English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm reading Chaim Potok's "In the Beginning", and I came across the part where David Lurie (protagonist, a yeshiva student) is grilling his teacher on Noah's post-rainbow piss-up: Noah gets drunk and passes out in his tent, buck naked. This is something we Catholics kids were never taught in school, but I've run across it earlier in one of William Faulkner's short stories. It is one of the Bible references used to justify slavery: Ham saw his dad, Noah, naked and told his brothers. The others stayed out of it; only Ham dared enter the tent and covered up Noah. Noah woke up and cursed Ham's son, Canaan, that he and his descendants will forever be servants to all the others and their descendants. Slaves are therefore "Son's of Ham", and decreed by God.

2007-07-19 15:37:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

In Potok's book, however, the child is complaining that the Jewish biblical scholar's commentaries say it was Canaan, not Ham who offended Noah, and that he did more than cover him up: Noah was emasculated (castrated or given a vasectomy) so that he could not bear more children. That sounds more like it! That's something to curse about!

But on rereading my own (Catholic) Bible, it doesn't sound like a castration at all ("covered his nakedness"=castration?) Can anyone tell me what the Hebrew or Greek text says, and how this is interpreted as castration?

2007-07-19 15:40:06 · update #1

No, I don't believe the story as history, but as a piece of allegorical literature, I think it should make some sort of sense, or illustrate what kind of person Noah, Ham or Canaan was.

If Ham simply covered his naked Father, I think he was being a thoughtful and considerate son, and did not deserve the curse. Noah was simply in the wrong. I do not believe any of this justifies slavery.

If Ham/Canaan cut off Noah's balls, then they are cruel, dirty sneaks. They deserve Noah's ire, but this is still no justification for slavery.

I'm no Bible freak. Just curious to know what the original was -- give me more insight into how other people think and read these things.

2007-07-19 16:47:15 · update #2

7 answers

"The Curse of Ham", or no curse? See link. Not a concensus.

2007-07-19 15:49:06 · answer #1 · answered by Bruce7 4 · 0 0

Noah's son discovered his father wasn't 100% human. No one was supposed to know. That's why Noah was furious with Ham. Strange, but true and a little known fact.

2007-07-19 15:47:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

MB,
Most likely Ham performed some sexual act on his father and was "cursed" as a result of it. Have a great evening and a wonderful weekend.
Thanks,
Eds (A Non-Denominational Christian)


.

2007-07-19 15:41:20 · answer #3 · answered by Eds 7 · 1 1

He SAW his father naked! What is so hard to get about that!?

2007-07-19 16:12:36 · answer #4 · answered by me 4 · 0 0

If one of my kids saw me naked I would be pissed out of embarissment. No one really knows and no one has a way of even knowing if it happend

2007-07-19 15:40:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Well actually, he made a peanut butter and quail sandwich, and they blew it all out of proportion.

2007-07-19 15:44:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

And you believe all that?

2007-07-19 15:40:34 · answer #7 · answered by tentofield 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers