Talk:Curse of Ham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Curse of Ham" is a blatant unbiblical lie used by racists to justify slavery of Blacks, and those who lie about what the Bible says

Paul Barlow, please explain one more time how you singlehandedly trumped the literally hundreds of sources who explicitly call 'the curse of Ham' a "MISNOMER", just because YOU say it is not a misnomer. This is the biggest lie of the last 1000 years and you seem to be the one pushing it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I support User:Til Eulenspiegel on this one.  — Jasonasosa 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Calling the section justification of slavery is an even bigger misnomer, as slavery cannot be justified, and all attempts to apply the Curse of Ham to slavery were objectively way off (Canaan hasn't been on the map for how long?). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Til is so obtuse. The Curse of Ham is not a mismomer, because Ham was the one who was cursed. The confusion here is with the concept of a curse on Hamites. Ham was cursed. Ham was the one who did the bad deed, so he was cursed with the punishment that the descendents of one of his sons (Canaan) would be servants of servants. That is why it is called the curse of Ham. It is not a curse of Hamites (all descendents of Ham), but it have never been called that so there is no misnomer as Til falsely claims. It is very sad that Til's witless edit summaries are being taken seriously by editors who should know better. The fact that the curse was used an argument that Hamites as a whole were - or somehow should be - enslaved is a separate issue. It shouldn't be difficult to understand this difference, really it shouldn't. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No one cares about your synopsis. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul B is absolutely right. This is not a misnomer at all. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how curses are placed on the head of a family and have repercussions through the generations. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, ALL of the sources say it is a MISNOMER except maybe for the few ones written by ignorant types who want us to think the Bible says "God cursed Ham". Since all the sources overwhelmingly agree it is a misnomer, it really doesn't matter what you two wikipedia editors think, since your original research is not qualified to dispute all of the sources who call it a misnomer. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources that I've already put together in the main article. Til is absolutely right. It doesn't matter what you all think.  — Jasonasosa 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Blargh. Realize I'm late to this but I still stand with Paul Barlow on this. I looked at the cited sources and they still don't support the idea that the Curse of Ham is a "misnomer". And, as usual, the bizarre ranting about "blatant unbiblical lie" and whether slavery can objectively be justified is 100% beside the point in what should be scholarly, neutral, encyclopedia article. "Go-betweens and the colonization of Brazil, 1500-1600 " isn't online and doesn't sound like a very relevant source anyway; even if it outright says it is a misnomer, it's not literature on point. The "A History of African Higher Education from Antiquity to the Present" book isn't really a good source for this, and doesn't seem to support the claim anyway - it calls the identification of Hamites as Egyptians "bogus science," which is obviously true, but not relevant to the terminology. It then goes on to talk how "Hamites" were not shorn of their inferior status "as descendents of the accursed Ham. "The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" is more on point, saying that the idea that Ham was cursed is wrong and that it was explicitly Caanan that was cursed. It then goes on to discuss the long trend of writers who interpreted it as a curse on Ham anyway since Ham was the one who sinned and that seems rational, and the various reasons why and the details. And yes, Goldenberg agrees that the identification of the Curse as on Ham helped fuel racism and the idea that all Africans are cursed. (Of course, as Paul Barlow already said, this usage to justify slavery of "Hamites" is beside the point.)

Goldenberg is the best source in support of calling the Curse of Ham a "misnomer"... but it's still not exactly on. Goldenberg clearly *agrees* that the curse is easily misidentified as on Ham and even cites an abolitionist recalling the Genesis story as being on Ham; his point is more that the Biblical curse was against Caanan, and "The Curse of Ham" is a sociological phenomenon that developed after the fact that helped justify racism. (See p. 167 - an assumption that Ham must have been cursed for the story to make sense, sheer error, an environment primed to believe blacks should be slaves, and etymology as Ham=dark meant "The Curse of Ham was born." So at best, taking Goldenberg as the only source, might indicate there should be two related topics - the original Biblical story "Noah's curse upon Caanan", and "The Curse of Ham" which was a belief that blacks = Ham's descendents should be enslaved. That still isn't a misnomer, and citing Goldenberg to claim so is sketchy! If we used Goldenberg only - which I wouldn't agree with - the opening paragraph would be something like "The Curse of Ham is the belief that Ham was cursed in the Bible used to justify subordinate status and slavery for Africans, based on the Biblical story in Genesis 9." Anyway, Goldenberg isn't the only source, so let's just stick with bland and neutral instead? We can talk about whether it's really a curse on Ham or not and the sociological use later in the article. SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Metcalf, Alida C. (2005). Go-betweens and the colonization of Brazil, 1500-1600 (1st ed. ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. p. 164. ISBN 0292712766, "Goldenburg further argues that the "Curse of Ham" is a misnomer... the biblical text actually says that Noah cursed Canaan, Ham's son." This book is published by the University of Texas Press, established in 1950 and is part of the University of Texas at Austin. It publishes scholarly books (See About UT Press). Alida Metcalf is also recognized by Google scholar. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 17:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said at the top of this thread - there are literally HUNDREDS of sources explicitly stating that "Curse of Ham" is a misnomer, and one utilised by white supremacists at that. I think Frederick Douglass even specifically called it a 'misnomer' in the 1850s, if I'm not mistaken. Yet, it never ceases to amaze me how random wikipedians every so often will come out of nowhere, and declare that they are right on their own authority, while each and every one of the sources calling it a 'misnomer' must be unreliable, because these wikipedians "know" the "truth"! This at least shows us that there is still a lot of ignorance out there to dispell! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Important information; Contributions undid; Censorship?

Hello wikipedists. I have tried several times to make contributions to this topic. I've studied it deeply in college, and I also made a lot of research about this topic in many sources, that's why I consider that the following contributions are useful and encyclopedically valuable. Yet, another wikipedists have undid my contributions several times, first without explaining why, then accusing me of 'original research'. I added more references to my contributions to make it clear that it was not such thing, and that instead, all of it appears on what you call -reliable sources- and publications. Once again my contributions have been undid, and I've been accussed of edit warring. They told me to get a consensus first, and here I am to ask you to consider this matter. I know that surely, these contributions may not suit biased perceptions of this topic, especially of those with anti-Christian prejudice, but I know too that there are too much misinformation out there, and there have been people, scholars apologists and historians who have studied deeply this matter to clarify things and formally report their discoveries. I ask you to comment and say your opinion (with sensible, neutral, tolerant arguments) about the following information, which I would like to include in the article. Thank you in advance.

