My personal interpretation has been that seeing his father nakedness was in and of itself not the issue. It was when Ham went to his brothers about it. Since this is not that far removed from Adam, where nakedness references sin and shame,. Adam and Eve most likely gave their children and grandchildren a sever complex about nudity. When Ham went to his brothers, he was shaming his father. He basically was ridiculing his father to his brothers, and also left his father in a shamed state. So he dishonored his father. He exposed his father's shame. The reason Canaan gets cursed,? Two possiblities. One reason, God had already blessed Ham, Shem and Japheth. A curse would be going against a blessing, and the blessing came from God, so the curse could be viewed as going against God? So he curses Canaan. Another reason may be out of petty revenge. Noah was shamed by his son, so Ham (a father) would see his own son shamed. As far as the extreme action. Noah has the title "Righteous of his generation." A generation God wiped out in the Flood. The amendment "of his generation" would imply Noah was the least rotted fruit, but not free from rot. This may be an example of that rot. I have always taken this story as a statement "God can use anyone. But, just because God uses them, doesn't make them good." Really love your content on TikTok and that you a very straight forward with the facts. Hope to see more videos.
This is a great interpretation. I’m just starting to read the Bible which bought me here because I really wanted to know what did Ham do to Noah and y Noah cursed Caanan. I really like your interpretation, it completely makes sense to me.
This is a good interpretation. There is absolutely nothing in there that insinuates rape of the mother. When the Bible talks about rape, it says it out right, like in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
So Noah lashed out a cursed his sons whole bloodline cause he saw him naked, possibly made jokes about the situation that made Noah feel ashamed, an im supposed to believe him to be a just man???
Noah was hundreds of years old in the story, was his generation also still alive and hundreds of years old, or was Noah’s family specifically long lived? At any rate, being the most righteous in a world that was so bad off that God destroys it is literally damning with faint praise.
This was so fascinating! The different ways that the story might have come together, the readings, the cultural background behind why the “seeing the nakedness” was a big deal, as well as exploring why different readings could be compelling. Great video!
First, I absolutely love the longer format and being able to listen to you expound on a topic! Second, thank you for this fascinating look at this section.
The text doesnt say Ham uncovered nakedness, it says Noah was in the tent uncovered, it doesnt say Ham knew his mother, it says he saw nakedness, and it says the brothers walked in backwards to cover the nakedness and not see it (not that they walked backwards to not have sex with anyone). If they walked forwards and saw the nakedness, by staying consistent, you would have to say they had sex too. Its all rubbish and greatly eisegeting the text
I can't believe this is the first time I'm hearing of the etiological composite text reading of this story. It solves so many problems. Where have you been all my life my friend?
@@michaelangeloevans2722 You are implying something regarding the Levitical Priesthood "the law" that was not yet given. You reading into something that is not there. Noah was not under the law. Given generation later to the hebrew. We must rightly define the word and not doting around to are own ideology
@michaelangeloevans2722 but to imply that Ham seeing his parents naked is akin to having sex with either his mother or father doesnt work. Because the brothers walked in backwards to not see the nakedness. The only conclusion for your interpretation is that they walked in backwards as to not have sex with anyone. Which is nonsensical.
This was great! Would love to hear a similar examination of how these same metaphors might be interpreted in Ruth, regarding her interaction with Boaz wherein she, “uncovers his feet.”
My understanding of the “uncovers his feet” phrase is that it is a euphemism for Ruth uncovered his circumcision, therefore reminding Boaz of the Israelite’s promise to protect the alien, orphan, and the widow. It wasn’t intended as a sexual act. I think the Bible says that Boaz was startled awake. I mean… I would be too!! It’d be quite drafty. 💨 But Boaz would have to look down towards his circumcision(the sign of the Israel’s covenant with God) then his gaze would fall upon Ruth(a foreigner and widower).
lordhumongous4272 You came here and searched around in the comments just to insult someone you don’t even know. That’s sad my friend, I know you are better than that. Please, for the sake of humanity, try to do better. You can, it’s already inside you, you just have to make an effort to find the good in you. ✌🏻
I wrote an article years ago on this passage and my interpretation of it is the same as yours. I could not believe how many commenters attacked me because I refused to subscribe to the salacious viewpoint! I was accused of everything from being ignorant to an outright heretic because I endorsed the simple, straightforward explanation. It seems like so many people just don’t find the Bible sensational enough and they so desperately WANT to read more into things than is actually there! So sad. Great video and very nice handling of the subject.
I've never heard of the interpretation that included r*pe and incest! Very interesting, since I was a kid I thought this story was really odd, but this cleares up the meaning of it.
I love Karen Armstrong take on the story; “ Noah instead of being a source of blessing, he had become like the first Adam, a curse to others. His righteousness had proved inadequate. After the flood, he remained in denial, shutting out the devastated world in a self-induced stupor. Noah would not be the only damaged survivor, unable to assimilate his experience and wreaking his vengeance upon others. Some of the worst atrocities of history have occurred as a result blaming others for our own crimes. (Christians accused Islam of being a murderously violent and intolerant religion at a time when they were fighting their own brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Near East)” From her book, in the beginning.
I haven't read her. I Look at this story from a lawyers perspective when I am asked "what sin did Ham commit". I read the story and in this story Ham had committed no sin. I scoured the Bible for a character witness against Ham and found no instance where have had ever committed a sin in the entire book, before, during or after this story. Based on the evidence given Ham can only have committed as sin based on speculation assumed resulting from the response of Noah, while also omitting Noah's own sins, as if his actions were assumed to be righteous. When one examines the story for sins it is apparent that Noah had committed a number of now what we consider to be sins. He was drunk, he was indecently exposed while being drunk, he cursed a man, he punished the innocent. It would be no stretch for one in today's world to imagine a scenario where a very influential, well respected, authoritative character being found in a compromising position, after such a condition being reported by a subordinate, would be angered and feel betrayed to the point of punishing the one responsible and even by punishing the ones innocent child while simultaneously rewarding those who refuse to look upon (acknowledge) his sins and even cover them up. This mirrors exactly what we see today. The majority refuse to look upon or report the sins of authoritative figures and even cover them up when they are found, these people are rewarded for their covering up of sin, and the minority who point out the sins of those in authority are unrighteous punished for it. This story is a model of the power structure that exists to this day. Drunkards expose their own nakedness, they bare their own truth. Those who would acknowledge these truths are punished.
Canaan had already been born by the time they anchored at mt. Ararat Gen: 9 :26 in the older days grandsons were counted as sons , most likely Canaan could have been the illicit child of a wicked act.
@@bettinanstevens9259the point of the story is that the first born son gets the inheritance, often one sibling can jump ahead in the line through several methods - one of those being making a new son with the Father's wife.
Thanks for the discussion at the end about how the different readings serve different purposes, i.e. the salient one vs. the mundane one that is most supported. Very interesting.
This explanation makes the most sense. People are missing to put this within the socio-cultural context of that time. Seeing a person naked is taboo in very conservative cultures. What more to see the nakedness of family relatives within a religious context striving for holiness.
Seeing (saw) Noah's nakedness is not a SIN, that is why Noah said, "You do not simply SAW," what makes Ham's atrocity to God was his "Disrespectful Laughter" to the Prophet of God after he saw the nakedness of his father instead of hiding with cloth/blanket Noah's literal nakedness due to drunkenness... just like what Shem and Japeth did... Amen.
Please go and read the original information from the Ethiopian Bible nakedness of shame. He uncovered his shame. He saw that his father actually was naked after being drunk, and he saw him in a unrespectable light, and he looked on him, rather than turning his eye, and walking away, and he shamed him. This is African culture. If you see your parents in a light that you shouldn’t, you should cover your eyes you’re not to look upon them in anyway, to judge them. I suggest all of you pray and ask God for understanding and discernment. You can’t pick a part, the Bible, like a math book. It comes with spirit and in truth so if you want it on the down the Bible, spiritually, pray and ask God for discernment, I read your Bible daily.
