The years are slipping by; the ark fades into the past. Day by day, they began to give their clean new world a more definite character, shaping and settling it. To this growing human family, Noah was ancestor and elder. In any society, “the continuity of the group was dependent on a constant stream of tradition passing through generations.”1 But, as one philosopher ably puts it, “tradition requires fathers who are able to hand down and sons who are willing to receive.”2 This parent-child bond, a link of transference of tradition between an older and a younger generation, is the basic building block of culture. Noah learned the ways of Enoch who walked before him; he heard the tales of righteous Abel; he knew the old, old stories and the deep, deep wisdom. If any legacy is to be left, it depends on an uninterrupted stream, of which Noah is a living symbol and carrier.
If society is to function in the present, its basic traditions have to be received as something with authority. And that means Noah, as the community elder passing along this tradition, has to be a patriarch – a father who rules. Before giving the terms of his covenant, God laid the groundwork for human government, a necessity if crime is to be punished and justice is to be done (Genesis 9:5-6). Noah automatically assumes that role. As Luther put it, “Noah alone ruled the church, the state, and his household.”3 That's a lot of authority concentrated in Noah's hands. Fatherhood, like all government, is a heavy weight; sons and daughters grapple with the consequences.4
And consequences there are. Having planted and tended a vineyard, Father Noah “drank of the wine, and he became drunk” (Genesis 9:21). As we've said before, ancient Jewish readers took this as some kind of festival of thanksgiving to God, and they usually assume that Noah merely took things furthest.5 With him also are sons Japheth, Shem, and “Ham the father of Canaan” (Genesis 9:18). What's interesting is that one of the few Canaanite stories we've found includes a scene where we overhear the Canaanite gods explain what makes for a good son. And two lines concern how a good Canaanite son cares for his drunk father on the way home from a sacred feast.6 A good son is there “to grasp [his father's] arm when he's drunk, to support him when sated with wine.”7 So we expect the father of Canaan to at least live up to Canaanite standards... right?
There's no indication Ham helps Noah home, although Noah does make it home. The next line in Genesis, we just know that Noah “uncovered himself in his tent” (Genesis 9:21). At least he's inside his tent, in private space, shrouded by a “social skin” that shields his state from public view.8 But now, and only now, does his son Ham step into the story – and step over the line. You don't waltz into the presidential bedroom on a White House tour, and neither should Ham be waltzing into Noah's tent uninvited. “Ham's first misdeed,” it's been suggested, “was his disrespectful invading of his father's private space.”9 He's in Noah's tent as an intruder.
I doubt it was by accident or with virtuous intent that Ham is in this tent, to find himself suddenly “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”10 It's hardly a good omen that Ham's name is all but the last letter of the Hebrew word ḥamas, 'violence,' as in what filled the world Noah was rescued from – and now it's in his tent.11 What happens in there, the Bible may not spell out. One early rabbi suggested that Ham abused or even sexually assaulted Noah.12 And a few modern scholars defend that interpretation.13 Others, inspired by the Law's identification of “your father's nakedness” with “the nakedness of your father's wife” (Leviticus 18:8), argue that, while Noah was unconscious, Ham took advantage of his own mother, who became pregnant with Canaan.14 A larger group of rabbis suggested that Ham went so far as to castrate Noah, hence why Noah did no more multiplying after the flood and also why he'd curse Ham's fourth son for stopping Noah from ever having a fourth son.15 A few modern scholars see parallels between Genesis here and Greek myths where the brother of Iapetus castrates and overthrows their father,16 which makes sense in a world of contested inheritance.17 Noah might be relieved to hear many scholars discount these stories,18 even if these dark possibilities lurk in the background on purpose.19
All we know for sure is that “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father” (Genesis 9:22). This is the same word for 'saw' as when Eve “saw that the tree was... a delight to the eyes” (Genesis 3:6).20 It's not a casual or passive noticing, as if Ham stumbled on the sight and just didn't close his eyes fast enough. This is a voluntary gazing, a searching, a looking into.21 Ham is willfully seeing his father's nakedness. Since ancient times, his motive has been cited as “idle curiosity.”22 Today, we tend to use that word, 'curiosity,' as a positive thing, the virtue of healthy interest in the world. But 'curiosity' used to be a bad word, a malformation of the human thirst for truth to “reflect pride and power rather than love and wonder.”23 Medieval theologians catalogued all sorts of ways the quest to know could go wrong.24 You could learn just so you can show off, or to service of sin, like a terrorist studying bomb-making techniques. Curiosity might also mean getting distracted from greater study for the sake of lesser knowledge, like a guy who memorizes sports statistics but can't be bothered to open his Bible. Curiosity might mean hunting for knowledge in all the wrong places, like tarot cards and crystal balls. It might mean hunting knowledge severed from its meaning – studying the world, but never as creature of the Creator. And curiosity can mean hunting knowledge that just isn't for you – prying into people's private affairs, wasting time on what you can't get, demanding knowledge that isn't available. As one Jewish teacher put it, “What is committed to you, pay heed to; what is hidden is not your concern. In matters that are beyond you, do not meddle, when you've been shown more than you can understand” (Sirach 3:22-23).