• ...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 two thousand years .... due to the fact that the story does not explicitly say which was the transgression, nor how the curse was executed.Goldenberg 2003, p. 157

• Some interpretors claim that the story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites. [ref name="Alter 2008 52–53"> Alter 2008, pp. 52–53 ] However, in the 17th and 18th centuries the narrative was interpreted by some religious organizations such as Jews, Muslims and Christians... Nevertheless, nowadays most of Christian denominations strongly disagree with such interpretation provided that in the original biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, race and colour of skin are never mentioned, and the one who curses Canaan is Noah, not God. This perspective argues that, racial implications are completely out of context in the story of Genesis 9, [ref: Whitford, David Mark (2009), "The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era", Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Oct 21, page 1; 35] and that the curse is spiritually invalid due to the fact that God had actually blessed Noah's descendants, :ref Genesis 9:1 ; Cary D. Wintz (1988), "Black Culture and the Harlem Ressaissance", page 33; Tokunboh Adeyemo (1997); "Is Africa Cursed?: A Vision for the Radical Transformation of an Ailing Continent", WordAlive Publishers, page XXXI; Stanley M Wagner, (2006), "Onkelos onto the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text: Genesis", Geften Publishing House, page 53] and He never cursed Ham,[ref: Frederick K. C. Price (1999), "Race, Religion & Racism: A bold encounter with division in the church", page 149; Carlisle John Peterson (1991), "The Destiny of the Black Race", page 228; http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/node/1190] nor Cannan, or his sons.[ref: John Brown, [David M. Goldenberg (2009), "The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam", Princeton University Press, page 158 ; John Brown (1798), "A Dictionary of the Holy Bible: Containing an Historical Account of the Persons and Places", University of Wisconsin, page 117]

• It is noteworthy that the curse was made by Noah, not by God. The theological importance of this is that most of biblical scholars assure 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 in the Bible. [Phyllis Wiggins, (2005) "The Curse of Ham: Satan's Vicious Cycle", page 41, 42; 48]. Actually, though the curse may be thought to have been upon Canaanites, still the lineage of Jesus Christ [Genealogy in Matthew Chapter 1] includes prominently two non-jewish women: Rahab, who indeed was a Canaanite, and Ruth, a Moabite. [Henrietta C. Mears (2011), "Founders of Our Faith: Genesis through Deuteronomy: Genesis through Deuteronomy: From Creation to the Promised Land ", California, Gospel Light Publications, page 35] Biblical scholars such as Ken Ham have presented this fact as an evidence that, in fact, the curse was not effective upon Canaanites, stating that Rahab, must have married an Israelite (descended from Shem), and his union was approved by God regarless the "people group" she came from. [Ken Ham (2007), "New Answers Book Volume 1", New Leaf Publishing Group, Jan 1, 2007, Section: "Rahab and Ruth]

European/American slavery, 17th–18th 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 18th and 19th centuries. [Benjamin Braude, "The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, "William and Mary Quarterly LIV (January 1997): 103–142.] See also William McKee Evans, "From the Land of Canaan to the Land of Guinea: The Strange Odyssey of the Sons of Ham,"American Historical Review 85 (February 1980): 15–43 ["Swift Superstition">John N. Swift and Gigen Mammoser, "'Out of the Realm of Superstition: Chesnutt's 'Dave's Neckliss' and the Curse of Ham'", American Literary Realism, vol. 42 no. 1, Fall 2009, 3]

• The 17th-century scientist Robert Boyle, who also was a theologian and a devout Christian, refutes the idea that blackness was a Curse of Ham in his work Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours (1664). [ref: David Mark Whitford (2009), "The curse of Ham in the early modern era", page 174-175; Nina G. Jablonski (2012), "Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color", page 219 ] In his book, Boyle explains that the Curse of Ham used as an explanation to the complexion of coloured people was a misinterpretation embraced by "vulgar writers", travelers, critics and even "men of note" of his time. [Robert Boyle (1664), "Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours", Henry Herringman, London, page 160] In his work, he challenges that vision and explains:

• "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..."

  — Boyle (1664)

• Other authors also talk about how, in this sense, the justification of slavery itself through the Curse of Ham suited the ideological interests of the European elite and slave traders, who used the racialized version to justify the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour. [Tim Robinson (2007), "Racism: a History", (BBC Documentary)]
• Historian David Brion Davis also assures 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 any curse. Ref: David Brion Davis Sterling Professor of History Yale University (Emeritus), "Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World", Oxford University Press, Apr 1, 2006, pages 67-68]
• Many theological works have been devoted to clarify that the biblical narration says nothing about a curse on black people, insisting that, in contrast, the Bible doctrine teaches that all people, regarding race or culture, are created in God's image, and that God cares only about spiritual fidelity, not race. Ref: [Henrietta C. Mears (2011), "Founders of Our Faith: Genesis through Deuteronomy: Genesis through Deuteronomy: From Creation to the Promised Land ", California, Gospel Light Publications, page 35]

Thank you in advance --Goose friend (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no anti-Christian bias, and I have no problem with cited viewpoints being added, but one reason I rolled it back was the quality of the edits. They are very hard to follow in English, and full of distracting spelling and syntax errors as well, and the sheer bulk of the addition makes it a lot of trouble to wade through. Since this is one of our most controversial articles, where practically every existing paragraph has already been heavily discussed and tweaked by several parties until everyone was satisfied with the neutrality from all vantagepoints, may I suggest that you go much slower and more gradually, maybe a little bit at a time, to avoid the appearance of a drastic overhaul of the information already being presented? That should give everyone better opportunity to see what value is in this material and present it in an optimally readable fashion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Eulenspiegel. It's good to know that. I didn't say "you" have it, I said that "these contributions may not suit biased perceptions" of this topic. Anyway, I thank you very much for explaining this. Editing a page in Wikipedia is not easy, nor quick, and I'm sorry for the spelling/ syntax errors I may have committed. I'm not very aware of them (English is not my mother tongue), but I will take your advice of going slower in the article, because I really want this information to be known.--Goose friend (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theory I keep encountering. Who in authority is pushing this idea?

What religious or political figures from around the world are pushing the fringe idea that Noah was black and Ham his son was cursed with white skin and as such homosexuality is a white disease since Ham sodomized his father? It's a steady undercurrent in debates about homosexuality that I keep getting slapped with on YouTube, FB and other forums but no one will say who preaches it. The people pushing the idea seem to be tied to Black Nationalists or World Wide Africa movements. Here is a typical explanation of the concept from a a web site in Ghana. Is this covered in some other article? Is it from a church in Ghana? New Black Panthers? If there is reliable sources tying the idea to these groups; it is not mentioned in their articles. Homosexuality opposition is not mentioned in those articles at all. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me vaguely like the Nuwaubian Nation, but with under 1000 believers they are scarcely of significant notability for this article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That article doesn't have any mention of homosexuality either.

