The Curse of Ham refers to the supposed curse upon Canaan, Ham's son, that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The curse occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham, the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20-27). The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over 2,000 years. The story's original purpose may have been to justify the subjection of the Canaanite people to the Israelites, but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery. Nevertheless, most Christians, Muslims and Jews now disagree with such interpretations, because in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, and race or skin color is never mentioned.
The Book of Abraham, considered scripture in the Latter Day Saint movement, says that Pharaoh could not hold the priesthood because of the curse of Ham. The LDS church used this to prevent black men from getting the priesthood. In a 2013 online essay, the LDS Church denounced the connection, but most Mormons remain unaware of the essay. The Book of Abraham is still considered scripture and the curse of Ham is still taught in the LDS Church.
Video Curse of Ham
Origins
Genesis
The concept of the Curse of Ham finds its origins in Genesis 9:
The objective of the story is to justify the subject status of the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham, to the Israelites, the descendants of Shem. The narrative of the curse is replete with difficulties: It is uncertain what the precise nature of Ham's offense is. Verse 22 has been a subject of debate, as to whether it should be taken literally, or as "a euphemism for some act of gross immorality". In verse 25, Noah names Shem and Japheth as the "brethren" (the New Living Translation reads "relatives") of Canaan, seven verses after indicating that they were Canaan's uncles. The Table of Nations presents Canaan and Mizraim (Egypt) among the sons of Ham (10:6). In the Psalms, Egypt is equated with Ham. The treatment of Japheth in verses 26-27 raises questions: Why is YHWH named as the God of Shem, but not of Japheth? What does it mean that God will "enlarge" Japheth? And why will Japheth "dwell in the tents of Shem"? Further difficulties include Ham's being referred to as "the youngest son", when all other lists make him Noah's second son. Per Sarna, the biggest challenge of the narrative is why Canaan was cursed, rather than Ham, and the concealed details of the shameful incident bear the same reticence of Reuben's sexual transgression.
The narrative's short five verses give indication that Canaan's Hamite paternity must have had great significance to the narrator or redactor, according to Sarna, who adds: "The curse on Canaan, invoked in response to an act of moral depravity, is the first intimation of the theme of the corruption of the Canaanites, which is given as the justification for their being dispossessed of their land and for the transfer of that land to the descendants of Abraham."
Maps Curse of Ham
Ham's transgression
The majority of commentators, both ancient and modern, have felt that Ham's seeing his father naked was not a sufficiently serious crime to explain the punishment that follows. Nevertheless, Genesis 9:23, in which Shem and Japheth cover Noah with a cloak while averting their eyes, suggests that the words are to be taken literally, and it has recently been pointed out that, in 1st millennium Babylonia, looking at another person's genitals was indeed regarded as a serious matter.
Other ancient commentators suggested that Ham was guilty of more than what the Bible says. The Targum Onqelos has Ham gossiping about his father's drunken disgrace "in the street" (a reading which has a basis in the original Hebrew), so that being held up to public mockery was what had angered Noah; as the Cave of Treasures (4th century) puts it, "Ham laughed at his father's shame and did not cover it, but laughed about it and mocked."
Ancient commentaries have also debated whether "seeing" someone's nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g. Leviticus 20:17). The same idea was raised by 3rd-century rabbis, in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), who argue that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him. The same explanations are found in three Greek translations of the Bible, which replace the word "see" in verse 22 with another word denoting homosexual relations. The castration theory has its modern counterpart in suggested parallels found in the castration of Uranus by Cronus in Greek mythology and a Hittite myth of the supreme god Anu whose genitals were "bitten off by his rebel son and cup-bearer Kumarbi, who afterwards rejoiced and laughed ... until Anu cursed him".
Book of Jubilees
In the Book of Jubilees, the seriousness of Ham's curse is compounded by the significance of God's covenant to "never again bring a flood on the earth". In response to this covenant, Noah builds a sacrificial altar "to atone for the land".[Jub. 6:1-3] Noah's practice and ceremonial functions parallel the festival of Shavuot as if it were a prototype to the celebration of the giving of the Torah. His "priestly" functions also emulate being "first priest" in accordance with halakhah as taught in the Qumranic works. By turning the drinking of the wine into a religious ceremony, Jubilees alleviates any misgivings that may be provoked by the episode of Noah's drunkenness. Thus, Ham's offense would constitute an act of disrespect not only to his father, but also to the festival ordinances.
