Did Ham rape Noah?

[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).

Thank you for expanding the list and clarifying what brings about destruction. There are far more selfish and prideful people in the world than those that are guilt of sodomy.

(Youâ??re not removing sodomy from the list are you?)

Zemah

[Zemah]

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.

I think I only mentioned slavery (not African slavery); connecting the event of Noah, Ham, and Canaan to the priesthood and garments came from someone else.

Having narrowed it down as such, do you still have a problem with my assertion that slavery (servitude to the descendants of Shem) is biblical?

Zemah

[Zemah]

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.

So is it your contention that the rape occurred?

I hope not because there truly is no evidence of it.

Zemah

[sethpayne]

So is it your contention that the rape occurred?

I hope not because there truly is no evidence of it.

Zemah

There is circumstantial evidence that the occurrence of some sort of sexual misconduct is what the author may have been trying to communicate.

Did an actual rape occur? I don't think so in that IMO both Ham and Noah are mythical characters.

[David Bokovoy]

So is it your contention that the rape occurred?

I hope not because there truly is no evidence of it.

Zemah

Again, is it my contention that the rape occurred?

No. I do not believe it did.

Is it my contention that the biblical account depicts one occurring?

Absolutely yes. I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[Zemah]

There is circumstantial evidence that the occurrence of some sort of sexual misconduct is what the author may have been trying to communicate.

Did an actual rape occur? I don't think so in that IMO both Ham and Noah are mythical characters.

And what would the purpose of this 'suggested' sexual misconduct be?

What lesson are we to come away with?

Why was the author not more clear?

Zemah

P.S. - I am a descendant of Noah. How is it that I could be born of a mythical character?

[Zemah]

Again, is it my contention that the rape occurred?

No. I do not believe it did.

Is it my contention that the biblical account depicts one occurring?

Absolutely yes. I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

At best the words are nothing more than an innuendo. The greater mistake is to surmise something from an innuendo.

Zemah

[sethpayne]

And what would the purpose of this 'suggested' sexual misconduct be?What lesson are we to come away with?Why was the author not more clear?ZemahP.S. - I am a descendant of Noah. How is it that I could be born of a mythical character?

The purpose would be to show that Ham was making an attempt to usurp Noah's power. As I mentioned in my first post, sodomy was often used in ancient near eastern texts to illustrate one man establishing dominance over another.I think it is likely that the author was offering an explanation to contemporary readers of why Canaanites should be slaves. As i mentioned before, OT texts are notoriously shy about sex. Euphemisms are employed such as "Adam knew his wife." SethP.S. I would love to see your family tree as I would like to see how a mythical character was able to produce offspring!

At best the words are nothing more than an innuendo. The greater mistake is to surmise something from an innuendo.Zemah

Or is it a greater mistake to ignore conscious innuendo? If the other is utilizing innuendo, isn't he or she trying to convey an idea the innuendo creates?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I would also add, in a pseudo-defense of the raping of Noah scenario, which I am not quite as certain of as David:

There are numerous paassages that in the earliest versions are very explicit about the sexual content. By the time we see the Masoretic texts or even parts of LXX manuscripts, such is not the case and we see the more generic "know", "lay with", etc. However, certain parts of the LXX (Septuigant) and most especially parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls retain the original and more graphic versions that mention rape, incest, sex, etc. very directly. Apparently, somewhere along the line, these things were edited out. This could have started with the black and white views that influenced Judaism from Zoastrianism during the Persian Captivity, but most likely is a result of the Greek philosphers influencing them starting more heavily in the 3rd century BCE.

Thus, it would not without precedent for the original story of Noah and Ham having been much more clear in the past but edited because it wasn't culturally acceptable.

[Ron Beron]

Thank you for expanding the list and clarifying what brings about destruction. There are far more selfish and prideful people in the world than those that are guilt of sodomy.

(You're not removing sodomy from the list are you?)