@@Ghe608 Christ Jesus clearly said, "Anyone who looks (sees) at a woman with LUSTFUL EYES has already committed Adultery from their HEARTS." (ref. Matt. 5:28-32)... Therefore... Looking at the NAKEDNESS of any Human Body regardless of whether a Man or a Woman is not a SIN... but BEYOND LOOKING/ SEEING with LUSTFUL EYES (Cunning/Deceitful/Wickedness) that makes it EVIL or SIN... Logically speaking, if just looking at the NAKEDNESS of Human Bodies is a SIN, therefore all Physicians, Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses, and Caregivers are guilty of SIN against God... NOPE, does not how it works... Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
@@jvlp2046 you have NO idea what your talking about. … It’s clear you dont even know the Bible- one of the first stories in the Bible about Adam and Eve when they realized they were “naked” and they ran to cover themselves they felt shame in their nakedness, in front of God they felt shame. Nakedness and being uncovered in the Bible also relates to people knowing your deepest secret for you being vulnerable the Bible says when you love someone you are supposed to cover them and it doesn’t meet with clothes or a blanket. It means that you’re not supposed to expose them, and blah blah off your mouth about them you should pray with them and bring their sins to God and you both together. Pray there many instances in the Bible that God talks about nakedness covering and shame and you’re not getting it at all.. Genesis 3:7 says, 7. At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.Apr 8, 2021 citychurchbloomington.org › ... I recognize there’s not a lot of discipline not a lot of respect for authority in white homes So maybe it’s a foreign concept , but seeing your drunk father, naked, and not turning away or make an overt, moved to remove your father, shame , but you’re making a very big reach, thinking that there was anything homosexual going on or saying that he saw his mother, naked or slept with his mother. There’s nothing that indicates that so stop lying on the Bible …The Bible is a black book that happened in Africa with Black people, black culture and even your relationship with God, you’re supposed to have humility, and you’re supposed to know your place with God is the same thing with Noah when his son saw him drunk and naked because Noah felt shame and his son didn’t run away and kind of mocked him. Stay too long looking called in his brothers. Noah said because you caused me shame you’re lineage are cursed cursed (and I don’t know why that’s weird to the guy who is doing the Bible study in the video because many places in the Bible discussed the fact that you’re curses are passed down to your children and your children’s children) You. don’t understand culture you don’t understand the Bible. It talks about many of these scenarios but you don’t know your Bible.. the first Bible that was written is not western Bible is written by African people and it’s about respect. We also don’t have to figure out respect you’re not supposed to look at somebody’s nakedness meaning, naked in many ways you guys are making it something that it’s not you don’t even read your Bible the majority of you guys in the world don’t even read your Bible, how do you jump from seeing someone naked to homosexuality and then that he was with his father’s wife Not only do I know this Bible from Genesis to Malachi for Matthew to revelation. I also know the Ethiopian Bible that white people left all of those books out to only serve their purpose to do bad things to people and what I’m telling you is, you’re far off? I don’t know. Where are you see in the Bible that it says he looked at his father with the last fly. Be careful that the light within you is not darkness . Combined, the terms “NAKED” and “nakedness” are used 104 times in Scripture, a high number for fairly uncommon words, indicating their importance. Depending on the context, the terms can figuratively indicate innocence, defenselessness, vulnerability, helplessness, humiliation, shame, guilt, or judgment. The fact that you very quickly choose to make a judgment on morality. In this case is very weird. You don’t know the Bible and to read it in context into ask for discernment you are wrong you’re trying to compare old language to your not so common sense in today’s day and age, you’re not aware of Bible language, you’re not aware of their thinking, I think that you should take some time get into your Bible do some intense Bible studies get a good Bible study planner and read the Bible every day. Ask God for discernment, and then next year do it all over again constantly have the word of God, listening to it in your ear, and God will reveal himself to you what you’re saying right now is not correct
There's a very sneaky assumption made in the 2005 paper; that Noah's wife was the mother of his three sons. The text doesn't demand it, and the logical resolution to this passage is that this is Noah's second wife. That would create parallels between the story of Reuben and Bilhah, and Absalom and the concubines of David. It also explains why Ham would boast to his brothers; he wouldn't expect them to be impressed by sleeping with his mother (that should have resulted in a beating), but if it was a second wife it makes much more sense, especially as a power play. It also explains the first verse in the section telling us who Noah's three sons were, that Ham was the father of Canaan, and reason for reiterating that Noah had three sons. Noah may have spoken as if Canaan was his fourth son, born of this second wife, until he realized that Ham had cuckolded him. It also removes the need for time gaps. There are many traditions about people believing they are descended from a 4th son of Noah, and likely the Canaanites told that tale as well. This chapter makes a lot of sense as a specific polemic against that claim. Canaan could have been conceived on the ark, but born after and he might have been running around for a while since it takes a few years to go from planting a vineyard to harvesting wine. This also explains why he would consign Canaan to be a servant in the tents of Shem and Japheth, because he would have sent the child away with his mother, and he wouldn't reward Ham for his behavior by giving him a second wife. But from a theological standpoint the issue of nakedness is enough of a theme throughout Genesis to make sense.
I think another important line of thought is that we find in this text one of the earliest instances of usurpation. Ham effectively seeks to claim the bloodline by this act, whether it be incestuous or adulterous
When I read this passage for the first time many decades ago, I read it in a straightforward manner. I thought Ham stumbled accidentally into the situation of seeing his passed out father, nude, & was embarrassed. He went to his brothers because he didn't want them to accidentally view the same thing. The brothers figured out how to fix the situation without further humiliation to Noah. Why Canaan was cursed never made sense, but I was taught that God's ways are higher blah-blah-blah. I never heard the idea of some incest happening. That sounds counterintuitive to me.
Dan, thank you for making these videos. Could you do one on the the oath that jephthah took? I've always thought that story deserves additional context from an expert. I have even heard that possibly there is a translation error and his daughter was only devoted to God (not sacrificed).
All scripture is inspired of God so there is never any error. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a human burnt offering. That would be an insult to God and a violation of his law to make a literal human sacrifice. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) The very ones Jephthah was fighting practiced human sacrifice to their god Molech. His daughter served at the sanctuary for the rest of her life. Her female companions visited her from year to year to give commendation, so obviously she wasn’t dead. (Judges 11:40) At the sanctuary she served in gathering wood, drawing water, and performing many other tasks as assistants to the priests and Levites there.
@@sunnyjohnson992 His vow was explicitly to make a burnt offering of whatever comes out of the house to greet him. The custom was for maidens to lament the daughter of Jephthah, not visit her.
@@sunnyjohnson992 Bibliolatry is ugly, mean, and ignorant. Deuteronomy says for no books to be taken from or added to scripture, YET the new testament was added to the protest of many martyrs. Indeed, "2 Timothy" was not even part of the New Testament collection when it was crafted, let alone part of "actual scripture" being referred in that "personal letter." You have to know how your idols are crafted and used, you have to know how the letter kills the spirit "of interpretation as your heart doth wish" and how 1000 words merely paint a picture.
Great video! I appreciate the way you broke down the thought process. As someone who's trying to get better at critical thinking, that's so helpful! And yay for interpretations that don't involve raping women 🎉
Great video! Could you put the text on screen (on the side), just to see the words aswell when you read the text. I'd love to hear more about the current state of the text analysis, like which parts are from another story and are there clues of what that story was all about. Thank you so much!
I've still gotta develop my production skills. I'll have text on the screen before too long, but a great book that goes over how these traditions in Genesis 1-11 developed is David Carr, The Formation of Genesis 1-11.
The very first thing I look at in this story is the fact that Noah was drunk! That says a whole lot just by itself! How can a hungover man make sense of what happened the night before!
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: Lev. 18 (most of chapter discusses this) Your thought?
Hey Dan, love your videos. I always assumed some sort of “time jump” in this story. Not only was Canaan likely the youngest of Ham’s children, but Noah came off the ark and all of a sudden he has a farm and a vineyard? In Genesis 9:20 it says he planted a vineyard. Not sure how long that takes, but from scratch, especially after a devastating flood, I would imagine it being complicated to successfully start a farm🤷🏽♂️. Anyway, I thought the sin, whatever it was, happened as a direct interaction with Noah and Canaan. He was old enough to bear responsibility for the act, and be the receipient of the curse of Noah. But you are right, so much speculation, maybe it’s not meant for us to read into it so much.
You have read into it too much. Worried about the planting of grapes. How long do grapes take to grow? Figure that out. It's pretty simple. Scripture interpretates scripture. Leviticus 18 verifies hams sin.
Nah I don’t except that, this is Noah we’re talking about for him to curse someone of his lineage for something they were not involved in just seems wrong does it not?
My .02 and I apologize for hitting you with so many comments. I just found your channel and I like it very much. I am trying to crack the template code but I am not formally educated. I struggle to deliver what I see. To me, there is the physical world then our inner world. Mental. Electro-chemically stored experiences and emotions from our individual life experiences. We become those until we realize that we have become those. Those are garments. In the physical world we want to be covered. In the spiritual, (mental experience) we seek to become naked. Devoid of the emotional attachments to out past experiences that we may leave them behind. Nothing to hide which makes us feel bad and continue to see a cyclical return of the denied experience. In the Gospel of Thomas is the idea that one will see the Kingdom within when one can strip off their garments and put them under their feet, standing on them. "Naked" shows up quite a bit in Jewish works as an analog to carry that teaching. IMHO. Thank you. A breath of fresh air and someone I understand.
I’m reading from the NIV version and the amplified version and they both said that Ham is the father of Caanan. And the Amplified said that Ham is the younger son of Noah.
I have found from intensive study of scripture for many years that God allows our punishment to be "designed" by our "crime." Also, because we judge things from scripture by our own culture and understanding we have great diffuculty realizing what the wording is trying to convey. I personally believe all pertinent info is present (usually) in the layout of the story or event. There is no need to search and grasp for extreme explanations and adaptations from other info in scripture. Sometimes just researching of historical and cultural, and definitions and given some time to ponder the data for a while, we can see more clearly what is being conveyed.
Leviticus 20:11 : If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Is quoted as to why some are told as why some have said it was a son sleeping with his mother. I remember being told that. Also in Leviticus 18:8 : [8] The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Hey Dan love the videos. So one of the arguments for the curse of Ham or Canaan story is essentially as propaganda? Interesting how this was used to subjugate the Canaanites and also for African enslavement.
I enjoyed your discussion on this topic! Thanks Dan! Hugh Nibley talks about this story as the idea that Ham took the holy garments of Adam which had been passed down to Noah and took them and made a copy of them to try to claim the right to rule which made it down through his descendants to Nimrod and Possibly Esau.
