Talk:Curse of Ham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

Contents 1 Pronoun Ambiguity 2 Needs references 3 Mormonism had universally accepted it 4 Abrahamic category 5 Reference for dark skinned Christ 6 Weasel Words 7 Brigham Young and the curse of Ham 8 Origin of Kushites' Black Skin -- from the Talmud 9 My fault

[edit] Pronoun Ambiguity

the First sentince suffers form pronoun ambiguity. I am not farmiliar enough with the story to correct it, but the pronoun "his" should be replaced with either Ham or Noah, depending on which person it refers too.

Per the discussion on Curse of Cain, I've moved portions to Blacks and Mormonism that does not deal directly with the Curse of Ham. Mormon's views on blacks and slavery may or may not relate to these two doctrines, and is certainly intermingled, but the references do not specifically relate to the Curse. If all Mormon views in the early church on blacks are to be removed, then let's be consistent. -Visorstuff 18:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs references

This statement needs some reference

"especially as the principal enemy of Christendom was Islam, which dominated North Africa. Despite the fact that Islam originated with the Semitic Arabs, European imagery often stressed the blackness of the Islamic Moors and associated them with the 'cursed' sons of Ham."

Although I agree that Europeans had to deal with the Arab invasions, the Arabs also had written negative racist theories about Black people in the 8th century onwards.

[edit] Mormonism had universally accepted it

I removed "the racial interpretation of these references have never gained universal acceptance within all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement" because this is statement is false.

When something is not univerally accepted, there is dissent. I found no dissent(no arguement against the Curse of Ham being on Black people) from the period of 1831 - 1950. ALl of the leaders, all of the officials, and any writer who wrote on the issue who had any representative position of the Mormon church wrote in favor of the Curse of Ham being on black people. No one wrote, "the curse of ham is not on black people". Universally, it was accepted from the outset of it's presentation in 1831 until at least 1950, and I am being very generous as it honestly wasn't even discussed until the late 70s. Any unilateral reverts will be removed--208.254.174.148 13:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be considering only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there are some denominations who claim never to have accepted this doctrine, such as the Community of Christ, as well as many of the more recently-formed denominations. I do understand your point, however, for the period between 1831 and 1844. I'll change to reflect. COGDEN 18:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic category

The category is correct - this relates to abrahamic religions - christianity, judaism, etc. -Visorstuff 20:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for dark skinned Christ

A reference you could check that clearly demonstrates how the very oldest portraits of Christ show Him as dark skinned, beginning with the Mandylion:

the book Holy Places, Secret Faces by Ian Wilson.

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi CS, Thanks for leaving a talk message and not just reverting. Here's the reference from a BBC article: "First - if the past 2,000 years of Western art were the judge, Jesus would be white, handsome, probably with long hair and an ethereal glow."[1] This directly contradicts what the article now says (and the tone's a bit off, isn't it?).

And there's this:

The man in this portrait may have an olive cast to his skin, but that is not what's meant by "dark-skinned." IronDuke 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you would check the book by Wilson, who is a scholar on the subject, you would see that he directly conteadicts the BBC saying Jesus is depicted as white. The earliest pictures of him all show him as being dark skinned and there are numerous examples. Do some research and look up the Wilson book before reverting again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Wilson is in fact a scholar, except in a very general, popular sense. He did graduate from college, but that's all I see. WP identifies him as "fringe." The book you cite is out of print, and available at few, if any, libraries. I suppose I could spend the 77 bucks and order it online, but I'm not gonna. Instead, can I direct your attention again to the BBC source and to the image that is right next to this paragraph?

Or perhaps these would sway you?

IronDuke 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not sway me, because no matter how many depictions showing him as white that you could come up with, it does not un-do all if the authentic depictions of a dark-skinned Christ that are far older that I have seen with my own eyes in the Wilson book. And he is most definitely a scholar and one of the foremost authorities who has written a number of books on this very subject, he is by no means "fringe", and his books are easily found in almost any public library. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking past each other. I have no fixed idea as to the color of Jesus' skin: black, white, green -- doesn't matter to me. My concern is this paragraph:

"Needless to say, such a contorted and racialist interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches -- nor was it present in Europe before around 1400, as most of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. clearly depict them as being dark-skinned."