Ham stands here as the role model for people who want to peer behind things like tradition and authority and custom, who believe they have the right to every truth, who deem nothing sacred when it stands in the way.25 Ham aims to gaze on the naked truth, no matter the cost. He insists on seeing through the chains that would bind him to be a part of society rather than its very author. He will accept no limits on what he may see; his appetite for first-hand knowledge is ravenous, gluttonous, an uncontrolled passion. And so Ham, champion of curiosity, takes a clear-eyed look here at the spring whence his starting seed sprang.
Leering shamelessly at Noah's wrinkled body, sniffing a whiff of Noah's boozy breath, looming in awful judgment over Noah's bareness, Ham finds nothing to inspire his awe – nothing cosmic, nothing impressive, nothing beautiful or good or true. This is the mystery of generation? This is the seat of authority? Ham just can't believe it. His faith shatters on the shoals of the scandal. He finds it irrational, childish, silly. “Ham laughs when he sees his father stripped naked.”26 In Ham's searching, scoffing, sneering study of his sotted sire's shame, “eliminated is the father as authority, as guide, as teacher of law, custom, and a way of life.”27 Ham sees through it, behind it; all such things now lie disenchanted and demythologized at his feet. Ham is almost a prototype of “democratic man..., who seems also to be deaf to authority and who knows neither awe nor reverence.”28 Ham, asserting his equality of rights, laughs at what he no longer believes in.
In fact, he can't believe he ever believed in Noah. Ham finds nothing worthy of respect or loyalty in this body he surveys, and Ham allows that snapshot of a scene to drown in him what the flood could not. As a result of this fractured faith, Ham's deconstruction leaves a sour taste on his tongue. His disbelief is served with sides of anger and betrayal. Feeling silly for having credited the incredible, Ham deflects onto Noah and conjures deep offense at Noah for having had the gall to appear righteous. In this, he's a lot like Michal, married to David but still a Saul's girl at heart. When King David seemed to beclown himself by “uncovering himself” in public like a “vulgar fellow” (2 Samuel 6:20), Michal “looked... and saw... and she despised him in her heart” (2 Samuel 6:16). Just so, here “Ham, like Michal, gazes at his father in the tent in a hostile manner,” despising Noah in his heart.29 Luther goes so far as to say Ham develops “a satanic and bitter hatred against his father.”30
Now, even here in the abyss of deconstruction, Ham could journey back upwards. He can't unseen what he thinks he's seen, can't unknow what he thinks he knows. But he can choose to be kind, can be charitable, can be humble. He can repent of callous, cruel curiosity. He can hope for love to overcome his hate. He can pray for his faith to grow again from seed, a mature faith reconstructed to cope with a parent whose ways aren't immediately apparent through the wrinkles and the mess. Out of basic human decency if nothing else, “he should have covered his father.”31 But he refuses. He leaves Noah naked and alone.
Ham ventures forth from the tent with a crusading zeal, determined to haul Noah's nakedness into the open, verbally and conceptually if not physically. His Canaanite descendants would tell us that a good son was called “to refute the calumnies of [his father's] detractors,”32 and “to drive his troublers away.”33 Ham chooses instead to become the detractor and troubler of his father. He went out and “told his two brothers outside” what he had seen and learned (Genesis 9:22), maybe bringing their father's clothing in hand “as evidence of Noah's drunken state.”34 Ham goes public. To his brothers, he “pointed out the nakedness of the father.”35
No doubt Ham defends himself as a straight-shooter, just calling 'em like he sees 'em.36 But Ham “proclaimed aloud what it was right to leave untold.”37 Even on a charitable reading, this is just “malicious, disrespectful gossip,” an unnecessary truth filtered through prejudiced eyes and spewed out of place like so much dirt.38 “The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness... set on fire by hell..., a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3:6-8). That fiery tongue here recounts Noah's condition, not impartially or innocently or out of concern, but out of a calculated desire to “blacken his good name,”39 to degrade Noah from lord and loved one to laughingstock. Ham will have nothing to do with the Law's demand to “honor thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12), or with the New Law's demand to “obey your leaders and submit to them” (Hebrews 13:17). He takes immense comfort and glee in Noah's apparent downfall,40 as though this ripped away forever Noah's right to sit in judgment, as though this were Ham's hour of liberation unto license.
