The curse of Cain and the mark of Cain are phrases that originated from Genesis 4 where God declared that Cain, the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, be cursed for murdering his brother Abel. A mark was put upon him to warn others that killing Cain would provoke the vengeance of God, that if someone did something to harm Cain, the damage would come back sevenfold. Some interpretations view this as a physical mark, whereas other see the "mark" as a sign, and not as a physical marking on Cain himself. The King James Version reads, "...set a mark upon Cain...", the New American Standard reads, "... appointed a sign for Cain ..."[1]
Origins[edit]
Main article: Cain and Abel
The name Cain (He. qayin, meaning spear), is identical with the name Kenite (also qayin in Hebrew), which led some scholars to speculate that the curse of Cain may have arisen as a condemnation of the Kenites. In the Hebrew Bible, however, the Kenites are generally described favorably, and may have had an important influence on the early Hebrew religion (see Kenite Hypothesis).[citation needed]
There is no clear consensus as to what Cain's mark refers to. The word translated as "mark" in Gen. 4:15 is 'owth, which could mean a sign, an omen, a warning, or a remembrance. In the Torah, the same word is used to describe the stars as signs or omens (Gen. 1:14), the rainbow as the sign of God's promise to never again destroy his creation as with the flood (Gen. 9:12), circumcision as a token of God's covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:11), and the miracles performed by Moses before the Pharaoh (Exodus 4:8,9,17,28; 7:3; 8:23; 10:1,2).
Curse of Cain[edit]
The narrative of the curse of Cain is in the text of Genesis 4:11-16. The curse was as a result of Cain murdering his brother Abel and lying about the murder to God.[2] When Cain spilled his brother's blood, the earth became cursed as soon as the blood hit the ground. In a sense, the earth was left "drinking Abel's blood".[3] Genesis 4:12 gives a two part sentencing for Cain's curse. The first concerns the earth that was cursed by Abel's blood.[4]Should Cain attempt to farm the land, the earth would not yield produce for him. This may imply why he went on to build cities,[5] namely the City of Enoch.[6] The second part of the curse marks Cain as a fugitive (Hebrew: נע ) and wanderer (Hebrew: נד ). The combination of these Hebrew words (נע ונד ), "fugitive" and "wanderer" is unique in the Hebrew Bible. Modern interpretation of the Hebrew verse 12 suggest that Cain went on to live a nomadic lifestyle as well as being excluded from the family unit.[7] In the Septuagint, the emphasis of Cain's curse is dramatically increased by the combination of the Greek participles (στένων καὶ τρέμων) "groaning and shaking upon the earth".[8] Syriac Christianity[9] interprets the Greek version as Cain experiencing a real physical affliction[10] that when witnessed by others, they would know who he is. Philo interprets the Greek verse 12 as an allegory for Cain's fear of being soulless. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targums translate to "an exile and unstable".[11]
Christianity[edit]
Origen stated that all the descendants of Cain perished in the Flood, and that all humankind therefore descends from Seth.[12]
Mark of Cain[edit]
The Hebrew word for mark ('Oth, אות) could mean a sign, omen, warning, or remembrance.[13] The mark of Cain is God's promise to Cain for divine protection from premature death with the stated purpose to prevent anyone from killing him. It is not known what the mark is, but it is assumed that the mark is visible.[14] Some have speculated that the mark is a Hebrew letter placed on either the face or the arm.[15] The Septuagint translates the markas a "sign". Thus, it is speculated that the mark served as a sign to others to not commit the same offense.[16]
Judaism[edit]
Abba Arika ("Rab") said that God gave Cain a dog, making him an example to murderers. Abba Jose ben Hanan said that God made a horn grow out of Cain. R. Hanin said that God made Cain an example to penitents (Gen. Rab. 22:12).[16]
Rashi comments on Genesis 4:15 that the mark was one of the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton: "He engraved a letter of His [God's] Name onto his [Cain's] forehead."[17]
In Kabbalah, the Zohar states that the mark of Cain was one of the twenty-two Hebrew letters of the Torah, although the Zohar's native Aramaic doesn't actually tell us which of the letters it was. Some commentators, such as Rabbi Michael Berg in his English commentary on the Zohar, suggest that the mark of Cain was the letter vav.[18]
Christianity[edit]
According to author Ruth Mellikoff, commentators' interpretations of the nature of the "mark" depended on their views regarding the status of Cain, as either given additional time to repent, or further shamed.[19]
Racial controversy[edit]
Early church exegesis[edit]
In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis of the "curse" and the "mark", associated the curse of Cain with black skin.[20] Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell" (Gen. 4:5), suggesting that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.