Ah, I found some source material. It's from Rastafarian interpretation of the bible as they being the original Israeli's and as such the original Israeli's were black skinned. The Blacks who were cursed in the Noah-Ham story were afflicted with a disease that turned them white thus giving birth to the white race page 331 of Chanting down Babylon: the Rastafari reader. The curse was also implemented on Miriam. Rastafarians are notably very anti-homosexual but I don't see the logical path tracing the curse to homosexuality being 'White Man's Disease' in this source. This book Chanting Down Babylon is a critical work on Rastafari and cites a primary source book of The Promise Key published in 1935 by Leonard P. Howell. The Rastafari movement has an entire portal on Wikipedia so I think this warrants some addition to the article. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very widespread notion in the movement nowadays; more Rastas are learning about Ethiopian traditional history which rejects the "curse of Ham" from Noah applying to anyone except Canaan, son of Ham, and also makes Ham the first ruler in Ethiopia before Cush. His Majesty Haile Selassie always spoke of such things reflecting the Ethiopian perception, but never the one that has white people descended from Ham, or the curse being meaningful to God, since it was a curse from Noah after drinking heavily the night before, not a curse from God. Some earlier Rasta notions have been largely abandoned in light of the "Teachings of His Majesty" for example in 1933 the "first Rasta" treatise used "Adam-Abraham-Anglo-Saxon" as a disparaging term, this is outdated, but perhaps understandable in light of the confused views of the Bible experienced by colonial Jamaicans up to that point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Arab slave trade

Editors familiar with the sourcing of this article are encouraged to contribute to Arab slave trade and it's talk page, as that article can utilize some additional sourcing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Christians and Muslims

Watching Eyes has repeatedly removed the reference to both Christians and Muslims interpreting the Curse story as an explanation for black skin. This is a clearly sourced statement. Here and elsewhere in the article Goldenberg and other authors are cited. They quote from numerous passages by Muslim writers who make this interpretation. There is no doubt that Muslims said this. There were other Muslim writers who disagreed (which is also true of Christian writers), but that's neither here nor there. Watching Eyes' first edit summary claimed that Goldenberg's is a "zionist book" and "clearly biased", which is an absurd claim. His books are published by Oxford UP and Princeton UP presses. A previous editor called MehKh, whose only ever edit it was, made the same deletion. MehKh, who may or may not be identical to Watching Eyes, removed the statement with the edit summary "I'm fairly certain that there isn't even one Muslim that knows of such a thing in the Quran, And I mean The Curse of Ham. I, Myself, is a Muslim And I've never Heard of it. before i read it here on Wikipedia". This indicates a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Saying that "Muslims" did or said something is not the same as saying that it is a part of their religious belief. There is no statement that the Curse caused black skin anywhere in the Bible either. It is not part of any Christian creed or church dogma. Both Christians and Muslims extrapolated from the Biblical story of Noah, which is alluded to in the Quran, to reach that conclusion. Apart from some fringe white supremacists, no Christian or Muslim believes that now, so the fact that you haven't heard of it is completely irrelevant. Hardly any Christians will have heard of it before they read it on Wikipedia either. Paul B (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The curse has been mentioned in the Talmud which is the holy book of the jews (it is even regarded by some as more important than the Torah itself) and the bible, but it has never been mentioned in the Qur'an or the Books of Hadith, and if it has been mentioned by some muslim historian like Ibn Khaldūn (born about 7 centuries after the death of the prophet Mohammad) that does not make it ingrained in the Muslim tradition, unlike the jews who still look down at black as manifested by the quotes of Rabi Ofadia Yosef (former chief rabbi of israel) about Hurricane Katrina:

"There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study... Black people reside there [New Orleans]. Blacks will study the Torah? [God said], Let’s bring a tsunami and drown them... Hundreds of thousands remained homeless. Tens of thousands have been killed. All of this because they have no God... Bush was behind the [expulsion of] Gush Katif, he encouraged Sharon to expel Gush Katif... We had 15,000 people expelled here [in Israel], and there [in America] 150,000 [were expelled]. It was God’s retribution... God does not short-change anyone"

Another wild claim made by the writer was a quote from Goldenberg's book, that Islam is a religion with long history of slave trade, which is a false claim, as a matter of fact, there are certain penalties imposed on muslims who sin, one of them is freeing a slave as mentioned in the quran chapter 58 verse 3:

"And those who make unlawful to them (their wives) (by Az-Zihar) and wish to free themselves from what they uttered, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch each other. That is an admonition to you (so that you may not return to such an ill thing). And Allah is All-Aware of what you do".

On the other hand, it is common knowledge (among historians at least) that the slave trade throughout history has been dominated by the jews. not least the atlantic slave trade.

and having books published by big names like Oxford or others, does not mean that Goldberg is not a die hard Zionist and clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingEyes (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The full documented list of Muslim authors who wrote that blacks were cursed to slavery by Noah's "Curse of Ham" actually does go all the way to the time of the prophet (Ibn Ata), according to the sources present in the article so far. You don't dispute that it is a documented teaching of Mediaeval Muslim scholars, you seem to be arguing that we all have an obligation not to report this fact because it doesn't fit in with your teaching. But the way wikipedia works is, if Mediaeval Muslim scholars taught such a thing, and it is documented, then we are allowed to say that Mediaeval Muslim scholars taught such a thing and that it is documented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not "common knowledge" that slave trade was dominated by Jews. It's a load of baloney. Of course there were Jews involved with the slave trade but it was dominated by Muslims first and Christians later. Your quotation from the Quran does not even have any relevance to the issue at hand, since it is about freeing slaves, apparently as a punishment for sin, and not about skin pigmentation. Not only does that have no relevance to the topic, it clearly implies that the Quranic text supports slavery. Also, I have no idea why you are referring to Gush Katif. What has this to do with skin colour? Ofadia Yosef is an extremist, but even so he said nothing about the curse of Ham, only that black people (according to him) don't study the Torah. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth putting something in on the flip side with regards to this Islamic opinion, so we keep what has already been stated and also have reference to a more "orthodox" opinion? For one thing, the belief of the incident of the drunkenness of Noah does not exist in the Islamic tradition as it is held that prophets are infallible, hence the curse of Ham is not plausible. The opinions quoted from Goldberg (if correctly cited) do not reflect the majority of scholarly opinion.M2k41 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's a matter of *historical* belief (you are correct of course that this isn't the majority opinion now, but I think the article gets that across?). As for your comments on the infallibility of prophets in Islam, you are assuming that actual people consistently apply the implications of their religion, which simply isn't true. Look at, say, the Christian temperance movement in the 1800s & early 1900s, despite Jesus blatantly drinking wine, turning water into wine, etc. These were very sincere Christians who genuinely believed that the Christian Bible prohibited alcohol consumption (as the Quran does). In the same way, I'm sure there were very sincere Muslims who simply didn't know about, denied, or explained away the drunkenness part of the story. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Muslim use of the Curse concept