I've shown above how JC was presented as white (ish) in Europe prior to 1400. Indeed, almost all scholarship shows that JC tended to be represented in most cultures as having features of the dominant local race. I have no doubt that African churches had darker depictions, but we're speaking of Europe in the above graf, no? And as for Wilson, I see no advanced degrees, and no professional affiliation with any University in his bio. IronDuke

Yes, we are speaking of Europe. The pictures in question showing Him as dark skinned are located mostly in Italy. No matter what Wilson's credentials are, the pictures in his books do exist and they are far, far older than 1400. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, can we quote Wilson then on what pictures he's referring to? I'm thinking here of a graf that will basically state that there are different European renderings and quoting the experts who've made the various assertions. IronDuke 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilson devotes a large part of this book to discussing one particular image similar to the one above in the Vatican, that is now located in Genoa. This Genoa image stands out from all the rest, because it is infinitely more life-like than the others. He reasons that the Genoa image is the real original that was reputed in the Middle Ages to be "Made without hands" and that the others, including the Vatican one, are all copies. However, the Genoa image clearly shows a man of color. Other old copies or images that also show the dark skin color, as reproduced in his book, include:

• The 'holy face' 'Santa Faz' or 'Santo Rostro' as preserved in the Cathedral of Jaén, southern Spain
• the 'holy face' preserved in the Convent of Santa Clara, near Alicante, southern Spain
• An attempted 'facsimile' made in 1617 by Pietro Strozzi, secretary to Pope Paul V, now in the Schatzkammer of the Hofburg Palace in Vienna
• the 'holy face' of Laon, made as a copy ca. 1249 by Jacques Pantaléon of Troyes; in his accompanying letter Pantaléon even writes: "Do not be surprised if you find his [Christ's] face blackened and sunburnt, for those who dwell in temperate and cold climates and who live all the time in pleasant places, have fair, delicate skin, whereas those who are always in the fields have burnt, darkened skin. This is the case with the Holy Face, bronzed by the heat of the sun, as the SOng of Songs has it..."
• The representation of the Veronica shown in the early 15th c. Prayer Book of Philippe le Hardi, Duke of Burgundy, shows a face that is entirely black.