Ham's whole lineage was not condemned for all eternity! Noah cursed the youngest son of Ham Canaan, why? Noah was hoping for a fourth son, to which Ham and his wife objected, for their inheritance would be divided four ways instead of three. Again, why would Noah curse the fourth son of Ham, namely Canaan? Ham did not uncover Noah's nakedness because he was already naked. According to The Essential Zohar, as translated by Rav P. S. Berg, and we read, "And he drank of the wine, and was drunk, and he was uncovered" (Genesis 9:21). This aroused Ham, the father of Canaan, and he castrated Noah, thereby removing the secret Covenant, which had made Noah a righteous man. He removed the male organ, the means of begetting" (P. 102). 22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 So Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said: “Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brethren.” 26 And he said: “Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant” (Genesis 9:22-27). Noah cursed Canaan who was already known, and therefore, Noah's wife was not assaulted, raped, or impregnated by her son, Ham. If Noah was not castrated, and thereby no longer the leading Patriarch, then why did he pass the Patriarchy onto Shem? This is why he said, "Blessed be the LORD God of Shem..." No the key to understanding why Canaan and his descendants were cursed with perpetual slavery, is due to Ham preventing his father, Noah, from being able to begat a fourth son, which is why Noah cursed Ham's fourth son.
New to biblical scholarship, quick question: in terms of the Bible, does etiological usually also imply non-literal, or non-historical? Or do scholars recognize the etiology but also presume most biblical stories to be factual accounts? Genuinely curious! (Btw, love your channel and your TikTok!)
Ezekiel 18:20-21 KJV The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
I know this isn’t exactly what the video was talking about, but I think it’s also important to see this in the full context of the Genesis narrative. Noah’s story continually draws clear parallels to the story of creation earlier, and this part in particular is mirroring the Fall. We have a partaking of fruit, someone seeing nakedness, a covering of said nakedness, and a pronouncement of a curse. Given how often the Biblical narrative uses clothing as a reference to God’s grace and mercy, I wonder if a big part of this is that Ham in this case acts as the serpent, enabling the exposure of Noah’s nakedness or shame, while Shem and Japheth act in the way God did, by providing a garment to cover up the shame or nakedness. I think it would tend to support the more straightforward interpretation for how the ancient Israelites would have read the story, but I also think it provides a thread for us to unravel today to see how the story is calling us to act as well.
1) the extreme reaction to not defending his father sounds a bit similar to laws of hospitality and the extreme curses that could come from offending that. 2) I thought the Israelites were originally Canaanites. Is the subjugation the same as just the Kingdom of Israel unifying the Canaanite tribes by force?
(1) I agree, it has resonances with different societies' approaches to honor/shame and hospitality. (2) Yes, the Israelites were Canaanites. By the time these traditions are created, Israel/Judah had thoroughly othered the societies around them and is creating fictive kinship and ancestries to firm up the lines of distinction from the groups around them.
In considering the meaning of words, we have the benefit that Moses wrote both Genesis and Leviticus, which guarantees semantic consistency. The term “uncovered” is used in different contexts in the two books. In Genesis 9, “uncovered” is neutral and simply used as the antithesis of “covered,” whereas in Leviticus 18 and 20, it is rather an idiom for committing a sexual infraction or violation, as it is associated with guilt and wickedness (Leviticus 18:17). In Genesis 9, “uncovered” is a mere physical action that is used in opposition to “covered,” but in Leviticus 18 and 20, “uncovered” is used in a figurative sense to qualify an unrighteous act that is irreversible. Physically or otherwise, it is utterly impossible to “cover” the “uncovered” in Leviticus 18 and 20, but it is quite necessary to “cover” the “uncovered” in Genesis 9. While we must cover nakedness (Genesis 9), we cannot undo sexual violations (as those cited in Leviticus 18 and 20), and we are told unequivocally that Noah is the one who "uncovered" himself (Genesis 9:21) and Ham’s brothers, Sem and Japheth, “covered” their father’s nakedness (Genesis 9:23). Sandwiched between Genesis 9:21 and Genesis 9:23 is Genesis 9:22 which tells us that Ham "saw" his father's nakedness. The act of seeing being one that can be physically prevented by covering makes it impossible to be anything beyond physically seeing. Therefore, Ham’s action cannot possibly have anything to do with incest. This tells us that we must pay careful attention to the semantics of “uncovered,” as the context in which it is used in Genesis 9 is undeniably divergent from the one used in Leviticus 18 or 20. This difference in contexts demolishes the entire argument that Ham committed incest, whether paternal or maternal. We need the Holy Spirit's own explanation on this one. As instructors of the Kingdom message, we must be careful how we come across. The mere inference to Ham’s action being worse than as described in the biblical text gives the impression of operating from a preconceived notion of Ham’s guilt rather than a genuine concern for biblical truth.
Take Note: There is a BIG difference between "SEEING the nakedness of a person"... and... "UNCOVERING the nakedness of a person." SEEING/LOOKING only needs/requires the Sight/Eyes and it is not a Sin in the Law of Moses/Mosaic... while UNCOVERING/EXPOSING needs all human senses plus requires physical ACTION... is a SIN in those days... When Christ Jesus came, SEEING/LOOKING with malicious intent/desire at others (most especially with women) is also a SIN from their Hearts... Amen.
Wow this makes so much more sense.. Somehow I feel it relates to the commandment to honor your father and mother. From the narrative of this story the scope of honoring your father and mother goes beyond obeying their authority but also protecting their moral reputation and status.. According to the premise given by Dan the man, Ham made his father lose face among his brothers. In todays society we do not make that to be very important. In Middle Eastern societies the honor and reputation of the family was in ancient times as it is today taken very seriously. Especially in Muslim families. so I can understand how this story make so much more sense now. The reason why it is hard for the american christians to understand this passage is because they do not honor fathers and mothers in such a high regard because it isnt part of the american culture as it is in middle eastern cultures. How do people here in the US honor their Parents. You put them in nursing homes. Isnt that the norm in society today.😢😢😢
The documentary hypothesis shows the flood story is two complete stories that stand alone. The J and P stories. In one the the stories it "appears" that Canaan was the 4th son, but got demoted when the 2 stories were merged.
I was a Christian feom the age of 7 to around 40ish. Yeah, my deconvertion was a process, but it didn't happen overnight. Basically, I began to question Christianity by the read of the bible itself. But this particular passage was never problematic for me. I'd never want to see my parents naked, I'd be ashamed if it accidentally happens, and I'd protect my parents' honour even with my own life if needed. And although I agreed a curse would be a too hard punishment, my reasoning with this passage was to teach people to respect their parents. Abraham story was way, way more problematic for me, this one I could never make any sense since when I started reading the bible from a very young age.
I always wondered if the "missing link" was based on a story of Noah getting drunk, and being so wasted that he "tries something" with young Canaan. Then people find out and the whole thing is blamed on Canaan. Like "oh man, Pops was in his cups again, and you know how he gets." But with the hack-and-patch job the modern text has, and lacking any other texts that would shed light on it... We may never know more than the broad strokes that are presented in the text.
This story from the Bible bring up a particular fact about the Universe. No matter what has happened or is happening, there are laws, statutes and principles put in place by God that will not be violated without consequences to follow.
This is informative. Thank you very much. I must admit I'm still sold on the more carnal side to the story. It just makes more sense to me based on Noah's rage, as opposed to just an old drunk dad yelling at his kids. I don't think it would be out of bounds to also recognize that Noah's curse was not necessarily from God; at least, the text never explicitly indicates that God endorses it. But I think V L, below (above?), makes a good point, that these people (assuming the story is historical) would have been pretty severely traumatized by this point...months at sea with a shipload of animals, everyone else in your former world is dead. Even if it were just a local flood (which is what I believe, personally), they would have disembarked into a post-apocalyptic, hellish landscape. Something else: It takes 3 years for grape vines to produce fruit. We read such a truncated version of the story..." _Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded (or '...soil, was the first') to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent_ ," that we think Noah just got drunk right away, as soon as they got off the boat, as if the grapevines had matured overnight. We don't know how long they had been living alone in this "Godforsaken" world; how would anyone's family do under such circumstances?
Loved it! I was wondering if you could do a video on alcohol(wine) passages in the Bible and their meaning. The usage of fermented and non-fermented wine. Does the Bible really condemn drinking?
@April Vera this is just my opinion .I don't think the Bible condemns drinking alcohol . Especially wine which was more common . I do however believe it does condemn getting drunk . So if someone can have a couple of drinks and leave it at that without drinking more and becoming intoxicated that is fine .
I am agnostic on what really happened. I read many years ago that it was related to the blessings a father spoke to his sons. The sons put ther hands on their father and recieved a blessing. Speculation I read was something a long the lines that the brother was trying to steal his blessing . Of course he received a curse instead. This is the first time I have heard the incest with the mother. The interesting thing to me was that the father could actually bless or curse their children etc. I always read over that like it was no big deal.
The story doesn't make much sense regardless of how it is spun, but I absolutely agree that any sort of narrative other than what the text states is a really big reach. If we take it literal, why should Ham be shamed? The way I read it, he did not expect to see Noah in this state and did the RIGHT thing by warning his brothers. All three did their part in protecting the "honor" of their father. Canaan has no responsibility whatsoever and the curse is unwarranted. Noah is at fault for A. bringing shame to himself and B. Unjustly punishing ANYONE else for his own actions. Noah caused needless and catastrophic suffering because of his own pride and embarrassment. It is not a good moral lesson. It is not a good narrative.
Just take it for what it says. He looked upon his fathers nakedness. Ham's decendants were cursed and they became slaves to their brothers. If you want more clarification, pray about it.
It's about shame and character, if your father got drunk and fell asleep naked, would you take a picture and share it on social media? Ham shamed Noah, Noah was hurt and embarrassed and in that emotional state wanted everyone to know how severe what ham did was so his children's, children will remember and not make the same mistakes, hence the curse. It speaks to the poor character Ham had. He didn't love Noah in the way a son should love his father.
