Synaptic

The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay which would be a close and careful study of a passage in Biblical Literature. The essay needed to be a critical examination of the primary text and of several published scholarly arguments on the meaning of the passage. The aim of the assignment was for the essay to formulate a central argument which is sustained by detailed exposition of the artistic rhetoric of the passage and which is presented in coherent, logical English prose. The strength of this essay is twofold. First, it has a clear and significant argument about the meaning of the passage, and it has an organized presentation of the argument. Secondly, the essay is sensitive to the metaphoric structure of rhetoric in Biblical literature, and it explains the consequences of such metaphoric rhetoric for a recognition of the depth of the analysis in this religious literature.

-Dr. Terry Kleven

---

The rhetoric of the Bible possesses a dualistic nature. The Good Book has accessible teachings that can be gleaned from an apparent interpretation of the text, and a deeper meaning found through careful reading and the interpretation of metaphorical language and symbols. An example of this dualistic nature is found in Genesis IX when Ham “sees” Noah’s nakedness. The apparent and metaphorical meaning of Ham seeing his father’s nakedness is explored in this paper, and it is the difference in these phrases that determine the reason for the curse of subjugation Noah casts upon Ham’s son, Canaan, and Canaan’s descendants. This paper will begin by summarizing the story, then laying out the apparent interpretation. In this paper, the term ‘apparent’ refers to understanding the Bible in the obvious written way. Then, the three main metaphorical interpretations will be presented: Ham rapes Noah, Ham has sexual relations with his mother, Ham has sexual relations with Noah’s other wife (not Ham’s mother). These views will be evaluated on the grounds of the strength of the evidence and how well the theory explains why Canaan was cursed, even though he did not witness Noah’s nakedness. In the end of this section, an argument will be made supporting the interpretation that Ham has sexual relations with Noah’s wife. This paper will close by bringing both the apparent reading and the strongest metaphorical read- ing together to offer a critical summary of Genesis IX. Together, the interpretations construct a more complete understanding of the events and demonstrate how both readings are necessary to understanding this chapter of the Old Testament’s continuous story.

The episode unfolds across seven verses: Noah is in his tent uncovered, drunk from the product of his vineyard (Genesis 9:21)¹. Ham sees his father’s nakedness and informs his brothers, Shem and Japheth, of it (Genesis 9:22). His brothers take a garment, enter the tent backwards as to not see their father’s nakedness, and cover Noah (Genesis 9:23). Noah awakes and knows what Ham had done to him (Genesis 9:24). Noah then curses Canaan, son of Ham, casting him to be “servant of servants” to his brothers, that is, to serve in the houses of Shem and Japheth as well (Genesis 9:25-27). Noah blesses Shem and asks God to “enlarge Japheth” and have Japheth dwell in the tents of Shem (Genesis 9:27).

We can look at this collection of verses and gather more than what is stated. When taking the story at face value, it is important to put it into context. Ross, in his essay “The Curse of Canaan,” reminds the reader that this episode comes after the flood, and identifies this as a period of new beginnings.² Noah as a vineyard keeper, a farmer, is in keeping with his new role as the master of the earth, the leader of its sole people.³ We know that with him are his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 9:18). From them, the world will be repopulated and society restructured. Ross identifies this as a potential stressor for Noah, and suggests that this story, like others in the Bible showing a deterioration or flux of character, is meant to show why rulers are not to become drunken and vulnerable.⁴ Here, Noah’s nakedness—susceptible to being used and manipulated—is his vulnerability.

Ross ties Noah’s nakedness here back to Genesis III. The shame of nakedness marks us as undignified and vulnerable.⁵ The covering of our nakedness serves as a boundary for human relations.⁶ When we are naked in front of one another, there is a loss of human and social dignity.⁷ This is the boundary Ham violates.

