Talk:Curse of Ham

Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q252

Fragment I, Column II:

^{Line 6: viii, 18} on the first day of the week. On that day Noah went forth from the ark

^{Line 7: ix, 24-5} And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to [his] bro[thers].

^{Line 8: ix, 27} But he did not curse Ham but only his son, for God had blessed the sons of Noah. And let him dwell in the tents of Shem.

(--Translated by Géza Vermès )

References

Ham not cursed

Justin Martyr, who is considered to be the first Christian writer to comment on Noah’s curse and blessings in Gen 9:25-27, also supports the same view as rabbinic tradition, that Ham could not have been cursed as based on Genesis 9:1. However, Martyr interpreted that the curse was transmitted onto all of Ham’s descendants, Canaan being as a representing example of a sorts. [Goldenberg. The Curse of Ham, 2009, (ISBN 1400828546, 9781400828548), p. 158]

References

Comparisons in mythology

According to the text published in 1498 by the monk Annio da Viterbo purporting to be an ancient Babylonian chronicle ("Pseudo-Berossus"), 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. 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 account also abandons his wife who had been aboard the ark and had mothered the African peoples, and instead marries his sister Rhea, daughter of Noah, producing a race of giants in Sicily. Viterbo's text, while finding scholarly acceptance in the 16th century, has been widely dismissed as a forgery since ca. 1600.

Commentators

1. Origen (ca. 185-254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” - Homilies on Genesis 16.1.
2. Mar Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306 – 373): "When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.”
3. The Cave of Treasures, 4th century Syriac work, gives the explanation that Canaan's curse was actually earned because he revived the sinful music and arts of Cain's progeny that had been before the flood. "And Canaan was cursed because he had dared to do this, and his seed became a servant of servants, that is to say, to the Egyptians, and the Cushites, and the Mûsâyê, [and the Indians, and all the Ethiopians, whose skins are black]."
4. Ishodad of Merv, the Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, (9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendants.”
5. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, a Persian historian (c. 915), recounted a version of the story where Noah cursed both Canaan and Ham to slavery, on account of Ham's action of seeing his father naked and not covering him.
6. Eutychius, an Alexandrian Melkite patriarch, (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.”
7. Ibn al-Tayyib, an Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, (d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.”
8. Bar Hebraeus, a Syrian Christian scholar, (1226–86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendants… And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’”
9. Anne Catherine Emmerich, a Catholic mystic (1774-1824): "I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang".
10. John Brown, a Scottish Anglican Divine, published The Self-Interpreting Bible (1778). Genesis 9:25 footnote reads: “For about four thousand years past the bulk of Africans have been abandoned of Heaven to the most gross ignorance, rigid slavery, stupid idolatry, and savage barbarity.”

References

Needs fixing "Nevertheless, most Christians 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."

Too many pov edits to the line to trust it. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I also note that Whitford p 20 says :... one striking example , the belief that blackness as well as servitude were the result of Noah's curse upon his son Ham ( or Cham ) is shared by Christian , Jewish , and Muslim commentaries from the forth to the twelfth centuries .: Doug Weller talk 07:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Hope you're doing well, Doug. I changed the {{disputed}} tag to the inline version targeting the specific content you were noting here, which I believe, based on your notes here, was the intention? If not, and/or if I have your intention wrong, feel free to revert or change it back. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@ButlerblogThanks. I've taken this off my watchlist, trimming it down as much as I can. My research on archaeology and racism grows and grows, I'm finding more and more relevant topics and a lot of sources - reading them is really time consuming, turning them into article sections more so! And categorising existing articles, some of which don't even mention the blatant racism involved in the subject. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Those rabbit trails can be enlightening and interesting. It's one of the things that I love about wikipedia - I end up going down those paths and learning a lot! Knowing this is off your watchlist, I may ping you for input if the situation warrants (assuming that's alright with you - I know you've got more important things going on). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Yes, "rabbit trails" is a great description. Love them. I had no idea when I started my draft I'd find so much. Makes it a really major project. I need to decide when to go live, but my lead is hopeless at the moment. Do ping me if needed. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog still working on this, added some sources but need more. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think what you've got there pretty much covers it. The original sentence has changed over time to have more clarity than when the article was originally tagged (IMO). Does it seem reasonable to add a section in the article that expands on this? I think it is mentioned briefly in one or two places, but not in a specific standalone section that identifies the progression of thought over time. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog It might. Still too weak from chemo to deal with it though. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Hoping for the best for you with this round. While my situation is absolutely nothing like what you're going through, I'm bogged down with grad school presently. But if I can make it through midterms, I'll take a stab at it. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog thanks. Scan Thursday, results a week after. Good luck with midterms. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I know it's drifting off topic, but just want to say I hope for the best with your scans, I know this series has been rough. I wish I had the right words to say - I just feel inadequate to find them. I'm sure you'll post an update to the community via your user talk? ButlerBlog (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I will. Scan Thursday, results a week later. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Hey, sorry for the late tag. Which part of this do you take dispute with? Is it the "race is never mentioned" part or is it the "most now disagree with" part? Delukiel (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Delukiel " most now disagree", there is no question about the fact that race isn't mentioned. Changed it to many, added some sources, more would be good. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Works for me! Delukiel (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller also, Muslims do not follow the Bible. it is inaccurate and unfounded to claim that Muslims justified slavery because it's mentioned in the Bible. the holy book for Muslims is the Quran which does not contain justifications for slavery. 2601:196:8500:E1D0:41FB:B5AA:9F75:34DE (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Anon IP: There are sources that show Muslim writers referring to the curse of Ham as the cause of dark skin. These are documented by secondary sources such as Goldenberg's The Curse of Ham Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and Black Morocco A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam by Chouki El Hamel. Goldenberg is used in sourcing this article, El Hamel is not (currently). ButlerBlog (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Although the Quran is the primary holy book of Islam, the Bible is still an important book for Muslims. The Quran itself describes the Torah as something Allah "revealed." It should be easy to find information like this on the Islamic view of the Bible with a simple Google search. Moreover, even if they did throw out the Bible (which they don't), they definitely don't throw out all of the characters and events from the Bible. 49.239.68.154 (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Book of Enoch

