The Nature Of Ham’s Sin

By Nicholas Odhiambo

[Nicholas Odhiambo is a Bible teacher, Richardson, Texas.]

Genesis 9:21 states that after the flood Noah “became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent” (NIV). His son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers,” Shem and Japheth (v. 22). On hearing this the two brothers walked into Noah’s tent and covered their father with a garment. They walked backward with their faces “turned away so that they did not see their father’s nakedness” (v. 23).

Bible commentators differ on what Ham did wrong. One view is that Ham was guilty of incest with his mother, Noah’s wife. This was proposed by Josiah Priest in 1843, who wrote, “It is believed by some, and not without reason, that (the crime of Ham) did not consist alone in seeing his father’s nakedness as a man, but rather in the abuse and actual violation of his own mother.”[1]

Others say the offense was homosexuality. The earliest mention of this interpretation appears in the Talmud (AD 500-550), which states that “he [Ham] sodomized” Noah.[2] Beginning in the 1960s many scholars have accepted this interpretation.[3] Most who hold this view offer little or no support, but some advocates of the homosexuality view present scriptural arguments in support of their view.[4]

A third view is that Ham was guilty of voyeurism, of finding sexual gratification in seeing his father naked.[5]

This article reviews the scriptural arguments advanced by advocates of each of the three views and offers a rebuttal of each view.[6]

Some writers have suggested that Ham’s report to his brothers was in the form of laughter,[7] jeering,[8] or mocking.[9] However, these ideas read too much into the text. Genesis 9 offers no hint of the form of the Ham’s report. The text simply places the divulgence in a negative light.

Arguments For The Three Views Of Ham’s Sin And Rebuttals

Arguments That Ham’s Offense Was Incest With Noah’s Wife

1. The meaning of עֶרַוָה רָאָה (“saw his/her nakedness”) in Genesis 9:22. Brunk argues that Genesis 9:22 parallels Leviticus 20:17a in the sense that both verses feature the expression ערוה ראה and both mark the only instances where this expression is used in reference to people. Building on this supposed parallelism, he reasons that since the clause ערוה ראה in Leviticus 20:17 clearly carries a sexual meaning, by virtue of its parallelism to the clause גלה ערוה (“uncover his/her nakedness”) in verse 17b (cf. 18:6-19), Genesis 9:22 must also carry a sexual connotation.[10]

Bassett bases his argumentation on the construct form עֶרַוַת (“nakedness of”). Since this particular construct appears in Leviticus 18:7, 8, 14, 16 with a sexual connotation, it must therefore, he argues, have the same meaning in Genesis 9:22.[11]

2. The suffixed pronoun on “tent” (“his/her tent” in Genesis 9:21) indicates the presence of Noah’s wife. Kikawada and Quinn say אהלה means “her tent” rather than “his tent.” The implication is that Ham entered his mother’s tent and had a moment of incestuous activity with her “after his father is rendered incapacitated by drink (and after Noah arouses the mother but proves incapable of satisfying her).”[12]

3. The verb גלה, “uncover,” in Genesis 9:21 carries a sexual connotation. Brunk perceives a sexual connotation in this verbal form in verse 21, Noah “uncovered himself.” If the intention was to relay the mere idea of removing clothes, Brunk argues, the author could have employed either the niphal stem or the verb פשׁט (cf. 1 Sam. 18:4). Brunk then suggests that the writer of Genesis was communicating in a subtle way that Noah was removing his clothes in preparation for having sexual relations with his wife.[13]

4. The actions of the siblings in Genesis 9:23 were not sexual. Brunk offers the following points. (1) The antecedents of the pronoun in the form שְׁנֵיהֶם (“the two of them”) are Noah and his wife. The thought is that Shem and Japheth placed the garment not on their own shoulders, but on the shoulders of Noah and his wife, who would have been left in the tent in an exposed state when Ham departed. (2) The phrase “covered the nakedness of their father” probably means that the two sons covered their mother since “the nakedness of their father” is equivalent to “the nakedness of their mother.” (3) The garment belonged to Noah’s wife who was the victim of Ham’s attack. (4) The disjunctive clause “they did not see their father’s nakedness” implies that, unlike Ham, the two brothers did not have a sexual relationship with their mother.[14]