Allowing resentment to nurse a delusion of vindication, Ham was overwhelmed with “a desire for mocking.”41 His public words are meant as knives with which he might neuter Noah, taking captive his father's reputation.42 Ham thus “arose impudently against his father,” aiming to humiliate Noah, “to undermine Noah,” effectively to overpower and overthrow Noah once and for all.43 Ham becomes the new world's “first rebel against law and authority,”44 aiming to let it fall away – or else fall into his hand, as he assumes (so he thinks) his father's place.
“Ham hastened to invite others to view the sight,” to share in Ham's freedom, to confirm his ascended status.45 Like a serpent in the garden, he tempts his brethren to open their eyes to the naked truth, to taste and see that the father's authority is bad, that his tradition is foolish, decrepit, unsuited for the demands of a brave new world. Unlike Adam and Eve, Shem and Japheth discount the hissing. They were “above heeding such evil counsel.”46 Where Ham sees Noah's plight as a comedy, they recognize a tragedy.47 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers” (Psalm 1:1).
In what comes next, Jewish lore suggested that “Shem commenced the good deed,”48 “Shem took his garment, and he stood up.”49 Genesis just says that “Shem and Japheth took the garment” (Genesis 9:23), perhaps Noah's cloak which Ham had stolen to support his scurrilous report. Whoever initiated the action, once they picked up the garment, “they laid it on both their shoulders” (Genesis 9:23), literally shouldering together the burden of making reparations for what he's stolen, to redress “the evil intent of their brother.”50
How'd they do it? How did they find a solution that didn't break things worse? “They walked backwards, and they covered the nakedness of their father” (Genesis 9:23). As one early Christian put it, the brothers “neither approved nor betrayed the fault of the saintly man.”51 They don't go around trying to justify Noah as what he's not, trying to say it's so good he's drunk and naked; but neither do they betray him, as Ham did. Instead, they simply “made it their one concern to right the situation speedily,” and then yield Noah space to awaken.52 So what Ham discovered dis-covered, they covered up again, restoring to him a sign of his status.53 In so clothing the man made naked by the fruit of his vineyard, Shem and Japheth become imitators of the LORD God who, when Adam and Eve stumbled naked from the garden, “clothed them” (Genesis 3:21).
In walking backwards, “their faces were backwards, and they did not see their father's nakedness” (Genesis 9:23). Shem and Japheth did not participate in Ham's sin. They refused to degrade Noah with judgmental or even inquisitive looks. They disciplined their eyes to not see their father in an undignified state, “lest their reverence for their father be diminished even by a single glance.”54 Eyes fixed firmly on the flaps of the tent, they walked backwards until Noah was covered, and then shifted gears back into drive, their eyes unwavering until they were again outside the tent. Perhaps, as one ancient teacher thought, they did it “trembling all the while,” believing that Noah “was protected by angels both while awake and while asleep.”55
In their solemn entry and respectful retreat, Shem and Japheth reaffirmed Noah's worth in exactly the way Ham didn't. In fact, the Hebrew word order closing their account – “the nakedness of their father not did they see” – is almost exactly flipped from when “saw Ham... the nakedness of his father,” highlighting how backwards they acted by Ham's standards.56 But backwards by Ham's standards, backwards by the cruel world's standards, is the right way for one to walk. In all they do here, Shem and Japheth, no doubt to Ham's bitter annoyance, broadcast “their complete rejection of both his arguments and his values.”57
So, where Ham was a champion of curiosity, Shem and Japheth have eyes studiously open to all things but one. In any system of thought, there's always a foundational axiom that can't be derived from anything more basic; and, just so, human community is built on fundamental principles which Shem and Japheth cannot dispense with as Ham has. They therefore accept the fact of authority, however fallible; they embrace law and order, however frail; they submit to tradition, however forgettable. They will still receive what Noah hands on, that they might not approach their own sons and daughters empty-handed. Shem and Japheth thus, with ample reason, walk in and out of Noah's tent “by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7), with what one writer dubs “a pious act of willful ignorance” for the sake of saving a family, a society, a world.58 What's turned their gaze away from Ham's 'naked truth' is simply the power of love, by which they know more than Ham's loveless eyes.