A new editor is repeatedly attempting to add claims that the curse concept contradicts the Farewell Sermon. We should be using reliable sources not websites, nor should we be adding our personal views about whether something contradicts the Quran or the Bible or the 'true' tenets of a religion. This is only relevant if notable commentators have taken that view, in which case we should be quoting those commentators, not making assertions as fact. We should also be situating interpretations in historical context. Re rthe Sermon, a popular transtlation circulating on the internet refers to the equality of 'black' and 'white', but this is not accurate as the relevant Wikipedia article currently explains. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The hadith of Musnad Ahmed is a source worthy of citing. It's not a personal view that Jarir and Khaldun's asserting that blackness was a curse comes into direct conflict and contradicts the part of the farewell sermon transmitted in Musnad Ahmed Hadith No. 22978 regarding superiority of skin color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd Precedent (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are sumply quoting an unreliable website. I challenge you to find any scholarly source that ever refers to "black and white" in narrations of the farewell sermon(s). There is no reference to skin colour differences in any of the authoritiative versions of the sermon(s), so one cannot say that it is somehow a fact that this is what Muhammad stated. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The website isn't unreliable, and on what are you basing your claims of unreliability on? Do you speak Arabic? Musnad Ahmed, Hadith 22978 and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Hadith 19774, which has the longest transmission of the sermon out of all hadith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd Precedent (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the websirte is an unreliable source (I am using 'unreliable' in Wikipedia's sense of the word. See WP:RS). We cannot just cite any old website. I am basing it on the fact that all other narrations make no reference to skin colour, so we cannot present it as fact that this is somehow the "true" version. In any case you miss the point that it is not for us to say that an historical scholar has somehow got the religion wrong by "pointing out" texts that allegedly contradict them. That falls under WP:OR. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed ibn Hanbal is a reliable source. Hanbal is the founder of one of the 5 universally accepted Madhabs (schools of thought) in Sunni Islam, and is one of the most trusted and reliable religious authorities in the history of Islam. The mere fact that he recorded and published it is enough of a reason for it to be noted in the article since a significant part of it has Muhammad making a statement completely contradictory to that of whatever color/racial issues encompass the "curse of Ham". First you claim it was never in the sermon, now you have a problem with the fact that there are other versions that differ? Pick a qualm. I challenge you to find a scholarly argument against Hanbal's not being the generally accepted version, because it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd Precedent (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that it is. You have so far failed to do so. And you still fail to understand the point that we can't just add material that says an historical interpretation is somehow wrong - because we say it is, based on primary sources. I will remove the content again unless you read WP:RS and WP:NOR. See also WP:SYN. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source and you have so far failed to show how ahmed ibn Hanbal isn't a reliable source when referencing a Hadith. If you take it down, then I will remove your Khaldun and Goldenberg citing re: "Islam's long history of enslaving black Africans" since it is a well established fact, including established here on Wikipedia, that the Middle East was an area with a long history of slavery in general, well before the inception of Islam, not based on the targeting of any particular race for said slavery, and included the enslavement of Europeans, Arabs and other Asians (i.e. George Kastrioti Skanderbeg, Piruz Nahavandi, Zayd ibn Harithah etc.). When concerning Muslim involvement in a subject of this nature, you can't cite relevant texts from figures like Khaldun who wasn't a theologian, but a historiographer and philosopher who didn't represent the Islamic religious thought of any madhab, religious establishment or sect and is not regarded as a religious authority in any capacity by his contemporaries or modern Islamic theologians or clerics and then omit legitimate Islamic theological sources. It's lopsided and baseless for you to cite sources like the Book of the Zanj and Khaldun , neither of which represent Islamic thought, merely the thought of certain Muslims of that time, and then omit relevant texts from Ahmed ibn Hanbal, who is easily one of the foremost authorities of Islamic theology in the history of the religion, as well as omitting citations from the very holy book of that particular religion being touched on in that part of the article, when every other religion discussed has had it's actually holy book cited. If the problem is that it was a website with his text that was cited, then I will find the actual text and use that as a citation as well, otherwise, the citation is relevant and appropriate. Stating that the curse of Ham concept adopted by certain Muslims and the Hanbal citation contradict each other isn't based on opinion, it's based on obvious rudimentary logic and obvious fact that the two come into direct conflict with one another. Odd Precedent (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In Islam

Found this relating to the source used in this article[1]: "Early Islamic scholars debated whether or not there was a curse on Ham's descendants. Some accepted that there was, and some argued that it was visible in dark skin. According to David Goldenberg,

Just as in Jewish and Christian sources, so too in Islamic sources do we find that it was not Canaan who was cursed with slavery, but Ham instead of or in addition to Canaan. So, for example, Tabari (d. 923), quoting Ibn Isaq (d. 768), Masudi (tenth century) and Dimashqui (thirteenth century). Ham appears as the recipient of the curse so regularly that the only Arabic author Gerhard Rotter could find who specifically limits the curse to Canaan is Yaqubi (d. ca 900). In all others the descendants of Ham were enslaved.[11]

Goldenberg argues that the "exegetical tie between Ham and servitude is commonly found in works composed in the Near East whether in Arabic by Muslims or in Syraic by Christians."[12] He suggests that the compilation known as the Cave of Miracles (Abrégé des merveilles) may be the source. This text states that "Noah cursed Ham, praying to God that Ham's sons may be cursed and black and that they be subjected as slaves to those of Shem."

