The curse of Ham (actually placed upon Ham’s son Canaan) occurs in the Book of Genesis, imposed by the patriarch Noah.
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”.
The exact nature of Ham’s transgression and the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned have been debated for over 2,000 years!
In first millennium Babylonia, looking at another person’s genitals was indeed regarded as a serious matter!
Some ancient commentators suggested that Ham was guilty of more than what the Bible says!
The 2nd century Targum Onqelos has Ham gossiping about his father’s drunken disgrace “in the street” (a reading which has a basis in the original Hebrew), so that being held up to public mockery was what had angered Noah; as the Cave of Treasures (4th century) puts it, “Ham laughed at his father’s shame and did not cover it, but laughed about it and mocked.”
Other ancient commentaries have also debated whether “seeing” someone’s nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g., Leviticus 20:17).
The same idea was raised by third-century rabbis, in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), who argue that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him.
The same explanations are found in three Greek translations of the Bible, which replace the word “see” in verse 22 with another word denoting homosexual relations.
The castration theory has its modern counterpart in suggested parallels found in the castration of Uranus by Cronus in Greek mythology and a Hittite myth of the supreme god Anu whose genitals were “bitten off by his rebel son and cup-bearer Kumarbi, who afterwards rejoiced and laughed … until Anu cursed him”.
(The Dead Sea Scroll) 4Q252, a pesher (interpretation) on the Book of Genesis found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, explains that since Ham had already been blessed by God (Genesis 9:1), he could not now be cursed by Noah.
The 4Q252 scroll probably dates from the later half of the first century BC.
A century later, the Jewish historian Josephus argued that Noah refrained from cursing Ham because of his nearness of kin, and so cursed Ham’s son instead.
A new alternative interpretation of 4Q181, which is a Dead Sea scroll of Genesis, parallels the Book of Jubilees, suggesting that Canaan was cursed because he defied Noah’s division of the land.
Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century BC Jewish philosopher, said that Ham and Canaan were equally guilty, if not of whatever had been done to Noah, then of other crimes, “for the two of them together had acted foolishly and wrongly and committed other sins.”
Rabbi Eleazar decided that Canaan had in fact been the first to see Noah, and had then gone and told his father, who then told his brothers in the street; this, said Eleazar, “did not take to mind the commandment to honour one’s father.”
Another interpretation was that Noah’s “youngest son” could not be Ham, who was the middle son: “for this reason they say that this youngest son was in fact Canaan.”
Genesis 9:25: Cursed (ארור) is Canaan: Noah said to Ham:
“You caused me that I should not father a fourth son, another one to serve me.
May your fourth son [Canaan was Ham’s fourth son, see Genesis 10:6] be cursed by serving the offspring of these greater ones [of Shem and Japheth]… What did Ham see that he emasculated him?
He said to his brothers Adam the first man had only two sons (Cain and Abel) yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world [Cain killed Abel over a dispute how to divide the world between them according to Genesis Rabbah 22:7] and our father has three sons yet he seeks still a fourth son.”
Genesis 9:26: …Blessed is יהוה the God of Shem:
“Who is destined to keep His promise to [Shem’s] offspring to give them the Land of Canaan” and he shall be: “Canaan shall be to them as a servant to pay tribute.”
Genesis 9:27: and Canaan shall be a slave to them.: “Even after the children of Shem will be exiled slaves will be sold to them from the Children of Canaan.”
In 1578, George Best, a sea captain who was a member of the Elizabethan court, first popularized the myth of racial differences within what would be a widely read book on the search for a Northwest passage to Asia.
Best used careful ethnographic descriptions to portray the indigenous peoples of North America as being sophisticated hunters and gatherers, not different in spirit than the white Englishmen.
At the same time he presented a scathing account of Africans, saying that they are a “black and loathsome” people on account of being descendants of the “cursed chus”.
Best does not mention the curse as lying upon Ham, but rather upon Chus.