Later Jews saw this kind of filial piety in cultic terms, saying that “kindness to a father will not be forgotten: it will serve as a sin-offering, it will take lasting root. In time of trouble, it will be recalled to your advantage; like warmth upon frost, it will melt away your sins” (Sirach 3:14-15). Their kindness was reenacted by Israel in the wilderness. Whenever the camp would move, in God's tent the priests had to “take down the veil of the screen and cover the ark of the testimony with it” (Numbers 4:5). As one Jewish scholar observes, the priests “use that curtain to effectively shield their eyes from the Holy Ark until they use that very curtain to cover it, protecting its dignity by ensuring that it never be exposed.”59 The ark and other holy things needed to be dressed, as though they were the nakedness of God within his tent (Numbers 4:7-14). Even the closest Levite cousins to the priestly line “shall not go in to look on the holy things even for a moment,” as Ham did, “lest they die” (Numbers 4:20) – for later, people did die when “they looked upon the Ark of the LORD” naked (1 Samuel 6:17). One role of the priests, then, was to be a Shem-style son to God the Father, preventing the sins of Ham.
Christians of the early centuries found the piety of Shem and Japheth to be even a better model for theology than the curiosity of Ham. In Ham barging in to grapple with his father's 'naked truth,' they saw a forecast of heretics' theology sans humility. Heretics were often guilty of “meddlesome inquiries.”60 “Where are those who say they have attained and possess the fullness of knowledge? The fact is that they have really fallen into the deepest ignorance.” That's Ham's 'naked truth' right there. “In heaven, they veil their eyes; on earth, the busybodies are obstinate and shamelessly try to hold their eyes fixed on his ineffable glory.”61 Such “an investigator, were he able, would strip off all the glory of the Son to observe.”62
The truth is that “anything worth believing must be approached with pious humility.”63 “When we seek to know in a virtuous manner, we fear and obey God, and we accept our finite limits in knowing.”64 God will always be greater than we can fully know, but knowing God by grace is the highest aim of the human mind. That's why there's a real virtue at work both in good theology and in any other good thinking. “Studious Christians come to know both God and creatures more deeply,” precisely because they aim at deeper intimacy with Creator and creation on God's terms.65 And God's terms are, at heart, the cross, which – as we marveled last Sunday – were foreshadowed by Noah's plight, drunk and naked and vulnerable.
Roman soldiers by the hundreds made sport of Jesus: “They mocked him... and they spit on him and struck him on the head” (Matthew 27:29-30). So too, “Herod and his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him” (Luke 23:11). At Calvary, soldiers stripped him of his garments, leaving Christ in the nakedness of Noah; and in that condition, they crucified him (Mark 15:23-24). In that dark hour when God Incarnate was pinned naked to a cross, this was in some way the greatest revelation in history of “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24). “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).
But, St. Paul says, the revelation of God in “Christ crucified” is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). “Those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads” (Mark 15:29). “So also the chief priests, with the scribes, mocked him to one another” (Mark 15:31). It was Ham's finest hour, or so he thought, as man and woman, Jew and Gentile, gathered around the cross to jeer the dying Lord. But after the temple veil tore to reveal emptiness within (Mark 15:38), disciples took the naked corpse of the Lord and covered it in a shroud (Mark 15:46). The deeds of Shem and Japheth were a foreshadowing of “the piety of the people who believed” in Jesus,66 who “do not look at their father's nakedness,” the dead Christ, but “honor it with a veil” by proclaiming not only his cross but his resurrection.67 Going forth, we imitate Shem and Japheth in word and deed: “I was naked, and you clothed me,” says the Lord (Matthew 25:36).
And he returns the favor. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27), and so have “put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:10). Each of us, at that baptism, may stand and shout with the prophet, “He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness!” (Isaiah 61:10).
