by Isaac Asimov
Until now, however, the ice ages that humanity and its hominid precursors have experienced have come at a time when they were food-gatherers. During the next ice age (and another one may be inevitable, sooner or later) there are likely to be far more people on Earth than in the past, and these people would be far more firmly fixed in place by cities, farms, mines, and so on.
Humanity may nevertheless survive and, in fact, probably will, but the smooth succession of seasons promised in this verse will have failed.
Chapter 9
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.259
259. A new start must be made, so God repeats the blessing he had originally bestowed on the first human beings he had created in Genesis 1:28.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; 260 even as the green herb have I given you all things.
260. Human beings (and presumably other animals) are now, for the first time, allowed to be carnivorous. (From the scientific viewpoint, of course, human beings have been carnivorous from the time they first evolved, and carnivorousness in general is as old as life, perhaps.)
This is the P-document, and no distinction is made here between clean and unclean (as it is in the J-document). “Every moving thing that liveth” it is permissible to eat.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, 261 shall ye not eat.
261. It is tempting to think that breath is the principle of life. Hence the comparison of God with breath in Genesis 1:2 and 8:1, and Adam’s receiving life by way of breath.
It is also tempting to think that blood is the principle of life. We still speak of “flesh and blood.” We no longer have the feeling of the significance of that phrase, but flesh represents the material housing of the life-force, itself inanimate, and blood is the life-force.
After all, blood is pumped to every part of the body by the heart, and even if the ancients did not have the concept of the circulation of the blood, they did know that blood was in every part of the body and that the heart continued beating throughout life-and was stilled in death. They also knew that death ensued if enough blood escaped from the body.
Science does not dispute the overwhelming importance of either breath or blood to the life of human beings and other animals. There is no chance, however, that life is so simple a phenomenon as to rest in either or both of these entities. Each merely contributes its part to a much more complex whole. Science pursues life down to the molecular level and finds it resting on very complex molecules in very complex interrelationships.
It is because plants do not seem to breathe and do not possess blood that it was easy for the Biblical writers to assume that they were not alive but were merely out-growths of the soil. In actual fact, plants do breathe, but less noticeably than animals do. And if they lack blood, they nevertheless possess a circulating sap, which performs certain vital functions analogous to those of blood.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.262
262. This is the first divine prohibition since Adam was forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Murder is now forbidden. The rationale seams to be that blood (life) is the gift of God and therefore cannot be taken away but by God.
If a human being (or a beast, for that matter, as the preceding verse specifies) “sheddeth man’s blood,” blasphemy has been committed, for a gift of God has been stolen. The murderer’s act has forfeited his own gift of life, and he can then be freely killed without the killer incurring the penalties of blasphemy.
This marks the situation in many societies that are preliterate and that have no fixed written laws. When a person is killed, the members of the group to which that person belonged feel the right, and even duty, to even the score by killing the killer or some member of the killer’s group. (This is the danger Cain feared in Genesis 4:14.) If the killer’s tribe feels the score has been more than evened, it seeks to redress the balance in turn, and the result is a “blood feud” that may end in dozens of killings.
The unsatisfactory nature of this blood feud is such that even in preliterate societies attempts would be made to bring it under control, while in any literate society with a written code of laws, the crime of murder must be considered by a judge according to certain legal forms and a punishment must be established in accordance with the gravity of offense—and that punishment must end the matter.
Nor need the punishment always be death—since there can be such things as accidental homicide, homicide in a moment of passion, homicide in self-defense, and so on. There are no gradations recognized in this Biblical verse, and for this reason, too, it marks a very primitive stage in human development.
This verse has been used to justify capital punishment, and it also gives rise to the feeling that murder isn’t really so bad or as culpable if no blood is shed in the process. Thus Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, a half-brother of William the Conqueror, went into battle with a mace. Killing an enemy by brain concussion seemed more godly than to make use of swords, spears, and arrows, weapons designed to draw blood.
7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, 263 saying.
263. In the J-document, the Lord’s determination not to destroy his handiwork a second time is a matter of silent decision (see Genesis 8:21). Here, in the P-document, God expresses the determination directly to Noah and his sons. The P-document tends to be legalistic, and a contract (“covenant”) is about to be set up.