In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".[21]
Baptist segregation[edit]
The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th and 20th century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[22] Baptists have taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.[23] In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery.[24]
The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic diocesesin the Southern United States did adopt a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the Sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a curse of Cain teaching, but was justified by the widely-held perception that slaves should not rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or by any papal teaching.[25]
Latter-day Saints[edit]
Main articles: Black people in Mormon doctrine, Black people and early Mormonism, Black people and Mormonism and Black Mormons
Like many Americans of the era, Mormons of the 19th century commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin,[26] and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's mark. Mormonism began during the height of white Protestant acceptance of the curse of Cain doctrine in America, as well as the even more popular curse of Ham doctrine, which was even held by many abolitionists of the time.[citation needed] This belief seemed to be confirmed by a scriptural passage in the Book of Abraham which suggested that Cain's bloodline was preserved on the ark through Egyptus, wife ofHam,[27] (an interpretation now rejected by the LDS Church).[28][29] While Joseph Smith indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831,[30] the only early reference to the curse or mark of Cain was in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which included the following statement:
- And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.[31]
There is evidence that Joseph Smith did not consider the restriction between blacks and the priesthood to be relevant in modern times, since he himself (and other church leaders close to him) did ordain black men to the priesthood,[32] notably Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.
Priesthood ban[edit]
After the death of Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith’s church. Brigham Young, the second President of the Church accepted the idea that people of African ancestry were generally under the curse of Cain, and in 1852, made a statement that people of black African descent were not eligible to hold the church's priesthood.[33] The ban on priesthood was not used as a reason for segregation of congregations, which was common in churches in the southern United States during this time period, but it affected black members differently than in other churches because the LDS Church has a lay priesthood in which virtually all worthy male members become priesthood holders.
While Young never made clear the reasons for the priesthood ban, several of his successors defended it as a being result of the curse of Cain, though some disagreed. Sterling M. McMurrin reported that in 1954, church president David O. McKay said: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it."[34]
In 1978, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball reported receiving a revelation from God allowing all worthy male members (including those of black African descent) of the Church to receive the priesthood.[35][36] The news was greeted with joy and relief from Mormons. Although the church had previously been criticized for its policy during the civil rights movement, the change seems to have been prompted by problems facing mixed race converts in Brazil.[37]
There has neither been an official and explicit church repudiation of its policy nor an admission that it was a mistake. Many black church members think giving an apology would be a "detriment" to church work and a catalyst to further racial misunderstanding. African-American church member Bryan E. Powell says, "There is no pleasure in old news, and this news is old." Gladys Newkirk agrees, stating, "I've never experienced any problems in this church. I don't need an apology .... We're the result of an apology."[38] Many Black Mormons say they are willing to look beyond the former racist teachings and cleave to the church in part because of its powerful, detailed teachings on life after death.[39]
The LDS Church issued an official statement about past racist practices and theories, stating: "[t]oday, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, ... Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."[40]
Legacy and symbolism[edit]
Allusions to Cain and Abel as an archetype of fratricide appear in numerous references and retellings, through medieval art and Shakespearean works up to present day fiction.[26] A millennia-old explanation for Cain being capable of murder is that he may have been the offspring of a fallen angel or Satan himself, rather than being from Adam.[47][34][43]
A medieval legend has Cain arriving at the Moon, where he eternally settled with a bundle of twigs. This was originated by the popular fantasy of interpreting the shadows on the Moon as a face. An example of this belief can be found in Dante Alighieri's Inferno (XX, 126[48]) where the expression "Cain and the twigs" is used as a kenning for "moon".
In medieval Christian art, particularly in 16th century Germany, Cain is depicted as a stereotypical ringleted, bearded Jew, who killed Abel the blonde, European gentile symbolizing Christ.[49] This traditional depiction has continued for centuries in some form, such as James Tissot's 19th century Cain leads Abel to Death.