Rebuttal Against The Incest View

As already indicated, the view that the phrase “saw the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22) denotes an incestuous act is based on the assumption that this verse and Leviticus 20:17 (and Lev. 18:7-8, 14, 16) address the same issue. However, the only similarity is the phrase עֶרַוַת . . . ראה (“saw . . . nakedness of”). And the similarity is only in the wording, not the context. By contrast, the context of Leviticus 20:17 suggests the sin of incest, but no such indication is stated in Genesis 9:22.[15]

Also the ה at the end of the locative phrase בְּתוֹךְ אָהַ'לה, “inside his tent” (Gen. 9:21), does not denote the presence of Noah’s wife in the scene since (a) the feminine reading goes against the suggested Qere reading, namely, the third person masculine singular suffix, and a feminine suffix introduces a syntactically unknown referent.

The idiom “uncover the nakedness of” is in Leviticus 20:17 (cf. Ezek. 22:10), but it is not in Genesis 9:22. True, Genesis 9:21 speaks of uncovering. But the uncovering is not that of an individual uncovering the nakedness of another individual. It involves only Noah, who uncovered himself.[16] Also Noah’s uncovering occurred in private based on the phrase בְּתוֹךְ אָהַ'לה, “inside his tent” (v. 21).[17]

Nothing in the description of the siblings’ reaction warrants a suggestion of incest. As already noted, the phrase with the words “see” and “nakedness” can carry either a sexual or a nonsexual connotation depending on the context.[18]

Arguments That The Offense Was A Homosexual Act

1. Metaphorical meaning of “saw his nakedness” in 9:22. Robertson argues that Leviticus 20:17-19 closely resembles the language used to describe the sin of Ham. He says that the expression “saw the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22) parallels “sees [a woman’s] nakedness” or “has uncovered [a woman’s] nakedness” in Leviticus. Therefore Ham should be understood as having initiated a homosexual relationship with his drunken father.[19]

2. The clause “knew what his youngest son had done to him” in Genesis 9:24. Robertson argues that this clause lends itself to a homosexual understanding, since Noah would not have remembered what had been done to him if Ham had simply looked on his nakedness.[20]

Rebuttal Against The Homosexual View

True, the instruction “you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father [or] your mother” (Lev. 18:7; cf. vv. 8, 17-18), refers euphemistically to sexual activity.[21] But that differs from Genesis 9:22, which states that “Ham . . . saw the nakedness of his father.”

Robertson’s argument that the clause “knew what his youngest son had done to him” (9:24) suggests a homosexual relationship is not convincing. The fallacy of this argument rests in its implication that the expression “doing something to someone” can refer only to a bodily act. Of course the expression does carry such a meaning at times. Examples of such bodily acts include disfigurement (Lev. 24:19), being spat on (Deut. 25:9), being raped (Gen. 19:8; Judg. 19:24), and being thrown into a cistern (Jer. 38:9). Other times, however, the expression refers to actions that do not involve making physical contact with the object. Examples include concealing a fact (Gen. 12:18), birthright theft (27:45), deception (29:25), and snubbing (Judg. 8:1). Since the expression can refer to either bodily acts or actions that do not involve physical contact, advocates of the homosexual view must prove that the expression in Genesis 9:24 cannot refer to a nonphysical act such as being stared at while naked.