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 264
264. In a way, forbidding the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge was a contract. Adam agreed not to eat the fruit, and in return God would not allow death to enter the world. By eating it, Adam broke the contract.
Now the contract is restated in a more positive way. Noah and his sons are to obey the injunctions against murder and the eating of blood, and God would not again destroy the world but would allow life to continue.
10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.265
265. This sounds as though God contracts to preserve every species, and to be sure, men have in the past felt that all species not only existed from the beginning but would continue to exist to the end. We now know, however, that many species have become extinct and many species are becoming extinct each year—usually through human action.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; 266 neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.267
266. Since it is quite obvious that the edicts against murder and against eating blood have never been generally observed by human beings, we can only assume that after Noah’s time, God would content himself with punishing the sinner only and not “all flesh” generally as before. Furthermore, the punishment would not be by the agency of a flood, although, presumably, other methods would remain available to God.
267. From the scientific view, the promise of no further flood cannot fail, for there is not enough water on Earth to make such a flood possible either in Noah’s time or since.
If, however, we assume the meaning of “earth” to the Sumerians—as representing a river valley and immediately neighboring territory—then the promise has not been kept. There have been inn
umerable flooding disasters in the last four thousand years, some of which drowned more people than the Sumerian flood of 2800 B.C. or thereabouts is likely to have done. Every year, in fact, sees flooding somewhere.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant 268 which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
268. In order for a contract to be legally binding, there must be witnesses to the actual agreement, and God provides one in the form of an atmospheric phenomenon.
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, 269 and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
269. The “bow” is the rainbow. The verse might be interpreted to mean that God, having reduced the Universe at least partway to chaos in the course of the Flood, now has the chance to put in afterthoughts and creates the rainbow, which had not previously existed. On the other hand, in view of the fact that the P-document Creation-story states the Universe to have been “finished,” one might alternatively suppose that the rainbow had existed before the Flood but was now bent to a new use.
The rainbow always strikes people with awe and astonishment, and between its position and its shape, it was easy to imagine it to be a bridge over which there could be communication between heaven and earth. In the Greek myths, Iris, the messenger of the gods, reaches Earth by way of the rainbow. Indeed “iris” means “rainbow.” In the Norse myths, the rainbow is also the bridge whereby the gods come down to Earth, and on the evening of the final battle between the gods and the forces of evil, the rainbow bridge breaks under the thundering hooves of the heroes of Valhalla.
In actual fact, we have learned from scientific investigation that the rainbow is a spectrum, a division of white light (which is a mixture of tiny waves of different lengths) into progression of increasing wavelength, from the shortest, which impress the brain as violet light, to the longest, which impress it as red light. The rainbow can be duplicated by triangular blocks of glass called prisms or by other devices. After a rain, there are still tiny droplets suspended in the air, and each of these acts as a tiny refracting device. All together produce the rainbow, which requires only the sun, air, and water droplets to exist—and which undoubtedly existed for billions of years before human beings evolved.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.270
270. This is a rather repetitious passage. It is almost as though God, having once before urged the animal world (including man) to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and having then negated the blessing in the form of a universal Flood, is now anxious to assure life that this time he means it—and therefore he repeats it several times.
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and lap heth: and Ham is the father of Ganaan.271
271. The J-document takes up the story here, and the reference to Canaan would seem, at this point, to be a non sequitur and unnecessary.
The Biblical writers, however, are chiefly interested in the history of the Israelites, and the Israelites lived in the land of Canaan by right of conquest.
Because the Bible uses a theological approach to history, all events are interpreted as in accord with the will of God and as being based on justice. Good fortune is the result of obedience to divine law; bad fortune to disobedience. If the land of Canaan has been conquered, and if the people who had earlier dwelt there were enslaved by the Israelites, this had to be described as the just consequence of some evil done by the Canaanites or by some ancestor.