Then there is the 'Acheropita' icon in the Vatican that dates to at lest 754, but as it actually shows more of a dark olive-skinned man, the "race" could be debateable. This is also the case with other ancient depictions of the Veronica seen in an 11th C. Vatican Codex (Bib. Vat. Codex Rossianus 251, fol. 12v); an 11th c. Greek Menologion in the Patriarchal Library, Alexandria; the 11th c. Christ Pantocrator fresco in the Basilica of Sant'Angelo in Formis, near Capua, Italy, and many others. Plates clearly showing all of these images may be seen in Wilson's book. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the crux of the issue for me is this: "as most of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. clearly depict them as being dark-skinned." Some expert has to say that -- neither you nor I may simply assert that. I don't doubt that you believe the pictures in your book show a dark-skinned man, but we cannot accept your interpretation of them, nor mine, and make a sweeping generalization. We can only refer to experts. IronDuke 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of interpretation. All the pictures I listed clearly show a dark skinned man, period. It's like arguing what color the sky is and demanding a reference. Except that you refuse to even look in the book yourself that I gave as a reference, so you are arguing about what these images show, without having even seen them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Em, I don't have the book, and it is not available anywhere near me. And that's leaving aside whether Wilson is really a "Scholar" for WP purposes. But all of that is beside the point: we are assessing whether "most" early interpretations show a dark-skinned man. Someone reputable has to say that. I see no evidence that any scholar of any sort has. Even if I looked at your book and agreed with your conclusions, our putting those conclusions in would be WP:OR. IronDuke 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Even most Coptic images of Jesus show him as lighter skinned than is the norm in Ethiopia. Almost all early images of Jesus are Greco-Roman, using fairly standard conventions typical of those cultures. They are not dark-skinned. Paul B 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Codex, Not only did I read the talk page, I added a comment as you can see. Don't you think you should read the talk page before commenting on whether or not a person has read the talk page? I have seen many many early images of Jesus and have many books on the subject. I don't know of a single early image that depicts him as "dark skinned" in any meaningful sense. Show me one. This is an Afrocentrist myth. Paul B 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not an Afrocentrist myth. The dark skinend images are found all over Italy. Please pick up the source I already gave for evidence, Holy Faces, Secret Places, by the expert Ian Wilson, before reverting again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have given no evidence at all. You just refer to one rather obscure book, but don't name any of these alleged images. You could link to images on the web. There aren't that many pictures of Jesus from ther Roman era - which is the only period that can reasonably be called "early". Do you even have a clear idea of the date of these images? Do you know anything about the history of art - in particular of the effects of weathering and soot on icons? There are many damaged and darkened icons that's for sure, but genuinely early images such as the one from the from the catacomb of Commodilla bear no resemblance to these. Paul B 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed given evidence, are you sure you read the above? I have now bolded part of my earlier response for you to be able to find easier. Please find this book in any public library, it is the foremost authority on early images of Christ. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This book is by a journalist not an art historian. It is not in my academic library - which has several serious books on the history of Christian art. His theory is little more than pure journalistic speculation. The other images that you refer to are typical of the kinds of icons that suffer extreme discolouration due to long use. They are worthless as evidence and they are clearly not images that date to before the fourth century. Paul B 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what you are speaking about and haven't even seen the book. It is unrivalled for scholarly detail regarding images of Christ, he is an art historian and not a journalist, and it was not written to push any theory. Find the book first before writing a review of it, for crying out loud. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who evidently know nothing whatever about this subject. Have you read any serious books on the art history of images of Jesus? Farrar's classic "Christ in Art" is the foundation of modern literature on the subject. No, I have not seen this totally non-notable book, which is not written by an art historian with any legitimate expertise in religious iconography. Ian Wilson has no qualifications in art history. He is essentially a journalist who is a "Turin Shroud" fan and has written books on ghosts, reincarnation, Nostradamus, and other sensationalist subjects. His approach seems to be based on notions of the transmission of "special" images that have nothing to do with real art history, in which we can clearly see the development of portrayals of Jesus from Greco-Roman traditions onwards. None of the genuinely datable early images show Jesus as dark skinned. Of course, that tells us nothing about the appearence of Jesus, only about the artistic conventions that were used. Indeed the notion that ancient artists would have preserved a tradition of representing his distinctive skin colour is frankly absurd. Only someone with no understanding of ancient and medieval art could suggest this. Have you read Theophilus's treatise on painting faces? I have. There is almost no concept of depicting the distinctive skin pigmentation of an individual until the Renaissance. You would have to prove that an artist specifically chose to vary pigmentation to represent a particular person, and that this was not for symbolic reasons. You are are attributing concepts of realism to the period that did not exist at this time. Paul B 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have picked up this argument with Vandalproof, and I think everyone involved needs to chill. Is the race of Jesus so important? Everyone please remember WP:CIVIL, especially on talk pages. Also note that superfluous images wreak a hell on dial-up users. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

False statements should not be included in articles. Simple. The images have been here since June. Are you saying there should be minimal use of images in articles? Paul B 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of a "false" statement is a statement that can be either wilfully or unknowingly untrue. We do not know of which race Jesus was/is, and thus we cannot say one or the other as a fact. What we CAN say is that the generally accepted western view of Jesus is white, while the generally accepted eastern view of Jesus was dark-skinned (Middle-eastern, black, etc.) Paintings made 400 years after Jesus' death are not tangible proof. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor is it a place to push religious beliefs.