Zemah

No, just the ranking of what is important in the eye of God. Sodomy was not the great sin, but incivility.

[Ron Beron]

You'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

Why the NJB? Why not the NET Bible or the NISB? I read the KJV because I like the language not the exegesis. (BTW, I own and use the NJB and was a student under one of its consultants.)

[Ron Beron]

A further commentary from the NET Bible...

Some would translate â??had sexual relations with,â? arguing that Ham committed a homosexual act with his drunken father for which he was cursed. However, the expression â??see nakednessâ? usually refers to observation of anotherâ??s nakedness, not a sexual act (see Gen 42:9, 12 where â??nakednessâ? is used metaphorically to convey the idea of â??weaknessâ? or â??vulnerabilityâ?; Deut 23:14 where â??nakednessâ? refers to excrement; Isa 47:3; Ezek 16:37; Lam 1:8). The following verse (v. 23) clearly indicates that visual observation, not a homosexual act, is in view here. In Lev 20:17 the expression â??see nakednessâ? does appear to be a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but the context there, unlike that of Gen 9:22, clearly indicates that in that passage sexual contact is in view. The expression â??see nakednessâ? does not in itself suggest a sexual connotation. Some relate Gen 9:22 to Lev 18:6-11, 15-19, where the expression â??uncover [anotherâ??s] nakednessâ? (the Piel form of גָּלָה, galah) refers euphemistically to sexual intercourse. However, Gen 9:22 does not say Ham â??uncoveredâ? the nakedness of his father. According to the text, Noah uncovered himself; Ham merely saw his father naked. The point of the text is that Ham had no respect for his father. Rather than covering his father up, he told his brothers. Noah then gave an oracle that Hamâ??s descendants, who would be characterized by the same moral abandonment, would be cursed. Leviticus 18 describes that greater evil of the Canaanites (see vv. 24-28). Saw the nakedness. It is hard for modern people to appreciate why seeing anotherâ??s nakedness was such an abomination, because nakedness is so prevalent today. In the ancient world, especially in a patriarchal society, seeing anotherâ??s nakedness was a major offense. (See the account in Herodotus, Histories 1.8-13, where a general saw the nakedness of his masterâ??s wife, and one of the two had to be put to death.) Besides, Ham was not a little boy wandering into his fatherâ??s bedroom; he was over a hundred years old by this time. For fuller discussion see A. P. Ross, â??The Curse of Canaan,â? BSac 137 (1980): 223-40.

[Ron Beron]

Some things are hard to put away for the night and this one got me thinking. Suppose we are looking at this in a Hebraic manner and not one of Mesopotamian origins for which it ultimately is since Noah is based on a far more ancient Sumerian/Akkadian story. If we can place the story in that context it might make more sense. First, we will have to make some assumptions. This shouldn't be difficult since we have been doing so all along.

First, Noah aka Ziusudra/Utnapishtim/etc., was considered a "perfect, blameless and whole" man before God. Some have seen him as an entrepreneur who was very successful. In the Gilgamesh epic the flood hero stated that he loaded the ark:

"Whatever I had I loaded on it:

whatever silver I had I loaded on it,

whatever gold I had I loaded on it.

All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,

I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,

all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up."

He was also considered to be the king of Shuruppak having gained the authority through his father and is listed in the Sumerian king-list of WB-62 which lists Ziusudra (Noah) as the king of Shuruppak having succeeded his father, Sukurlam.

Here is where it gets dicey. Noah's journey that day aboard the ark could have been one of mercantilism invovling the trade of animals and metals and not one necessarily of rescue. If this is the case then he would have probably have borrowed heavily to make such a journey. The flood would have resulted in him defaulting in these loans and subjecting him to public humiliation and enslavement.