Canaan the son of Ham and grandson of Noah, is the eponymous ancestor of the Canaanites, and since an event is about to be told that will serve as the explanation for the enslavement of the Canaanites, Canaan is brought into the tale.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.272
272. It would be as naive to take the phrase “the whole earth” literally here as it would be in the story of the Flood.
The details that follow will make it clear that the Biblical writers are discussing only parts of what we now call the Middle East—the regions they knew. There is no indication of any knowledge of the Americas or Australia or distant islands; not even any knowledge of the farther reaches of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Even in a more restricted sense, there is no indication of any possibility that the Sumerian Flood reduced even the Middle East to a single family. Areas such as Egypt, Asia Minor, Crete, and so on were well populated both before and after the traditional time of the Flood, with no detectable signs of any catastrophic break whatever.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 273
273. It is usually supposed that this verse indicates Noah to have been the first to cultivate grapes. Actually, the cultivation of grapevines is much older than the supposed time of Noah, just as farming is much older than the supposed time of Cain. Egyptian records dating back to 2400 B.C. (just about the supposed time of the Flood, as indicated by Biblical chronology) already refer to grape growing as an ancient and well-developed form of human endeavor.
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; 274 and he was uncovered within his tent.275
274. It is usually supposed that Noah, ignorant of the effects of wine and pleased with the taste, drank more than was good for him. This may well have been the way in which the effects of alcohol were discovered in prehistoric times.
275. Fruit ferments naturally under certain conditions. When eaten, such fruits produce effects that are some-times found desirable. The loss of the usual sober relation to the surrounding world may be interpreted as a way of getting through to a supernatural and divine world. Fermented fruits may then have been sought out, ways of deliberately encouraging the fermentation may have been worked out, and religious festivals organized that centered about the drinking of wine. (The Greek worship of Dionysus is an example.)
A modern example involves the synthetic substance lysergic acid diethylamide, better known as LSD. Its hallucinogenic nature was discovered by a chemist quite by accident. It wasn’t long, though, before the hallucinogenic character was explained by people who found significance and value in disordering their mind in this fashion and Invested the process with a quasi-religious function.
It is conceivable that this verse is all that is left of an earlier legend that had Noah engaging in some Dionysiac revelry; something that was toned down considerably by the shocked prudery of the Biblical writers.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan 276, saw the nakedness of his father, 277 and told his two brethren without.278
276. Again Canaan is mentioned. Some speculate that the villain of the story is not really Ham, but Canaan. In that case, it is hard to see why the Biblical writers should not say so. It would be to their interest to make Canaan as villainous as possible.
277. The expression “saw the nakedness of his father” may well be a euphemistic expression to represent something much worse than merely witnessing (perhaps accidentally) a naked father in a drunken stupor. Perhaps Ham witnessed his father’s Dionysiac revelry and joined him or, worse, encouraged him.
278. Whatever it was Ham did, the implication was that he found it amusing and told Shem and Japheth, presumably expecting them to share in the mirth. It is not hard to see that this is a matter of adding insult to injury and that it compounds the offense.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went
backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son 279 had done unto him.280
279. Since Shem, Ham, and Japheth are mentioned in that order every time, it is commonly assumed that Ham is the second son and, therefore, a “younger son.” However, the Hebrew words used in this place mean “youngest son,” and they are so translated in the Revised Standard Version, for instance.
This could be a copyist’s mistake in early times, one that has been faithfully reproduced ever since. Some suggest that “youngest son” means here “grandson” and that it is Canaan that is referred to. Again, as is described later, Ham had four sons, with Canaan the youngest, so the whole story may not be about Noah and Ham, but about Ham and Canaan. It is hopeless, however, to try to penetrate the confusion on the basis of the Biblical verses alone.
280. The phrase “done unto him” may refer simply to Ham (or Canaan) having seen Noah’s shameful state and having joked about it.
There is, however, some speculation that something more, and worse, could be involved. In the Book of Leviticus, the phrase “to uncover the nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual relations. Thus we have: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shall thou not uncover: she is thy mother: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6-7). These and the following verses forbid incest.
Might Ham (or Canaan) have taken advantage of Noah’s drunkenness to commit some sexual act? Some even speculate that what took place was not incest but castration.
There are castration legends in myths. The best known is in the Greek myths, where Kronos castrated his father Ouranos and took over the rule of the Universe. (Castration, after all, would mean the ruler is no longer a functioning male, and that might well disqualify him from further occupying his post. Then, too, it would prevent the ruler from giving birth to more children who might later dispute the inheritance.)