In the treatise on Christian Hermeticism, Meditations on the Tarot: A journey into Christian Hermeticism, describes the biblical account of Cain and Abel as a myth, i.e. it expresses, in a form narrated for a particular case, an "eternal" idea. It shows us how brothers can become mortal enemies through the very fact that they worship the same God in the same way. According to the author, the source of religious wars is revealed. It is not the difference in dogma or ritual which is the cause, but the "pretention to equality" or "the negation of hierarchy".[50]
In Latter-day Saint theology, Cain is considered to be the quintessential Son of Perdition, the father of secret combinations (i.e. secret societies and organized crime), as well as the first to hold the title Master Mahan meaning master of [the] great secret, that [he] may murder and get gain.[51]
In Mormon folklore — a second-hand account relates that an early Mormon leader, David W. Patten, encountered a very tall, hairy, dark-skinned man in Tennessee who said that he was Cain. The account states that Cain had earnestly sought death but was denied it, and that his mission was to destroy the souls of men.[52][53] The recollection of Patten's story is quoted in Spencer W. Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness, a popular book within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[54] This widespread Mormon belief is further emphasized by an account from Salt Lake City in 1963 which stated that "One superstition is based on the old Mormon belief that Cain is a black man who wanders the earth begging people to kill him and take his curse upon themselves (M, 24, SLC, 1963)."[55]
There were other, minor traditions concerning Cain and Abel, of both older and newer date. The apocryphal Book of Adam and Eve tells of Eve having a dream in which Cain drank his brother’s blood. In an attempt to prevent the prophecy from happening the two young men are separated and given different jobs
Popular culture[edit]
 | This section does not cite any references or sources. (September 2012) |
- In John Steinbeck's novel East of Eden, Charles' scar on his forehead is allegorical of the "mark of Cain".[citation needed]
- In the musical Children of Eden, the mark of Cain is the revolving element of the show.[citation needed]
- Hermann Hesse uses the Mark of Cain as a motif in his novel Demian, where it symbolizes a person seeking his true self.[citation needed]
- In Agatha Christie's novel Curtain, the bullet wound on Stephen Norton's forehead left by his being shot and killed by Hercule Poirot, is described by Poirot's friend, Captain Arthur Hastings as "like the brand of Cain".
- In the Indigo Girls song "Become You" by Amy Ray, the mark of Cain is compared to Southerners' legacy of injustice and the Confederacy: "All your daddies fought in vain / Leave you with the mark of Cain."[41][42]
- The Mark of Cain is a British television film broadcast in 2007.[citation needed]
- Karl Edward Wagner's character Kane is described as one of the first humans, cursed to immortality and wandering after murdering his brother Abel, and to be immediately recognizable by his "murderer's eyes."[citation needed]
- Neil Gaiman's The Sandman includes the character Cain directly as well as Abel (whom Cain repeatedly kills and who is in turn repeatedly resurrected) as inhabitants of the dream lord's realm. Cain is sent as a messenger to hell in Season of Mists because Lucifer will not kill him due to the mark, which is here a small black circle on his forehead, lest he suffers God's punishment.[citation needed]
- In Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments series, the mark of Cain is set upon Simon to prevent the Vampire Clan leader from killing him, which was his intention.[citation needed]
- In Vampire: The Masquerade, Cain is attributed with the ancestor of all Vampires, or "Cainites."[citation needed]
- In Season 3, Episode 9 of the AMC TV series "Hell on Wheels", the character Ruth, a preacher, refers to the main character, Cullen Bohannon, as "the man with the mark of Cain."[citation needed]
- In Season 9, Episode 11 of the CW Network show Supernatural, the Mark of Cain is transferred to Dean Winchester from Cain. He is told there are consequences but feels the benefits (primarily, killing Abaddon, a knight of Hell) outweigh any potential risks.[citation needed] Dean later displays superhuman strength, immunity to demonic powers, telekinesis and an uncontrollable rage as a result of the Mark. It also turns him into a demon like it did Cain when he is killed.
- The Mark of Cain were a punk/thrash band formed in Adelaide, South Australia, active through the late 80s and 90s.[43]
- The Mark of Cain was drawn onto Simon Lewis forehead by Clary Fray in Mortal Instruments; Mortal Instruments : City of Glass.