Back to the OP. In ancient Sumerian nakedness was connotated with slavery. In fact, the Sumerian word for slave, subar, meant "skin-person" or one who was naked. People who failed to pay their taxes or loans could be forced into slavery. Noah'case is understandable. Feeling he had lost everything and was fearful of enslavement after having been some successful he drank a bit too much and as a result ended up naked. His son saw him and in a fit of despondency told his sons that they and their generations would become slaves or naked as he was. In later generations the story could have evolved into the justification fo Canaanite subjugation and enslavement as a result.

In any case, just another idea.

[David Bokovoy]

I certainly agree with Ron that the Noah account derives from Mesopotamia and that by examining the flood stories from the ancient Near East, we gain important insights into the biblical tale.

However, before we look for parallels outside of the Bible to help interpret this account, we should look for parallels within. Biblical authors frequently used earlier biblical accounts as inspiration for their narratives.

For example, the story of rape of the concubine in Judges 19 contains an account of a man who, in an effort to protect his guests, turns to the men of the city and says, "Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may rape them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of wickedness against this man."

So, is there a parallel to this account found within the Bible?

Of course. And by linking the Benjamites with the men of Sodom, the author associates the wickedness of Gibeah with the wickedness of Sodom.

In the same way, turning our attention to Ham and Noah, we find a story in Genesis 19 (i.e. Lot and his daughters) about a major God inspired calamity that leads to the destruction, at least from the charactersâ?? perspective, of the entire human race. We have a drunken patriarch who is taken advantage of sexually by his offspring (remember, the girls end up pregnant). And the purpose of the story is to paint Israelâ??s enemies, i.e. the indigenous population of Canaan, as sexual deviants.

So now, turn to the story of Noah and Ham and letâ??s try a quiz.

We have a major God inspired calamity that leads to the destruction, at least from the characters' perspective, of the entire human race. In an effort to paint Israelâ??s enemies, i.e. the indigenous population of Canaan, as sexual deviants, we have a drunken patriarch who is taken advantage of by his offspring by:

a. being laughed at

b. being looked at while naked

c. losing his Priesthood garment

d. a sexual act

And the correct answer is?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 he stole his garment.

[David Bokovoy]

No he stole his garment.

That's it. I give up.

[USU78]

That's it. I give up.

Don't do that, Hoss.

Consider the political implications, emblemized by the royal garment Nibley makes so much of and so many in this thread are convinced of.

Ghengis Khan, I think it was, said that you only fully enjoyed your victory over a man when you had raped his chaste wife and virgin daughter.

The same holds true in many instances historically in the rape of one's defeated foe himself.

Rape, as we all know, is about power over somebody else. Ham's imposition of his will on his prostrate father, whether in mocking his miserable condition, stealing his robe of state, or raping him, accomplish the same thing and, as Nibley points out, puts him in a position to create a counterfeit priesthood/kingship.

When it comes to sovereignty, these rituals, including ritual rape of the leader of the defeated enemy (he prostrates himself before the victor, surrendering his body to be done with as the victor desires . . . surrenders his sword, representing his manhood . . . etc., etc.) are highly important.

Is all this an echo of an incident of insurrection when the younger son usurped leadership from a father whose day had come and gone?

[David Bokovoy]

Don't do that, Hoss.

Consider the political implications, emblemized by the royal garment Nibley makes so much of and so many in this thread are convinced of.

Ghengis Khan, I think it was, said that you only fully enjoyed your victory over a man when you had raped his chaste wife and virgin daughter.

The same holds true in many instances historically in the rape of one's defeated foe himself.

Rape, as we all know, is about power over somebody else. Ham's imposition of his will on his prostrate father, whether in mocking his miserable condition, stealing his robe of state, or raping him, accomplish the same thing and, as Nibley points out, puts him in a position to create a counterfeit priesthood/kingship.

When it comes to sovereignty, these rituals, including ritual rape of the leader of the defeated enemy (he prostrates himself before the victor, surrendering his body to be done with as the victor desires . . . surrenders his sword, representing his manhood . . . etc., etc.) are highly important.

Is all this an echo of an incident of insurrection when the younger son usurped leadership from a father whose day had come and gone?