God would never have chosen Noah to be the only man to survive the Flood with his family if he had not been a decent and upright person. The problem with today's culture is that hardly anyone can understand that a naked drunk father is something dishonorable. Our society has fallen too low to consider this impure, so a made-up story of one's mother being raped is needed to justify this curse. Your explanation is simple and logical given how Noah was seen through God's eyes. Greeting from Germany. God bless all of you!
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, suggests that the brief narrative “refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated.” (Edited by J. H. Hertz, London, 1972, p. 34) And, after noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in verse 24 may mean “grandson,” this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash also points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon [Noah],” and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham.-Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1956, p. 47.
I love your view. It has scriptured to supported it. The other is simply speculation here say. Also the other its like trying to put a nickel into a dime. Good word.
Great discussion! I'm not sure if it needs to be a composite if it's an etiology justifying the oppression of Canaanites, tho. Like: if Canaan is the child of Ham and the whole point is justifying Israeli aggression towards Canaanites, then that explains the presence of Ham instead of Canaan in the story(because he's the point of branching btwn the Canaanite and Israeli line, essentially), and it doesn't seem to me like you'd need to posit a story about Ham and another about Canaan being merged.
I think people searching for meaning in the passage miss the entire point. We're talking a guy who lives through a flood that kills everyone and who was talking directly with God.... Getting off the boat, planting a vineyard and getting drunk which caused trouble. That message hits too close to home for people looking for a message. I'm not talking about getting drunk. I'm talking holding men in high esteem who talk directly to God. That's just my take which supports my agenda.
When the brothers walked backwards as to not see their father's nakedness changes the meaning of ''seeing their father's nakedness '' having to mean the same as having sex.. Furthermore, since when does man have the power to curse another man.. Isn't that power reserved for God?
Leviticus 18:8 says specifically what the father's nakedness is: "The nakedness of your father's woman you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness." The scripture is clear. No guessing needed.
This was a bit helpful but still confusing. I don’t know why the Bible is so complicated. I get frustrated sometimes, but this is why I look for videos such as yours and others to try and understand a little more and not give up. Thank you for your work.
It is no wonder that the modern culture would jump at an opportunity to view this story in a new and utterly heinous way…. ….”As it was in the days of Noah.”
The grossness of Noah is far worse than a single rape (which McClellan has shown to be highly unlikely): Noah calls for hereditary slavery of a significant portion of humanity based on one dishonorable act. When people discuss whether the Bible condones slavery, I don’t hear them mention this story about the man God considered morally blameless.
One theory is that it is an edited version of a Greek myth in which Zeus sees Chronos naked and castrates him; another is that his wife was a human-nephalim hybrid, and since the flood was supposed to destroy all hybrids, this caused the Canaanites (their children) to be hybrids, requiring the Hebrews to kill them later.
Thank you for providing a scholarly perspective on this! I appreciate your videos. So basically the part about Canaan being cursed is essentially Israelite propaganda?
QUESTION: Is there a possibility of the part of the Canaanite’s being slaves to the other brothers was written in or evolved at a much later date? I ask because I think we have traditional readings of the Bible that have been used to justify mistreatment of other people. I’m wondering if this might be an example of that-perhaps a later storyteller was looking for justification for their dislike of canaanites. 🤷🏻♀️
My mother once told me about being a young wife and living in Brownsville, Texas. She had neighbor who was a very opinionated Baptist (she was a lifelong Catholic). He swore categorically the curse was most certainly upon Black people thereby making it logical that they should be enslaved! Also he claimed that monasteries and nunneries had secret underground passageways where they could meet for clandestine affaires! I found this hilarious because, as young as I was when I first heard this, I was aware that if 2 people wanted to boink, they could find any number to do the deed! And there's the fact that due to flooding, basements are exceeding rare in Texas!
Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. It’s not that deep. Ham slept with His father’s wife. So Noah cursed their offspring. Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
I have seen a number of interpretations that bring in the supposed angle of maternal incest. And, as in all such like interpretations, they focus on what supports them-and ignore the parts of the story that don't. I'm glad you've seen through that. There is really little reason to take seriously such an off-the-wall theory. As you brought out, if it really was a case of Ham having sex with his mother, then why would his sons see the need to cover the nakedness of Noah? But I do not see this as being some kind of composite account slotted together from more than one source. The story is pretty straightforward. Nonetheless, on the surface it doesn't explain why it was Canaan was cursed and not Ham. One does have to dig a little bit to get closer to the truth, but not so close as to think that, because nakedness is often spoken of in relation to sexual sin in other parts of Scripture, that it must mean that a sexual sin was necessarily involved. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think that the order Shem, Ham and Japheth are mentioned in indicates their birth order. Genesis 10:21 reads-“Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.” Japheth is clearly called the elder. And your New Revised Standard Version even renders Genesis 9:24 as-“When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done unto him...” This clearly shows Ham as being the youngest son, and not Japheth. But this does nothing to answer the question as to why it was that Canaan was cursed. But there are a few facts that can't be countered. First of all, Noah was never spoken of as having any children after Japheth, Shem and Ham, even though he lived for three hundred-fifty years more after the Flood. Secondly-Canaan was Ham's fourth son. Could it be possible that Ham did something to his father (more than just seeing him naked), something that would have prevented Noah from ever begetting a fourth son? I'm not talking about castration here-not necessarily. It's hard to imagine Noah having the strength and energy to rise up and curse Canaan, had he actually been subjected to such a terrible wound as that. But be that as it may-something of that nature would explain why Noah laid a curse upon Canaan. “As you have cursed me by preventing me from ever having a fourth son-though you have begotten a fourth son, I make him a curse to YOU!” And why would Noah curse Canaan to be a servant of servants? It would make a lot of sense once one realized that we were talking about a dynastic struggle. Noah was in direct lineage of the line of Seth. Seth's name means “chosen one” (literally, “put,” as one who is “put” in place of another). Contrary to the all-too-popular idea of seeing the Sons of God that came unto the daughters of men, as fallen angels-I believe they were actually of the royal line of Seth. They had a great legacy that was, unfortunately corrupted in the end, and Noah alone kept to their ancient values of virtue. I believe also that, though the earliest mention of the Nazarites comes in Numbers Chapter 6, I believe it highly likely that the pre-Flood Kings of Seth might well have been Nazarites. Part of the Nazarite vow was to never touch any fruit of the vine. This is, of course, a theory. But it would explain Noah getting drunk. He was the last member of the Sethite Nazarites. But they had all become corrupted and died in the Flood. By drinking of the vine, Noah was washing his hands of the old way. I said a dynastic struggle? Shem had been chosen to succeed Noah (this would have been by God's choice, as happened when David was chosen, though David was not the eldest son of Jesse.) Ham, however, was jealous and wanted that honor to go to him, and his line. Noah's ending of the old ways and rituals would have put an end to that. Ham would have wanted revenge against his father for putting an end to his hopes of ruler ship over the family. And this likely was why he boasted to his brothers about what he had seen. And perhaps the Medieval figure of the Fisher King, from Arthurian legends, has some bearing here. For the Fisher King, the Keeper of the Holy Grail, was wounded in the thighs and was thus rendered impotent to fulfill his mandate of begetting an heir.
There is no time-frame indicated as to when Noah found out what Ham had done. When one wakes from a hangover, they are never instantly aware of what transpired while they were drunk. Most likely, he asked his sons who had covered him and they told him what they did AFTER Ham told him of the way they found out he was lying naked in his tent.
My personal interpretation has been that seeing his father nakedness was in and of itself not the issue. It was when Ham went to his brothers about it. Since this is not that far removed from Adam, where nakedness references sin and shame,. Adam and Eve most likely gave their children and grandchildren a sever complex about nudity. When Ham went to his brothers, he was shaming his father. He basically was ridiculing his father to his brothers, and also left his father in a shamed state. So he dishonored his father. He exposed his father's shame.
The reason Canaan gets cursed,? Two possiblities. One reason, God had already blessed Ham, Shem and Japheth. A curse would be going against a blessing, and the blessing came from God, so the curse could be viewed as going against God? So he curses Canaan. Another reason may be out of petty revenge. Noah was shamed by his son, so Ham (a father) would see his own son shamed.
As far as the extreme action. Noah has the title "Righteous of his generation." A generation God wiped out in the Flood. The amendment "of his generation" would imply Noah was the least rotted fruit, but not free from rot. This may be an example of that rot. I have always taken this story as a statement "God can use anyone. But, just because God uses them, doesn't make them good."
Really love your content on TikTok and that you a very straight forward with the facts. Hope to see more videos.
This is a great interpretation. I’m just starting to read the Bible which bought me here because I really wanted to know what did Ham do to Noah and y Noah cursed Caanan. I really like your interpretation, it completely makes sense to me.
This is a good interpretation. There is absolutely nothing in there that insinuates rape of the mother. When the Bible talks about rape, it says it out right, like in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
So Noah lashed out a cursed his sons whole bloodline cause he saw him naked, possibly made jokes about the situation that made Noah feel ashamed, an im supposed to believe him to be a just man???
Love this explanation...thank you and God Bless
Noah was hundreds of years old in the story, was his generation also still alive and hundreds of years old, or was Noah’s family specifically long lived?
At any rate, being the most righteous in a world that was so bad off that God destroys it is literally damning with faint praise.
This was so fascinating! The different ways that the story might have come together, the readings, the cultural background behind why the “seeing the nakedness” was a big deal, as well as exploring why different readings could be compelling. Great video!
First, I absolutely love the longer format and being able to listen to you expound on a topic! Second, thank you for this fascinating look at this section.
TIL another term for Occam’s razor - the principle of parsimony, I like how it includes “most economic way” too.
