Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The patriarchal system that informed much of the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible especially included a deep respect of the patriarch (father) - especially by the sons. Sons had certain responsibilities when it came to caring for their father, both for his time on earth and his time in the grave.
Dying fatherless was considered a great shame for several reasons.
1) With no heirs, property and the family trade really had no place to go.
2) Without sons to care for one's grave, and to perform various cultic rites, an individual was guaranteed a very bleak afterlife in Sheol. From Judahite burial tombs, especially, we see a great care given to how the proper burial and care for the dead helped to continue the "name" of the deceased.
3) With no sons while living, the father had a much more difficult life and lost respect.
Sons had many responsibilities for their fathers while alive. Especially important was caring for one's father when he was drunk. An Ugaritic tale of the patriarchal god 'El illustrates this responsibility. His sons Thukamuna and Shunama (or possibility a composite deity) are responsible for El's well-being during a drinking feast El hosts:
El sits...
El settles into his bacchanal.
El drinks wine till sated,
Vintage till inebriated.
El staggers to his house,
Stumbles in to his court.
Thukamuna and Shunama carry him.
Habayu then berates him,
He of two horns and a tail [mysterious figure, a type of "devil"?].
He slips in his dung and urine,
El collapses like one dead
El like those who descend to Earth.
(KTU 1.114, I 14-22, UNP Parker)
El becomes so drunk he needs help to get home, and his sons dutifully assist him. Even with the help of his sons, there is danger implied in the text that when he falls down he is falling down as if one of the dead (terms concerning the "Earth" indicate the "Netherworld" in instances like this - a pun on him falling drunk "dead") - a cosmic danger that must be averted by the assistance of his sons. The point is, that the sons are responsible for their father's well-being. This story has clear parallels to the story of Noah and his sons.
In the Tale of Aqhat, the duties of a son to a drunk father are explicitly listed, as well as the duties related to burial practices:
Let him have a son in his house,
Offspring within his palace,
To set up his Ancestor's stela,
The sign of his Sib in the sanctuary;
To rescue his smoke from the Underworld,
To protect his steps from the Dust;
To stop his abusers' spite,
To drive his troublers away;
To grasp his arm when drunk,
To support him when sated with wine;
To eat his portion in Baal's house ["temple"],
His share in the house of El;
To daub his roof when there's [m]ud,
To wash his stuff when there's dirt."
(KTU 1.17 I 25-33, UNP Parker)
It is very clear from this text what the duties of a son are, especially when a father is drunk - which I guess was pretty frequently ha ha! Good ol' dad.....
The references that were listed from the Mosaic Code have to deal with an additional aspect that contributes to the already important fact that Ham refused to act like a good son, but his brothers were the ones who played that role. The nakedness of the patriarch was reserved for one person: his wife. Marriage was a divine contract in the Ancient Near East and various taboos were involved. This was one of them. The sons were not permitted to see the father naked, and this was seen as a grave offense - an act that robbed the father of dignity and respect. In the Biblical examples of Reuben taking his father's concubine, and David's son taking his many wives in full view of everyone - these actions are taboo because they "expose the father's nakedness", as strange as that term sounds in this situation.
But this is how it was seen.
So essentially, the great offense that Ham committed was in first not caring for his father while he was drunk, and in seeing his father naked. That is what the plain-meaning of the text shows, at least. Other things may be in play as well, possibly the homosexual rape of the father, or, less likely, the castration of the father. But the more simple explanation sees it exactly as what it appears to be: the failure of a son in his duties.
The patriarchal system that informed much of the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible especially included a deep respect of the patriarch (father) - especially by the sons. Sons had certain responsibilities when it came to caring for their father, both for his time on earth and his time in the grave.
Dying fatherless was considered a great shame for several reasons.
1) With no heirs, property and the family trade really had no place to go.
