The WT always manages to put its own perverse imprimatur on Bible stories, the larger mythology of Gen 1-11. Hell, they manage to corrupt and twist just about every story throughout the Bible. That was one of my goals of seeking higher education after I left--some while I was there--which was to discover the "real" (read:scholarly, non-literal) interpretation of these stories. And the Noah story is one of the most fascinating, because at its heart it strikes a resonant chord in human psychology. There is some reason the story of a vast flood keeps coming up in ancient mythology, and the answer isn't that it is an echo of a real event. Rather, it demonstrates a universality of a certain issue or question, like, What if somebody had to start this all over again? I have pasted some notes from a Bible class I teach (you can be sure that there is no WT spin in my class) and my goal now is to find some use in the story in the text itself--not to allow these stories to be co-opted by a twisted and literalist fundamentalist approach which starts with answers it needs and goes hunting for defenses where they don't exist in the text.
One issue I will address is the real (read scholarly) understanding of Ham's egregious act. Notice I said, Act, because the text says, when Noah came to and saw what Ham had "Done to him" not just seen something. Apparently the editor/redactor of the final version of the story we have did not understand the idiom "saw his father's nakedness" or otherwise misapplied it. Leviticus' uses of this idiom in Hebrew reveal it to mean a violation of a man's wife.
| Lev 18:8 | The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness. |
| Lev 20:11 | And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. |
Seems obvious in retrospect, doesn't it? For the purpose of the story Noah's drunkenness allows him to be in a stupor so as not to be aware of the violation or do anything about it. Perhaps it was a moral tale connected to the drunkenness of Lot and his subsequent incest moment, although nowhere in the Levitical law is a father sleeping with his daughter prohibited. Son with mother, yes, father with daughter, no, although the dowry would evidently be devalued. Thus in the original story Ham is guilty of an incest violation, and Canaan is the product of the violation, which explains why Noah curses Canaan. But, I emphasize, this is the realm of myth and like all myths these stories serve to signify something other than reality. Of course, as noted below, it is a polemic against the Canaanites to accuse them of being descendents of an incestuous union in primordial time.
The final word on WT ideology is that it can equip you with enough false information to know what issues to challenge within each story, as if to say, OK, you say this is what is significant, yet I say, that's not at all what the story siginifies, and here's why. I got more milaege out of WT misinformation driving me to a Master's degree that it was as if I could not slake my thirst for knowledge. I had Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and still I wanted more. For without arming yourself with the correct information, they hold a certain power, the power of their own lie, which corrupts totally.
If somw of these notes read as technical, I apologize, the class has been going for some time now and occasionally shorthand terminology is used. I will answer any questions though and welcome your thoughts.
Euripides
NOTES:
One model of viewing the structure of
> the first eleven chapters of Genesis is in the form
> of Gen 1 - 2:4a as a Prologue to the Primeval
> History, setting the context and content of
> creation. Following this Prologue are stories as
> four cycles that are a re-casting of the four
> seasonal cycles transformed into a pre-historical
> context. Each cycle (Gen 3 [Adam & Eve], Gen 4
> [Cain & Abel], Gen 6 - 9 [Noah & the Flood] & Gen 11
> [the Tower of Babel]) consists of the brokenness of
> relation, accountability to actions, and redemption
> as assurance of continued life. Interspersed
> between the 2nd and 3rd cycle is an Interlude of the
> genealogy of Cain & Seth (1:18-26), followed by a
> second Interlude, the genealogy of Adam & Noah
> (5:1-32, with Enoch taken up by God). Between the
> 3rd and last cycle is a third Interlude of the Sons
> of Noah (9:18-28) and a fourth Interlude, the
> Peopling of the Earth (10:1-32). Following the 4th
> cycle is a last Interlude as the genealogy of Shem.
> Following this last of the five genealogical
> Interludes, the pre-historical cyclical events break
> into the linear journey of Abraham and Sarah into
> "historical time."
>
>
>
> The story of Noah and the Flood is a merging of "J"
> (dated to the 10th-century BCE) and "P" (dated to
> the 6th-century BCE) texts with roots extending to
> the Sumerian period (ca. 3,000 BCE);
>
> 1.. The Prologue (3:1-10) is enigmatic in biblical
> scholarship. It appears to be an echo of a previous
> mythos that lingered in the "J" text. It also seems
> to be a restatement of the longing of humanity to
> achieve immortality, by linking "the divine beings"
> (sons of God) with the daughters of men, implying
> some sort of divine longevity. However, vs. 3, a
> statement of human life-span expectancy (re: an echo
> of being driven out of the Garden of Eden), is an
> intrusive insertion into the fabric of the original
> story of the Nephilim, "the Fellers," those who
> cause one to fall off or diminish. Noah, like Enoch
> (5:24), "walked with God," ending the essentially
> "J" text with a "P" conclusion.
