Pages

Thursday, July 20, 2023

Offsite Post: ‘The Curse of Ham’

 

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. 9:27Judg. 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