Argument That The Offense Was Voyeurism

Bailey argues that the meticulous description of the effort taken by Shem and Japheth not to look at their father (9:23) should cause the reader to dismiss the suggestion that some sexual act was committed against Noah. Instead Bailey suggests that the offense may have been voyeurism on Ham’s part.[22] A voyeur is defined as “a person who obtains sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts,” or “a person who derives exaggerated or unseemly enjoyment from being an observer.”[23]

Rebuttal Against The Voyeurism View

No textual evidence suggests that Ham entered his father’s tent with the intention of viewing his nakedness. Nor does the text convey the idea that Ham derived sexual gratification or enjoyment from looking at his father’s nakedness. Thus it is problematic to describe Ham’s actions as voyeuristic.

A Case For A Literal Understanding Of The Offense

Besides “unfilial irreverence”[24] two other views on the nature of Ham’s offense are (a) Ham volitionally looked at Noah’s nakedness,[25] and (b) Ham was at fault for disclosing the nakedness of his father to his brothers rather than covering up the nakedness.[26]

The Offense As Volitionally Looking At The Father’s Nakedness

Brown, Driver, and Briggs cite several examples that suggest Ham’s act of seeing was purposeful or intentional.27 Such clues include a lamed of purpose (Gen. 42:9, 12; 1 Kings 9:12), an indirect volitive (Josh. 2:1), and the idea of an individual appearing before a priest after leprosy symptoms were detected (Lev. 13:3, 5, 15; 14:36).

However, this is not the case with Genesis 9:22, which offers no hint that Ham entered the tent with the intention of viewing his father naked. If anything, the siblings were at fault if, having been informed by Ham that their father was naked, they had not taken the necessary precaution to avoid looking at his nakedness. So the volitional understanding of ראה is less preferable than the view that Ham’s seeing was accidental or unintentional.[28]

Since Ham’s seeing his father was accidental, it was therefore an innocent act.[29] The offense lay with the second act.

The Offense As Disclosure Of Noah’s Nakedness

Whether Ham’s reporting to his siblings about the nakedness of their father was offensive depends on the siblings’ reaction to the reporting. A sure way of evaluating the offensiveness of an action or lack of action is the reaction of the affected individual(s). For example David’s reaction to the messenger’s report of Saul’s death clearly conveyed his displeasure with the messenger’s report (2 Sam. 4:10). To evaluate Ham’s reporting one must therefore examine the reaction of his siblings.

The siblings’ reaction in Genesis 9:23, and by extension the siblings themselves, is a literary foil with respect to Ham and his action.[30] Verse 22 does not explicitly state that Ham was inside Noah’s tent, but the fact that he “told his two brothers outside” implies that Ham had gone inside. When Shem and Japheth entered the tent, they took great pains to be sure they did not see the nakedness of their father, and also that, unlike Ham, they covered their father. First, they took a garment.[31] Second, they set it on “both their shoulders.” Third, they walked backwards. Fourth, they “covered the nakedness of their father” while “their faces were turned away.”

By this depiction of the siblings’ reaction as a contrast to Ham’s actions, the author suggests how Ham should have responded. Rather than reporting the nakedness of his father, Ham should have covered him (as his brothers did). The discussion of nakedness in the Scriptures confirms that Ham’s choice to broadcast the news about his father’s nudity, rather than cover it, went counter to biblical expectations.[32]

If the fall had not transpired, nudity would have been disassociated from feelings of shame (2:25) and perceived as normal. However, the fall brought with it an awareness of being unclothed, accompanied by feelings of shame that were manifested in the first couple’s frail attempt to shroud their nakedness (3:7). Henceforth for anyone to be unclothed would be an abnormal condition.

While nakedness throughout the rest of the Scriptures continues to be regarded as abnormal, response to individual instances varies depending on whether the exposure was avoidable or beyond the control of the individual. Avoidable nudity is addressed in nonneutral terms. Exodus 20:26 prohibits the priest from mounting steps while approaching the altar, and 28:42 calls on the priests to wear linen undergarments as part of the priestly dressing. Unintentional nakedness, on the other hand, is noted with neutrality. Examples of nakedness for which the individual cannot be faulted are the Spirit-induced naked condition of Saul (1 Sam. 19:24) and the naked state in which man emerges from the womb and departs from this life (Job 1:21; cf. Eccles. 5:15).

