<\/p>
John Bergsma and Scott Hahn offer a compelling defense of a \u201cmaternal incest\u201d view of the story of Noah\u2019s nakedness in Genesis 9 (JBL 124:1). They reject a \u201cvoyeurist\u201d interpretation of the story. They find more to recommend a \u201cpaternal incest\u201d view of the story, pointing to the parallels between Gen 9 and Gen 19 (incest of Lot and daughters); the sexual connotations of \u201cuncover\u201d and \u201cnakedness\u201d elsewhere in the OT; the sexual associations of wine and vineyard (including in Gen 19). <\/p>\n
Ultimately, they reject the paternal incest view (ie, that Ham sodomized his father) for a maternal incest view (ie, that Ham had sex with his mother). Their reasons are as follows: <\/p>\n
1) The language of \u201cuncover nakedness\u201d is not used in Leviticus to describe homosexual incest but heterosexual incest. <\/p>\n
2) Specifically, the \u201cnakedness of the father\u201d is identified with the \u201cnakedness of your mother\u201d (Lev 18:7-8). <\/p>\n
3) If this is about Ham\u2019s incestuous sex with his mother, the emphasis on Canaan comes clear. Canaan is, on this interpretation, the product of the incestuous union, as Moab and Ammon are the product of Lot and his daughters. That is why Canaan is cursed, and why the text consistently identifies Ham as the \u201cfather of Canaan.\u201d They suggest that the narrative has been compressed, and that the curse was actually pronounced at Canaan\u2019s birth rather that immediately after the incest. If the incest was homosexual, it is difficult to explain how the curse would be placed on a son. <\/p>\n
4) The material incest interpretation better shows the connections of Gen 9 with Gen 6, 19, Lev 18 and 20, Dt 23:1, 27:30, not to mention the maternal incest of Reuben. Genesis shows that the chief enemies of Israel \u2013 Canaan, Moab, Ammon \u2013 are all of questionable heritage. <\/p>\n
5) This interpretation preserves the idea (articulated by Jim Jordan among others) that the story is about an attempted seizure of Noah\u2019s authority. Bergsma and Hahn quote a 1971 article from FW Basset: \u201cA son who has sexual relations with his mother or step-modern commits a rebellious act against his father, since the possession of a man\u2019s wife is seen also as an effort to supplant the man himself.\u201d They note the connection with Absalom, Reuben, David\u2019s taking Saul\u2019s wives, Adonijah\u2019s attempt to have Abishag. <\/p>\n
6) They suggest that \u201cthe tent\u201d in v 21 \u201cappears to have the feminine possessive suffix,\u201d though \u201cthe MT points the word according to the qere,\u201d ie, as \u201chis tent.\u201d Thus, one might read the text as saying that Noah entered \u201cher tent,\u201d the tent of Mrs Noah. <\/p>\n
Their final reconstruction: Noah \u201cbecomes drunk\u201d; this is disputed by Jordan, and there\u2019s no reason to make this a part of the story. He goes into his wife\u2019s tent and removes his robe to have sex with his wife, but \u201cis incapacitated by his drunkenness\u201d \u2013 again, not necessary to the story; Noah could well have had a vigorous roll before he fell asleep. The rest of the reconstruction is plausible: \u201cHam enters and \u2018sees his father\u2019s nakednness,\u2019 that is, engages in relations with his father\u2019s wife (v. 22a). He exits and informs his brothers of his grasp at familial power (v. 22b), perhaps producing an article of clothing as proof of his claim. The brothers, in turn, act with excessive filial deference and piety in returning \u2018the garment\u2019 . . . to their humiliated father, avoiding not only the figurative \u2018seeing of his father\u2019s nakedness\u2019 (i.e., maternal incest) but the literal as well. In the aftermath of the event, Noah curses the product of Ham\u2019s illicit union, namely, Canaan, and blesses Shem and Japheth for their piety\u201d (pp. 38-39). <\/p>\n
The value of this interpretation is severalfold: It brings Gen 9 into conformity with other passages that employ the \u201cuncover nakedness\u201d language; it preserves the fact that Ham assaults Noah\u2019s authority; it links up with a recurring theme of Gen \u2013 the patriarch who escapes a judgment (Noah, Lot, Jacob?) finds himself under assault from his son; it helps to explain the curse on Canaan; it links together Canaanite, Moabite, and Ammonite in their origins, thus explaining the links between these peoples later in biblical history. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
John Bergsma and Scott Hahn offer a compelling defense of a \u201cmaternal incest\u201d view of the story of Noah\u2019s nakedness in Genesis 9 (JBL 124:1). They reject a \u201cvoyeurist\u201d interpretation of the story. They find more to recommend a \u201cpaternal incest\u201d view of the story, pointing to the parallels between Gen 9 and Gen 19 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible-ot-genesis"],"yoast_head":"\n