However, Ibn Khaldun disputed this story, pointing out that the Torah makes no reference to the curse being related to skin color and arguing that differences in human pigmentation are caused entirely by climate.[13] Ahmad Baba agreed with this view, rejecting any racial interpretation of the curse." 11 Goldenberg, 164. 12 Ibid. 13 Solors, Werner. Neither Black nor White Yet Both: Thematic Explorations of Interracial Literature. Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0674607804. 90. 14 Solors, 91. Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Boehme explanation in Mysterium Magnum

The Thirty-Fourth Chapter

How Noah cursed his Son Ham, and of the Mystical Prophecy Concerning his Three Sons and their Posterity

http://selfdefinition.org/christian/jacob-boehme/mysterium-magnum/chapter-34.htm Steve Harnish (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing (no pun intended)

The story immediately points out that it's a "misnomer" and that while "some" Abrahamics saw it as justification for slavery, all have long rejected that. But it completely fails to present the fact that, as Goldenberg writes in his very introduction, that very belief went nearly unchallenged among the common folk for a good two thousand years. The first mention of controversy is only about who was cursed and why! How can what may have been the most often cited justification for slavery of all time be presented like this? Like it was some minor fringe belief? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Outside of judaism and islam, this rationale was at its peak during slavery and after slavery during colonialism in africa, late 1800s early 1900s. It was always attacked as fringe so that's what all the sources tell us and certainly it is fringe today. if you have reliable sources for official adoption of this theology by any religious or political organization we should know which organizations ever did so. 71.246.154.72 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Weakness, uncovered, wife

Wife isn't mentioned in the source, nor weakness of an argument: "l7Steinmetz, "Vineyard," p. xx, says, "Who then violates and who is violat- ed? Noah is violated, but I suggest that it is not just by Ham that he is vio- lated. The narrative implies that Noah takes part in his own humiliation, that he, in effect, sets the stage for the son's violation of his father. Not only does Noah make himself drunk; he becomes 'uncovered within his tent' (9:21). Just as 'seeing' nakedness is more than seeing, 'uncovering' is more than uncovering. To 'uncover' nakedness is the other term which the Bible uses to describe sexual immorality. [E.g.. throughout Leviticus 18 and 20; in 20:17 the terms 'to sec' and 'to uncover' nakedness are both used to describe the same act] That there are two parts to Noah's humiliation is supported by the verse which describes the actions of Shem and japhcth: 'Shem andjaphcth took the garment, and they put it on the shoulder of both of them, and they walked backwards, and they covered their father's nakedness; and their faces were backwards, and they,.did not see their father's nakedness' (9:23)."" Doug Weller talk 16:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Curse of Ham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711111017/http://good-amharic-books.com/images/PDFs/Gentee_04.pdf to http://good-amharic-books.com/images/PDFs/Gentee_04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050311114146/http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/Ebony%201956.htm to http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/Ebony%201956.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing "Latter Day Saint Movement" section to reflect other Wikipedia articles.

The association of any church with slavery is a sensitive issue. However in the interest of continuity I do not believe the statement "In the following year, Smith taught that the Curse of Ham came from God, and that it demanded the legalization of slavery. He warned those who tried to interfere with slavery that God could do his own work.[71]" accurately and fully summarizes the main article, "Mormonism and Slavery". The main article is here quoted, but later in the same article it includes the assertion from some historians that "Joseph Smith made these statements to distance the church from abolitionism, and not to align with pro-slavery positions, but it came across as supporting slavery." Perhaps the phrasing "it demanded the legalization of slavery" is a little too bold a claim in both articles and does not reflect the source materiel? Thoughts? I will leave this one as-is for now.

In light of the research cited in the main article, I move to include the subsequent sentence from the main article as well: "While Smith never reversed his opinion on the Curse of Ham, he did start expressing more anti-slavery positions."

I will cross-post a topic in the main article in case they have any other suggestions.Thedibster (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that sentence relied on original research synthesizing the letter. I have replaced it with wording that more closely reflects Bringhurst's summary. I think that summary from the main article is fine. FreePeoples (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Orphaned references in Curse of Ham

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Curse of Ham's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Harris2015":

• From Mormonism and slavery: Harris, Matthew L.; Bringhurst, Newell G. (2015). The Mormon Church and Blacks. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-08121-7.
• From Black people and Mormonism: Harris, Matthew L.; Bringhurst, Newell G. (2015). The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-08121-7.
• From Egyptus: Harris, Matthew L.; Bringhurst, Newell G. (2015). The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-252-08121-7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Supposed"

Just about everything in this article is supposed.

The Bible is pretty clear that Noah curses Ham's son Canaan.

The existence of Noah, Ham, and Canaan are supposed as well.

Whether or not any black people are descended from Canaan (...or, ya know, the Canaanites instead) is a different issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Misconception Section is Entirely Subjective and Contains Factual Errors

This entire section is almost entirely subjective and contains several errors of omission. The premise of the section itself implies subjectivity: On whom's authority can the author claim that the justification for slavery is a misconception? Moreover, this assertion: "The Curse of Ham, as construed by agenda driven, pro-slavery intellectuals like Palmer, gave a biblical depth to the justification of slavery that couldn't be found anywhere else within the Christian Framework" is demonstrably false. Justifications for slavery are found throughout the Old and New Testament—see ["The Bible and slavery"]. Please fix this section. Gdrope8 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. You're welcome to take a crack at it yourself. Of course, edits on such a politically loaded question will often attract attention, so it's possible that someone will undo your edit, depending on the exact details of how you do it. As long as you're willing to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and willing to discuss things with other editors when they disagree with you, there's no reason for you not to just go right ahead and work on fixing the article. I left a welcome message on your talk page containing some of our basic policies and guidelines. Hope that helps. Alephb (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Loshon Ora

The sin that Ham (Chem), which means land of the the black, and warm as in southern, and the land where every Biblical Character had to traverse to ascend to a higher level of knowledge and consciousness (as in the root of the word Chemistry) committed was Loshon Ora. The commandment against bearing false witness against thy neighbor. There was already a precedent for the punishment, it was that the skin would become white. This occurred in the old testament, once with Marian when she spoke against the Cushite (Black ) woman Moses had married and the other when Moses's hand is made white as a consequence of his speaking ill against either himself or (the children of God) the Israelites. Ham and Noah and all the people after the flood, were black-skinned since they came from Adam whose name in Hebrew means Earth. Some see the mark of Cain as white skin also. And they are before Laban, whose name means white and recall he and Jacob were in conflicted roles. The curse on Canaan would have been white skin since this is the curse for Loshon Ora, Canaan, who had not been born, may represent the people the Israelites met upon entering the promised land. Canaan was born white (a sign of leprosy) so the curse did not fall on Ham who was already black but beautiful. It would also explain why it was a curse since if you trace the genealogy you see that Shem and Japhet shared in Ham's lineage and many of their descendants are brown people and becoming white was still thought to be a sign of shame and sin as Leprosy was a curse. Also, the story of Ham was written during the period when the Israelites had reached Canaan and were in conflict with them, it was not written by Moses. It may have been the author J who is attributed to have written the part of the old testament that contains some of the Noah stories. The confusion seems to have come with the advent of African Slavery but remember before Black Africans were enslaved whites were enslaved by the Moors. So the idea of black slavery would have come during the black slave trade which was mostly brought on by those who owned the ships. They may have been the people who publicized the misinterpretation of the story for the benefit of enslaving Africans. To understand this and all the stories in the Bible Mythology, one must know when these stories were written and by whom since we all know they could not have been written by Moses and God. And to repeat them as truths have been very damaging, it goes against the very commandment of bearing false witness. Many Non-Hebrews did not understand that Mariam and Moses exhibited Leprosy as punishment for the sin of Loshon Ora. This would only be understood by Hebrews since it is not part of Christian mythology This is why most Christians think only of the soldier Naaman when Leprosy is discussed. This story has been repeated with its prophetic punishment since the people who repeated it used it to harm another group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmya Tolo (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Goldenberg