The appropriate response toward an individual whose state of nakedness is beyond his or her control is to cover that person. God Himself illustrates this kind of response. When He comes across Jerusalem in a state of nakedness, He covers her (Ezek. 16:7-8; cf. Hos. 2:9). When man responds in this way to nakedness, it is touted as an act of righteousness (Ezek. 18:7, 16; cf. 2 Chron. 28:15; Isa. 58:7; Tobit 1:17; 4:16). On the other hand stripping the poor of their clothing is condemned as wicked (Job 22:6).

Different from avoidable nudity and unintentional exposure is nakedness imposed by Yahweh as a measure of judgment against sin. This category is unlike unintentional nakedness since its covering is not called for and it has an aura of negativity. Such imposition of nakedness, or more accurately the potentiality of it, as acted out by certain prophets (Isa. 20:2; Mic. 1:8), is intended to shame (Isa. 20:4; 47:3; Nah. 3:5), and is directed against Israel (Deut. 28:48; Ezek. 16:37, 39; Hos. 2:3; Amos 2:16), Egypt and Ethiopia (Isa. 20:3), Babylon (Isa. 47:3), and Assyria (Nah. 3:5).

The Qumran community held similar perspectives on avoidable and divinely imposed nakedness.[33] For example Qumran’s Rule of the Community calls for the punishment of needless self-exposure (1QS 7:13-14), while the War Scroll records a prohibition against immodest nakedness (1QM 7:7, 10, cf. 4Q491 1:1-3:8). Regarding divinely imposed nakedness, the pesher on Hosea interprets the goal of the exposure as that of shaming and disgracing (4Q166: 8-12).

The New Testament continues this same perspective on nakedness. Nakedness is associated with shame, and avoidable nakedness is to be covered. Thus the church of Laodicea is counseled to buy white robes to clothe herself and to keep the shame of her nakedness from being seen (Rev. 3:18). Those who stay clothed as opposed to walking about “naked” and exposed to “shame” are blessed (16:15).

Unintentional nakedness is mentioned in the New Testament. Its inducers include want (Matt. 25:36, 44), arrest (Mark 14:52), an evil spirit (Acts 19:16), and persecution (2 Cor. 11:27). In each of these cases the nakedness is addressed in neutral terms. Responding to unintentional nakedness by covering is lauded and marks out the righteous (Matt. 25:36, 38). On the other hand failing to cover it is judged negatively. Such failure marks out those destined for eternal damnation (v. 43).

Viewed through the lens of the overall scriptural data on nakedness, Ham’s failure to cover his father’s nakedness seems to have been a violation of the expectation to cover up unintentional nakedness. Noah’s nakedness was unintentional in the sense that it was wine-induced. The appropriate response in such a case would have been for the one who came across the naked person to have covered him in the same way Yahweh covered the nakedness of Jerusalem on catching sight of it (Ezek. 16:7-8; cf. Hos. 2:9).

Thus was Ham’s report to his brothers appropriate or not? No, he should not have reported it to them, but they are to be commended for covering their father.

Summary

Some interpreters say Ham was guilty of voyeurism. Others say Ham was guilty of incest with his mother. And still others hold the view that Ham’s sin was a homosexual act with his father. However, the fact that the clause “saw his nakedness” carries a sexual meaning in Leviticus 20:17 does not mean that it has the same sense in Genesis 9:22. Though the words in Leviticus 20:17 suggest incest, no such indication is present in Genesis 9:22. Ham’s offense was not that he saw his father naked but that he neglected his responsibility to cover his father’s nakedness.

