Dr Quinton was seated in the Principal’s office. Professor Alan Dunstan had invited him so as to meet the newly appointed Head of Old Testament Studies at Caxton College. Dr Marcus West was a man of middle years, who had been Senior Lecturer in Divinity in a northern university, and so this was a ‘step up’ for him. After cordial greetings, and some useful conversation concerning Dr West’s new position, the Principal had a request to make.
“Stephen, Marcus was telling me about his recent studies in Genesis, and we hit upon one of those awkward bits, where Noah was drunk, and the ensuing prophecy, and I said that you had a most interesting line on that. Would you care to share your findings with him?”
“By all means. It will be my pleasure. . . . May I ask what progress you have made, Marcus, or what in particular you find problematic?”
“The whole sequence is fraught with inconsistencies, Stephen,” said Marcus. “For example, Ham saw something, but later we are told that Noah knew what his younger son had done. Then the curse was pronounced on Canaan rather than Ham. I could add a few other points, but perhaps that’s enough for starters.”
“Yes, I am well aware of what you say, and having read a number of commentators, I’ve been surprised at the number of contrivances put forward to explain what in fact is fairly straightforward when seen properly. I presume you have studied the Hebrew?”
“Yes, to the best of my knowledge, though I have to admit I’m not a Hebrew scholar, just one who can read the language and use other people’s expertise from Lexicons.”
“Well now, let’s start by looking at the first verse of chapter 9. God blessed Noah and his sons and said ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’ The request is repeated in verse 7, to ‘bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it.’ Have you pondered this? Have you considered the fact that Noah was included in this divine request as well as his sons?”
“Since you mention it, no, it hadn’t crossed my mind. Are you suggesting that Noah looked forward to having other sons after the flood, even at his advanced age?” asked Marcus.
“Yes, I am. Remember that he sired his three sons at around 500 years of age, which seems quite fantastic to us today, but it was not so before the flood. Therefore we mustn’t deny the possibility of his siring others after the flood. Some ancient Hebrew literature even makes the suggestion that Noah wanted another son after the flood. . . . Now this I believe to be a key to what follows.”
“Please proceed. . . I’m intrigued,” said Marcus.
“Quite a passage of time must have elapsed for Noah to cultivate a vineyard, gather a good harvest, make wine, and wait for it to mature before drinking it. Also, we happen to know that Ham had by that time three sons, Cush, Mitzraim, and Phut. All this is the product of years, so the very brief narrative in chapter 9 is a condensation. . . . Now the next very important factor in the story is best seen from a study of the genealogy in chapter 11. If a graph is plotted to show the life-span of the post-diluvial patriarchs it is a sad and sorry tale of drastic shortening from 1,000 years down to nearly 200. Something had happened during the flood which seriously affected man’s longevity, and if that be so, it must also have affected plant life. When Noah prepared his wine, he imagined it would be similar to the wine he’d enjoyed through many centuries before the flood, but something had happened, and it took him by surprise. The fermentation process was now remarkably potent and rapid, and the alcoholic content of the wine much increased, and he had no knowledge of this. He would have drunk his first draught of wine as we might today drink a tumbler full of fresh grape juice with no ill effect, but for Noah the damage was done before he had a chance to rectify it.”
“My word, I’d never thought of that. So you’re suggesting that Noah was not blameworthy?”
“Indeed I am. He and his wife were subject to biological forces beyond their control as soon as they had drunk freely. The effect would have produced inebriation in a short space of time, making them light-headed at first, probably with a lot of boisterous talking, singing and laughter, and then finally a drunken sleep. The noise would have alerted his sons, and made them wonder what had happened.”
“That’s fascinating. I can see that you’ve investigated the story from a much wider front than most commentators. This is good stuff. So what happened next?”
“This is where we need to understand the proprieties of speech of those days, and the use of euphemy. When intimacy is spoken about within a marriage, certain niceties of speech are used. For example if we are told that a man ‘knew’ his wife, we all know what that means. Modern translations sometimes afflict our senses with improprieties by blasting facts into the open quite unnecessarily. In our passage we are introduced to euphemy that is not explained until Leviticus 20:11. There we are told that ‘the man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness.’ This is the clue to unlock what really happened on that fateful day.”
“My goodness, Stephen, this is getting more and more interesting. Am I right that you’re pointing to the sin of incest by Ham?”