Medieval Judaism
The medieval commentary of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki 1040-1105), who cites older sources from Judaism's Oral Torah, which is relied upon by traditional Judaic scholarship as the most basic commentary to the present time, provides an introductory explanation. (Genesis 9:22-27):
- Genesis 9:22: and Ham, the father of Canaan, saw: "There are those among our rabbis who say that Canaan saw and told his father [Ham] and this is why Canaan was mentioned with regard to the matter and was cursed." (Tanhuma 15; Genesis Rabbah 36:7). And [Ham] saw his father's nakedness.: "There are those of our rabbis who say he emasculated (???? castrated) him, and there are those who say he had (homosexual ????) relations with him." Sanhedrin 70a. [The opinion that holds Ham had homosexual relations with him agrees that Ham also emasculated Noah.]
- Genesis 9:23: And Shem and Japheth...covered their father's nakedness, their faces were turned backward...: "...as for Ham who disgraced his father it is said of his offspring 'Thus will the king of Assyria lead the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." (Isaiah 20:4). (Tanhuma 15; Genesis Rabbah 36:6).
- Genesis 9:24: his small (????) son:" ????? The 'defective' one (Genesis Rabbah 36:6) ?????? and the 'disgraceful' one. ['small' does not mean 'the youngest' since Ham was older than Shem] similar to 'Behold, I have made you the smallest (???) among the nations.'" (Jeremiah 49:15, Obadiah 1:2).
- Genesis 9:25: Cursed (????) is Canaan: Noah said to Ham: "You caused me that I should not father a fourth son, another one to serve me. May your fourth son [Canaan was Ham's fourth son, see Genesis 10:6] be cursed by serving the offspring of these greater ones [of Shem and Japheth]... What did Ham see that he emasculated him? He said to his brothers Adam the first man had only two sons (Cain and Abel) yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world [Cain killed Abel over a dispute how to divide the world between them according to Genesis Rabbah 22:7] and our father has three sons yet he seeks still a fourth son."
- Genesis 9:26: ...Blessed is ???? the God of Shem: "Who is destined to keep His promise to [Shem's] offspring to give them the Land of Canaan" and he shall be: "Canaan shall be to them as a servant to pay tribute."
- Genesis 9:27: and Canaan shall be a slave to them.: "Even after the children of Shem will be exiled slaves will be sold to them from the Children of Canaan." [Rashi explaining why the curse is repeated.]
Curse of Canaan
- Genesis 9:25: "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren"
It is noteworthy that the curse was made by Noah, not by God. Some biblical scholars claim that when a curse is made by a man, it could only have been effective if God supports it, unlike the curse of Ham and his descendants, which was not confirmed by God or, at least, it is not mentioned in the Bible that he had confirmed it.
Dead Sea Scrolls
4Q252, a pesher (interpretation) on the Book of Genesis found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, explains that since Ham had already been blessed by God (Genesis 9:1), he could not now be cursed by Noah. The 4Q252 scroll probably dates from the latter half of the first century BC. A century later, the Jewish historian Josephus argued that Noah refrained from cursing Ham because of his nearness of kin, and so cursed Ham's son instead.
A new alternative interpretation of 4Q181, which is a Dead Sea scroll of Genesis, parallels the Book of Jubilees, suggesting that Canaan was cursed because he defied Noah's division of the land.
Jubilees
The Book of Jubilees also recounts the incident between Ham and Noah, and Noah's resulting curse against Canaan, in similar terms. Later, however, Jubilees explains further that Noah had allocated Canaan a land west of the Nile along with his brothers, but that he violated this agreement and instead chose to squat in the land delineated to Shem (and later Abraham), and so rightly deserved the curse of slavery.
Classical Judaism
Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century BC Jewish philosopher, said that Ham and Canaan were equally guilty, if not of whatever had been done to Noah, then of other crimes, "for the two of them together had acted foolishly and wrongly and committed other sins." Rabbi Eleazar decided that Canaan had in fact been the first to see Noah, and had then gone and told his father, who then told his brothers in the street; this, said Eleazar, "did not take to mind the commandment to honour one's father." Another interpretation was that Noah's "youngest son" could not be Ham, who was the middle son: "for this reason they say that this youngest son was in fact Canaan."
Genesis 9:25: Cursed (????) is Canaan: Noah said to Ham: "You caused me that I should not father a fourth son, another one to serve me. May your fourth son [Canaan was Ham's fourth son, see Genesis 10:6] be cursed by serving the offspring of these greater ones [of Shem and Japheth]... What did Ham see that he emasculated him? He said to his brothers Adam the first man had only two sons (Cain and Abel) yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world [Cain killed Abel over a dispute how to divide the world between them according to Genesis Rabbah 22:7] and our father has three sons yet he seeks still a fourth son."
Genesis 9:26: ...Blessed is ???? the God of Shem: "Who is destined to keep His promise to [Shem's] offspring to give them the Land of Canaan" and he shall be: "Canaan shall be to them as a servant to pay tribute."