Early in the chapter, Ham is clearly established as the father of Canaan (Genesis 9:18). This is supposed to hint to the audience that something foul is afoot, for the Israelites would know that Ham possesses the wicked attributes of the Canaanites.⁸ Here, Ham’s moral flaw is his uncareful seeing. Additionally, Ham did not move

to cover his father, which demonstrates that he did not see a need to right this immoral situation.⁹ Instead, Ham spreads word of what occurred to his brothers (Genesis 9:22). Shem and Japheth, in stark contrast to Ham, are very cautious in restoring their father’s dignity, walking backwards as not to see Noah’s nakedness, and right the situation by covering their father (Genesis 9:23). They do not possess the same moral flaws.

But what connection does Canaan have to this situation, besides that Ham is his father? What active role does he possess? Some scholars, such as Frankel and Knust, propose that no understanding of a motive is needed because later ethnological knowledge of the immoral Canaanites provides enough rationale. But by not searching for a motive, knowledge on the passage could be lost. Ross offers a motive using the ethnological lens: Canaan was cursed because he displayed the same qualities of Ham; that Canaan, too, would blatantly violate moral and social boundaries.¹⁰ Ross connects this to the idea that a nation or group of people possess the same qualities as their patriarch, but he makes it clear that the curse only persists as long as the quality does.¹¹ This feeds into his account that this story is meant to remind the Israelites of the failings of Canaanites, to warn against such behavior, and justify the subjugation and dispossession of the Canaanites.¹² Despite his reasoning, Ross’s explanation is unevidenced in this chapter. While the poor qualities of the Canaanites are expressed and evidenced in Leviticus 18, that reputation is not constructed yet, and certainly not for Canaan himself. Canaan does not display any perverse behavior here. This theory’s unevidenced nature stands in stark comparison to the otherwise very literal interpretation, drawing attention to its weakness.

Blecher has stronger evidence for why Canaan would be cursed. In his article, Blecher focuses on how the Covenant, originally a promise to Noah not to reflood the earth, has grown to be established with Shem, Ham, and Japheth.¹³ His argument is supported in 19:8-9, “God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you,” and in 19:13-16, where God displays a rainbow as a sign of His commitment.¹⁴ In this way, all the sons of Noah are equal. The birth order of Shem, Ham, and Japheth is never told, they are equal under the Covenant. Ham’s involvement in the Covenant is why Noah cannot curse him, cannot punish Ham for his wicked disrespect, for he cannot disrupt the declaration set forth by God.¹⁵ But Noah can curse a son of Ham who has yet to be addressed by God as an active party of the Covenant. Blecher states that Canaan was chosen to be cursed because his name means ‘low’ or ‘humble,’ and so Canaan is not cursed by past actions, but prophesized a destiny according to his name.¹⁶ This explanation, evidenced by information in the chapter, does explain why Canaan is cursed to serve others. It does not explain why the Canaanites have a reputation of immoral behavior, but one could reverse Ross’s argument, saying that this behavior is rooted in Ham and carried through because Canaan is his son (Genesis 9:18).

Through a combination of Ross and Blecher, we can understand the context and connection this tale has in the wider narrative, the nature of Ham’s crime, why his crime of seeing was reacted to so strongly, along with why Canaan, rather than Ham or one of Ham’s other three sons, receives the curse. But what knowledge does analysis of the metaphorical nature of Genesis IX produce? The different interpretations are all tied to the idea of Ham seeing Noah’s nakedness, nakedness being a euphemism for sexual relations. This euphemism is not explained in Genesis IX, but in Leviticus XVIII and XX. The idea of seeing nakedness as a euphemism comes from Leviticus XX, “If a man shall take his sister…and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing…he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his inequity” (v. 17). There are identifable sexual undertones in this verse and in the entire chapter. The expressions “uncovering” or “covering” of nakedness are also found in Leviticus 18:7-8, “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover… The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.” It can be understood that nakedness is a euphemism for sex because the other portion of Leviticus 18 directly outlines forbidden sexual practices without any deep euphemism; this chapter is meant to instruct on keeping appropriate sexual relations (v. 20-24). Now that nakedness—and seeing or uncovering it—has been evidenced as a metaphor, we can identify three main readings of Genesis IX.