Notes

1. Josiah Priest, Slavery, As It Relates to the Negro, or African Race, Examined in the Light of Circumstances, History and the Holy Scriptures; with an Account of the Origin of the Black Man’s Color, Causes of His State of Servitude and Traces of His Character as Well in Ancient as in Modern Times, vol. 1 of Anti-Movements in America, ed. Gerald N. Grob (Albany, NY: Van Benthuysen, 1843; reprint, New York: Arno, 1977), 152.
2. Sanh. 70a. A contrasting opinion is that Ham castrated Noah.
3. Arthur Frederick Ide, Noah and the Ark: The Influence of Sex, Homophobia and Heterosexism in the Flood Story and Its Writing (Las Colinas, TX: Monument, 1992), 51; Regina M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 106; Eugene F. Roop, Genesis (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1987), 77; H. Hirsch Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1974), 18-19; Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 91; Laurence A. Turner, Genesis, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 56; Edmund Leach, Genesis as Myth and Other Essays (London: Jonathan Cape, 1969), 19; Stephen Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 209; Wayne Perryman, The 1993 Trial on the Curse of Ham, ed. Hattie Greenhouse, Simone Williams, and Peter P. Parker (Bakersfield, CA: Pneuma Life, 1994), 28; Robert L. Cohn, “Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983): 5; and Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 148-49.
4. Anthony Phillips, “Uncovering the Father’s Skirt,” Vetus Testamentum 1 (1980): 38-43; O. Palmer Robertson, “Current Critical Questions Concerning the ‘Curse of Ham,’ ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41 (1998): 179; William A. Brunk, “The Action of Ham against Noah: Its Nature and Result (Genesis 9:18-27)” (MDiv thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1988), 79; Adin Steinsaltz, Tractate Sanhedrin: Part V, trans. Rabbi David Strauss (New York: Random House, 1999), 19:25; Frederick W. Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan: A Case of Incest?” Vetus Testamentum 21 (April 1971): 233-35; Isaac M. Kikawada and Arthur Quinn, Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985), 102-3; Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology, JSOT Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 174; and John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27),” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 26, 34-39.
5. Randall C. Bailey, “They’re Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The Polemical Use of Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon Narratives,” in In Reading from This Place, ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 1:134. Allen P. Ross writes, “To the ancients . . . even seeing one’s father naked was a breach of family ethic. The sanctity of the family was destroyed. . . . Ham apparently stumbled on this accidentally, but went out and exultingly told his two brothers, as if he had triumphed over his father” (“Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996], 41).
6. Other authors who discuss one or two of these three views include Nzash U. Lumeya, “The Curse on Ham’s Descendants: Its Missiological Impact on Zairian Mbala Mennonite Brethren” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1988), 53-54; Allen Paul Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976) Allen Paul Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976), 347; Gene Rice, “The Curse That Never Was (Genesis 9:18-27),” Journal of Reformed Theology 29 (1972): 12; Umberto Cassuto, From Noah to Abraham: A Commentary on Genesis vi. 9, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 151-52; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 323; and John E. Hartley, Genesis, New International Bible Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 113.
7. Advocates of the notion that Ham laughed when he told his brothers about Noah’s nakedness include Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily VI; Origen, Homily on Genesis, 16; Ambrose, On the Dutiesof the Clergy, 1.18.79; Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, 7.19; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.3; Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 6–14, trans. George V. Schick, vol. 2 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 167-68, 173; and John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 2:302.