Genesis 9:27: and Canaan shall be a slave to them.: "Even after the children of Shem will be exiled slaves will be sold to them from the Children of Canaan." [Rashi explaining why the curse is repeated.]
Origins of the misnomer
In the past, some people have claimed the "curse of Ham" as a biblical justification for imposing slavery or racism on Black people, although this concept is essentially an ideologically driven misnomer. Regarding this matter, the Christian leader Martin Luther King Jr. called such attempt "a blasphemy" that "is against everything that the Christian religion stands for."
Early Judaism and Islam
While Genesis 9 never says that Ham was black, he became associated with black skin, through folk etymology deriving his name from a similar, but actually unconnected, word meaning "dark" or "brown". The next stage are certain fables according to ancient Jewish traditions. According to one legend preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, God cursed Ham because he broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and "was smitten in his skin"; according to another, Noah cursed him because he castrated his father. Although the Talmud refers only to Ham, the version brought in a midrash goes on further to say "Ham, that Cush came from him" in reference to the blackness, that the curse did not apply to all of Ham but only to his eldest son Cush, Cush being a sub-Saharan African. Thus, two distinct traditions existed, one explaining dark skin as the result of a curse on Ham, the other explaining slavery by the separate curse on Canaan.
The concepts were introduced into Islam during the Arab expansion of the 7th century, due to cross-pollination of Jewish and Christian parables and theology into Islam, called "Isra'iliyyat". Some medieval Muslim writers--including Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, and even the later Book of the Zanj--asserted the view that the effects of Noah's curse on Ham's descendants included blackness, slavery, and a requirement not to let the hair grow past the ears, despite the fact that this contradicted the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad regarding skin color and racial equality, most notably in his last sermon. This is also in spite of the fact that the account of the drunkenness of Noah and curse of Ham are not present within the text of the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, and not consistent with Islamic teachings that Noah is a prophet, and prophets do not drink alcohol. Islam holds prophets of God in very high esteem, and some Muslims suggest the prophets are infallible.
An independent interpretation of the curse being imposed on all of the descendants of Ham persisted in Judaism, especially since the other children of Ham were situated in the African continent; i.e., Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites, and Phut the Libyans.
Medieval serfdom and "Pseudo-Berossus"
In medieval Christian exegesis, Ham's sin was regarded as laughter (for mocking his father and doing nothing to rectify his condition).
Elsewhere in Medieval Europe, the "Curse of Ham" also became used as a justification for serfdom. Honorius Augustodunensis (c. 1100) was the first recorded to propose a caste system associating Ham with serfdom, writing that serfs were descended from Ham, nobles from Japheth, and free men from Shem. However, he also followed the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 by Ambrosiaster (late 4th century), which held that as servants in the temporal world, these "Hamites" were likely to receive a far greater reward in the next world than would the Japhetic nobility.
The idea that serfs were the descendants of Ham soon became widely promoted in Europe. An example is Dame Juliana Berners (c. 1388), who, in a treatise on hawks, claimed that the "churlish" descendants of Ham had settled in Europe, those of the temperate Shem in Africa, and those of the noble Japheth in Asia (a departure from normal arrangements, which placed Shem in Asia, Japheth in Europe, and Ham in Africa), because she considered Europe to be the "country of churls", Asia of gentility, and Africa of temperance. As serfdom waned in the late medieval era, the interpretation of serfs being descendants of Ham decreased as well.
Ham also figured in an immensely influential work called Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus (Commentaries on the Works of Various Authors Discussing Antiquity). In 1498, Annius of Viterbo claimed to have translated records of Berossus, an ancient Babylonian priest and scholar; which are today usually considered an elaborate forgery. However, they gained great influence over Renaissance ways of thinking about population and migration, filling a historical gap following the biblical account of the flood. According to this account, Ham studied the evil arts that had been practiced before the flood, and thus became known as "Cam Esenus" (Ham the Licentious), as well as the original Zoroaster and Saturn (Cronus). He became jealous of Noah's additional children born after the deluge, and began to view his father with enmity, and one day, when Noah lay drunk and naked in his tent, Ham saw him and sang a mocking incantation that rendered Noah temporarily sterile, as if castrated. This account contains several other parallels connecting Ham with Greek myths of the castration of Uranus by Cronus, as well as Italian legends of Saturn and/or Camesis ruling over the Golden Age and fighting the Titanomachy. Ham in this version also abandoned his wife who had been aboard the ark and had mothered the African peoples, and instead married his sister Rhea, daughter of Noah, producing a race of giants in Sicily.