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. -Leviticus 18:8
The text doesnt say Ham uncovered nakedness, it says Noah was in the tent uncovered, it doesnt say Ham knew his mother, it says he saw nakedness, and it says the brothers walked in backwards to cover the nakedness and not see it (not that they walked backwards to not have sex with anyone). If they walked forwards and saw the nakedness, by staying consistent, you would have to say they had sex too. Its all rubbish and greatly eisegeting the text
That is, wives are property, I'd have thought. Why this comment?
Thank you for your take on this. Simplicity and soberness are appreciated here. Blessings.
almost 15 minutes of hearing you speak goes by just as quickly as 3! here's hoping you're cooking up some even longer form content :)
This has the value of being both sober and interesting at the same time. This is rare.
Thank you for your perspective about "seeing nakedness = seeing shame" as was in Gen. 3:7. It is thought provoking!
Thank you. That was boggling my mind. I lean on the side of protecting their fathers honour
I’m so glad you have a UA-cam. Your TikToks are great, but I love getting this more thorough explanations.
Yup
Leviticus 18:8 says “the nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy fathers’s nakedness”
Amen. ❤
I can't believe this is the first time I'm hearing of the etiological composite text reading of this story. It solves so many problems. Where have you been all my life my friend?
I think that it’s a stretch to base the giving of the land of Canaan to the descendants of Abraham on this incident.
Leviticus 20:11
If a man lies with his father’s wife he has uncovered is father’s nakedness.
Hmmm how would you explain the two brothers covering him with this quote you provided ?
@@infinite_s902good point, i think a literal interpretation more likely given that
@@michaelangeloevans2722 You are implying something regarding the Levitical Priesthood "the law" that was not yet given. You reading into something that is not there. Noah was not under the law. Given generation later to the hebrew. We must rightly define the word and not doting around to are own ideology
@@jamesdykes1829
what I am saying is that, Moses, the author of the book of Genesis and the book of Leviticus used the same euphemism in both books
@michaelangeloevans2722 but to imply that Ham seeing his parents naked is akin to having sex with either his mother or father doesnt work. Because the brothers walked in backwards to not see the nakedness. The only conclusion for your interpretation is that they walked in backwards as to not have sex with anyone. Which is nonsensical.
Thank you, Dan. This was a great explanation for one of the odd stories found in the Bible.
This was great! Would love to hear a similar examination of how these same metaphors might be interpreted in Ruth, regarding her interaction with Boaz wherein she, “uncovers his feet.”
I'm glad you still find fairy tales eye opening like a child on Christmas Day. Do you put your teeth under a pillow?
My understanding of the “uncovers his feet” phrase is that it is a euphemism for Ruth uncovered his circumcision, therefore reminding Boaz of the Israelite’s promise to protect the alien, orphan, and the widow. It wasn’t intended as a sexual act.
I think the Bible says that Boaz was startled awake. I mean… I would be too!! It’d be quite drafty. 💨
But Boaz would have to look down towards his circumcision(the sign of the Israel’s covenant with God) then his gaze would fall upon Ruth(a foreigner and widower).
lordhumongous4272
You came here and searched around in the comments just to insult someone you don’t even know. That’s sad my friend, I know you are better than that. Please, for the sake of humanity, try to do better. You can, it’s already inside you, you just have to make an effort to find the good in you. ✌🏻
I wrote an article years ago on this passage and my interpretation of it is the same as yours. I could not believe how many commenters attacked me because I refused to subscribe to the salacious viewpoint! I was accused of everything from being ignorant to an outright heretic because I endorsed the simple, straightforward explanation.
It seems like so many people just don’t find the Bible sensational enough and they so desperately WANT to read more into things than is actually there! So sad.
Great video and very nice handling of the subject.
I've never heard of the interpretation that included r*pe and incest! Very interesting, since I was a kid I thought this story was really odd, but this cleares up the meaning of it.
My mom will die on this hill that ham did it too his father and that's why black people are cursed it's gross
Love the UA-cam videos, something I don’t think can be explained well in 3min TikToks
I love Karen Armstrong take on the story; “ Noah instead of being a source of blessing, he had become like the first Adam, a curse to others. His righteousness had proved inadequate. After the flood, he remained in denial, shutting out the devastated world in a self-induced stupor. Noah would not be the only damaged survivor, unable to assimilate his experience and wreaking his vengeance upon others. Some of the worst atrocities of history have occurred as a result blaming others for our own crimes. (Christians accused Islam of being a murderously violent and intolerant religion at a time when they were fighting their own brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Near East)” From her book, in the beginning.
I’m currently reading the History Of God and I’m loving it, what are the odds
I haven't read her. I Look at this story from a lawyers perspective when I am asked "what sin did Ham commit". I read the story and in this story Ham had committed no sin. I scoured the Bible for a character witness against Ham and found no instance where have had ever committed a sin in the entire book, before, during or after this story. Based on the evidence given Ham can only have committed as sin based on speculation assumed resulting from the response of Noah, while also omitting Noah's own sins, as if his actions were assumed to be righteous.
When one examines the story for sins it is apparent that Noah had committed a number of now what we consider to be sins. He was drunk, he was indecently exposed while being drunk, he cursed a man, he punished the innocent.
It would be no stretch for one in today's world to imagine a scenario where a very influential, well respected, authoritative character being found in a compromising position, after such a condition being reported by a subordinate, would be angered and feel betrayed to the point of punishing the one responsible and even by punishing the ones innocent child while simultaneously rewarding those who refuse to look upon (acknowledge) his sins and even cover them up.
This mirrors exactly what we see today. The majority refuse to look upon or report the sins of authoritative figures and even cover them up when they are found, these people are rewarded for their covering up of sin, and the minority who point out the sins of those in authority are unrighteous punished for it. This story is a model of the power structure that exists to this day.
Drunkards expose their own nakedness, they bare their own truth. Those who would acknowledge these truths are punished.
@@bettinanstevens9259 that was awesome. Well said.
Canaan had already been born by the time they anchored at mt. Ararat Gen: 9 :26 in the older days grandsons were counted as sons , most likely Canaan could have been the illicit child of a wicked act.
@@bettinanstevens9259the point of the story is that the first born son gets the inheritance, often one sibling can jump ahead in the line through several methods - one of those being making a new son with the Father's wife.
Thanks for the discussion at the end about how the different readings serve different purposes, i.e. the salient one vs. the mundane one that is most supported. Very interesting.
This explanation makes the most sense. People are missing to put this within the socio-cultural context of that time. Seeing a person naked is taboo in very conservative cultures. What more to see the nakedness of family relatives within a religious context striving for holiness.
Thankyou. This is fascinating and also provides a model for reading the OT
Dan, believe and proclaim the Gospel of salvation today 🙏
Thanks for explaining I just started reading the Bible and I was stuck on genesis 20 it makes sense now
Seeing (saw) Noah's nakedness is not a SIN, that is why Noah said, "You do not simply SAW," what makes Ham's atrocity to God was his "Disrespectful Laughter" to the Prophet of God after he saw the nakedness of his father instead of hiding with cloth/blanket Noah's literal nakedness due to drunkenness... just like what Shem and Japeth did... Amen.
Please go and read the original information from the Ethiopian Bible nakedness of shame. He uncovered his shame. He saw that his father actually was naked after being drunk, and he saw him in a unrespectable light, and he looked on him, rather than turning his eye, and walking away, and he shamed him.
This is African culture. If you see your parents in a light that you shouldn’t, you should cover your eyes you’re not to look upon them in anyway, to judge them.
I suggest all of you pray and ask God for understanding and discernment. You can’t pick a part, the Bible, like a math book. It comes with spirit and in truth so if you want it on the down the Bible, spiritually, pray and ask God for discernment, I read your Bible daily.
@@Ghe608 Christ Jesus clearly said, "Anyone who looks (sees) at a woman with LUSTFUL EYES has already committed Adultery from their HEARTS." (ref. Matt. 5:28-32)...
Therefore... Looking at the NAKEDNESS of any Human Body regardless of whether a Man or a Woman is not a SIN... but BEYOND LOOKING/ SEEING with LUSTFUL EYES (Cunning/Deceitful/Wickedness) that makes it EVIL or SIN...
Logically speaking, if just looking at the NAKEDNESS of Human Bodies is a SIN, therefore all Physicians, Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses, and Caregivers are guilty of SIN against God... NOPE, does not how it works...
Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
@@jvlp2046 you have NO idea what your talking about. … It’s clear you dont even know the Bible- one of the first stories in the Bible about Adam and Eve when they realized they were “naked” and they ran to cover themselves they felt shame in their nakedness, in front of God they felt shame.
Nakedness and being uncovered in the Bible also relates to people knowing your deepest secret for you being vulnerable the Bible says when you love someone you are supposed to cover them and it doesn’t meet with clothes or a blanket. It means that you’re not supposed to expose them, and blah blah off your mouth about them you should pray with them and bring their sins to God and you both together. Pray there many instances in the Bible that God talks about nakedness covering and shame and you’re not getting it at all..
Genesis 3:7 says, 7. At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.Apr 8, 2021
citychurchbloomington.org › ...