The Curse of Ham is a misnomer[1] for the curse upon Canaan that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah.
The relevant narrative occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27).[2] The 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.[3] The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by someJews,[5] Christians and Muslims as a curse of, and an explanation for, black skin, as well as slavery.[6]Nevertheless, most Christian denominations strongly disagree with such interpretations due to the fact that in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed and race or skin color is never mentioned.[7]
Contents
[hide]Origins[edit]
The concept of the Curse of Ham finds its origins in the Genesis narrative of Gen. 9:20–27:
Keil and Delitzsch (1885) suggested that the curse was a prophecy of the history of the tribes descending from Canaan,[8] while Robert Alter holds that the overall objective of the story is to justify the subject status of the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham, to the Israelites, the descendants of Shem.[4]However, according to Nahum Sarna, the narrative of the curse upon Canaan is replete with difficulties.[9] It is uncertain what the precise nature of Ham's offense is.[9] Verse 22 has been a subject of debate,[10] as to whether it should be taken literally, or as a euphemism for gross immorality.[9] In verse 25, Noah names Shem and Japheth as the "brethren" (the New Living Translation reads "relatives") of Canaan, seven verses after indicating that they were Canaan's uncles. The Table of Nations presents Canaan and Mizraim (Egypt) among the sons of Ham (10:6). In the Psalms, Egypt is equated with Ham.[11] The treatment of Japheth in verses 26–27 raises questions: Why is YHWH named as the God of Shem, but not of Japheth? What does it mean that God will "enlarge" Japheth? And why will Japheth "dwell in the tents of "Shem"?[12] Further difficulties include Ham's being referred to as "the youngest son", when all other lists make him Noah's second son.[9] Per Sarna, the biggest challenge of the narrative is why Canaan was cursed, rather than Ham,[9] and the concealed details of the shameful incident bear the same reticence of Reuben's sexual transgression.[13]
The narrative's short five verses give indication that Canaan's Hamite paternity must have had great significance to the narrator or redactor, according to Sarna, who adds: "The curse on Canaan, invoked in response to an act of moral depravity, is the first intimation of the theme of the corruption of the Canaanites, which is given as the justification for their being dispossessed of their land and for the transfer of that land to the descendants ofAbraham."[14]
Ham's transgression[edit]
The majority of commentators, both ancient and modern, have felt that Ham's seeing his father naked was not a sufficiently serious crime to explain the punishment that follows.[15] Nevertheless, Genesis 9:23, in which Shem and Japheth cover Noah with a cloak while averting their eyes, suggests that the words are to be taken literally,[16] and it has recently been pointed out that in 1st millennium Babylonia, looking at another person's genitals was indeed regarded as a serious matter.[15]
Other ancient commentators suggested that Ham was guilty of more than what the Bible says. The 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."[17]
Ancient commentaries have also debated that "seeing" someone's nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g. Leviticus 20:17).[16] The same idea was raised by 3rd-century rabbis, in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), who argue that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him.[18] 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.[17] The castration theory has its modern counterpart in suggested parallels found in the castration of Uranus by Cronus[19] 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".[20]
Modern scholars have suggested that to "uncover the nakedness" of a man means to have sex with that man's wife (e.g. Leviticus 20:11).[16] If Ham had sex with his mother, and Canaan was the product of this forbidden union, it could explain why the curse falls on his son; the weakness, however, is that Genesis 9:21 has Ham "seeing" his father's nakedness, not "uncovering" it.[21]
Book of Jubilees[edit]
In the Book of Jubilees, the seriousness of Ham's curse is compounded by the cultic significance of God's covenant to "never again bring a flood on the earth".[22] In response to this covenant, Noah builds a sacrificial altar "to atone for the land".[Jub. 6:1–3] Noah’s practice and ceremonial functions parallel the festival of Shavuot as if it were a prototype to the celebration of the giving of the Torah.[22][23] His "priestly" functions also emulate being "first priest" in accordance with halakhah as taught in the Qumranic works.[24][25] By turning the drinking of the wine into a religious ceremony, Jubilees alleviates any misgivings that may be provoked by the episode of Noah’s drunkenness. Thus, Ham’s offense would constitute an act of disrespect not only to his father, but also to the festival ordinances.[26]
Medieval Judaism[edit]