according to book 3 of the book Enoch, Noah was the first child born with a different nature with skin whiter than snow and redder than a bloom of rose, and hairs on his head whiter than white wool and his eyes were like rays of the sun. 105.113.70.232 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In other words, Noah was the first child born differently from the suppose nature of man. Skin colour, hairs and eyes. 105.113.70.232 (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

European origins of connection between Ham, blackness and slavery?

Under the section 'Racism and Slavery' we find the following claim:

In the 15th century, Dominican friar Annius of Viterbo invoked the Curse of Ham to explain the differences between Europeans and Africans in his writings...Through these and other writings, European writers established a hitherto unheard of connection between Ham, Africa and slavery, which laid the ideological groundwork for justifying the transatlantic slave trade.

Note the word 'hitherto'. However, in the following section, we are told

the version brought in a midrash goes on further to say "Ham, that Cush came from him" in reference to the blackness,[50] that the curse did not apply to all of Ham but only to his eldest son Cush, who migrated to sub-Sahara Africa

suggesting it was in a Jewish midrash that the connection was made between Ham and blackness/Africa, presumably taking us back to the ancient world. The following paragraph says that

Some medieval Muslim writers – including Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, and even the later Book of the Zanj – asserted the view that old biblical texts describe the effects of Noah's curse on Ham's descendants as being related with blackness, slavery, and a requirement not to let the hair grow past the ears.

Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is a 9th century figure, making the Ham/blackness/slavery connection five centuries before Annius and co. So what is going on here? LastDodo (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Without looking entirely at the larger picture, perhaps Annius used al-Tabari as a source and was in essence brining this idea into the Western world from what was already in the Middle East? But, just spitballing here... I just threw that out as that's how I would probably start to approach it, looking for more sources to support that, and then rework what would appear to be an inconsistency in the article. If that's what you're inclined to do, have at it.* Maybe there are sources out there that tie this together? (*Just don't do it in a way that ends up being WP:OR or, more likely, WP:SYNTH.) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay so I have come across a book called The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2003) by David Goldenberg, that examines the question of the origin of the connection thoroughly. I do not have the book but there is a review on jstor here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43044433?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

According to that review:

His book is the result of thirteen years of steady research and presents what is often highly technical scholarship and linguistic analysis in a readable, cogent manner. His index of hundredes of primary ancient sources include Targum texts, apocryphal and psedpigraphal works, Greek and Latin authors, Hellenistic-Jewish, rabbinic, early Christian, Islamic, ancient Near East, Qumran, and Samaritan writings; this list does not even include ancient works that he cites infrequently or does not discuss at length (413). He also cites 1,478 writers in his "Index of Modern Scholars." As these indices imply, Goldenberg's research been thorough.

So the book is not to be sniffed at. It is also already cited a number of times in this article. Here is what he found:

...Goldenberg reports that he found no link between skin color and slavery in Jewish sources from antiquity and late antiquity or in early Christian sources. Instead, a commentary thread referring to Canaan as having black skin first appeared among Muslims in the second century before Christ. An explicit link between blacks, slavery, and the curse is made later, in the seventh century after Christ, also in Arabia. This link occurred precisely "when the Black became strongly identified with the slave class in the Near East, after the Islamic conquest of Africa" (170)...The curse was born but still had not gained currency among Christians. It first appeared in the Christian West in the fifteenth century as Europe discovered Africa and started to trade slaves.

I am assuming the word 'Muslims' is meant to be 'Arabs', as there were no Muslims in the second century BC, and that would make sense of the phrase 'also in Arabia'.

So in summary, the connection between Ham, blackness and slavery dates to 7th century Arabia, presumably amongst Muslims, since it results from the Islamic conquest of Africa (north Africa I assume, given the date). It was passed to Christians in the 15th century when they started trading in African slaves. That is at least Goldenberg's conclusion. LastDodo (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. There are two copies of that book on archive.org, one of which does not need to be borrowed: [1] ButlerBlog (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The Goldenberg books sounds detailed and authoritative. I hope some editor used it to explain the origins of this mess. Pete unseth (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Questions

I really like how this section reads:

"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""

And I like it because it's engaging, and makes clear the difficulties with this curse. However, I think this is the only article I've seen that uses successive questions like this. Is this in style with Wikipedia? I have no objection to it either being removed and kept. Delukiel (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)