European/American slavery, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of African labour.
In the parts of Africa where Christianity flourished in the early days, while it was still illegal in Rome, this idea never took hold, and its interpretation of scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches. A modern Amharic commentary on Genesis notes the nineteenth century and earlier European theory that blacks were subject to whites as a result of the "curse of Ham", but calls this a false teaching unsupported by the text of the Bible, emphatically pointing out that Noah's curse fell not upon all descendants of Ham, but only on the descendants of Canaan, and asserting that it was fulfilled when Canaan was occupied by both Semites (Israel) and Japhetites. The commentary further notes that Canaanites ceased to exist politically after the Third Punic War (149 BC), and that their current descendants are thus unknown and scattered among all peoples.
Robert Boyle--a seventeenth-century scientist who also was a theologian and a devout Christian--refuted the idea that blackness was a Curse of Ham, in his book Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours (1664). There, Boyle explains that the Curse of Ham used as an explanation of the complexion of coloured people was but a misinterpretation embraced by "vulgar writers", travelers, critics, and also "men of note" of his time. In his work, he challenges that vision, explaining:
And not only we do not find expressed in the Scripture, that the Curse meant by Noah to Cham, was the Blackness of his Posterity, but we do find plainly enough there that the Curse was quite another thing, namely that he should be a Servant of Servants, that is by an Ebraism, a very Abject Servant to his Brethren, which accordingly did in part come to pass, when the Israelites of the posterity of Sem, subdued the Canaanites, that descended from Cham, and kept them in great Subjection. Nor is it evident that Blackness is a Curse, for Navigators tell us of Black Nations, who think so much otherwise of their own condition, that they paint the Devil White. Nor is Blackness inconsistent with Beauty, which even to our European Eyes consists not so much in Colour, as an Advantageous Stature, a Comely Symmetry of the parts of the Body, and Good Features in the Face. So that I see not why Blackness should be thought such a Curse to the Negroes... [author's italics and capitalization]
A number of other scholars also support the claim that the racialized version of the Curse of Ham was devised at that time because it suited ideological and economical interests of the European elite and slave traders who wanted to justify exploitation of African labour. While Robinson (2007) claims that such version was non-existent before, historian David Brion Davis argues, as well, that contrary to the claims of many reputable historians, neither the Talmud nor any early post-biblical Jewish writing relates blackness of the skin to a curse whatsoever.
Latter Day Saint movement
In 1835, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, produced a work called the Book of Abraham. It explicitly denotes that an Egyptian king by the name of Pharaoh was a descendant of Ham and the Canaanites, who were black,(Moses 7:8) that Noah had cursed his lineage so they did not have the right to the priesthood, and that all Egyptians descended from him. It was later considered scripture by the LDS Church. This passage is the only one found in any Mormon scripture that bars a particular lineage of people from holding the priesthood, and, while nothing in the Book of Abraham explicitly denotes Noah's curse was the same curse mentioned in the Bible or that the Egyptians were related to other black Africans, it later became the foundation of church policy in regards to the priesthood ban. The 2002 Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual points to Abraham 1:21-27 as the reasoning behind the not giving black people the priesthood until 1978.
In the following year, Smith taught that the Curse of Ham came from God, and that blacks were cursed with servitude. He warned those who tried to interfere with slavery that God could do his own work. Without reversing his opinion on the Curse of Ham, Smith started expressing more anti-slavery positions starting in 1842. After Smith's death, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) continued to teach that black Africans were under the curse of Ham and that those who tried to abolish slavery were going against the decrees of God, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ. In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Brigham Young believed that, as a result of this curse, negroes were banned from the Mormon priesthood.
In 1978, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball said he received a revelation that extended the priesthood to all worthy male members of the church without regard to race or color. In 2013, The LDS church denounced the curse of Ham explanation for withholding the priesthood from black Africans. However, the essays have not been well publicized, and many members remain unaware of the essays and hold to racist beliefs that had been taught in the past. The Book of Abraham is still considered scripture in the LDS church. The Old Testament student manual, which is published by the Church and is the manual currently used to teach the Old Testament in LDS Institutes, teaches that Canaan could not hold the priesthood because of his ancestral lineage but mentions nothing of race or skin color:
Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21-24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.
See also
- Curse and mark of Cain
- Hamitic
References
Citations
Bibliography
External links
- Online reprint of statements about abolition by Joseph Smith, originally printed in the Messenger and Advocate Vol. 2. No. 7. (Kirtland, Ohio, April 1836)
- Sermon on separate heavens and race relations in Mississippi
- Jasher 7 An account of the theft of the garment by Ham is found in Jasher 7:24-29.
Source of article : Wikipedia
0 Comments