>>586390 I think it's one of those things where the "Israelites" (Canaanites who started a religion centered around Yahweh) had to explain the situation they were in and didn't have a great justification to conquer land from other Canaanites other than "well they come from bad seed, its our duty, its land promised to us" etc etc
Not to just be a dick, but to JUSTIFY being a dick.
Actually, Ham was the primary actor; the main question you often hear is why Canaan gets cursed when it was Ham who "uncovered Noah's nakedness" in Gen 9:22. although it mentions his kinship with Canaan for seemingly no reason, which is sometimes taken to imply Canaan's complicity.
9.18–29: Noah and his sons. Aside from P in vv. 18–19 and 28–29, this text is part of the Yahwistic primeval history. It repeats major themes from the pre-flood period: farming (see 3.17; 5.29), nakedness, alienation in the family, curse, and domination. 22–23: Some have speculated that Ham had sex with his father, since seeing nakedness refers to incestuous behavior in Lev 20.17. Nevertheless, a more common expression for sexual inter- course in Leviticus is “uncover nakedness” (e.g., 18.6; 20.18) or “lie with” (e.g., 20.11–12). Moreover, the descrip- tion of Ham’s brothers’ contrasting behavior in v. 23 (their faces were turned away) makes clear that the problem with Ham’s behavior was that he did not look away. In the ancient Near East, sons were expected to protect the honor of their father, including caring for him when he was drunk (there was no negative judgment a ached to ge ing drunk). Ham here does the opposite, both looking upon his father naked and telling his brothers about it. Such behavior is an example of the breakdown of family relationships seen in ch 3 (see 3.8–13,16–19n.) and ch 4 (see 4.1–16n.). 24–27: Many have puzzled over why Canaan is cursed for his father, Ham’s, misdeed (9.25–26). Some speculate that a story originally focusing on Canaan was modified to focus on Ham, featured in the broader context. Yet it is more likely that a later editor redirected an earlier curse on Ham toward Canaan, so that the curse could help justify the conquest of the land of Canaan (see 10.16–18a; 14.1–12,13–16n.).
20- 21: The ancient Rabbis saw in Noah an object lesson about the dangers of intoxication (Gen. Rab. 36.4), but whether the first person to grow grapes should have foreseen the degrading consequences of excessive alcohol consumption is unclear. In any event, mentioning the failures of its human heroes is characteristic of the Tanakh; only God is perfect, and even He is at times the target of protest (e.g., see 18.22-33).
22-24: This perplexing passage serves as an explanation of the sexual perverseness that Israelite culture sometimes thought to be typical of the Canaanites (cf. Lev. 18.3-4, 24-30). Note that it is Canaan who is cursed (Gen. 9.25), although Ham perpetuated the atrocity. The author (or perhaps a redactor) softens the contradiction by twice pointing out that Ham is the father of Canaan (vv. 18, 22). The identity of the act in question is murky. "To uncover the nakedness" of a man means to have sexual relations with his wife (e.g., Lev. 20.11). This makes Ham guilty of incest. In Lev. 20.17, the less common expression "to see the nakedness" means to have sex. This would make Ham guilty of homosexual rape. In an effort to explain why Canaan is cursed for Ham's sin, on the other hand, the midrash sees Ham as castrating his father. Just as Ham prevented Noah from ever having a fourth son, so will his own fourth son, Canaan (10.6), be cursed (Gen. Rab. 36.7). V. 23, however, suggests that the words saw his father's nakedness are better taken literally. If so, Ham violated two norms highly stressed in both the Tanakh and rabbinic Judaism, the ethic of bodily modesty and the norm to honor and respect one's parents.
25-27: The cursing of Canaan may be intended, in part, to explain why non-Israelite slaves do not have to be emancipated (e.g., Lev. 25.39-46).
I get that, but why was it considered such a grave offense to just see Noah naked? He just walked in on his dad while he was drunk. That seem like it's Noah's fault for getting drunk and taking his clothes off, not Canaan's fault.
>>586500 >>586467 it says "whoever sleeps with his fathers wife uncovers his fathers nakedness" so the implication would be that they had sex with his wife. but the context of the text makes that unlikely, they probably just walked in on Moses with no clothes
>>586622 Rape and indecency thousands of years ago is very different from what it is now. Walking in on your dad nude could have literally been rape to the ancient Israelites, so this offense would be harsh enough to justify their blood feud.
>>586622 >>586656 To add, our modern ideas of logic and blame are pretty irrelevant to these people who wrote it a few thousand years ago. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to us, it did to them.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.