Curse of Ham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Curse of Ham (more properly called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Noah placed upon Canaan (the son of Ham), after Ham saw Noah naked because of drunkenness in his tent.

Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Ham" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.

The "curse of Ham" has been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.

Contents 1 The curse of Ham in the Hebrew Bible 2 Interpretations of the curse of Ham 2.1 Modern interpretations 2.2 Interpretations based on race 2.2.1 Early Jewish interpretations 2.2.2 Early Islamic interpretations 2.2.3 Early European interpretations 2.2.4 The curse of Ham in Mormonism 2.2.4.1 The curse of Ham in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2.2.5 The curse of Ham in Nuwaubian mythology 3 Racial neutrality of the Bible 4 References 4.1 Notes 5 See also 6 External links

[edit] The curse of Ham in the Hebrew Bible

The source of the "curse of Ham" theology comes from Book of Genesis 9:20-27, which deals with the story of Noah's family, soon after the flood:

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 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 had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Note that nowhere is Ham cursed for his actions, but only his youngest son Canaan; hence the very phrase "Curse of Ham" is actually a misnomer.

[edit] Interpretations of the curse of Ham

[edit] Modern interpretations

Some believe that the curse of Ham is an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.

Others have suggested that the curse actually came from Ham having a sexual relationship with Noah's wife: when it says that Ham saw his father's nakedness, it is taken to mean he had lain with Noah's wife and produced Canaan as their offspring, which is why Noah cursed Canaan. Similar wording is used in Lev. 20:11: "The man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness."

[edit] Interpretations based on race

[edit] Early Jewish interpretations

The actual writings of Moses assign no racial characteristics or rankings to Ham, nor do they pronounce a curse on Ham, or blacks. Indeed Moses married a Cushite, one of the reputed descendants of Ham, according to the Biblical narrative (Book of Numbers, Chapter 12). Despite this, a number of early Jewish writers have interpreted the Biblical narrative of Ham in what is deemed to be a racial way. Early Jewish scholars used the Genesis passage, and the idea that the Hamitic people were to be a "servant of servants", to rationalize the Israelite subjugation of Cush's younger brother, Canaan. These scholars, working around the 6th century AD, introduced the idea that Ham was marked by dark skin. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b: "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin."{Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b}

[edit] Early Islamic interpretations

There is no mention of the 'Curse of Ham' in the Quran. The Prophet Noah was a prophet of Allah and consequently is not expected to be drunk with wine, nor curse at his son/grandson. Muslim scholars do not ever differentiate between people of various colors as the Quran states that all men are equal irrespective or race, skin color or ethnicity.

Some Islamic historians' interpretations of Ham also consider him and his progeny to be an inferior race, and often link this to the curse of Ham.^[1] Writer Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Kisa’i’s book ‘Tales of the Prophets’ (Qisas al-anbiyâ), written in the 6th century AH, expounds on the curse with Noah reputedly calling blackness on Ham for his offences. Other Muslim historians such as al-Mas'udi describe blacks as being the accursed progeny of Ham, "stricken in his semen because of his sexual relation with his wife in the Ark" and marked by "kinky hair, thin eyebrows, broad noses, thick lips, sharp teeth, malodorous skin, dark pupils, clefty hands and feet, elongated penises and excessive merriment". (see Akbar Muhammad, Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa, vol. I, p 68).^[2] Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun, while generally being more objective of blacks in his writings, thought of them as aptly suited for slavery: "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals.."^[3]

[edit] Early European interpretations

In the middle ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries. ^[4] 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 a ready supply of African labour. This interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches.

[edit] The curse of Ham in Mormonism

Main article: Blacks and Mormonism

In Mormonism, the racial interpretation of the curse of Ham has taken a circuitous route. There was never an "introduction" of the doctrine into Mormonism by the movement's founder Joseph Smith, Jr., because he took the doctrine for granted, like most other white Christian Americans of his era. While Joseph Smith, Jr. was probably taught the curse of Ham doctrine much earlier, the first recorded indication of his acceptance of the doctrine is found in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831. (Manuscript History 19 June 1831).

In Latter Day Saint scripture, there is no unambiguous endorsement of the idea that the dark skin of any modern people is related to the curse of Ham, although the Book of Abraham, like the Bible, can be read that way. Alma 3:6-12 in the Book of Mormon associates dark skin with ancestral rebellion. It does not mention the Curse of Ham but does speak of the Curse of the Lamanites, whose skins were darkened by God due to their rebellion against Nephi, Jacob, Joseph and Sam, (their holy prophets) and stating that this was done so that their seed might not be mixed; as it would bring about destruction. Today, all the major Latter Day Saint denominations teach that all humans are children of God and thus equal in his eyes. However, this doctrine is still an element of Mormon fundamentalism, which constitutes a very small branch of the faith.

[edit] The curse of Ham in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

Main reference: Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, the church's second president, was a vocal advocate of the doctrine that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Ham, and that this curse was a rationalization for slavery and societal bans on interracial marriage. They also stated that the day would come when this curse would be made null and void through the saving powers of Jesus Christ. (Simonsen, Reed, "If Ye Are Prepared", pp. 243-266).

In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Young also believed that as a result of this curse, modern people of African descent were banned from receiving the Mormon priesthood but they were allowed to join the church. He believed this curse remained in people with even a single black ancestor.

Other church scholars had taught that Ham, who preserved the "blood of the Canaanites",^[5] was cursed for taking Noah's Temple garment (Genesis 9:22) without authorization and using them to re-create some temple rites, also without authorization^{[citation needed]}. Because of this, Ham and his posterity were cursed from holding the priesthood and from participating in temple rituals (much like some of Aaron's descendants and Saul who lost the kingship of Israel for his posterity for performing unauthorized sacrifices - see 1 Samuel 15-16). As the sacred text states that Ham's descendants settled in Egypt after the flood, Mormon apologists often use this as an argument in favour of the similarity between some Egyptian rituals and some Mormon temple rites.