> 2.. Gen 6:11-22 is a "P" text, with God = Elohim
> as the marker, plus the intense attention to detail
> (vs. 14-16), and Noah doing as God commands (vs.
> 22). The main twist to this story drawn from
> earlier ones is the replacement of the whimsy or
> conniving of the deities to sadness and regret of
> God (6:7 indicating destruction of the contents of
> the cosmos) or the disdain for the corruption
> (perhaps the consequences of wrong choices) of the
> earth itself and all living things (6:11-13
> destroying the cosmos as well as the contents).
> Noah is commanded to take into the ark his family
> and two of all living creatures.
> 3.. The "J" text has Noah taking seven pairs of
> clean animals and two of unclean (7:2-3), revealing
> the existence of the Mosiac tradition in its
> writing. "P" picks up the thread in vs. 6 with a
> contradiction of the "J" animal sorting by restating
> just two of each kind (vs. 8-9 & 15). The remainder
> of Chapter 7 is essentially "P" (with the obvious
> exception of vs. 16b being a "J") to the extent the
> text can be sorted with certainty. Given the
> liturgical (that is repetitious) nature of the
> passages, describing the ordeal of water chaos
> falling through the firmament (rain) and bursting
> from the ground (as a river would flood), destroying
> all that was created, the inclination toward this
> being a "P" text is possible.
> 4.. "P" continues in 8:1-14 in the closure of the
> chaos and the reclaiming the earth. 8:15-19 is a
> moment of re-creation with all in the ark released
> to a new earth, ending the "P" portion. The "J"
> (with LORD = Adonai as the marker) tells of Noah
> offering a sacrifice to God (hence the need for more
> clean animals; perhaps the "P" text is a polemic
> since only the Priests offer sacrifices, therefore
> only two of every kind) clearly revealing a "J"
> anthropomorphic God "smelling" the "pleasing odor,"
> and thereby swearing never to "doom the earth
> because of man" even though "the devisings of man's
> mind are evil" (not the nature of humanity)
> indicating perhaps an echo of knowing of the
> limitlessness of knowledge but retaining the flaw of
> fallibility and vulnerability. The Chapter ends
> with a poem that may be older than the written text.
> 5.. The "P" text in 9:1-7 is a rephrasing of the
> earlier "be fruitful and multiply" command, and the
> admonition not to do one thing (as in the original):
> "You must not, however, eat flesh with its
> life-blood in it" (vs. 4). This is followed by the
> command applicable to animals as well as humans.
> Then an enigmatic poem suggesting an eye for an eye
> with a curious ending about humans in the image of
> God (vs. 6).
> 6.. The "P" text continues in 9:8-17 with an
> expansion of the original covenant only with Noah
> (6:18) to include all humanity and "all flesh that
> is on the earth" (vs. 17), symbolized by the
> rainbow.
> 7.. The sons of Noah (Shem, Ham and Japheth) are
> restated for the fourth of five times in 9:18 (also
> 5:32, 6:10 and 7:13, and again in 10:1) to indicate
> national or racial origins. Shem probably is the
> mythical source of the Semites. Ham is identified
> as the source of the Canaanites. Japheth is
> problematic, but probably the source of Africans,
> both Mediterranean and sub-Saharan.
> 8.. Ham becomes the target of an egregious
> indiscretion. This is not surprising since Canaan,
> taken over by the Israelites in the "J" period,
> probably still has pockets of remnant populations of
> Canaanites as a thorn in the national side. Given
> 9:20-27 is a "P" text, however, it is probably a
> specific reference to those non-Israelites who
> replaced the population of Judah after the forced
> evacuation into Exile by the Babylonians. The text
> is evasive as to Ham's indiscretion. The phrase
> "saw his father's nakedness" in vs. 22 is a veiled
> (more specifically, a backward cloaking) reference
> to Ham sleeping with Noah's wife, his mother.
> Clearly this is a polemic against the Canaanites as
> bastards born from an incestuous relationship.
> Hence, the command that Canaanites be slaves to both
> the progeny of Shem and Japheth.
>
>
> The conversations that occurred during the reading
> included the following.