Hey Brother,

Thanks for this post.

Great insights, and for the record, if folks do not want to believe that Noah was rapped by Ham (and again, I don't believe that the event itself ever occurred) and instead wish to believe later Jewish legend as the historical reality, I have no problem with that perspective.

I have no idea what literally took place in primordial days.

I do, however, believe that it is highly problematic to ignore the actual intended meaning in the biblical story. No one need that the biblical author of the folk tale was inspired and/or correctly recounted an historical event.

[semlogo]

[Zemah]

The purpose would be to show that Ham was making an attempt to usurp Noah's power. As I mentioned in my first post, sodomy was often used in ancient near eastern texts to illustrate one man establishing dominance over another.I think it is likely that the author was offering an explanation to contemporary readers of why Canaanites should be slaves. As i mentioned before, OT texts are notoriously shy about sex. Euphemisms are employed such as "Adam knew his wife." SethP.S. I would love to see your family tree as I would like to see how a mythical character was able to produce offspring! ;)Or is it a greater mistake to ignore conscious innuendo? If the other is utilizing innuendo, isn't he or she trying to convey an idea the innuendo creates?

There is nothing in Genesis that would indicate Ham had any such idea as to â??usurpâ? Noahâ??s authority. You have no support in the Word of God to allow you to make such an assumption.

This is how we fall from the Word of God:

1). Introduce a false premise (rape of Noah by Ham).

2). Support the premise with false justification (Ham wished to usurp Noahâ??s authority).

3). Explain the justification with false associations (the Bible writers were influenced by ancient cultural traditions).

The result is that you have a Bible that is no longer the Word of God; you have biblical ideas that never existed; and you have biblical figures thinking and doing things that they never had the spirit or will to think or do.

These are very dangerous interpretation methods which are very disrespectful to God and His family. There is no lesson in these assertions. God does not speak without purpose and I see no purpose for putting forth such an ugly story.

Zemah

[Zemah]

I would also add, in a pseudo-defense of the raping of Noah scenario, which I am not quite as certain of as David:

There are numerous paassages that in the earliest versions are very explicit about the sexual content. By the time we see the Masoretic texts or even parts of LXX manuscripts, such is not the case and we see the more generic "know", "lay with", etc. However, certain parts of the LXX (Septuigant) and most especially parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls retain the original and more graphic versions that mention rape, incest, sex, etc. very directly. Apparently, somewhere along the line, these things were edited out. This could have started with the black and white views that influenced Judaism from Zoastrianism during the Persian Captivity, but most likely is a result of the Greek philosphers influencing them starting more heavily in the 3rd century BCE.

Thus, it would not without precedent for the original story of Noah and Ham having been much more clear in the past but edited because it wasn't culturally acceptable.

I don't think you people realize that someday you are going to die and will have to face these great men of God in the glory of their priesthood with your minds polluted with these strange ideas of men.

Zemah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is too awful to even consider...no he did not.

That's it. I give up.

Was it something I said?

[David Bokovoy]

This is too awful to even consider...no he did not.Was it something I said?

Ohh no. I was just being a bit playful. It's not that important of an issue to me.

best,

--DB

[Zemah]

No, just the ranking of what is important in the eye of God. Sodomy was not the great sin, but incivility.

I think it is uncivil to place Ham as a rapist of Noah, to give Ham motives of superiority over his father, and to associate the Bible with folkloric influences.

Zemah

[Zemah]

Why the NJB? Why not the NET Bible or the NISB? I read the KJV because I like the language not the exegesis. (BTW, I own and use the NJB and was a student under one of its consultants.)

Is the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) the same as the Jerusalem Bible, Alexander Jones et at, Doubleday, 1966?

The reason I use the JB is that I like it and it was a great influence during my conversion; it is beautifully written and more colloquial than the KJV, which I also read and use.

I donâ??t have a NET or NISB bible, so I cannot compare them.

It is just a matter of personal preference.

Zemah