In 1978, after decades of criticism inside and outside the church, the church announced a revelation officially renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood. The official pronouncement read:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren... supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He [meaning the Lord Jesus Christ] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come... Accordingly, all worthy male members of ther Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color." ("Official Declaration 2, Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, 30 Sept 1978).

Although the church has never officially stated that the racial curse of Ham doctrine was false, every single President of the Church from Joseph Smith to David O. McKay stated that the day would come when full priesthood membership would be given to all men. It was the Mormon belief that Noah's curse meant simply that Cain's children would receive the priesthood last, after all other races has first been given a chance to receive it. Brigham Young stated:

"When all the rest of the children [of man] have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings... [They] are just as much the children of our Father and God as we are... " (Simonsen, Reed, "If Ye Are Prepared", pp. 263-264).

Many top church leaders and influential LDS theologians of the day were surprised when church president Spencer W. Kimball stated that the day of full priesthood to all had come. They believed that it would only happen after the return of Jesus Christ. For example, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." ("All Are Alike Unto God", pp. 1-2).

When asked, church spokespeople generally repudiate the curse of Ham doctrine. However, despite urging from a number of black Mormons, there has not yet been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake. In 1998, there was a report in the Los Angeles Times that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Ham and related curse of Cain doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation. (Larry B. Stammer, "Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks", L.A. Times, May 18, 1998, p. A1). This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre. (ABC News report, May 18, 1998). The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the church to put an official disavowal on hold. (Stammer, "Mormon Plan to Disavow Racist Teachings Jeopardized by Publicity", L.A. Times, May 24, 1998).

[edit] The curse of Ham in Nuwaubian mythology

The Nuwaubians, under Dwight York, reversed the usual racist interpretation of the curse of Ham. In their teaching, the curse was leprosy which in its extreme form whitened the skins of the Canaanites:

"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
At this point Ham became terrified, and this affected his nervous system, which sent messages to his brain and affected his pineal gland, which produces the melanin. Stress and fear can cause many complications in the way a person's body may respond....
There is a saying that goes, "I was scared pale."
Ham was stressed at this moment in his life. He was what you would call a manic depressive. It is a known fact that stress can cause skin defects, because what affects your nerves can affect your skin. If a regular person could scare you "pale," just imagine what could happen if the unknown was made known to you. This is exactly what happened when the Aluhum stepped in, it scared Ham pale. But this didn't happen to him physically, it affected his genes and it came out in his fourth son, Libana, Canaan. ^[6]
The paleman is a Hamite through Ham’s fourth son, Libana (Canaan) whose descendants inherited his curse of leprosy...^[7]

[edit] Racial neutrality of the Bible

Whatever the claims and counterclaims of various racial doctrines, the biblical passage, Book of Genesis 9:20-27, which deals with the "curse of Ham" and Noah's family makes no reference to skin color or race. The word "Ham" in Hebrew moreover means "hot" or "multitude", and is thus not necessarily a racial reference.^[8] The word "Cush" by contrast means "black" and direct references are made to Cushite and/or Ethiopian individuals in the Biblical narrative, such as the wife of Moses, Zerah the Ethiopian army commander (2 Chronicles 14:9-15) and Tirhakah, Cushite Pharoah of Egypt.(2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9). Whatever the ethnic origins or skin colors of the Cushites, no curse is pronounced on either Ham, or Cush. The curse of servitude pronounced is on Caanan, one of Ham's sons. This is not a racial but geographic referent.

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; Let him be a bondman of bondmen to his brethren. And he said, Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem, And let Canaan be his bondman. Let God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, And let Canaan be his bondman.

The Caanites, typically associated with the region of the Levant (Palestine, Lebanon, etc) were later subjugated by the Hebrews when they left bondage in Egypt according to the Biblical narrative. In this sense, the "curse" is rather a prediction- they became "servants of servants," under the hegemony of the ex-slaves from Egypt. Ham's other sons include the Mizraim (sometimes associated with Egypt), Cush (sometimes associated with Assyria, the Sudan, Yemen or Ethiopia) and Phut (sometimes associated with Somalia (East Africa) or alternatively Libya or the land of Punt.(Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.)^[9]

As for the alleged inferiority of the Hamitic descendants made by various claimants, it is directly contradicted by the Biblical narrative. Indeed that narrative shows the descendants of Ham constructing or maintaining a variety of sophiscated cultures - ranging from the kingships of Egypt (Book of Exodus), to the empire building of Nimrod of Cush (Genesis 10: 6-11) to the commercial activity and well developed agriculture and urbanization of the Caananites (Book of Joshua).^[10] The Biblical narrative as to Noah's son's after the deluge does not appear to have anything to do specifically with race. The classical Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid categories are not mentioned or defined, nor do such groups as Australoids or Oceanic peoples appear. Indeed one of the three "races" alleged- Shem, details the descendants of certain Semitic speaking peoples, a lingusitic, not a racial reference. In short, the Bible makes no definition of blacks, nor does it assign them to any racial hierarchies.^[11]

[edit] References

• David M. Goldenberg (2003). The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World). Princeton Univ. Press. ISBN 0-691-11465-X. 
• Stephen R. Haynes (2002). Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-514279-9. 

[edit] Notes

[edit] See also

• Ham, son of Noah
• Hamitic
• Sons of Noah
• Curse and mark of Cain

[edit] External links

• Messenger and Advocate
• 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.
• Black people cursed in the Bible