Goldenberg, in his second book "Black And Slave: The Origins and History Of The Curse of Ham" claims that the dual curse of Ham appearing in the Israiliyyat actually derives more directly from a hadith rather than the rabbinic sex-in-the-ark-story. He cites a work by Hunwick and Harrack that quotes a hadith from ibn Hakim, narrated by Ibn Masud wherein Ham is turned black for watching Noah bathe. Slavery is not mentioned, but the story is more reminiscent of the Bible's slavery tale regarding Canaan than the rabbinic story.

Although Genesis Rabbah cites an opinion implying that Ham castrated Noah, and this was the reason for Ham's descendants becoming dark-skinned it does not mention specifically black Africans or apply a curse of slavery to anyone other than Canaan. The first explicit connection between blackness and slavery draws on the aforementioned hadith and extends Ham's direct cursing to include both blackness and slavery in the works of Wahb Ibn Munabbih sometime before 725 to be followed a few decades later by an Arabic translation of the Christian work "The Cave Of Treasures" that links Canaan to blackness. It is thought that early versions of curses on Ham and Canaan are largely etiological explanations rather than justifications, so the switch from Canaan to black Africans reflected the early Islamic conquest of North Africa and the fact that the majority of slaves in early Islamic society had as their source populations from beyond the borders deeper in the heart of black Africa. CMoreo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:81F0:44C0:F960:5100:8260:8CB7 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting LDS reference in first paragraph

Hello,

The first paragraph of each article is to provide a good overview of the topic. I feel that the line: "...in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery,[5] particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6][7][8]" (emphasis added) is well cited but misleading and inappropriate for the overview.

While LDS beliefs indeed are generally notable in the context of black skin, the way this phrase reads implies that this equally applies to slavery, which is not the case. (Additionally, the sources are not relevant to the claim that LDS beliefs are particularly well associated with the topic beyond others and are already cited in the dedicated subsection "Latter Day Saint Movement" under "Origins of the misnomer"-- perhaps a source from a historian would be more appropriate).

A reading of the generally excellent "Mormonism and Slavery" article and its sources suggest that LDS positions on the issue of slavery specifically was significantly different than the full-throated defense offered by many Southern Christians. As such, I suggest two possible edits:

"...in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery." (deleting the LDS reference)

"...in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (deleting the slavery reference)

Of these I feel the former most accurately preserves the important point of the Curse of Ham's interpretation over the years while not being misleading. I would love input from any of you before I make this edit however. Is there somewhere else we could put the slavery reference? Do people feel strongly about the LDS point of view being more important than the other aspects of the article that it needs highlighting in the overview? Thedibster (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the particularly was the part of the black skin rather than the slavery, but I agree it was poorly worded. The most unique part for the LDS is the new scripture about the curse of Ham as well as the staying power of the curse within Mormon doctrine, not the slavery part. I have written a new paragraph summarizing the unique aspects of the LDS take on the curse of Ham. FreePeoples (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Mormon Church does not teach the Curse of Ham Theory. At all! It certainly didn't originate in LDS Theology. When searching for "Curse of Ham" on the main LDS website, only 6 articles show up, and they aren't even relevant. By placing anything referencing the LDS Church in the overview is misleading at best, and trolling and lying about it at worst. This material is not even relevant to Mormonism in general as this is someone else who is interpreting Mormon scripture and reading into it their own bias. Mormons do believe there was a curse, but they are taught it originated with Cain, not Ham. We need to stop conflating the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgurr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

An article lead is not the place for detailed discussion, which should be reserved for a more specifically focussed section. This article already has just such a section. So I propose removing this material from the lead and incorporating it into the LDS section, its natural home. If there is still felt to be a need to maintain some LDS vestige in the lead, then it should also be accompanied with similar brief statements about other (i.e. non-LDS) institutions. I propose doing this in about a week, unless there is significant disagreement. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There being no objection, I have just significantly reduced the detail in the lead. The material in the relevant section remains unchanged. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Is there any mention of the phrase"discovering his father's nakedness" as relating to Ham having intercourse with his mother, which resulted in the birth of canaan? Mouze52 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"an [sic] husbandman"

The implication in "And Noah began to be an [sic] husbandman" is that "an" is an error. Of course it is simply standard English of its era and "an" occurs countless times in the KJV before h+ vowel, even when stressed. The bracketed insertion is the error.

If others agree I hope someone will delete the [sic]. Billfalls (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I think this use of "an" is common enough that it won't get mistaken for a typo. I've removed the "sic". DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction about Coptic church view

The article now says that the African Coptic churches did accept the Curse of Ham argument to justify slavery. There is a reference to an Amharic commentary on the crucial passage that rejects the curse as applied to Africans. In a later section of the article, there is a statement that the curse of Ham was believed by those in Abyssinia. The citation is old enough that it was from the days when the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was still under the Coptic church. So, we have a contradiction within the article. I hope some editor can clarify this. Pete unseth (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Muslims dont belive this

muslims dont belive this story and all of the current bible because its adultrated acoording to them the quran dont say this story 2001:16A2:C1E9:D233:5953:A11A:98B5:FE0D (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Issues needing correction in 2 Jubilees sections

The section on Jubilees under "Ham's transgression" needs one minor edit, but it has much more substantive issues in how it is phrased which would require major edits or its deletion. The minor edit is the phrase "Ham's curse." According to Jubilees (and Genesis) Ham is not cursed, Canaan is cursed. As mentioned elsewhere in the page, the interpretation that Ham was cursed is present in the history of interpretation. But it is not there in the book of Jubilees. Most likely, this section would make more sense if "Ham's curse" were changed to "Ham's transgression."

