Millennial emotion (as written/translated in the Jerusalem Bible). I pray it will someday be accepted into the LDS Church's standard works along with the Book of Wisdom.

Uh....it is. Your (lack of) credibility is showing. It is also in the KJV as well. The New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic rendition.

[Zemah]

Zemah said:

Regarding the curse: Since God had blessed Noahâ??s three sons in Genesis 9:1, â??Noah could not curse what God had blessedâ?. So he punished Ham indirectly by cursing his youngest son Canaan.

'selek' replied:

And this isn't speculation?

Also....are you really eager to argue that once blessed, Noah's sons could not lose their blessings through transgression, disobedience, and revolt?

No, I did not speculate; I only reported. The quoted portion came from rabbinical understanding as published in The Stone Edition, The Chumash, The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with a Commentary Anthologized from the Rabbinic Writings, 2001.

The punishment that Noah did serve up, the cursing of Ham's son Canaan, is consistent with the biblical concept that the sons will pay for the sins of the fathers; this was the case for the descendants of Adam and Eve. We did not sin, yet we must pass through mortality.

Your second question does not represent what I was communicating. Of course, the loss of a blessing due to transgression is a possible outcome, but this would be between the one who gave the blessing (God) and the blessed (Ham). Noah could not curse Ham because Hamâ??s blessing was delivered from a higher authority.

[in the same way, my blessing of Fatherhood as a priest of God and Christ in His Church could not be overturned by some curse from a priest, minister, or rabbi of a lesser faith.]

Noah honored this hierarchy by further pleading his decision to curse Canaan by an appeal to Yahweh as recorded in Genesis 9:26-27.

Hence, slaves and slavery was carried into the Bible record.

Zemah

[Cold Steel]

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.

Well, apparently this is more than a nakedness issue. This has to do with the sanctity of the garment covering. When I was a child (protestant) I was told that Ham made fun of his father's nakedness and that his two other sons went in and covered him out of respect. That this made little sense didn't impact me at the time, but now it does strike me as a bit odd. The garment itself was at the heart of the story. Also, nakedness wasn't really a problem in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve knowing they were naked was the problem, and it pointed to a certain tree they'd been told to avoid. Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover their nakedness, but God make "skin" coverings for them. Does this mean that God slew an animal to make these skins?

Most of these stories have far more to them than just the surface details.

.

[Zemah]

Uh....it is. Your (lack of) credibility is showing. It is also in the KJV as well. The New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic rendition.

Youâ??re right; Song of Songs is in the standard works of the LDS Church. Only Wisdom is not.

The Catholic version in the Jerusalem Bible is far better than the KJV.

Zemah