8. Calvin Goodspeed and D. M. Welton assert that “Ham’s sin lay not in his seeing his father’s nakedness, which might have been accidental, but in the evidently unfilial and jeering pleasure with which he saw and reported the same to his brethren” (The Book of Genesis, An American Commentary on the Old Testament [PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1909], 96). Other advocates of the jeering view include Franz Delitzsch, who described the offense as “scornful merriment” (A New Commentary on Genesis, trans. Sophia Taylor [Edinburgh: Clark, 1899], 293); and Benno Jacob, who wrote that Ham “ran out to let the brothers participate in the spectacle, insensitively assuming that they would enjoy this too” (The First Book of the Bible: Genesis, trans. Ernest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob [New York: KTAV, 1974], 67).
9. The idea of mockery or ridicule is suggested by Philo, who wrote that Ham reported the drunkenness and nakedness of his father “with ridicule in his very words, making a jest of what ought not to have been treated with laughter and derision, but shame and fear mingled with reverence” (Questiones in Genesis, 2.70). Also Rabbi Eliezer (AD 750-850) depicted Ham as not having taken to heart the duty of honoring (one’s father) but instead told “his brothers in the market, making sport of his father” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer: According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna, trans. Gerald Friedlander, 4th ed., Judaic Studies Library [New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981], 170).
10. Brunk, “The Action of Ham against Noah,” 48; see also Brueggemann, Genesis, 90-91.
11. Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan: A Case of Incest?” 235.
12. Kikawada and Quinn offer two additional arguments in favor of the incest view. (1) Alcohol was one of the recognized libido stimuli of the ancient Near East and is even cited in relationship to romance in the Song of Solomon. (2) Canaan, who was cursed (Gen. 9:25), was a product of an illicit union in much the same way as the illicit union in Genesis 6:4 between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” which was cursed by the flood (Before Abraham Was, 102-3). John Bergsma and Scott Hahn echo Kikawada and Quinn when they suggest that the relationship between Genesis 9:20-27; 19:30-38, as well as 6:1-4; Leviticus 18:1-8; and Deuteronomy 23:1 and 27:20 supports the view that Noah’s wife was sexually violated by her son. A reasoning that is unique with them is that understanding Ham’s deed as maternal incest offers a viable rationale for Canaan’s curse, namely, Canaan was cursed because his birth was a vile, taboo act on the part of his father (“Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan [Genesis 9:20-27],” 35-36)
13. Brunk, “The Action of Ham against Noah,” 59-60.
14. Ibid., 66-68.
15. In Leviticus 20:17 the piel form of גלה (“uncover ”), a human male subject, and the construct עֶרַוַת euphemistically refer to a sexual act (cf. Lev. 18:6-19; 20:18-21, etc.).
16. Drunkenness can lead to self-stripping (Lam. 4:21). The correspondence between this Lamentations reference and Genesis 9:22 is rather striking. In both cases drunkenness is associated with clothing being removed.
17. The בְּ preposition attached to the noun תָּוֶךְ is not just locative; it also emphasizes the privacy of Noah’s location. The occurrence of this word elsewhere in conjunction with the term אֹהֶל confirms the thought of privacy. For instance, the chosen location of the ark after David repossessed it was not in the open, where it would be exposed, but it was בְּתוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל, “inside the tent” (2 Sam. 6:17; cf. 1 Chron. 16:1). When Achan sought to keep stolen loot out of view, his chosen hiding site was “inside my tent” (Josh. 7:21). Noah’s vice therefore was not that he was naked, because his nakedness was not open; it was hidden by his being in his tent.
18. Robertson, for example, shows by his interpretation that the reactions of the siblings were nonsexual. “Because of the great shame associated with the action of their brother, Shem and Japheth walked backwards into their father’s tent in order to cover his shame. Due to the recentness of the defiling action of their brother they restrain themselves from even glancing in the direction of their father” (“Current Critical Questions concerning the ‘Curse of Ham,’ ” 179, italics added).
19. Ibid.; cf. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology, 174; Phillips, “Uncovering the Father’s Skirt,” 38-43; and Donald J. Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 65-76.
20. Robertson, “Current Critical Questions concerning the ‘Curse of Ham,’ ” 179; cf. Brunk, “The Action of Ham against Noah,” 49.
21. Ross, “Genesis,” 200.