The medieval commentary of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki 1040-1105), who cites older sources from Judaism's Oral Torah, which is relied upon by traditional Judaic scholarship as the most basic commentary to the present time, provides an introductory explanation. (Genesis 9:22-27):
- Genesis 9:22: and Ham, the father of Canaan, saw: "There are those among our rabbis who say that Canaan saw and told his father [Ham] and this is why Canaan was mentioned with regard to the matter and was cursed." (Tanhuma 15; Genesis Rabbah 36:7). And [Ham] saw his father's nakedness.: "There are those of our rabbis who say he emasculated (סרסו castrated) him, and there are those who say he had (homosexual רבעו) relations with him." Sanhedrin 70a. [The opinion that holds Ham had homosexual relations with him agrees that Ham also emasculated Noah.][27][28]
- Genesis 9:23: And Shem and Japheth...covered their father's nakedness, their faces were turned backward...: "...as for Ham who disgraced his father it is said of his offspring 'Thus will the king of Assyria lead the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." (Isaiah 20:4). (Tanhuma 15; Genesis Rabbah 36:6).[27][28]
- Genesis 9:24: his small (הקטן) son:" הפסול The 'defective' one (Genesis Rabbah 36:6) והבזוי and the 'disgraceful' one. ['small' does not mean 'the youngest' since Ham was older than Shem] similar to 'Behold, I have made you the smallest (קטן) among the nations.'" (Jeremiah 49:15, Obadiah 1:2).[27][28]
- 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."[27][28]
- 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."[28][29]
- 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." [Rashi explaining why the curse is repeated.][27][28]
Curse of Canaan[edit]
- Genesis 9:25: "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren,"
It is noteworthy that the curse was made by Noah, not by God. Some biblical scholars claim 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[30] or, at least, it is not mentioned in the Bible that he had confirmed it.
Dead Sea Scrolls[edit]
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.[31] The 4Q252 scroll probably dates from the latter half of the first century BC.[32] 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.[33]
A new alternate interpretation of a Dead Sea scroll 4Q181 which is a Genesis scroll parallels the Book of Jubilees, suggesting that Canaan was cursed because he defied Noah’s division of the land. [34] [35]
Jubilees[edit]
The Book of Jubilees also recounts the incident between Ham and Noah, and Noah's resulting curse against Canaan, in similar terms. Later, however,Jubilees explains further that Noah had allocated Canaan a land west of the Nile along with his brothers, but that he violated this agreement and instead chose to squat in the land delineated to Shem (and later Abraham), and so rightly deserved the curse of slavery.[36]
Classical Judaism[edit]
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."[33]
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."[27][28]
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."[28][29]
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." [Rashi explaining why the curse is repeated.][27][28]
Origins of the misnomer[edit]
In the past, some people have claimed the "curse of Ham" as a biblical justification for imposing slavery or racism on Black people, although this concept is essentially an ideologically driven misnomer.[37] Regarding this matter, the Christian leader Martin Luther King Jr. called such attempt "a blasphemy" that "is against everything that the Christian religion stands for."[38]
Early Judaism and Islam[edit]
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".[39] The next stage, are certain fables according to ancient Jewish traditions. According to one legend preserved in the BabylonianTalmud, God cursed Ham because he broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and was "was smitten in his skin";[40] according to another, Noah cursed him because he castrated his father.[41] Although the Talmud refers only to Ham, the version brought in the Medrash goes on further to say "Ham, that Cush came from him" in reference to the blackness,[42] that the curse did not apply to all of Ham but only to his eldest son Cush, Cushbeing a sub-Saharan African.[43] 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.[44]
The two concepts may have become merged in the 7th century by some Muslim writers, the product of a culture with a long history of enslaving black Africans; the origin and persistence of the "Curse of Ham", in which Ham, blackness and slavery became a single curse,was thus the result of Islam's need for a justifying myth. Many medieval Muslim authorities including Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, and even the later Book of the Zanj all 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.[45][46] This is despite the fact that the account of the drunkenness of Noah is not included in the Qur'an.[47] Islam holds that prophets of God are infallible.[48]
However, 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.[49]
Medieval serfdom and 'Pseudo-Berossus'[edit]
In medieval Christian exegesis, Ham's sin was regarded as laughter (for mocking his father and doing nothing to rectify his condition).[50]