The more substantial issue is that this section has some errors and presents an argument that is very debatable rather than just the facts.

1. One error is that Jubilees 6:1-4 does show Noah offering a sacrifice in the context of God's making a covenant to never again destroy the earth with a flood, but the episode of Noah's drunkenness and curse of Canaan happens in the next chapter and years later. Jubilees 7:1 indicates that Noah plants the vineyard 7 weeks after the previous atoning sacrifice, and that he harvests it 4 years after that. Jubilees 7:2 adds that it is another year before he drinks wine from this harvest. All of this is to say that it is inaccurate to imply (as the current Wikipedia text does) that the sacrificial altar that Noah makes to atone for the land when God promises to never again bring a flood to destroy the earth is the same ceremonial context for the episode where Noah gets drunk and curses Canaan. They are years in time and a chapter in the text apart.
2. The section is correct in asserting that Noah is offering a sacrifice and celebration when he drinks wine. This happens in Jubilees 7:1-6. However, it is debatable whether one can say that it is like Shavuot "as if it were a prototype to the celebration of the giving of the Torah." Why would this sacrifice in Jubilees 7 be the prototype and not the previous atoning sacrifice in Jubilees 6? The statement as it stands is not a fact but an argument (if correctly paraphrased) from Devorah Dimant.
3. Although Noah does drink in the context of a sacrifice, it is not a fact that this context in the book of Jubilees makes it so "Ham's offense would constitute an act of disrespect not only to his father, but also to the festival ordinances." That is an opinion. Jubilees does not actually describe Ham's offense as disrespect or anything beyond the details in the biblical text: that Ham sees and tells his brothers (Jubilees 7:8). When Ham finds out that Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan, Ham is displeased and leaves to establish a home--actually a reputable city--far from Noah. Japheth get's jealous and leaves to establish his own respectable city. But Shem stays close by Noah when he makes a city (Jubilees 7:13-17). Thus, Jubilees seems to claim that the implications of the curse for Ham is that it explains how far away (in comparison with his brothers) he went when he founded a city. This is the most obvious way that differences between Jubilees and Genesis have implications for Ham. If there is anything especially critical about Ham's guilt, it can only be established by a very nuanced argument, not the clear facts of what the passage says.

The section on Jubilees under "Curse of Canaan" has one significant inaccuracy to fix. It states that an agreement to not take the land allotted to another of Noah's sons is the reason Jubilees provides for why Canaan "so rightly deserved the curse of slavery." However, Jubilees has two different curses of Canaan going on here. Canaan is cursed by Noah to be a slave of slaves in Jubilees 7:10 just like in Genesis 9:25. As in Genesis, this is related to Ham seeing Noah's nakedness. After that, Jubilees has an episode where all of Noah's descendants agree to enter into the lands to which they were allotted. During this episode, a new curse is introduced and invoked by everyone on themselves if they usurp someone else's allotted land (Jubilees 9:14-15). According to R. H. Charles' translation, this one is a curse "for themselves and their sons for ever throughout their generations till the day of judgment, on which the Lord God shall judge them with a sword and with fire, for all the unclean wickedness of their errors, wherewith they have filled the earth with transgression and uncleanness and fornication and sin." Clearly, the details of this curse and the fact that any of Noah's descendants who takes the wrong allotted land can get it means that this not the same as the curse of slavery for Ham seeing Noah's nakedness. In Jubilees 10:29-34, Canaan breaks this oath and his family warns him not to do it lest he bring upon himself that particular "curse by which we bound ourselves by an oath" (10:32). All of this is to say that Jubilees has this further episode (also there in 4Q181) to justify Canaan being cursed, but it does not justify the curse of slavery that Noah proclaimed after awakening from his drunkenness. In fact, the fact that it adds a different curse that is thoroughly justified might imply that the authors of Jubilees saw Noah's previous curse as unjust. Jayreed2 (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

For each of these, you need to have a specific source to cite that backs up what you're intending to revise and/or add. For your point #3 regarding Ham's offense would constitute an act of disrespect not only to his father, but also to the festival ordinances: There are appropriate ways to address that, which may include revising the way it's presented to attribute it to the source, rather than it being explicitly stated as fact. But in any of these instances, what you present must be WP:NPOV and come from specifically cited secondary sources that are deemed to meet the criteria of WP:RS. It cannot be your own POV or WP:SYNTHESIS of sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. For the first, minor edit before the three points, I don't think it needs a source. Simply put, it is in a sub-section titled Ham's transgression and that is what it is about, not the bigger topic of Ham's curse. (This point may be irrelevant considering what I propose below)

In addressing the rest of the section titled "Book of Jubilees" under "Ham's Transgression," I read the page numbers that are cited from Devorah Dimant, and I can see that the current Wikipedia page inaccurately conveys what the cited source says.

1. It is inaccurate to cite Devorah Dimant with the claim, "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.'" The article cites page 137. Actually, the quoted phrase occurs on 136. On that page, Dimant is explaining that Jubilees "turns Noah into a paradigm of correct morality of the renewed world." She then writes, "From the biblical story are taken the reestablishment of natural order, epitomized in the covenant God made with Noah, and in God's promises never again to bring a flood on the earth." Thus the phrase "never again bring a flood on the earth" is NOT used by the cited source to say anything about Ham or Ham's curse in contrast to what the Wikipedia article claims. Above, I commented that the Wikipedia article did not make sense on this particular point based on what is there in the book of Jubilees. Now I see that the author cited does not make the inaccurate claim presented in Wikipedia.
2. For point two, I commented on how the second and third sentence don't necessarily imply anything about the specific context of the story where Noah proclaims a curse because they are years apart in Jubilees. Having read the cited source, I now see that the cited secondary source does not make this mistake. Thus, although the Wikipedia article does partially convey Dimant's points about Noah in Jubilees presenting a sacrifice that is a prototype of Shavuot, Dimant does not say this has anything to do with Noah's curse on Canaan or Ham's transgression. Dimant is only concerned with what this implies about the depiction of Noah.
3. For point three, I said that the final sentence of the section is an opinion rather than a fact. @Butlerblog says it can be revised better to reflect this. I agree. Actually, it is partially a direct quote from Dimant. Unfortunately, since the sentences before it misconstrue what the cited source says, the quote now also misconstrues what the cited author intends to mean.

