Rethinking Ham’s Offense: A Balance of Responsibility in Noah’s Curse Narrative (Gen 9:18–27)

Abstract

There are two central factors commonly fronted to explain the cursing act of Noah: Ham seeing his father’s nakednessוַיַּ֗רְא ... עֶרְוַ֣ת אָבִ֑יו   (Gen 9:22); and, by extension, the presumption that it explains why Canaanites are guilty in the context of their relationship with Israel as depicted in the biblical narratives. In particular, the heightening of Ham’s offense excludes Noah from taking responsibility for the emerging conflict. That is to say, the more Ham’s offense is depicted as grave, the greater the justification for Noah having pronounced the curse. This paper seeks to re-examine the nature and gravity of Ham’s offense and raises the possibility that his offense may not be as morally grave to warrant Noah’s curse. Instead, the action for which Ham should bear responsibility in the cursing incident is a taboo offense occasioned by his inadvertent stumbling on his father’s nakedness, bearing in mind that the father’s actions precipitated the offense. This begins to point out that Noah had a share of the blame for the fragility of the conflict situation and hence shares responsibility for the devastating curse scenario. This study looks at this text from a literary narrative approach, considering the linguistic clues that point to the narrative plot and the narrator’s point of view. Notably, the investigation does not presume that Canaanites are guilty based on this text as its starting point. Such a presumption, reading the text from an ethnic lens, perpetuates Canaan’s guilt, thereby asserting justification for the curse by Noah. In contrast,  this study takes a familial perspective in which the characters in the narrative are treated first and foremost as individuals in family contexts rather than representatives of ethnicities.