22. Bailey, “They’re Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The Polemical Use of Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon Narratives,” 134.
23. Sol Steinmetz, ed., Webster’s American Family Dictionary (New York: Random House, 1989), 1045.
24. M. M. Kalisch used the term “unfilial” to describe Ham’s behavior (Genesis, Historical and Critical Commentary [London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1858], 154). See also Robert S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis: Expounded in a Series of Discourses (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1868), 1:158-59; Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis (New York: Our Hope, 1922), 1:126; and W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 96. The irreverence toward Noah took the form of mocking him, jeering at him, or laughing at him. The reactions characterized as “unfilial irreverence” have the common intent of shaming the victim.
25. Even though the “sight” view is similar to the voyeurism view, its intent, unlike voyeurism, is nonsexual.
26. This view was expressed by Augustine (The City of God 5.16.1) and Lactantius (Divine Institutions 2.14). The view is also present in Jewish literature particularly in the Genesis Rabbah (fifth century AD), where R. Nehemiah described Canaan’s offense as “seeing and then informing others” (Gen. Rab. 37.7.3e). Jubilees 7.9 understands the offender as Ham. Later advocates of the “disclosure” view include George Bush, Notes Critical and Practical on the Book of Genesis: Designed as a General Help to Biblical Reading and Instruction, 26th ed. (New York: Ivison, Phiney, 1860), 161; and Elisha Fish, Japheth Dwelling in the Tents of Shem or Infant Baptism Vindicated in a Discourse, the Substance of Which Was Delivered at Upton, January 5, 1772, with Objections Answered (Boston: Thomas and John Fleet, 1773), 4; and Thomas Whitelaw, who regarded the offense as both rejoicing and disclosing (Genesis, new ed., in The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell [London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900], 149)
27. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 907. Others who held this view include Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.6). This same understanding seems to be reflected by current commentators: Cassuto, From Noah to Abraham (Genesis vi. 9, 32), 151-52; Lumeya, “The Curse on Ham’s Descendants: Its Missiological Impact on Zairian Mbala Mennonite Brethren,” 64; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, 323; and Hartley, Genesis, 113. In an apparent rebuttal to a society that plays down the seriousness of seeing the nakedness of another individual, Ross, an advocate of the “looking” view, makes the following points: (a) to see someone uncovered was to bring dishonor and to gain advantage for potential exploitation; (b) within the boundaries of honor, seeing the nakedness of another person was considered shameful and impious; (c) from the beginning nakedness was a thing of shame for fallen man; and (d) to be exposed meant to be unprotected (this can be seen in the fact that the horrors of the exile are couched in the image of shameful nakedness; Lam. 1:8; 4:21; Hab. 3:13) (“The Table of Nations in Genesis,” 230-31; cf. Clyde T. Francisco, “The Curse on Canaan,” Christianity Today, April 24, 1964, 8-9).
28. See Barnabe Assohoto and Samuel Ngewa, “Genesis,” in African Bible Commentary, ed. Tokunboh Adeyemo (Nairobi: WordAlive, 2006), 25.
29. Goodspeed and Welton, The Book of Genesis, 96.
30. Even though the commonest type of foil is a character, sometimes an event or an action can serve as a foil. In Genesis 9:23 both the characters and their actions serve as foil (Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 54).
31. Even though the English rendering of this noun is anarthrous (“a garment”), the noun in Hebrew has the article (A. B. Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar, 4th ed. [Edinburgh: Clark, 1994], 26). To claim, as Brunk does, that the garment belonged to Noah’s wife is to introduce a character in the scene that the passage does not mention. More likely the garment belonged to Noah, since it is he who is depicted in verse 21 as disrobing himself (Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis,” 231).
32. The expectation within the ancient Near East, as reflected in the Ugaritic royal epic “the Aqhat legend,” was that the son was to protect his drunken father from shame. The epic specifically instructs the son “to take his (father’s) hand when he is drunk, to bear him up when he is filled with wine” (CTA 17, 1:30).
33. H. Niehr, “עָרוֹם,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 349.