Alas, at times we stumble, we sully or strip off our garments. People turn out to be messy, and it's easy to find fault if we're looking for it. But as a medieval theologian said, “to observe our neighbor's faults with the intention of looking down upon them, or of detracting them, or even with no further purpose than that of disturbing them, is sinful.”68 We must not be each other's Hams. Hence one old bishop pleaded, “Let us not draw attention to our neighbors' faults. Should we learn about them from others, far from being anxious to see their nakedness, let us rather, like the right-minded sons, conceal them, cover them up, strive to raise the fallen person by exhortation and advice, instructing him in the magnitude of God's love, the extraordinary degree of his goodness, his boundless compassion.”69 That doesn't apply, of course, to abuse or crime or genuine public interest: “It is not backbiting to reveal a man's hidden sin... for the good of public justice.”70 But in all our worst sins, Christ offers us, if we'll buy them by repentance, “white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen” any more (Revelation 3:18).
When we at last succumb to the heady wine of death and are denuded of the body, we're “longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed, by putting it on, we may not be found naked” (2 Corinthians 5:3). Our true desire is resurrection, to “be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up in life” (2 Corinthians 5:4). These aren't garments we can put on ourselves, helpless as corpse and ghost. Only our True Shem can cover us and wake us to new life, a sobriety and strength heretofore unknown, “raised in glory..., raised in honor” (1 Corithians 15:43). Clothe us eternally, Lord Jesus, and unveil to us the fullness of your glory! Amen.
1 Peter J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6-9) (Brill, 1996), 57.
2 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 197.
3 Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 9:20-22, in Luther's Works 2:167.
4 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 199-200.
5 Jubilees 7:5-6, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:69; 1QapGen 12.13-19, in Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation (Brill, 2009), 56-57.
6 Baruch Margalit, The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT: Text, Translation, Commentary (De Gruyter, 1989), 276-277.
7 Aqhat: KTU 1.17 i.30-31, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:53.
8 Michaela Bauks, “Clothing and Nudity in the Noah Story (Gen. 9:18-29),” in Christoph Berner, Manuel Schäfer, Martin Schott, Sarah Schulz, and Martina Weingärtner, eds., Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible (T&T Clark, 2019), 384-385.
9 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 205.
10 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (Eerdmans, 1990), 322.
11 Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11 (Eisenbrauns, 2009), 119-120.
12 b. Sanhedrin 70a, in Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, ed., Koren Talmud Bavli (Koren Publishers, 2017), 30:139.
13 Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective (Fortress Press, 1998), 52-53; Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press, 2002), 64-67; Johanna Stiebert, First-Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible: Sex in the Family (Bloomsbury, 2016), 105; Chris Greenough, The Bible and Sexual Violence Against Men (Routledge, 2020), 49; Brian Neil Peterson, Genesis: A Pentecostal Commentary (Brill, 2022), 101-102.
14 John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn, “Noah's Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27),” Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005): 34-35; Johanna Stiebert, First-Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible: Sex in the Family (Bloomsbury, 2016), 140-141; Adam E. Miglio, The Gilgamesh Epic in Genesis 1-11: Peering into the Deep (Routledge, 2023), 113-114.
15 b. Sanhedrin 70a, in Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, ed., Koren Talmud Bavli (Koren Publishers, 2017), 30:139; Genesis Rabbah 36.7, in H. Freedman, ed., Midrash Rabbah (Soncino Press, 1983), 1:293.
16 Bruce Louden, “Iapetus and Japheth: Hesiod's Theogony, Iliad 15.187-193, and Genesis 9-10,” Illinois Classical Studies 38 (October 2013): 12-13.
17 Natan Levy, The Dawn of Agriculture and the Earliest States in Genesis 1-11 (Routledge, 2024), 159.
18 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (Eerdmans, 1990), 323; Brad Embry, “The 'Naked Narrative' from Noah to Leviticus: Reassessing Voyeurism in the Account of Noah's Nakedness in Genesis 9.22-24,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35/4 (2011): 417; John Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 (Bloomsbury, 2013), 139; James Chukwuma Okoye, Genesis 1-11: A Narrative-Theological Commentary (Cascade Books, 2018), 114; Brian Rainey, “Indecent Exposure: Social Shame, 'erwâ, and the Interpretation of Gen 9:20-27,” Vetus Testamentum 70/4-5 (2020): 689-693.
19 John Goldingay, Genesis (Baker Academic, 2020), 169.
20 R. R. Reno, Genesis, Brazos Theological Commentary (Brazos Press, 2010), 129.
21 Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2001), 149.