“Most certainly. The passage, when read carefully, suggests Ham was a rogue. After he’d defiled his mother, which is contained in the expression ‘saw his father’s nakedness’, he went out into the street, and bragged to his brothers about this ungodly deed. May I make a suggestion at this point, a suggestion that is highly probable from the text, but cannot be positively proved. I have a feeling that Ham mocked his father for not being able to produce the son he wanted. He may even have had thoughts which, when expressed by modern parlance, might have been, ‘Poor old chap, he’s past it.’ Hence, he decided to do something about it himself, with tragic results.”
“Yes, I saw the bit about bragging in the open place, but hadn’t any idea what he was bragging about. After all, one hardly brags at seeing his father naked. I wouldn’t have thought there was anything sinful in that.”
“Exactly. . . . Now we have to interpret the action of his brothers. They are appalled at the news, and decide they have to tell their father. But how? This would be a most sensitive issue, and neither of them were up to it. Plain speech would be very embarrassing. There was another alternative. Procuring Ham’s outer garment, and notice that the Hebrew says ‘thegarment’ not any garment, they took it to place over their mother. That is what is meant by covering their father’s nakedness. It is part of the euphemy. When Noah woke up from his wine, he observed Ham’s garment covering his wife, and interpreted it correctly without a word spoken by anyone. That is why the text reads, ‘he knew what his younger son had done to him.’ And one can only imagine the anger and chagrin that overwhelmed him.”
“Stephen, all this makes sense, especially since you mentioned the verse in Leviticus. Furthermore, I recall Ruth saying to Boaz, ‘I am Ruth, your maidservant; spread your garment over your maidservant, for you are next of kin.’ [3:9] The custom had lasted for centuries, hadn’t it? Quite unlike the way in which dress fashions change these days! Yes, that must be the answer. That is how Noah recognised the indignity done to his wife, and therefore to him.”
“There is also a passage in Exodus [22:26] where a mantle taken as a pledge must be returned before sundown, for it is a man’s mantle to cover his body. This was common practice. The mantle was often a square piece of woollen cloth thrown round the body by day and over the body by night. Each person would have his own design, and that design would give recognition. Remember Joseph’s coat of many colours. Such was Ham’s outer garment that Shem and Japheth took to cover their mother. They knew they no right to enter the tent of their father, least of all to peer at their possible state of undress, hence the walking backwards. . . . Now take it a stage further,” said Stephen. “Mrs Noah is now a humbled woman, and in due time finds she is pregnant by her son. According to the custom of those days, Noah would henceforth no longer enjoy intimacy with her. In due course she is delivered of a baby, and in order to remember the crime, they called his name Canaan, meaning ‘the humbled one.’ It is at this point that Noah prophesies, saying ‘Cursed be Canaan, he shall be servant of servant to his brethren.’ The text makes it seem as though Noah uttered these words immediately after waking from his wine, but no, there is a long pause, quite common in Hebrew literature.”
“But which brethren did Noah mean by that utterance, Ham’s sons or Noah’s sons?”
“He meant Shem and Japheth, as is clear from the following verses. Notice that Ham is not mentioned. By this time in the story, he had been banished from the clan, and lived at a distance with his own family. . . . It is now time to go back to verse 18 in Genesis 9. From the Hebrew it should read like this. ‘The sons of Noah who went forth from the Ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham, he was the father of Canaan.) These three were the sons of Noah.’ It is strange how the fatherhood of Canaan is introduced at this point in the narrative, but once the whole story is unveiled, clarity is restored. It is almost as though someone had visited MrsNoah, and seen the child Canaan. Then Noah came along, saying with disdain, ‘Ham, he is the father of this child, not me.’ One can only guess at how long Canaan stayed with Noah and his wife. Perhaps he was deposited with Ham when weaned.”
“Isn’t it amazing how much you can learn by using a bit of logic combined with judicious searching of the Scriptures? . . . Is there more, Stephen?”
“One more item. Have you ever thought why Canaan invaded what was later called ‘the land of Canaan’? After the flood, when the population had grown, Noah divided the earth between his three sons. Japheth had the northern part, Europe and Asia, Ham the southern part, mainlyAfrica, and Shem the central portion. Canaan, believing that he should share in the patrimony of Shem because of the maternal connection, took that which should have been the land ofArphaxad. This is one of the reasons why the Israelites were told to dispossess them in the days of Joshua. The other reason was idolatry, and the irruption of another breed of fallen angels. Like father, like son. There was wickedness in the line of Ham.”
“Stephen, will you allow me to present this thesis to the Journal of Theological Studies? Of course I would display credits.”
“Certainly, but you need not mention me. Please go ahead and write a good report. I’ll look forward to reading it, if ever they have the courage to publish it!”