I recognize there’s not a lot of discipline not a lot of respect for authority in white homes So maybe it’s a foreign concept , but seeing your drunk father, naked, and not turning away or make an overt, moved to remove your father, shame , but you’re making a very big reach, thinking that there was anything homosexual going on or saying that he saw his mother, naked or slept with his mother. There’s nothing that indicates that so stop lying on the Bible …The Bible is a black book that happened in Africa with Black people, black culture and even your relationship with God, you’re supposed to have humility, and you’re supposed to know your place with God
is the same thing with Noah when his son saw him drunk and naked because Noah felt shame and his son didn’t run away and kind of mocked him. Stay too long looking called in his brothers. Noah said because you caused me shame you’re lineage are cursed cursed (and I don’t know why that’s weird to the guy who is doing the Bible study in the video because many places in the Bible discussed the fact that you’re curses are passed down to your children and your children’s children) You. don’t understand culture you don’t understand the Bible. It talks about many of these scenarios but you don’t know your Bible..
the first Bible that was written is not western Bible is written by African people and it’s about respect. We also don’t have to figure out respect you’re not supposed to look at somebody’s nakedness meaning, naked in many ways you guys are making it something that it’s not you don’t even read your Bible the majority of you guys in the world don’t even read your Bible, how do you jump from seeing someone naked to homosexuality and then that he was with his father’s wife
Not only do I know this Bible from Genesis to Malachi for Matthew to revelation. I also know the Ethiopian Bible that white people left all of those books out to only serve their purpose to do bad things to people and what I’m telling you is, you’re far off? I don’t know. Where are you see in the Bible that it says he looked at his father with the last fly. Be careful that the light
within you is not darkness .
Combined, the terms “NAKED” and “nakedness” are used 104 times in Scripture, a high number for fairly uncommon words, indicating their importance. Depending on the context, the terms can figuratively indicate innocence, defenselessness, vulnerability, helplessness, humiliation, shame, guilt, or judgment.
The fact that you very quickly choose to make a judgment on morality. In this case is very weird. You don’t know the Bible and to read it in context into ask for discernment you are wrong you’re trying to compare old language to your not so common sense in today’s day and age, you’re not aware of Bible language, you’re not aware of their thinking, I think that you should take some time get into your Bible do some intense Bible studies get a good Bible study planner and read the Bible every day. Ask God for discernment, and then next year do it all over again constantly have the word of God, listening to it in your ear, and God will reveal himself to you what you’re saying right now is not correct
There's a very sneaky assumption made in the 2005 paper; that Noah's wife was the mother of his three sons. The text doesn't demand it, and the logical resolution to this passage is that this is Noah's second wife. That would create parallels between the story of Reuben and Bilhah, and Absalom and the concubines of David. It also explains why Ham would boast to his brothers; he wouldn't expect them to be impressed by sleeping with his mother (that should have resulted in a beating), but if it was a second wife it makes much more sense, especially as a power play. It also explains the first verse in the section telling us who Noah's three sons were, that Ham was the father of Canaan, and reason for reiterating that Noah had three sons. Noah may have spoken as if Canaan was his fourth son, born of this second wife, until he realized that Ham had cuckolded him. It also removes the need for time gaps. There are many traditions about people believing they are descended from a 4th son of Noah, and likely the Canaanites told that tale as well. This chapter makes a lot of sense as a specific polemic against that claim. Canaan could have been conceived on the ark, but born after and he might have been running around for a while since it takes a few years to go from planting a vineyard to harvesting wine. This also explains why he would consign Canaan to be a servant in the tents of Shem and Japheth, because he would have sent the child away with his mother, and he wouldn't reward Ham for his behavior by giving him a second wife. But from a theological standpoint the issue of nakedness is enough of a theme throughout Genesis to make sense.
I think another important line of thought is that we find in this text one of the earliest instances of usurpation. Ham effectively seeks to claim the bloodline by this act, whether it be incestuous or adulterous
I like how he demystify the mystery
When I read this passage for the first time many decades ago, I read it in a straightforward manner. I thought Ham stumbled accidentally into the situation of seeing his passed out father, nude, & was embarrassed. He went to his brothers because he didn't want them to accidentally view the same thing. The brothers figured out how to fix the situation without further humiliation to Noah. Why Canaan was cursed never made sense, but I was taught that God's ways are higher blah-blah-blah. I never heard the idea of some incest happening. That sounds counterintuitive to me.
Dan, thank you for making these videos. Could you do one on the the oath that jephthah took? I've always thought that story deserves additional context from an expert. I have even heard that possibly there is a translation error and his daughter was only devoted to God (not sacrificed).
All scripture is inspired of God so there is never any error. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a human burnt offering. That would be an insult to God and a violation of his law to make a literal human sacrifice. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) The very ones Jephthah was fighting practiced human sacrifice to their god Molech.
His daughter served at the sanctuary for the rest of her life. Her female companions visited her from year to year to give commendation, so obviously she wasn’t dead. (Judges 11:40) At the sanctuary she served in gathering wood, drawing water, and performing many other tasks as assistants to the priests and Levites there.
@@sunnyjohnson992
His vow was explicitly to make a burnt offering of whatever comes out of the house to greet him.
The custom was for maidens to lament the daughter of Jephthah, not visit her.
@@sunnyjohnson992 Bibliolatry is ugly, mean, and ignorant. Deuteronomy says for no books to be taken from or added to scripture, YET the new testament was added to the protest of many martyrs. Indeed, "2 Timothy" was not even part of the New Testament collection when it was crafted, let alone part of "actual scripture" being referred in that "personal letter." You have to know how your idols are crafted and used, you have to know how the letter kills the spirit "of interpretation as your heart doth wish" and how 1000 words merely paint a picture.
i really like these quick, deep dives into a small section of text
Great video! I appreciate the way you broke down the thought process. As someone who's trying to get better at critical thinking, that's so helpful! And yay for interpretations that don't involve raping women 🎉
Great video! Could you put the text on screen (on the side), just to see the words aswell when you read the text.
I'd love to hear more about the current state of the text analysis, like which parts are from another story and are there clues of what that story was all about.
Thank you so much!
I've still gotta develop my production skills. I'll have text on the screen before too long, but a great book that goes over how these traditions in Genesis 1-11 developed is David Carr, The Formation of Genesis 1-11.
@@maklelan Premiere Pro has a lot of good tools if you’re using that! Also , there are a ton of tutorials on UA-cam!
Love your TikTok account and looking forward to more longform content from you in the future!
The very first thing I look at in this story is the fact that Noah was drunk! That says a whole lot just by itself! How can a hungover man make sense of what happened the night before!
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:
Lev. 18 (most of chapter discusses this) Your thought?
Hey Dan, love your videos. I always assumed some sort of “time jump” in this story. Not only was Canaan likely the youngest of Ham’s children, but Noah came off the ark and all of a sudden he has a farm and a vineyard? In Genesis 9:20 it says he planted a vineyard. Not sure how long that takes, but from scratch, especially after a devastating flood, I would imagine it being complicated to successfully start a farm🤷🏽♂️. Anyway, I thought the sin, whatever it was, happened as a direct interaction with Noah and Canaan. He was old enough to bear responsibility for the act, and be the receipient of the curse of Noah.
But you are right, so much speculation, maybe it’s not meant for us to read into it so much.
You have read into it too much. Worried about the planting of grapes. How long do grapes take to grow? Figure that out. It's pretty simple. Scripture interpretates scripture. Leviticus 18 verifies hams sin.
Nah I don’t except that, this is Noah we’re talking about for him to curse someone of his lineage for something they were not involved in just seems wrong does it not?
My .02 and I apologize for hitting you with so many comments. I just found your channel and I like it very much. I am trying to crack the template code but I am not formally educated. I struggle to deliver what I see. To me, there is the physical world then our inner world. Mental. Electro-chemically stored experiences and emotions from our individual life experiences. We become those until we realize that we have become those. Those are garments. In the physical world we want to be covered. In the spiritual, (mental experience) we seek to become naked. Devoid of the emotional attachments to out past experiences that we may leave them behind. Nothing to hide which makes us feel bad and continue to see a cyclical return of the denied experience. In the Gospel of Thomas is the idea that one will see the Kingdom within when one can strip off their garments and put them under their feet, standing on them. "Naked" shows up quite a bit in Jewish works as an analog to carry that teaching.
IMHO. Thank you. A breath of fresh air and someone I understand.
I’m reading from the NIV version and the amplified version and they both said that Ham is the father of Caanan. And the Amplified said that Ham is the younger son of Noah.
Wow. This was so helpful and informative . Thank you.
I have found from intensive study of scripture for many years that God allows our punishment to be "designed" by our "crime."
Also, because we judge things from scripture by our own culture and understanding we have great diffuculty realizing what the wording is trying to convey.
I personally believe all pertinent info is present (usually) in the layout of the story or event.
There is no need to search and grasp for extreme explanations and adaptations from other info in scripture.
Sometimes just researching of historical and cultural, and definitions and given some time to ponder the data for a while, we can see more clearly what is being conveyed.
Leviticus 20:11 : If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Is quoted as to why some are told as why some have said it was a son sleeping with his mother. I remember being told that. Also in Leviticus 18:8 : [8] The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Hey Dan love the videos. So one of the arguments for the curse of Ham or Canaan story is essentially as propaganda? Interesting how this was used to subjugate the Canaanites and also for African enslavement.
The gift of etiology keeps on giving. :(
Man can't cursed what God has not
I enjoyed your discussion on this topic! Thanks Dan! Hugh Nibley talks about this story as the idea that Ham took the holy garments of Adam which had been passed down to Noah and took them and made a copy of them to try to claim the right to rule which made it down through his descendants to Nimrod and Possibly Esau.