22 Philo of Alexandria, On Sobriety 7 §32, in Loeb Classical Library 247:461.
23 Matthew Levering, Aquinas's Eschatological Ethics and the Virtue of Temperance (University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), 160.
24 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q.167, aa.1-2, in The Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 18:584-586.
25 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 208-209.
26 Ambrose of Milan, On Noah 30 §115, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 140:98.
27 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 206.
28 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 215 n.21.
29 Brian Rainey, “Indecent Exposure: Social Shame, 'erwâ, and the Interpretation of Gen 9:20-27,” Vetus Testamentum 70/4-5 (2020): 687.
30 Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 9:23-25, in Luther's Works 2:173.
31 Peter J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study in the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6-9) (Brill, 1996), 56.
32 Aqhat: KTU 1.17 i.28, in Baruch Margalit, The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT: Text, Translation, Commentary (De Gruyter, 1989), 144.
33 Aqhat: KTU 1.17 i.29, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:53.
34 Martin Sicker, Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy (Praeger, 2002), 122.
35 Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 63.3, in Popular Patristics Series 33:174.
36 James Chukwuma Okoye, Genesis 1-11: A Narrative-Theological Commentary (Cascade Books, 2018), 117.
37 Philo of Alexandria, On Sobriety 7 §32, in Loeb Classical Library 247:461.
38 Joseph E. Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Beacon Hill Press, 2012), 259.
39 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q.73, a.2, in Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 17:675.
40 Ambrose of Milan, On Noah 30 §114, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 140:98.
41 Aphrahat, Demonstrations 14.40, in Moran 'Eth'o 24:97.
42 Gideon R. Kotzé, “Looking Again at the Nakedness of Noah,” in Renate M. van Dijk-Coombes, Liana C. Swanepoel, and Gideon R. Kotzé, eds., From Stone Age to Stellenbosch: Studies on the Ancient Near East in Honour of Isak (Sakkie) Cornelius (Zaphon, 2021), 204.
43 Brian Rainey, “Indecent Exposure: Social Shame, 'erwâ, and the Interpretation of Gen 9:20-27,” Vetus Testamentum 70/4-5 (2020): 694.
44 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 207.
45 Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.2.1, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:101.
46 Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.2.1, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:101.
47 Martin Sicker, Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy (Praeger, 2002), 122.
48 Rabbi Yohanan, in Genesis Rabbah 36.6, in H. Freedman, ed., Midrash Rabbah (Soncino Press, 1983), 1:291.
49 Jubilees 7:9, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:69.
50 Martin Sicker, Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy (Praeger, 2002), 123.
51 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitories 1.7, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 7:279.
52 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 29.14, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 82:208.
53 Gideon R. Kotzé, “Looking Again at the Nakedness of Noah,” in Renate M. van Dijk-Coombes, Liana C. Swanepoel, and Gideon R. Kotzé, eds., From Stone Age to Stellenbosch: Studies on the Ancient Near East in Honour of Isak (Sakkie) Cornelius (Zaphon, 2021), 205.
54 Ambrose of Milan, On Noah 31 §116, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 140:99.
55 Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 7.2.2, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 91:145.
56 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 66.
57 Martin Sicker, Reading Genesis Politically: An Introduction to Mosaic Political Philosophy (Praeger, 2002), 123.
58 Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Free Press, 2003), 216.
59 Zvi Grumet, Genesis: From Creation to Covenant, Maggid Studies in Tanakh (Maggid Books, 2017), 98 n.35.
60 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Incomprehensible Nature of God 2.16, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 72:77.
61 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Incomprehensible Nature of God 1.36, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 72:66.
62 Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Faith 9.2, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 130:114.
63 R. R. Reno, Genesis, Brazos Theological Commentary (Brazos Press, 2010), 130.
64 Matthew Levering, Aquinas's Eschatological Ethics and the Virtue of Temperance (University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), 168.
65 Matthew Levering, Aquinas's Eschatological Ethics and the Virtue of Temperance (University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), 164.
66 Bede, On Genesis 9:20, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:209.
67 Augustine of Hippo, Answer to Faustus the Manichean 12.23, in The Works of Saint Augustine I/20:140.
68 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q.167, a.2, ad 3, in Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 18:587.
69 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 29.16, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 82:209.
70 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q.73, a.2, ad 1, in Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 17:675.
No comments:
Post a Comment