FLASHBACK
The chapter 9 of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, says that Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham (the father of Canaan) and Japheth from whom the whole earth was populated.
Noah began to be a husbandman and he planted a vineyard.
He drank wine, became drunk and uncovered himself in his tent.
Ham, Noah’s son, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers about it.
Shem and Japheth took a garment, walked in backward and covered the nakedness of Noah.
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his younger son had done to him, he said:
“Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren!” (Genesis 10:25).
The above episode indicates that Noah imposed the curse upon Canaan and not upon Ham.
According to the Bible, Canaan was the name of Ham’s son; this name is also used to refer to Phoenicia.
The Bible refers to Phoenicia (ancient name of the area of Palestine only to the Jordan River) as Canaan.
After Abram reached Canaan it became the Promised Land of Israelites (Genesis 13:12-17).
Moreover, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis, Canaan was the name of a son of Ham and grandson of Noah.
“The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.” (Genesis 10:6).
Racist context
Over the time, certain religious groups spread fake teaching that Ham had a black skin because he was cursed by Noah.
This teaching was used to justify racism and slavery of people with color skin across the world.
The explanation that black Africans, as the “sons of Ham”, were cursed, possibly “blackened” by their sins, was sporadically advanced during the Middle Ages, but its acceptance became increasingly common during the slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
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 African labour.
In the biblical account, Noah and his family are not described in racial terms.
But as the story echoed through the centuries and around the world, variously interpreted by Islamic, Christian and Jewish scholars, Ham came to be widely portrayed as black; blackness, servitude and the idea of racial hierarchy became inextricably linked.
By the 19th century, many historians agreed that the belief that African-Americans were descendants of Ham was a primary justification for slavery among Southern Christians.
An attempt to make Ham an object of Noah’s curse although the Bible says that the curse was imposed on Canaan and moreover, the Bible says nothing about the results of the curse is a misinterpretation of Biblical texts, which pursues the aim to fan racist sentiments in society!
While Genesis 9 never says that Ham was black, he became associated with black skin, through folk etymology deriving his name from a similar, but actually unconnected, word meaning “dark” or “brown”.
The next stage are certain fables according to ancient Jewish traditions.
According to one legend preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, God cursed Ham because he broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and “was smitten in his skin”;
according to another, Noah cursed him because he castrated his father.
Although the Talmud refers only to Ham, the version brought in a midrash goes on further to say “Ham, that Cush came from him” in reference to the blackness, that the curse did not apply to all of Ham but only to his eldest son Cush, Cush being a sub-Saharan African.
Thus, two distinct traditions existed, one explaining dark skin as the result of a curse on Ham, the other explaining slavery by the separate curse on Canaan.
The concepts were introduced into Islam during the Arab expansion of the 7th century, due to cross-pollination of Jewish and Christian parables and theology into Islam, called “Isra’iliyyat”.
Some medieval Muslim writers—including Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, and even the later Book of the Zanj—asserted the view that the effects of Noah’s curse on Ham’s descendants included blackness, slavery, and a requirement not to let the hair grow past the ears, despite the fact that this contradicted the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad regarding skin color and racial equality, most notably in his last sermon.
This is also in spite of the fact that the account of the drunkenness of Noah and curse of Ham are not present within the text of the Quran, the Islamic holy book, and not consistent with Islamic teachings that Noah is a prophet, and prophets do not drink alcohol.
Islam holds prophets of God in very high esteem, and some Muslims suggest the prophets are infallible.
Historically, other Muslim scholars such as Ahmad Baba al-Timbukti criticised the Curse of Ham narrative and went on to criticise the association of Black African’s with slaves.
Others, such as Ibn Kathir, more broadly criticised the Isra’iliyyat tradition, and avoided using such reports when explaining verses of the Quran.
An independent interpretation of the curse being imposed on all of the descendants of Ham persisted in Judaism, especially since the other children of Ham were situated in the African continent; i.e., Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites, and Phut the Libyans.
To be continued…
Exclusive to African-Research.com