That seems quite a stretch compared to this explanation of amended text
Ham's whole lineage was not condemned for all eternity! Noah cursed the youngest son of Ham Canaan, why? Noah was hoping for a fourth son, to which Ham and his wife objected, for their inheritance would be divided four ways instead of three. Again, why would Noah curse the fourth son of Ham, namely Canaan? Ham did not uncover Noah's nakedness because he was already naked. According to The Essential Zohar, as translated by Rav P. S. Berg, and we read, "And he drank of the wine, and was drunk, and he was uncovered" (Genesis 9:21). This aroused Ham, the father of Canaan, and he castrated Noah, thereby removing the secret Covenant, which had made Noah a righteous man. He removed the male organ, the means of begetting" (P. 102). 22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 So Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said: “Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brethren.” 26 And he said: “Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant” (Genesis 9:22-27). Noah cursed Canaan who was already known, and therefore, Noah's wife was not assaulted, raped, or impregnated by her son, Ham. If Noah was not castrated, and thereby no longer the leading Patriarch, then why did he pass the Patriarchy onto Shem? This is why he said, "Blessed be the LORD God of Shem..." No the key to understanding why Canaan and his descendants were cursed with perpetual slavery, is due to Ham preventing his father, Noah, from being able to begat a fourth son, which is why Noah cursed Ham's fourth son.
New to biblical scholarship, quick question: in terms of the Bible, does etiological usually also imply non-literal, or non-historical? Or do scholars recognize the etiology but also presume most biblical stories to be factual accounts? Genuinely curious! (Btw, love your channel and your TikTok!)
Etiologies are usually non-historical, since etiologies don’t generally pop up until knowledge of origins is lost.
@@maklelan thank you so much. I have learned a ton in just the last few months. Please keep doing what you’re doing, it’s so incredibly helpful!
Ezekiel 18:20-21 KJV
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Thanks Dan!
Much appreciated! 🎉
I may be a pain in the butt to you on TikTok, but I really love your teachings. This UA-cam channel is great! I look forward to more, thanks Dan!
I know this isn’t exactly what the video was talking about, but I think it’s also important to see this in the full context of the Genesis narrative. Noah’s story continually draws clear parallels to the story of creation earlier, and this part in particular is mirroring the Fall.
We have a partaking of fruit, someone seeing nakedness, a covering of said nakedness, and a pronouncement of a curse. Given how often the Biblical narrative uses clothing as a reference to God’s grace and mercy, I wonder if a big part of this is that Ham in this case acts as the serpent, enabling the exposure of Noah’s nakedness or shame, while Shem and Japheth act in the way God did, by providing a garment to cover up the shame or nakedness. I think it would tend to support the more straightforward interpretation for how the ancient Israelites would have read the story, but I also think it provides a thread for us to unravel today to see how the story is calling us to act as well.
1) the extreme reaction to not defending his father sounds a bit similar to laws of hospitality and the extreme curses that could come from offending that. 2) I thought the Israelites were originally Canaanites. Is the subjugation the same as just the Kingdom of Israel unifying the Canaanite tribes by force?
(1) I agree, it has resonances with different societies' approaches to honor/shame and hospitality. (2) Yes, the Israelites were Canaanites. By the time these traditions are created, Israel/Judah had thoroughly othered the societies around them and is creating fictive kinship and ancestries to firm up the lines of distinction from the groups around them.
In considering the meaning of words, we have the benefit that Moses wrote both Genesis and Leviticus, which guarantees semantic consistency. The term “uncovered” is used in different contexts in the two books. In Genesis 9, “uncovered” is neutral and simply used as the antithesis of “covered,” whereas in Leviticus 18 and 20, it is rather an idiom for committing a sexual infraction or violation, as it is associated with guilt and wickedness (Leviticus 18:17). In Genesis 9, “uncovered” is a mere physical action that is used in opposition to “covered,” but in Leviticus 18 and 20, “uncovered” is used in a figurative sense to qualify an unrighteous act that is irreversible. Physically or otherwise, it is utterly impossible to “cover” the “uncovered” in Leviticus 18 and 20, but it is quite necessary to “cover” the “uncovered” in Genesis 9. While we must cover nakedness (Genesis 9), we cannot undo sexual violations (as those cited in Leviticus 18 and 20), and we are told unequivocally that Noah is the one who "uncovered" himself (Genesis 9:21) and Ham’s brothers, Sem and Japheth, “covered” their father’s nakedness (Genesis 9:23). Sandwiched between Genesis 9:21 and Genesis 9:23 is Genesis 9:22 which tells us that Ham "saw" his father's nakedness. The act of seeing being one that can be physically prevented by covering makes it impossible to be anything beyond physically seeing. Therefore, Ham’s action cannot possibly have anything to do with incest. This tells us that we must pay careful attention to the semantics of “uncovered,” as the context in which it is used in Genesis 9 is undeniably divergent from the one used in Leviticus 18 or 20. This difference in contexts demolishes the entire argument that Ham committed incest, whether paternal or maternal. We need the Holy Spirit's own explanation on this one. As instructors of the Kingdom message, we must be careful how we come across. The mere inference to Ham’s action being worse than as described in the biblical text gives the impression of operating from a preconceived notion of Ham’s guilt rather than a genuine concern for biblical truth.
Take Note: There is a BIG difference between "SEEING the nakedness of a person"... and... "UNCOVERING the nakedness of a person."
SEEING/LOOKING only needs/requires the Sight/Eyes and it is not a Sin in the Law of Moses/Mosaic... while UNCOVERING/EXPOSING needs all human senses plus requires physical ACTION... is a SIN in those days...
When Christ Jesus came, SEEING/LOOKING with malicious intent/desire at others (most especially with women) is also a SIN from their Hearts... Amen.
Wow this makes so much more sense.. Somehow I feel it relates to the commandment to honor your father and mother. From the narrative of this story the scope of honoring your father and mother goes beyond obeying their authority but also protecting their moral reputation and status..
According to the premise given by Dan the man, Ham made his father lose face among his brothers. In todays society we do not make that to be very important. In Middle Eastern societies the honor and reputation of the family was in ancient times as it is today taken very seriously. Especially in Muslim families. so I can understand how this story make so much more sense now.
The reason why it is hard for the american christians to understand this passage is because they do not honor fathers and mothers in such a high regard because it isnt part of the american culture as it is in middle eastern cultures.
How do people here in the US honor their Parents. You put them in nursing homes. Isnt that the norm in society today.😢😢😢
The documentary hypothesis shows the flood story is two complete stories that stand alone.
The J and P stories.
In one the the stories it "appears" that Canaan was the 4th son, but got demoted when the 2 stories were merged.
Look up A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood by Project Tabs
I would post a link but UA-cam will delete it.
I was a Christian feom the age of 7 to around 40ish. Yeah, my deconvertion was a process, but it didn't happen overnight. Basically, I began to question Christianity by the read of the bible itself. But this particular passage was never problematic for me. I'd never want to see my parents naked, I'd be ashamed if it accidentally happens, and I'd protect my parents' honour even with my own life if needed. And although I agreed a curse would be a too hard punishment, my reasoning with this passage was to teach people to respect their parents. Abraham story was way, way more problematic for me, this one I could never make any sense since when I started reading the bible from a very young age.
I always wondered if the "missing link" was based on a story of Noah getting drunk, and being so wasted that he "tries something" with young Canaan. Then people find out and the whole thing is blamed on Canaan. Like "oh man, Pops was in his cups again, and you know how he gets."
But with the hack-and-patch job the modern text has, and lacking any other texts that would shed light on it... We may never know more than the broad strokes that are presented in the text.
Matthew is where we get the definition of nakedness.
This story from the Bible bring up a particular fact about the Universe. No matter what has happened or is happening, there are laws, statutes and principles put in place by God that will not be violated without consequences to follow.
Man, ive been wondering this for a while.
Best theory I have heard.
Ham had sex with his mother and Canaan was the child.
Always protect the honor of ur father ☝🏻
This is informative. Thank you very much. I must admit I'm still sold on the more carnal side to the story. It just makes more sense to me based on Noah's rage, as opposed to just an old drunk dad yelling at his kids. I don't think it would be out of bounds to also recognize that Noah's curse was not necessarily from God; at least, the text never explicitly indicates that God endorses it. But I think V L, below (above?), makes a good point, that these people (assuming the story is historical) would have been pretty severely traumatized by this point...months at sea with a shipload of animals, everyone else in your former world is dead. Even if it were just a local flood (which is what I believe, personally), they would have disembarked into a post-apocalyptic, hellish landscape.
Something else: It takes 3 years for grape vines to produce fruit. We read such a truncated version of the story..." _Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded (or '...soil, was the first') to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent_ ," that we think Noah just got drunk right away, as soon as they got off the boat, as if the grapevines had matured overnight. We don't know how long they had been living alone in this "Godforsaken" world; how would anyone's family do under such circumstances?
Loved it! I was wondering if you could do a video on alcohol(wine) passages in the Bible and their meaning. The usage of fermented and non-fermented wine. Does the Bible really condemn drinking?
@April Vera this is just my opinion .I don't think the Bible condemns drinking alcohol . Especially wine which was more common . I do however believe it does condemn getting drunk . So if someone can have a couple of drinks and leave it at that without drinking more and becoming intoxicated that is fine .
The Bible doesn't condemn drinking at all. Modern era Protestants dreamed that up. The only restriction is that clergy should not be alcoholics.
So interesting, thank you
I am agnostic on what really happened. I read many years ago that it was related to the blessings a father spoke to his sons. The sons put ther hands on their father and recieved a blessing.
Speculation I read was something a long the lines that the brother was trying to steal his blessing . Of course he received a curse instead. This is the first time I have heard the incest with the mother.
The interesting thing to me was that the father could actually bless or curse their children etc. I always read over that like it was no big deal.
The story doesn't make much sense regardless of how it is spun, but I absolutely agree that any sort of narrative other than what the text states is a really big reach.
