Noah’s Nakedness
The enigmatic account of Genesis 9:20-24 is not without difficulties. Specifically, the narrative states, “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 [NASB]). The vehement response to Ham’s activity in verse 22 leaves the reader to wonder the nature of the sin committed by Ham. Scholars have advanced a few possible answers including voyeurism, castration, and paternal incest. However, John Bergsma and Scott Hahn conclude that Ham’s sin was maternal incest.[1] The following analysis evaluates the authors’ conclusion.
The authors employ four primary word study strategies and logical arguments to support their conclusion. First, the authors suggest the phrase “done to him” (עָ֥שָׂה־לֹ֖ו) in Gen. 9:24 implies an active sin by Ham that moves beyond “seeing.”[2] However, a broad word search on עשׂה shows the verb also occurs with passive sins of omission. For instance, Pharaoh states in Gen. 12:18, “What is this that you have done (עשׂה) to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?” Furthermore, the authors’ logic appears to ignore that “seeing” may constitute an active sin (e.g. pornography). Second, the authors assert Ham’s sexual misconduct by equating “to see the nakedness of the father” (אב ערוה ראה) in Gen. 9:24 with the sexual euphemisms, “to see nakedness” (ערוה ראה) and “uncover nakedness,” (גלה עונו) found in Lev. 20:17.[3] Although the authors’ contention is possible, a broad phrase search suggests other possibilities as well. For instance, the phrase “see nakedness” (ערוה ראה) sometimes simply means “exposure,” not sex, as in Genesis 42:9 and 42:12. Furthermore, the phrase “uncover nakedness” (גלה עונו) can mean “exposure” of a body, not sexual misconduct, as in Exodus 20:26. Third, the authors suggest the erotic terms in Gen. 9:20-24, such as vineyard (כרם) and wine (יין), support an argument for inappropriate sexual conduct.[4] Granted, vineyard (כרם) and wine (יין) do occur in erotic biblical narrative, but of the 92 and 141 times the respective lemmas occur, the majority do not occur within erotic scenes. Finally, the authors provide support for maternal incest by indicating that all texts where ערוה ראה or גלה עונו refer to sex, it is heterosexual sex.[5] If Ham’s sin was sexual in nature, a phrase search analysis appears to support the authors’ assertion of heterosexual sex.
The most glaring concern may be the authors’ inadequate response to the actions of Ham’s brothers in Gen. 9:23. The authors suggest the brother’s actions of “not seeing” their father’s nakedness was due to extreme piety.[6] However, it is difficult to reconcile the fact that Ham’s action of “seeing” (ראה) was actually “not seeing,” while the brothers’ opposite action of not “seeing” (ראה) was literally “not seeing.” The authors provide word strategies, analyze phrases, and explore terms, but due to the limited nature of the authors’ search analysis, the underlying arguments for maternal incest appear to lack a certain logical coherence.
ברא
The Hebrew verb ברא means “to create” or “to shape” and occurs 48 times in the Old Testament, 38 times in the Qal and 10 times in the Niphal. The question posed is twofold: what is the theological purpose of the verb and what makes the verb unique among relevant synonyms? The answer to both appears to lie in the exclusive nature of God’s creative activity.
A broad search of grammatical relationships points to the term’s theological significance. God appears as the subject in each of the instances where the verb ברא occurs in the Qal stem, which indicates an object created by God, not man. For example, Genesis 1:1 states, “God created (ברא) the heavens and the earth.” Furthermore, upon review of each of the 10 Niphal stems, the context also references creative acts of God, not man. For example, God created heavens and earth in Gen. 2:4, humans in Gen. 5:2, and miracles in Ex. 34:10 (See also Isa. 48:7; Ezek. 21:35, 28:13, 15; Ps. 102:19, 104:30, 148:5). However, the fact that God is the subject or creator does not necessarily mean creation ex nihilo. For example, Gen. 1:27 states that God created (ברא) man in His image, but Gen. 2:7 clarifies how the Lord create man – by using the preexisting material of dust to form (יצר) man.
Although numerous verbs have similar semantic roles, the following considers two important synonyms of ברא. First, the verb עשׂה occurs 2,616 times in the Old Testament, connotes “making” or “doing,” and is not limited to the semantical range of ברא. Although the verb can take God as its subject as in Gen. 5:1, עשׂה also refers to humans as creators, where ברא does not. For example, in Gen. 33:18, Jacob is the human subject doing the creating, and the booths are the objects created. Next, the verb יצר occurs 44 times and connotes “shaping” or “forming” with a more nuanced definition than ברא including overtones of artisanship. Again, God often exists as the subject of creative activity as in God forming (יצר) thoughts, eyes, dry land, and embryos (Ps. 33:15, 94:9, 95:5; Jer. 1:5). However, similar to עשׂה, יצר can also refer to a human action as in Isa. 44:12, “The man shapes iron…fashioning (יצר) it with hammers.”
The linguistic evidence appears to support a uniqueness of the verb ברא. Unlike עשׂה, which provides a broader semantical range, and יצר, which provides the nuance of artisanship, ברא limits its focus. Furthermore, both עשׂה and יצר take humans as the creative subject. The unique contribution of ברא appears to be its restricted use to the exclusive nature of God’s creative activity. The theological purpose would be to communicate the creative agency of God.
Bibliography
- Bergsma, John Sietze, and Scott Walker Hahn. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 25–40.
[1] John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan,” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 26.
[2] Ibid., 29.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 30.
[5] Ibid., 34.
[6] Ibid., 33.