2) Without sons to care for one's grave, and to perform various cultic rites, an individual was guaranteed a very bleak afterlife in Sheol. From Judahite burial tombs, especially, we see a great care given to how the proper burial and care for the dead helped to continue the "name" of the deceased.
3) With no sons while living, the father had a much more difficult life and lost respect.
Sons had many responsibilities for their fathers while alive. Especially important was caring for one's father when he was drunk. An Ugaritic tale of the patriarchal god 'El illustrates this responsibility. His sons Thukamuna and Shunama (or possibility a composite deity) are responsible for El's well-being during a drinking feast El hosts:
El sits...
El settles into his bacchanal.
El drinks wine till sated,
Vintage till inebriated.
El staggers to his house,
Stumbles in to his court.
Thukamuna and Shunama carry him.
Habayu then berates him,
He of two horns and a tail [mysterious figure, a type of "devil"?].
He slips in his dung and urine,
El collapses like one dead
El like those who descend to Earth.
(KTU 1.114, I 14-22, UNP Parker)
El becomes so drunk he needs help to get home, and his sons dutifully assist him. Even with the help of his sons, there is danger implied in the text that when he falls down he is falling down as if one of the dead (terms concerning the "Earth" indicate the "Netherworld" in instances like this - a pun on him falling drunk "dead") - a cosmic danger that must be averted by the assistance of his sons. The point is, that the sons are responsible for their father's well-being. This story has clear parallels to the story of Noah and his sons.
In the Tale of Aqhat, the duties of a son to a drunk father are explicitly listed, as well as the duties related to burial practices:
Let him have a son in his house,
Offspring within his palace,
To set up his Ancestor's stela,
The sign of his Sib in the sanctuary;
To rescue his smoke from the Underworld,
To protect his steps from the Dust;
To stop his abusers' spite,
To drive his troublers away;
To grasp his arm when drunk,
To support him when sated with wine;
To eat his portion in Baal's house ["temple"],
His share in the house of El;
To daub his roof when there's [m]ud,
To wash his stuff when there's dirt."
(KTU 1.17 I 25-33, UNP Parker)
It is very clear from this text what the duties of a son are, especially when a father is drunk - which I guess was pretty frequently ha ha! Good ol' dad.....
The references that were listed from the Mosaic Code have to deal with an additional aspect that contributes to the already important fact that Ham refused to act like a good son, but his brothers were the ones who played that role. The nakedness of the patriarch was reserved for one person: his wife. Marriage was a divine contract in the Ancient Near East and various taboos were involved. This was one of them. The sons were not permitted to see the father naked, and this was seen as a grave offense - an act that robbed the father of dignity and respect. In the Biblical examples of Reuben taking his father's concubine, and David's son taking his many wives in full view of everyone - these actions are taboo because they "expose the father's nakedness", as strange as that term sounds in this situation.
But this is how it was seen.
So essentially, the great offense that Ham committed was in first not caring for his father while he was drunk, and in seeing his father naked. That is what the plain-meaning of the text shows, at least. Other things may be in play as well, possibly the homosexual rape of the father, or, less likely, the castration of the father. But the more simple explanation sees it exactly as what it appears to be: the failure of a son in his duties.
Of course he did. He pointed out that your conclusions are not as well supported as the simpler conjecture that it meant exactly what it said, and that it was an issue of disrespect and failing in one's duty as a son.
Of course he did. He pointed out that your conclusions are not as well supported as the simpler conjecture that it meant exactly what it said, and that it was an issue of disrespect and failing in one's duty as a son.
-NoCapo
Do you people not understand anything? Did you not read the scriptures I posted on the OP?
Do you people not understand anything? Did you not read the scriptures I posted on the OP?
Leviticus 18:8
Leviticus 20:11
Leviticus 20:20-21
I addressed that in my post under the section I began with "Mosaic Code". They fall under what I discussed concerning Reuben "uncovering his father's nakedness" by sleeping with his concubine, and other instances in which the patriarch's dignity is taken away by sexual acts with his wife or concubine .
