Curse of Ham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curse of Ham (more properly called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Noah placed upon Canaan (the son of Ham), after Ham saw Noah naked because of drunkenness in his tent.
Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Ham" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.
The "curse of Ham" has been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.
Contents |
[edit] The curse of Ham in the Hebrew Bible
The source of the "curse of Ham" theology comes from Book of Genesis 9:20-27, which deals with the story of Noah's family, soon after the flood:
- 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Note that nowhere is Ham cursed for his actions, but only his youngest son Canaan; hence the very phrase "Curse of Ham" is actually a misnomer.
[edit] Interpretations of the curse of Ham
[edit] Modern interpretations
Some believe that the curse of Ham is an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.
Others have suggested that the curse actually came from Ham having a sexual relationship with Noah's wife: when it says that Ham saw his father's nakedness, it is taken to mean he had lain with Noah's wife and produced Canaan as their offspring, which is why Noah cursed Canaan. Similar wording is used in Lev. 20:11: "The man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness."
[edit] Interpretations based on race
[edit] Early Jewish interpretations
The name of Cush, Ham's second son, came to mean 'black' in Hebrew. Early Jewish scholars used this passage, and the idea that the Hamitic people were to be a "servant of servants", to rationalize the Israelite subjugation of Cush's younger brother, Canaan. These scholars, working around the 6th century AD, introduced the idea that the sons of Ham were marked by dark skin.
From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b: "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin."[citation needed]
[edit] Early European interpretations
In the middle ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries. [1] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of black African labour. This interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches.
[edit] The curse of Ham in Mormonism
In Mormonism, the racial interpretation of the curse of Ham has taken a circuitous route. There was never an "introduction" of the doctrine into Mormonism by the movement's founder Joseph Smith, Jr., because he took the doctrine for granted, like most other white Christian Americans of his era. While Joseph Smith, Jr.'s was probably taught the curse of Ham doctrine much earlier, the first recorded indication of his acceptance of the doctrine is found in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831. (Manuscript History 19 June 1831).
In Latter Day Saint scripture, there is no unambiguous endorsement of the idea that the dark skin of any modern people is related to the curse of Ham, although the Book of Abraham, like the Bible, can be read that way. Alma 3:6-12 in the Book of Mormon renames the principles of the Curse of Ham as the Curse of the Lamanites whose skins were darkened as a curse by God because of their rebellion against Nephi, Jacob, Joseph and Sam, and stating that this was done so that their seed might not be mixed, as it would bring about destruction. Today, all the major Latter Day Saint denominations officially or at least tacitly reject it, despite the explicit command in the Book of Mormon. However, the doctrine is an important element of Mormon fundamentalism, which constitutes a very small branch of the faith.
[edit] The curse of Ham in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 |
The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements. |
After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, the church's second president, was a vocal advocate of the doctrine that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Ham, and that this curse was a rationalization for slavery and societal bans on interracial marriage.
In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Young also believed that as a result of this curse, modern people of African descent were banned from joining the Mormon priesthood. He believed this curse remained in people with even a single black ancestor, and that even Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews were denied the blessings of Jewish heritage due to their own Black-African ancestry[citation needed].
Other church leaders had taught that Ham, who preserved the "blood of the Canaanites",[2] was cursed for taking Noah's Temple garment (Genesis 9:22) without authorization and using them to re-create some temple rites, also without authorization[citation needed]. Because of this, Ham and his posterity were cursed from holding the priesthood and from participating in temple rituals (much like some of Aaron's descendants and Saul who lost the kingship of Israel for his posterity for performing unauthorized sacrifices - see 1 Samuel 15-16). As the sacred text states that Ham's descendants settled in Egypt after the flood, Mormon apologists often use this as an argument in favour of the similarity between some Egyptian rituals and some Mormon temple rites, often overlooking the fact that the Egyptians were themselves partakers of the curse and should not have been performing these rituals, let alone being the examples of modern Mormon rituals. In any case, Pharaoh's descendants were not to hold the priesthood, according to this teaching of the Curse of Ham.
In 1978, after decades of criticism inside and outside the church, the church announced a revelation officially renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood. Although the church never yet officially stated that the racial curse of Ham doctrine was false, many top church leaders and influential LDS theologians have essentially conceded that the doctrine was not divine truth. For example, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:
- "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." ("All Are Alike Unto God", pp. 1-2).
When asked, church spokespeople generally repudiate the curse of Ham doctrine. However, despite urging from a number of black Mormons, there has not yet been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake. In 1998, there was a report in the Los Angeles Times that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Ham and related curse of Cain doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation. (Larry B. Stammer, "Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks", L.A. Times, May 18, 1998, p. A1). This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre. (ABC News report, May 18, 1998). The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the church to put an official disavowal on hold. (Stammer, "Mormon Plan to Disavow Racist Teachings Jeopardized by Publicity", L.A. Times, May 24, 1998).
[edit] The curse of Ham in Nuwaubian mythology
The Nuwaubians, under Dwight York, reversed the usual racist interpretation of the curse of Ham. In their teaching, the curse was leprosy which in its extreme form whitened the skins of the Canaanites:
"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
At this point Ham became terrified, and this affected his nervous system, which sent messages to his brain and affected his pineal gland, which produces the melanin. Stress and fear can cause many complications in the way a person's body may respond....
There is a saying that goes, "I was scared pale."
Ham was stressed at this moment in his life. He was what you would call a manic depressive. It is a known fact that stress can cause skin defects, because what affects your nerves can affect your skin. If a regular person could scare you "pale," just imagine what could happen if the unknown was made known to you. This is exactly what happened when the Aluhum stepped in, it scared Ham pale. But this didn't happen to him physically, it affected his genes and it came out in his fourth son, Libana, Canaan. [3]
The paleman is a Hamite through Ham’s fourth son, Libana (Canaan) whose descendants inherited his curse of leprosy...[4]
[edit] References
- David M. Goldenberg (2003). The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World). Princeton Univ. Press. ISBN 0-691-11465-X.
- Stephen R. Haynes (2002). Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-514279-9.
[edit] Notes
- ^ 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
- ^ Abraham 1:21
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Messenger and Advocate
- Sermon on separate heavens and race relations in Mississippi
- Jasher 7 An account of the theft of the garment by Ham is found in Jasher 7:24-29.
- Black people cursed in the Bible