>
> 1.. The fact that "J" texts were retained by the
> "P" authors and editors meant an adoration of the
> earlier literature, holding it to be sacred, and
> therefore untouchable. As is typical for the later
> editors, the task was to weave relevant contemporary
> texts and stories into the older fabric without
> violating the sacredness of the originating body of
> literature. Communal identity was at stake, and in
> the ancient world, the older the tradition, the more
> sacred and respected. This was one reason the
> Romans allowed special dispensations to the Judeans,
> because everyone knew Moses pre-dated Plato.
> 2.. The most disturbing aspect of the story of
> Noah and the Flood is the apparent cruelty of God.
> Perhaps looking at the story from a humanistic
> rather than theistic point of view, the "cruelty" is
> a consequence of the choices made by humans. The
> consequences of wrong choices jeopardizes both the
> social and cosmic order, as was believed in ancient
> times, and continues to this day with the ecology
> replacing references to God. This aspect of
> consequences of choice is reinforced as the
> prominent theme beginning with the eating of the
> fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
> and continued in the cyclical stories as offered
> above. In our present day, we've disconnected the
> relationship between social and cosmic order.
> However, that social/cosmic order is referred to in
> today's religious language as the establishment of
> universal peace and justice, a concept used by the
> ancient Israelites. The brokenness of human and
> social relationships is perhaps "the devisings of
> man's mind are evil" (with the key word being
> "devisings") not that humans are evil, since all
> were created in the image of God. In a subsistence
> environment, natural calamities were seen as an
> effect based upon a cause - usually the displeasure
> of the deities due to human error and evil.
> 3.. The question of why water the instrument of
> destruction may reside in the paradoxical nature of
> the medium. In a subsistence environment, water is
> a precious and valuable giver of life. Without it,
> all life would perish. Yet, with the lingering
> memories of the previous cultures in Mesopotamia
> (the land between two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates)
> where irrigation was the key to survival, when
> abundant snow melts would come crashing down the
> river channels, all was destroyed. Water then had
> the paradox of life giving and life taking. This
> paradoxical image persists in the "P" texts, due to
> the close contact to the generating mythos extant in
> Babylon during the Exile.
> 4.. Another generating mythos is the story of the
> flood in the Sumerian "Epic of Gilgamesh." This
> myth is the framework upon which the "P" text hangs.
> Portions are verbatim. The protagonist,
> Utnapishtim, is changed to Noah, and the cause of
> the Flood is altered from the whimsy of the deities
> to the regret and sorrow illustrated above. It is
> interesting that because of Utnapishtim's devotion,
> he and his wife are granted immortality. The most
> the "P" could do with Noah was to say he "walked
> with God," as did Enoch, but died and was not "taken
> up" by God.
> 5.. All of creation is encapsulated in the Ark in
> the midst of chaos/water - humans, animals and
> plants for food ("For your part, take everything
> that is eaten and store it away, to serve as food
> for you and for them" [6:21]). The essence of
> creation is all that remains after the Flood. (Some
> wise children will always ask, "What about the
> fish?" which are obviously omitted because water is
> their element of survival.) The time during the
> Flood is approximately nine months, an obvious
> relation to human gestation. There then followed 40
> days for the earth to dry before a new creation
> emerges from the Ark - a new birth of creation out
> of the Ark as the womb. It was observed in the
> conversation that for something new to have meaning,
> something from the past must be preserved - in this
> case the contents of the Ark being the contents of a
> new creation.
> 6.. The image of the Flood is a limited one
> geographically. It is not presenting the entire
> globe of the earth inundated with unimaginable
> amounts of water. Even though there is many flood
> stories in many cultures around the world, each
> story is generated by a specific geographic center -
> the known "world" to the peoples in the immediate
> region. In terms of the human condition, a
> catastrophic flood would wipe out both the physical
> "world" and the psychological "world" of a specific
> geographical location. With the "P" text borrowing
> significantly from the earlier mythos, the mountains
> of Ararat (8:4; note the plural) were the highest
> known points in their "world."
> 7.. The "P" authors and editors may have devised
> the four pre-historical cycles to illustrate the
> failure of fulfilling the promise of Israel. The
> message is one of hope - that out of the chaos of a
> devastating defeat at the hands of the Babylonians,
> will come redemption in the form of a new nation of
> Israel. With "P" determination and zeal, not to
> mention perseverance, this time "We'll get it
> right!" Well, maybe - since subsequent history
> shows otherwise. Perhaps these stories of the angst
> of the human condition can continue to speak to us
> today. Such periodic celebrations as Yom Kippur are
> a reminder of these pre-historic cycles and our
> daily cycles.
>