The first is that Ham assaults Noah. It is suggested that this could mean castration, rooted in the idea that Noah cursed Ham’s fourth son because Ham prevented Noah from having a fourth son, but this view has a lack of textual support.¹⁷ It also is estranged from the interpretation of nakedness as relations between two people, making this view increasingly unpopular and unsupported in the text. This leaves us with the understanding

that Ham would have sexually assaulted his father. This opinion is supported by a more literal understanding of Genesis 9:24, “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.” This

positions Noah as a recipient and victim.¹⁸ This opinion, like the other two we will continue to, shows this event as a show of force from Ham. Ham has objections to Noah’s actions as a leader, perhaps Noah’s drunkenness or other actions that are not pursuing the Covenant, and uses this as an opportunity to reveal his objections or make a grab for leadership.¹⁹ Such a disruption would explain the extreme measure this theory supposes and why Ham would inform his brothers of his power move, seeking their agreement or allyship.²⁰ Robertson suggests that

the rape of Noah explains Shem and Japheth’s extreme piety in restoring their father’s dignity, in addition to explaining how Ham’s crime was a sin against patriarchal authority, with Ham’s line now cursed to be forever submissive to other leaders.²¹ Overall, though, this view does not have much support, especially because it does not fully explain why Canaan would be cursed, and relies instead on the audience’s reaction and empathy to fill in missing pieces of this view. The theme of Ham trying to usurp Noah by undermining his dignity is carried through other theories, theories that have stronger textual evidence.

The next posited theory is maternal incest. This relies on Leviticus 18:7-8, “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt though not uncover… The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.” Nakedness has a precedent for meaning heterosexual intercourse. To sleep with a wife of Noah would be a direct slight against Noah and would be a symbol of Ham taking Noah’s position. The account of maternal incest is an explanation of why Canaan was cursed. A tradition based on incest would be chaotic and lead to constant fear in all family relations. In addition, incest may have led to birth of Canaan, which would explain Noah’s curse of him.²² It is true that Noah is only mentioned as possessing one wife (Genesis 6:18, 7:7, 7:13, 8:16, 8:18). In this account, Noah went to lie with his wife, but became incapacitated, likely by drunkenness, and Ham enters the tent and commits incest, then goes out and informs his brothers of his new grasp at familial power. Additionally, he may have taken a garment as evidence. His brothers, however, return that garment as symbol of their loyalty and piety to Noah, but it is later discovered that Noah’s wife is pregnant with Ham’s child (Canaan), and thus Canaan is cursed.²³ This account covers the gravity of Ham’s motive and sin, the rationale for why Canaan would be cursed, and why there is repetition of Ham being the father of Canaan.²⁴

There are objections to be made, though. While Noah is only listed as having one wife, it is assumed that she is also the mother of his sons, for which there is no textual evidence. There is also the issue of a vague timeline. When was Canaan cursed? Upon birth? Or was he born to Ham and his wife before this episode? It is unclear. Due to its promotion of a dramatic plot of events, this theory requires more evidence to be embraced.

The final view is that Ham slept with Noah’s wife, a woman who is not his mother. This does share evidence with the previous view, but does not go as far to suggest that incest was involved or that Canaan is the product of incest. This opinion is supported by Leviticus 18:7-8, that taking the opportunity to sleep with Noah’s wife while Noah was in a drunken state represents a protest or power-grab by Ham, an act that was perhaps

evidenced to Shem and Japheth by a garment belonging to Noah’s wife, but disagrees that there was an act of incest, stemming from the assumption—supported by instruction against incest in Leviticus XVIII and XX— that Ham would not inform his brothers that he had committed incest.²⁵ This account also relies on reasoning for Canaan’s curse being ethnological or stemming from other reasoning which was discussed previously in this paper. But it is from this availability and variety of evidence that this theory takes its strength. It leaves room for an entwinement of literal and metaphorical interpretations.