Considering all that is above, I propose the following revised paragraph:

According to Devorah Dimant, the book of Jubilees depicts Noah planting, harvesting, and drinking wine in accordance with the stipulations of the Torah such that Noah's drunkenness appears less problematic and Ham's offense appears more problematic than in Genesis. Dimant writes that the timing of Noah's viniculture and the procedure of Noah's sacrifice in Jubilees 7:1-6 match Second Temple Judaism interpretations of Leviticus 19:23-25 and Numbers 29:1-6 [Cite page 138]. Thus, she claims "<i>Jubilees</i> alleviates any misgivings that may be provoked by the episode of Noah's drunkenness. In this light, Ham's offense constitutes an act of disrespect not only to his father, but also to the festival ordinances." [Cite page 139]

For the section titled "Jubilees" under "Curse of Canaan," I wrote a long explanation to say that the last clause is inaccurate; "and so rightly deserved a curse of slavery" should be removed. My previous claim was based on what is literally there in Jubilees. Now, that I have gone and read the secondary source cited (from John Van Seters), I see that the Wikipedia article misconstrues what it cites. Instead of saying that the incident where Canaan steals land delineated for Shem makes it so that Canaan "rightly deserves the curse of slavery," Van Seters actually writes "Though he was warned by his own family, Canaan rejected their counsel and took upon himself the full force of a second curse." [p. 492]. Van Seters makes no claim that this passage from Jubilees shows Canaan deserved the earlier curse of slavery.

I propose deleting the last sentence of that section and replacing it with the following two sentences:

Later, however, <i>Jubilees</i> explains further that Ham had allocated to Canaan a land west of the Nile (Jubilees 9:1), and all Noah's sons agreed to invoke a curse on anyone who tries to seize land that was not allocated to them (Jubilees 9:14-15). But Canaan violated this agreement and chose to squat in the land delineated to Shem and his descendants, and so Canaan brought upon himself the full force of this second curse (Jubilees 10:29-35). [Cite the same source pages 491-492] Jayreed2 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Those revisions look good to me. I appreciate you going directly to the existing sources for review. Sometimes, that's a very necessary cleanup to an article because over time, if someone puts in something from a source, and other editors come along with changes to that original text without referring to the source, it can introduce "style drift". So it's always a good idea to verify against current citations. The only thing I'd recommend in those changes is using gender neutral language in the attribution - specifically, change "Thus, she claims" to "Thus, Dimant claims". Minorly, on point #1, double check the edition being used to make sure the citation and your copy are the same edition. If they are, change the page number to reflect the correct one. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead POV

Keep in mind that the lead is intended to simply summarize the key points outlined and expanded upon in the article. Further, the first paragraph, especially the opening sentence, needs to be a basic description of what the topic is, without opening the door to POV. To state that the topic is "a common misnomer" introduces POV into the opening sentence implies that the entire topic of the article is going to be a discussion of it being a "misnomer" and why it is "common", which it does not. The discussion of Canaan v. Ham is covered, but it is only one part of the article, not the entire thing. Further, the use of the term "common" would have to be expounded upon to explain why it is common, which the article also does not cover. It's essentially a weasel word that should be avoided if it cannot be explicitly supported. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this talk section. I am new to editing Wikipedia and trying to learn best practices.

Thank you for explaining how the first sentence functions and that it is intended to be a basic description of the topic without opening the door to a POV or other matters not prominent in the article. I disagree with you saying that "To state the topic is a common misnomer introduces POV." Perhaps the start of the article could be phrased better to reflect what I tried to summarize there.

The topic is not a misnomer; the phrase "Curse of Ham" is a misnomer if it is used to describe the general, current topic of this article. Dozens (perhaps more than a hundred) academic articles or books on the topic point that out. For that reason, some scholars use the more accurate term "Curse of Canaan" or "Noah's Curse" to describe the passage in in Genesis where Noah curses Canaan. In the bibliography cited at the end of this Wikipedia article, every work that includes "Curse of Ham" in the title (three sources by Goldenberg, one from CrhristainAnswers.net, and one from Whitford) do not use the phrase "curse of Ham" to describe a curse "imposed by the patriarch Noah upon Ham's son Canaan" (which is what the opening sentence says). They use the phrase "Curse of Ham" more narrowly to describe a history of interpretation that Ham or Ham's descendants are cursed.

The sources that I cited all point out the inaccuracy of the term "curse of Ham" to describe the narrative in Genesis although they don't use the term "misnomer." For example, the first one I cited says, "No other verse in the Bible has been so distorted [...] It is quite clear that as the text stands, the curse was not upon Ham" (Yamauchi, Africa and the Bible, 19). The other two that I cited make the same point with much more words. Each is saying that this is commonly thought of, interpreted, or referred to as "the curse of Ham" even though the biblical text does not have a curse of Ham.

I looked at Koala and see that the opening sentence of that Wikipedia page points out that the animal is "inaccurately, koala bear." And, of course, the rest of that long page is not about the inaccuracy of the term "koala bear"; only one short paragraph is. But that term is a common and inaccurate title for what the article is about. I was trying to get across the same thing in the opening line because it's a very similar situation: the common phrase used to describe the current topic is technically inaccurate and everyone who studies it knows this even though the phrase continues to be used. In popular discourse it might be used to describe what happens in Genesis and its history of interpretation. The writings cited on the topic only use it to describe the latter. To open the article by claiming that "The curse of Ham is described in the Book of Genesis [...]" just starts with a technically inaccurate statement that no expert on the topic would corroborate.

I added the sentence about how the history of interpretation is the reason that the term "Curse of Ham" continues to be used even though it is inaccurate. Perhaps that sentence does not need to be there or it could be revised so that it doesn't imply that the article is mainly about why the term "Curse of Ham" remains popular. Jayreed2 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear on the objection - it's not really an objection to pointing out that the term is inaccurate. That's known, and I don't have an issue with it. It's primarily the way in which was worded and presented. I was looking at the page on Canaan to see how it was handled there, which is This is the Curse of Canaan, erroneously called the "Curse of Ham" since Classical antiquity because of the interpretation that Canaan was punished for his father Ham's sins. I'd support something along the lines of:

The curse of Ham is described in the Book of Genesis as imposed by the patriarch Noah upon Ham's son Canaan. It occurs in the context of Noah's drunkenness and is provoked by a shameful act perpetrated by Noah's son Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father". Since the curse is actually upon Canaan, the term Curse of Ham is considered to be inaccurate (or a misnomer, or some other synonym).

Or something along those lines, anyway. Then, you can expand that in the article. I would probably include noting this toward the end of the Biblical narrative section as a transition to a new section or subsection (immediately following) that discusses the origin of the term and expanding on that. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)