I.
I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again; from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is a profoundly queer book, full of perverse and puzzling incidents and some deeply unpleasant characters. Take, for example, this tale of Noah and his son Ham:
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
- Genesis 9:20-27 (King James Version)
The precise nature of Ham's transgression - and the reason why his father Noah reacted as he did - is something that has been discussed within theological circles for millennia. Everything hinges on the interpretation of line 22: And Ham saw the nakedness of his father ...
Should it be taken literally, or is it a euphemism for an act of gross immorality? And if the latter - and most biblical scholars are convinced it is the latter - what exactly did Ham do?
II.
As indicated, the majority of commentators, both ancient and modern, have felt that voyeurism isn't the issue here; that Ham's spying on his father as the latter lay drunk and naked, isn't sufficient to explain the punishment that follows - even if it would undoubtedly be a cause of embarrassment and shame for Noah and even if his son compounded matters by laughing about his father's predicament with his brothers.
Having said that, in some cultures staring at (and mocking) another man's cock is a very big deal indeed and Noah may have felt mortally offended and betrayed by his son's actions. Also, it's worth noting that Shem and Japeth move quickly to cover their father's nakedness and keep their faces averted at all times in order not to take even a sneaky peek, so clearly there's an issue here.
Still, let's assume like the authors of the Talmud that something a bit more serious transpired here; that seeing someone's nakedness has a sexual connotation; that Ham sodomised his father - and then possibly castrated him for good measure, rejoicing and laughing as he did so. If that's true, then no wonder Noah was outraged and cursed his son - or more accurately, his son's son, Canaan (which is a bit unfair, but God himself sanctions such behaviour and Philo of Alexandria suggests that Ham and Canaan were equally guilty of sinful behaviour, thereby dishonouring the old man).
III.
Finally, I think it's significant that Noah had planted a vineyard and produced wine; a magical fluid that is nearly always connected with sexual behaviour in the Bible.
As Bergsma and Hahn point out, "the only other reference to drunkenness in Genesis also occurs in the context of parent-child incest: Gen 19:30-38, the account of Lot's intercourse with his daughters" - another wtf incident that I've written about here on Torpedo the Ark.
As Bergsma and Hahn point out, "the only other reference to drunkenness in Genesis also occurs in the context of parent-child incest: Gen 19:30-38, the account of Lot's intercourse with his daughters" - another wtf incident that I've written about here on Torpedo the Ark.
See: John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn, 'Noah's Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27)', Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 124, No. 1 (Spring, 2005), pp. 25-40. Line quoted is on p. 30.
Bergsma and Hahn give an oedipalised reinterpretation of this story, arguing that Ham's crime was one of maternal incest, not paternal rape; that he entered his father's tent, saw him naked and unable to perform his duty as a husband due to his drunkenness, and so engages in relations with his mother in an attempt to undermine (or usurp) his father's authority. It's an interesting reading, but not one I'm convinced by, even if it does provide a stronger motive for Ham's actions.
Bergsma and Hahn give an oedipalised reinterpretation of this story, arguing that Ham's crime was one of maternal incest, not paternal rape; that he entered his father's tent, saw him naked and unable to perform his duty as a husband due to his drunkenness, and so engages in relations with his mother in an attempt to undermine (or usurp) his father's authority. It's an interesting reading, but not one I'm convinced by, even if it does provide a stronger motive for Ham's actions.