Did you read the last part of my post? I mentioned your references in BOLD PRINT. If you want to discuss the intricacies of the Genesis story and the verse that the editor probably misunderstood, we can do that. There is probably a mixing of metaphors going on in the story.
I addressed that in my post under the section I began with "Mosaic Code". They fall under what I discussed concerning Reuben "uncovering his father's nakedness" by sleeping with his concubine, and other instances in which the patriarch's dignity is taken away by sexual acts with his wife or concubine .
Did you read the last part of my post? I mentioned your references in BOLD PRINT.
Yes I read your post; "the more simple explanation sees it exactly as what it appears to be: the failure of a son in his duties."
The son was Ham...Ham had sex with his mother(Noah's wife.) Did you not read the scriptures?
Yes I read your post; "the more simple explanation sees it exactly as what it appears to be: the failure of a son in his duties."
The son was Ham...Ham had sex with his mother(Noah's wife.) Did you not read the scriptures?
There is a problem with seeing it as a sexual crime. This is where the problem of mixing metaphors arises.
Let us assume that the sin of Ham was sexual, judging from the idiom "uncovered/saw his father's nakedness" and that it pertains to what I mentioned: the removal of dignity from a father by having sexual relations with his wife or concubine. This is problematic due to the rest of the narrative. What are the other sons doing by laying their cloak upon him? What is the reference to Noah lying naked in the middle of the tent?
When he drank from the wine, he became drunk and exposed himself in the middle of his tent.
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.
Then Shem and Yefet took a cloak, they put it on the shoulders of the two of them,
and walked backward, to cover their father's nakedness,
- Their faces were turned backward, their father's nakedness they did not see.
(Genesis 9:21-23, SB Fox)
Then follows a curse on Canaan, and a blessing on the two sons Sham and Japheth.
The problem is that in the current form of the text, it is very clearly not a sexual crime. 1) Noah is not in the women's quarters of the tent - for the middle is not the location - and the middle is specifically mentioned as the location of the crime. Not the women's quarters. In such a patriarchal society, the women had their own section of the tent in which no man other than the husband was permitted to go. 2) Noah is specifically said to have become exposed alone in the tent, and that Ham found him that way. The very act of not caring for him in his cups by not covering him, but instead making mock, was a crime that he was cursed for (well, his son was). 3) His other sons receive a blessing for very specifically covering his nakedness up in a very detailed and intricate manner. If this was a sexual crime, what do these verse mean? Did they reverse the sexual act that Ham is supposed to have committed? It does not fit the text.
Again, in the present form of the text as we have it, it appears very clearly that no sexual crime was committed. This is not to say, however, that the original folk tale did not involve a sexual crime that was lost to tradition and a possible cleansing of the text. If the main motive behind the text is a later polemic against the Canaanites in an effort to justify their treatment at the hands of the Israelites, then it does not make sense that it would have been cleaned up to remove a clear sexual crime - for the so-called sexual crimes of the Canaanites are mentioned quite a few times by the prophets.
But let us imagine that the original form of the text lacked v. 23 in which the brothers covered their father's nakedness up, and that the crime WAS sexual. This is quite possible, as many editorial changes underwent the Yahwist Source that makes up this episode. It is quite possible that originally Ham (or Canaan) had sex with his mother, and indeed "uncovered his father's nakedness" according to the standard idiomatic usage you pointed out in Leviticus - but that a later editorial addition sought to change this story, which may have been seen as too much for a figure like Noah. If that is the case, then it appears that the editor no longer understood the idiomatic usage "uncovered his father's nakedness/shame" as referring to a sexual crime, and mistakenly left it in. If he had understood the usage, he surely would have changed it - for his narrative is striving for something else.