For example, the actions of Shem and Japheth have both literal and symbolic meanings and consequences. The recovering of Noah can mean reaffirming their dedication to him, it can also be a literal act of returning a cloth as a sign of piety. The entering of the tent could be a symbol of the brothers continuing to live with and follow Noah, rejecting Ham’s leadership. The reading that Ham slept with Noah’s wife has a wealth of evidence that can continue to promote this interpretation with details like the recovery of Noah.

The Bible is a dualistic book where both apparent and metaphorical interpretations are meant to be studied and evaluated. The more accurately we understand biblical rhetoric, the more we will understand the imparted messages, whether those messages be moral lessons or important plot points. The apparent meaning indicates a disrespect for fatherhood specifically and parental authority more generally. The deeper or metaphorical meaning derived from the meaning of “saw the nakedness of his father” incorporates disrespect for fatherhood as well as causing a blatant attempt to usurp power and to be leader over his father and his brothers. The pieces of evidenced truth from both sides can come together to construct a complete picture. While not every opinion of the passage is well-evidenced, engagement with and evaluation of other accounts strengthens our understanding. As exemplified in Genesis IX, the rhetoric of the Bible is rich in metaphor, and, as we have seen in this passage, the purpose of the passage emerges more clearly when the metaphoric or symbolic meaning is recognized.

 

1. The Holy King James Version. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2017). All biblical references in this essay are to this translation.
2. Allen Ross, “The Curse of Canaan: Studies in the Book of Genesis Pt. 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137/587 (1980): 224.
3. Ross, 226.
4. Ross, 227.
5. Ross, 230.
6. Ross, 230.
7. Ross, 230.
8. Ross, 225.
9. Ross, 231.
10. Ross, 233.
11. Ross, 233.
12. Ross, 237.
13. Adi Blecher, “Noah’s Curse: Punishment and Paradox,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 23 (January, 2017): 123-35.
14. Blecher, 130.
15. Blecher, 134.
16. Blecher, 134-135.
17. John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27)” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 28. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040989.
18. Bergsma and Hahn, 28.
19. Blecher, 132.
20. Blecher 132-133.
21. Robertson, Palmer. “Current Critical Questions Concerning the ‘Curse of Ham’ (Gen 9:20-27).” Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society 41 (2): 180-181. 1998. https://proxy.central.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/current-criti- cal-questions-concerning-curse-ham/docview/211238010/se-2?accountid=26739.
22. Bergsma and Hahn, 25-40.
23. Bergsma and Hahn, 38-39.
24. Bergsma and Hahn, 40.
25. Ross, 230.

Works Cited

Bassett, Fedrick W. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan, a Case of Incest?” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 2 (1971): 232-37. https//doi.org/10.2307/1517286.

Bergsma, John Sietze, and Scott Walker Hahn. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27).”Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 25-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040989.

Blecher, Adi. “Noah’s Curse: Punishment and Paradox” Zeitschrift Für Altorientalische Und Biblische Rechts geschichte 23 (January): 123-35. 2017. https://www.hemdat.ac.il/

Frankel, David. “Noah’s Drunkenness and the Curse of Canaan: A New Approach.” Journal of Biblical Litera ture 140 (2021): 49-68. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1401.2021.3.

The Holy Bible. King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2017.

Knust, Jennifer Wright. “Who’s Afraid of Canaan’s Curse?: Genesis 9:18-29 and the Challenge of Reparative Reading.” Biblical Interpretation 22.4-5 (2014):388-413. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-02245P02.

Robertson, O. Palmer. “Current Critical Questions Concerning the ‘Curse of Ham’ (Gen 9:20-27).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41.2 (1998): 177-88. Proquest.

Ross, Allen P. “The Curse of Canaan: Studies in the Book of Genesis Pt. 1.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137/547 (1980): 223-40.