As for the images, What i meant were the clump of images above in the talk page that were posted. Cheers.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PHDrillSergeant, if you are going to contribute to a debate please be sure to identify what the debate is about. It is not about the actual race of Jesus. It is about this sentence currently in the article: "in Europe, some of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. depict them as being dark-skinned." This is a false statement. None of the "earlier respresentations of Christ Mary etc." depict them as dark skined. All of the earliest representations are of Jesus, and they depict him according to Greco-Roman artistic conventions (depictions of Mary come later). There are some medieval icons that appear very dark, but that's due to discolouration and pigment degredation. None of these are genuinely documented as early images. Also, if you are going to quote WP policy, be sure you do so where it is relevant. This debate is about the content of the article and about notability of sources. It has nothing to do with soapboxes or pushing "religious beliefs". Paul B 08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this flaring up again. Paul, I am inclined to agree with you. Do you by chance have any sources that debunk the idea that Europeans depicted Jesus as in some way black? It would help. IronDuke 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes I do, but of course they are mostly negative. The evidence concerning the so-called "black Madonnas" and icons that are used in these arguments suggest that they date from the 12th century and onwards – old from our pov, but still nearer to our own day than to the life of Jesus. There have been several studies of these, mostly by French art historians. There is l'Enigme des Vierge Noires by Jacques Huynen (1972) and Leonard Moss's 1952 article, which divides them into three categories: those that were painted by people of non-European background; those that have darkened due to the use of lead-based pigments and aggregation of soot from tallow candles, and others that have no clear explanation: some of which are probably copies reproducing the tonality of revered icons. Note that all of these are from the 12th century or later. They are notearly images in any meaningful sense. The picture that Codex refers to is the Genoa Mandylion. As it happens this was subject to a battery of tests and historical analyses in 2004 as part of a major exhibition. These established that it dated from the 12th to 13th century – pretty much in line with other comparable icons. Details were reported in the Art Newspaper, June 8 2004 [2] [3] It's a sort-of axiom with Turin Shroud fans that the standard bearded-long-haired image of Jesus has to be traced to some authentic original, so they create these fantasies about icons that must trace back to some prototype inspired by the shroud. I guess that's what Wilson is doing, though I accept I haven't read his book. Its conclusions are anyway rendered obsolete by the 2004 study. In reality the earliest images show Jesus as clean-shaven and short haired. They are far far older than the icons referred to by Codex (one of which is 17th century!). Note that I don't want to replace the the text with one saying "all early images of Jesus show a white guy", I think the sentence should be deleted altogether, because it is both false and misleading. The dark-skinned images are late, not early. They are not evidence of some early tradition that was "whitewashed" away. They are more probably evidence of a late tradition to do with venerating "ancient looking" images, in which the darkness and weathering comes to be a sign of authentic age. Paul B 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think that does it. Thanks for that, Paul. I'm taking out the sentence until someone can find an authoritative source that says "in Europe, some of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. depict them as being dark-skinned." IronDuke 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

The following statements require editing in order to remove weasel words;

• Other church leaders had taught that Ham, ... was cursed for taking Noah's Temple garment (Genesis 9:22) without authorization
• 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, ...
• 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. --ErinHowarth 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brigham Young and the curse of Ham

I don't believe it is accurate to attribute the teaching of the Curse of Ham and the references to the Pearl of Great Price for justification of the preisthood ban. According to Lester Bush, Brigham Young exclusively referred to the Curse of Cain for justification of the priesthood ban. The Pearl of Great Price had not been cannonized yet. The fact that blacks were descended from Cain was a widely accepted fact in the days of Brigham Young, and his rhetoric never required the complexity of the Curse the Ham theory. According to Lester Bush, the Curse of Ham and the Pearl of Great Price were not used by the First Presidency to justify the prieshood ban until after the turn of the century (1900). Bush's book on this topic is out of print. Fortunately, the entire text is available online. Enjoy: [4]

[edit] Origin of Kushites' Black Skin -- from the Talmud

According to the Babylonian Talmud, all passengers on the Ark were under strict orders not to copulate with their mates. There were three rulebreakers:

"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." The footnote to this online version of the passage reads, "I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned."

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_108.html#PARTb

Perhaps someone can add this to the main article?

Is it relevant to the curse of Ham? The curse was that Canaan (not Cush) would be a slave to Shem and Japhet. PiCo 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My fault

I am sorry. I never believed it necessary to enlighten Noah, his descendents, or his progenitors about the concept of personal responsibility. Noah is responsible for his own drunkenness and nakedness and therefore should have cursed only himself. I apologize for three thousand years of human suffering and misunderstanding.DearGod 06:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)