This is all very possible. It is a good explanation for why the phrase is there, but we are still wrestling with the problem of v. 23 and the actions of the brothers which point to a clear literal meaning of the phrase due to the present form of the text. To reach a sexual crime explanation requires us to go into Form Criticism, which is one of my favorite things, but very, very difficult to every reach a conclusion for a certainty. Much of it is speculation. So yes - there is a problem with the text as it stands now - I admit that. How to solve it? Several ways, as I first mentioned in my initial post. I apologize if I was not more specific.
There is a problem with seeing it as a sexual crime. This is where the problem of mixing metaphors arises.
Let us assume that the sin of Ham was sexual, judging from the idiom "uncovered/saw his father's nakedness" and that it pertains to what I mentioned: the removal of dignity from a father by having sexual relations with his wife or concubine. This is problematic due to the rest of the narrative. What are the other sons doing by laying their cloak upon him? What is the reference to Noah lying naked in the middle of the tent?
When he drank from the wine, he became drunk and exposed himself in the middle of his tent.
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.
Then Shem and Yefet took a cloak, they put it on the shoulders of the two of them,
and walked backward, to cover their father's nakedness,
- Their faces were turned backward, their father's nakedness they did not see.
(Genesis 9:21-23, SB Fox)
Then follows a curse on Canaan, and a blessing on the two sons Sham and Japheth.
The problem is that in the current form of the text, it is very clearly not a sexual crime. 1) Noah is not in the women's quarters of the tent - for the middle is not the location - and the middle is specifically mentioned as the location of the crime. Not the women's quarters. In such a patriarchal society, the women had their own section of the tent in which no man other than the husband was permitted to go. 2) Noah is specifically said to have become exposed alone in the tent, and that Ham found him that way. The very act of not caring for him in his cups by not covering him, but instead making mock, was a crime that he was cursed for (well, his son was). 3) His other sons receive a blessing for very specifically covering his nakedness up in a very detailed and intricate manner. If this was a sexual crime, what do these verse mean? Did they reverse the sexual act that Ham is supposed to have committed? It does not fit the text.
Again, in the present form of the text as we have it, it appears very clearly that no sexual crime was committed. This is not to say, however, that the original folk tale did not involve a sexual crime that was lost to tradition and a possible cleansing of the text. If the main motive behind the text is a later polemic against the Canaanites in an effort to justify their treatment at the hands of the Israelites, then it does not make sense that it would have been cleaned up to remove a clear sexual crime - for the so-called sexual crimes of the Canaanites are mentioned quite a few times by the prophets.
But let us imagine that the original form of the text lacked v. 23 in which the brothers covered their father's nakedness up, and that the crime WAS sexual. This is quite possible, as many editorial changes underwent the Yahwist Source that makes up this episode. It is quite possible that originally Ham (or Canaan) had sex with his mother, and indeed "uncovered his father's nakedness" according to the standard idiomatic usage you pointed out in Leviticus - but that a later editorial addition sought to change this story, which may have been seen as too much for a figure like Noah. If that is the case, then it appears that the editor no longer understood the idiomatic usage "uncovered his father's nakedness/shame" as referring to a sexual crime, and mistakenly left it in. If he had understood the usage, he surely would have changed it - for his narrative is striving for something else.
This is all very possible. It is a good explanation for why the phrase is there, but we are still wrestling with the problem of v. 23 and the actions of the brothers which point to a clear literal meaning of the phrase due to the present form of the text. To reach a sexual crime explanation requires us to go into Form Criticism, which is one of my favorite things, but very, very difficult to every reach a conclusion for a certainty. Much of it is speculation. So yes - there is a problem with the text as it stands now - I admit that. How to solve it? Several ways, as I first mentioned in my initial post. I apologize if I was not more specific.
Does that makes sense where I'm coming from here?
The other two sons carried in the cloak. Have you not wondered why it took two grown men to carry a clock? What they knew Ham had done was a heavy load. Walking backwards...they did not tell Noah.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