Elsewhere in Medieval Europe, the "Curse of Ham" also became used as a justification for serfdom. Honorius Augustodunensis (c. 1100) was the first recorded to propose a caste system associating Ham with serfdom, writing that serfs were descended from Ham, nobles from Japheth, and free men from Shem. However, he also followed the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 by Ambrosiaster (late 4th century), which held that as servants in the temporal world, these "Hamites" were likely to receive a far greater reward in the next world than would the Japhetic nobility.[51][52]
The idea that serfs were the descendants of Ham soon became widely promoted in Europe. An example is Dame Juliana Berners (c. 1388), who, in a treatise on hawks, claimed that the "churlish" descendants of Ham had settled in Europe, those of the temperate Shem in Africa, and those of the noble Japheth in Asia – a departure from normal arrangements, which placed Shem in Asia, Japheth in Europe and Ham in Africa – because she considered Europe to be the "country of churls", Asia of gentility, and Africa of temperance.[53] As serfdom waned in the late medieval era, the interpretation of serfs being descendants of Ham decreased as well.[54]
Ham also figured in an immensely influential work called Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus. In 1498, Annius of Viterboclaimed to have translated records of Berossus, an ancient Babylonian priest and scholar; which are today usually considered an elaborate forgery. However, they gained great influence over Renaissance ways of thinking about population and migration, filling a historical gap following the biblical account of the flood.[55] According to this account, Ham studied the evil arts that had been practiced before the flood, and thus became known as "Cam Esenus" (Ham the Licentious), as well as the original Zoroaster and Saturn (Cronus). He became jealous of Noah's additional children born after the deluge, and began to view his father with enmity, and one day, when Noah lay drunk and naked in his tent, Ham saw him and sang a mocking incantation that rendered Noah temporarily sterile, as if castrated. This account contains several other parallels connecting Ham with Greek myths of the castration of Uranus by Cronus, as well as Italian legends of Saturn and/or Camesis ruling over the Golden Age and fighting the Titanomachy. Ham in this version also abandoned his wife who had been aboard the ark and had mothered the African peoples, and instead married his sister Rhea, daughter of Noah, producing a race of giants in Sicily.
European/American slavery, 17th and 18th centuries[edit]
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.[56][57] 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 parts of Africa where Christianity flourished in the early days, while it was still illegal in Rome, this idea never took hold, and its interpretation of scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches. A modern Amharic commentary on Genesis notes the 19th century and earlier European theory that blacks were subject to whites as a result of the "curse of Ham", but calls this a false teaching unsupported by the text of the Bible, emphatically pointing out that Noah's curse fell not upon all descendants of Ham, but only on the descendants of Canaan, and asserting that it was fulfilled when Canaan was occupied by both Semites (Israel) and Japhetites . The commentary further notes that Canaanites ceased to exist politically after the Third Punic War (149 BC), and that their current descendants are thus unknown and scattered among all peoples.[58]
Robert Boyle, a 17th-century scientist who also was a theologian and a devout Christian, refuted the idea that blackness was a Curse of Ham, in his book Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours (1664).[59] There Boyle explains that the Curse of Ham used as an explanation of thecomplexion of coloured people was but a misinterpretation embraced by "vulgar writers", travelers, critics and also "men of note" of his time.[60] In his work, he challenges that vision explaining:
A number of other scholars also support the claim that the racialized version of the Curse of Ham was devised at that time because it suited ideological and economical interests of the European elite and slave traders who wanted to justify exploitation of African labour.[61] While Robinson (2007) claims that such version was non-existent before, historian David Brion Davis argues, as well, 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 a curse whatsoever.[62]
Latter Day Saint movement[edit]
Main articles: Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
After the death of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) taught that Black Africans were under the curse of Ham, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.[63] In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Brigham Young believed that as a result of this curse Negroes were banned from the Mormon Priesthood.[64] In 1978 then LDS president Spencer W. Kimball said he received a revelation that extended the Priesthood to all worthy male members of the LDS Church.[65]