If we take it literal, why should Ham be shamed? The way I read it, he did not expect to see Noah in this state and did the RIGHT thing by warning his brothers. All three did their part in protecting the "honor" of their father. Canaan has no responsibility whatsoever and the curse is unwarranted.
Noah is at fault for A. bringing shame to himself and B. Unjustly punishing ANYONE else for his own actions. Noah caused needless and catastrophic suffering because of his own pride and embarrassment.
It is not a good moral lesson. It is not a good narrative.
Just take it for what it says. He looked upon his fathers nakedness. Ham's decendants were cursed and they became slaves to their brothers. If you want more clarification, pray about it.
I was always taught that noah wasnt wearing his holy temple garments, and that was why he was called naked.
It's about shame and character, if your father got drunk and fell asleep naked, would you take a picture and share it on social media? Ham shamed Noah, Noah was hurt and embarrassed and in that emotional state wanted everyone to know how severe what ham did was so his children's, children will remember and not make the same mistakes, hence the curse. It speaks to the poor character Ham had. He didn't love Noah in the way a son should love his father.
God would never have chosen Noah to be the only man to survive the Flood with his family if he had not been a decent and upright person. The problem with today's culture is that hardly anyone can understand that a naked drunk father is something dishonorable. Our society has fallen too low to consider this impure, so a made-up story of one's mother being raped is needed to justify this curse. Your explanation is simple and logical given how Noah was seen through God's eyes. Greeting from Germany. God bless all of you!
Seems like a lot of conjecture and guessing.
Also, was it wrong for Noah to be naked in his own tent?
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, suggests that the brief narrative “refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated.” (Edited by J. H. Hertz, London, 1972, p. 34) And, after noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in verse 24 may mean “grandson,” this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash also points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon [Noah],” and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham.-Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1956, p. 47.
I'm always puzzled by the amount of effort put into making the straightforward parts weird. Aren't the actual weird parts enough to keep us busy?
I love your view. It has scriptured to supported it. The other is simply speculation here say. Also the other its like trying to put a nickel into a dime. Good word.
Great discussion! I'm not sure if it needs to be a composite if it's an etiology justifying the oppression of Canaanites, tho. Like: if Canaan is the child of Ham and the whole point is justifying Israeli aggression towards Canaanites, then that explains the presence of Ham instead of Canaan in the story(because he's the point of branching btwn the Canaanite and Israeli line, essentially), and it doesn't seem to me like you'd need to posit a story about Ham and another about Canaan being merged.
I think people searching for meaning in the passage miss the entire point. We're talking a guy who lives through a flood that kills everyone and who was talking directly with God....
Getting off the boat, planting a vineyard and getting drunk which caused trouble. That message hits too close to home for people looking for a message. I'm not talking about getting drunk. I'm talking holding men in high esteem who talk directly to God.
That's just my take which supports my agenda.
When the brothers walked backwards as to not see their father's nakedness changes the meaning of ''seeing their father's nakedness '' having to mean the same as having sex.. Furthermore, since when does man have the power to curse another man.. Isn't that power reserved for God?
Right on 👊 Correct. I agree with you.
Thank You
Leviticus 18:8 says specifically what the father's nakedness is: "The nakedness of your father's woman you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness."
The scripture is clear. No guessing needed.
Super helpful video
This was a bit helpful but still confusing. I don’t know why the Bible is so complicated. I get frustrated sometimes, but this is why I look for videos such as yours and others to try and understand a little more and not give up. Thank you for your work.
Dr Michael Heiser presented the theory of incest with the mother. I agree with you.
It is no wonder that the modern culture would jump at an opportunity to view this story in a new and utterly heinous way…. ….”As it was in the days of Noah.”
It seems particularly heinous of Noah to curse his grandson into slavery for his own shame.
The grossness of Noah is far worse than a single rape (which McClellan has shown to be highly unlikely): Noah calls for hereditary slavery of a significant portion of humanity based on one dishonorable act.
When people discuss whether the Bible condones slavery, I don’t hear them mention this story about the man God considered morally blameless.
One theory is that it is an edited version of a Greek myth in which Zeus sees Chronos naked and castrates him; another is that his wife was a human-nephalim hybrid, and since the flood was supposed to destroy all hybrids, this caused the Canaanites (their children) to be hybrids, requiring the Hebrews to kill them later.
Thank you for providing a scholarly perspective on this! I appreciate your videos. So basically the part about Canaan being cursed is essentially Israelite propaganda?
Great points.
He saw his father's spiritual nakedness from the tower was built.. and then his step brothers Lied.
QUESTION: Is there a possibility of the part of the Canaanite’s being slaves to the other brothers was written in or evolved at a much later date?
I ask because I think we have traditional readings of the Bible that have been used to justify mistreatment of other people. I’m wondering if this might be an example of that-perhaps a later storyteller was looking for justification for their dislike of canaanites. 🤷🏻♀️
This is exactly what he’s saying-that’s what an etiology is.
@@owenfw it’s been a long week. I’m exhausted.
My mother once told me about being a young wife and living in Brownsville, Texas. She had neighbor who was a very opinionated Baptist (she was a lifelong Catholic). He swore categorically the curse was most certainly upon Black people thereby making it logical that they should be enslaved! Also he claimed that monasteries and nunneries had secret underground passageways where they could meet for clandestine affaires! I found this hilarious because, as young as I was when I first heard this, I was aware that if 2 people wanted to boink, they could find any number to do the deed! And there's the fact that due to flooding, basements are exceeding rare in Texas!
This is so funny. A 13 minute video essentially to say "it's not that deep bro." I love it.
Keep it in the family.
Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
It’s not that deep. Ham slept with His father’s wife. So Noah cursed their offspring.
Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Insist was practiced in Canaan. Leviticus 18:6 addresses this.
I have seen a number of interpretations that bring in the supposed angle of maternal incest. And, as in all such like interpretations, they focus on what supports them-and ignore the parts of the story that don't.
I'm glad you've seen through that. There is really little reason to take seriously such an off-the-wall theory. As you brought out, if it really was a case of Ham having sex with his mother, then why would his sons see the need to cover the nakedness of Noah?
But I do not see this as being some kind of composite account slotted together from more than one source. The story is pretty straightforward. Nonetheless, on the surface it doesn't explain why it was Canaan was cursed and not Ham. One does have to dig a little bit to get closer to the truth, but not so close as to think that, because nakedness is often spoken of in relation to sexual sin in other parts of Scripture, that it must mean that a sexual sin was necessarily involved.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think that the order Shem, Ham and Japheth are mentioned in indicates their birth order. Genesis 10:21 reads-“Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.” Japheth is clearly called the elder. And your New Revised Standard Version even renders Genesis 9:24 as-“When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done unto him...” This clearly shows Ham as being the youngest son, and not Japheth.
But this does nothing to answer the question as to why it was that Canaan was cursed. But there are a few facts that can't be countered. First of all, Noah was never spoken of as having any children after Japheth, Shem and Ham, even though he lived for three hundred-fifty years more after the Flood. Secondly-Canaan was Ham's fourth son. Could it be possible that Ham did something to his father (more than just seeing him naked), something that would have prevented Noah from ever begetting a fourth son?
I'm not talking about castration here-not necessarily. It's hard to imagine Noah having the strength and energy to rise up and curse Canaan, had he actually been subjected to such a terrible wound as that. But be that as it may-something of that nature would explain why Noah laid a curse upon Canaan. “As you have cursed me by preventing me from ever having a fourth son-though you have begotten a fourth son, I make him a curse to YOU!”
And why would Noah curse Canaan to be a servant of servants? It would make a lot of sense once one realized that we were talking about a dynastic struggle. Noah was in direct lineage of the line of Seth. Seth's name means “chosen one” (literally, “put,” as one who is “put” in place of another). Contrary to the all-too-popular idea of seeing the Sons of God that came unto the daughters of men, as fallen angels-I believe they were actually of the royal line of Seth. They had a great legacy that was, unfortunately corrupted in the end, and Noah alone kept to their ancient values of virtue. I believe also that, though the earliest mention of the Nazarites comes in Numbers Chapter 6, I believe it highly likely that the pre-Flood Kings of Seth might well have been Nazarites. Part of the Nazarite vow was to never touch any fruit of the vine.
This is, of course, a theory. But it would explain Noah getting drunk. He was the last member of the Sethite Nazarites. But they had all become corrupted and died in the Flood. By drinking of the vine, Noah was washing his hands of the old way.
I said a dynastic struggle? Shem had been chosen to succeed Noah (this would have been by God's choice, as happened when David was chosen, though David was not the eldest son of Jesse.) Ham, however, was jealous and wanted that honor to go to him, and his line. Noah's ending of the old ways and rituals would have put an end to that. Ham would have wanted revenge against his father for putting an end to his hopes of ruler ship over the family. And this likely was why he boasted to his brothers about what he had seen.
And perhaps the Medieval figure of the Fisher King, from Arthurian legends, has some bearing here. For the Fisher King, the Keeper of the Holy Grail, was wounded in the thighs and was thus rendered impotent to fulfill his mandate of begetting an heir.
Why can’t we just accept we just don’t know why he cursed his grandson instead of Ham.
Are there any other instances of texts in the bible being emended or combined?
how did apple trees, orange tree's, garlic, carrots etc survive a full year at the bottom of the ocean?
There is no time-frame indicated as to when Noah found out what Ham had done. When one wakes from a hangover, they are never instantly aware of what transpired while they were drunk. Most likely, he asked his sons who had covered him and they told him what they did AFTER Ham told him of the way they found out he was lying naked in his tent.