There is
much to love in the Southern tradition, but, as in the lives of most
individuals, families, and countries, there are also things that are not so lovely,
things that we should re-evaluate. One
of the latter for Dixie has been the use of a passage of Genesis chapter 9 to
demean Africans, to declare that they will be forever inferior to the other
peoples of the world and must always be ruled by them. This has serious implications for advancing the
cause of an independent South, as we will see below. The whole passage from Genesis in question is
the following:
‘The sons of
Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the
father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole
earth was peopled. Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a
vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his
tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told
his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon
both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their
father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's
nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had
done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to
his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem; and
let Canaan be his slave." God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the
tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave"’ (Genesis
9:18-27).
A not
untypical interpretation by an antebellum Southron (which is still held by some
Southerners today) goes like this:
‘Patrick
Mell (1814–1888), the fourth president of the Southern Baptist
Convention, proposed:
“From Ham were descended the nations that occupied the land of Canaan and those
that now constitute the African or Negro race. Their inheritance, according to
prophecy, has been and will continue to be slavery . . . [and] so long as we
have the Bible . . . we expect to maintain it.”’
The problems
with this particular interpretation of the curse of Ham have been identified
and explained by various people. Garrett
Kell, a pastor of a Baptist church in Virginia who gives us the previous quote,
points out elsewhere in the same essay,
‘Ham had
four sons: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan, but only Canaan was cursed (Gen. 9:25–27; 10:6–20). The Canaanites’ abundant wickedness
proved the curse was warranted. As a result, they were enslaved by a coalition
of eastern kings (Gen. 14), by the Israelites during the conquest (Josh. 9:27; Judg. 1), and
by Solomon during his reign as king (1
Kings 9:20–21). . . . Noah’s curse of Canaan was due to his sinful conduct,
not his skin color. Though most of Ham’s sons and the cities they built (Babel,
Nineveh, Sodom, Gomorrah) were marked by idolatry and immorality, Canaan was
uniquely evil and defiled the land (cf. Lev. 18). The
Canaanites were cursed because they were evil-hearted, not because they were
dark-skinned. . . . Perhaps most glaringly, there is no curse of Ham
in Genesis
9 or anywhere else in the Bible. Canaan, not Ham, was
cursed by Noah. This means that the “biblical” doctrine used to justify the
enslavement of dark-skinned peoples is completely fabricated and has no
exegetical warrant.’
A Coptic
Church Q&A yields a similar
view.
But a couple
of isolated modern examples are not enough for surety, however. What do the Orthodox Church Fathers, the best
and most authoritative interpreters of Holy Scripture, have to say?
‘St. Ephraim
says that Noah’s prophecy regarding the descendants of Canaan was fulfilled in
the time of Joshua the son of Nun: “And
God dwelt in the tent of Abraham, the descendant of Shem, and Canaan became
their slave when, in the days of Joshua the son of Nun, the Israelites
destroyed the dwelling-places of Canaan and pressed their leaders into bondage
(cf. Josh. 17:13)” (Commentary on Genesis 7.4.1, FC 91, p. 146).
‘Blessed
Theodoret offers the same interpretation:
“Since Israel was destined to descend from Shem and take possession of
Palestine, which the descendants of Canaan had long occupied, he [Noah]
presented the prophecy as a curse so as both to foretell the future and
discourage subsequent generations from sinning against their parents” (Questions
on Genesis 58, LEC 1, p. 121). Both
Blessed Theodoret (ibid.) and St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel of
St. Matthew 8.5) state that Noah’s prophecy about the servitude of Canaan
was fulfilled in the Gibeonites—Gibeon being a Canaanite city north of
Jerusalem that was conquered by Joshua (Josh. 9:3-27).—ED.’ (Father Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation,
and Early Man: The Orthodox Vision,
2nd edn., Hieromonk Damascene, edr., St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood, Platina, Cal., 2011, p. 356)
Considering
the evidence before us in the words of these holy Church Fathers, the claim
that the curse upon Canaan applies to black Africans cannot be sustained.
. . .
The rest is
here:
https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/curse-ham
Or here:
https://katehon.com/en/article/curse-ham
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us
sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment