Talk:Curse of Ham/Archive 2

"Islamic Interpretation"
I'm wary of these attempts to inflict the "Curse of Ham" upon Islam in this "everyone does it so it's ok" manner. Not only are the two texts {Abrégé des merveilles "Abstract Wonderland" a whimsical Orientalist work by the sound of it and "One thousand and One Nights" a fairy tale book} cited not Islamic works, the very idea goes against explicit statements in the primary sources of Islam. Even the occurence of this tale in any Islamic book does not denote the authors ascription to these ideas, the one who thinks it does is ignorant of the methodology of Islamic scholars. HussaynKhariq (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See above for response. I havn't the faintest idea what "this everyone does it so it's ok manner" is supposed to mean. The section makes it clear that this interpretation comes from Islamic culture not from formal theology. Exactly the same is true of Christianity. In both cases it is linked to general social attitudes to race. You should not be citing primary sources, but secondary ones, and should not be trying to constantly issue denials, but simply present the facts. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Prophet during his farewell pilgrimage:


 * You should know that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab and, no non-Arab is superior over any Arab, no white is superior over black and no black is superior over white. Superiority is by righteousness and God-fearing [alone]. (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411) and various other collections


 * Explicit narration from Sahih Bukhari, which you removed, showing the source of differences in skin colour according to Islamic belief:


 * "God created Adam from a handful of dust taken from different lands, so the children of Adam have been created according to the composition of the land. Therefore from mankind we have white, red, black, and yellow ones." (Sahih al-Bukhari)


 * I believe this should be sufficient HussaynKhariq (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots of different versions of this narration, but you still miss the point. It's not for us to assert what is "true" by quoting primary sources, but to use secondary sources to expain all points of view. Please read the relevant policy articles at WP:Cite, WP:RS etc. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you stated that "many Islamic scholars" used the story of Ham. Which ones!? This is a lie. The only two proofs you brought up were 1001 Nights, a fictional tale, which does not even validate your point, because the black concubine says that white skin is related to leprosy. And the other book you bring up cannot be attributed to Masudi at all, and even if it could be, Masudi was not a mainstream (Sunni) Muslim, let alone an "Islamic scholar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.196.171 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop your hysterical accusations of lying. The statement about scholars derives from the book that is cited, which I don't have with me at the moment. I will have to look it up again. Whether Massudi is Sunni or Shi'a or not is beside the point, but not entirely irrelevant if you can show that these ideas were more specific to Shi'a tradition. You seem to misunderstand the whole concept of NPOV, which is to describe all alternative views. That's why the black concubine's assertion was included - to show that there were also alternative views, even in this context. Paul B (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you make it clear that it's a part of Islamic 'culture'? Please don't lie. And cite your proof that it is a part of Islamic culture. You cited only two books. One is falsely attributed to Masudi, who is not even a mainstream Muslim to begin with. The second is 1001 Nights which is a book of fairy tales. On the other hand, there are Christian AUTHORITY figures--scholars--who stated such racist things; It was the official position of the church for a very long time. So it is not equivalent at all.


 * Don't be crude and rude. I have not lied about anything, but your antics are another matter altogether. I cited a scholarly book on racial theories. Do you not understand that? It does not matter whether Masudi or another author wrote the Abrege. The name of the author is irrelevant. What matters is that it came from within Islamic culture. "It [racial Curse of Ham] was the official position of the church for a very long time". No, you are wrong. It was not the official position of "the church" (which church anyway?) at all. And you can find Islamic authority figures who say racist things easily. It's not hard to find Imams who declare that Jews are evil, but it would wrong to say that that is the official Islamic view wouldn't it? Paul B (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul, I don't care what you write about the Christian position. So if you say that Christian authorities said such-and-such, but this is not official Christian doctrine, then go ahead. I could care less.  But I do not appreciate you trying to blur the Islamic position.  You have cited two books and thereby made the generalization that such a story is existent in Islamic culture.  We don't know who wrote the first book and in that book the author says that it is an Israeli narration, not an Islamic one.  And the second book is a fictional book of fairy tales in which two concubines of different races say two opposite things.  From these two very horrid sources, you CANNOT jump to the claim that the curse of Ham is a part of Islamic culture.  Just because two books exist that offhandedly cite a Jewish account, does this suddenly make it a part of Islamic culture?  That's absurd.  I can find a book on bestiality written by a solitary Christian writer...does this mean now I can say that bestiality is a part of Christian culture?


 * You do not seem to understand policy, and you certainly do not understand Christian theology. The official teachings of the church (whatever 'church' may be referred to) are quite different from opinions expressed by Christian thinkers. No one is trying to "blur the Islamic position". There is no single "Islamic position" any more than there is a single "Christian position". There are various opinions, theories and traditions which should be attributed to scholarly sources. And how many times do I have to repeat this: I am quoting a scholarly source. The source refers to these texts (and to others) and it is the source that is reliable according to Wikipedia policy, whatever you may think. The two texts are just evidence that the story was well known and was used to justify racial prejudices on religious grounds within Islamic culture. That's all. The section also made it very clear that important scholars disagrred with this view. That what NPOV is all about. If a Christian writer tried to justify bestiality by quoting the Bible, then of course that could be quoted in the bestiality article, with due regard for WP:Undue. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Paul I believe you are completely and unbelievably missing the point. Islam never acknowledged that the story ever EXISTED in the first place. I cannot believe you are allowed to connect Islamic scholar opinions on race with the Curse of Ham when there is absolutely no connection whatsoever. First of all, it is blasphemous in Islam to believe that a messenger of God would so blatantly get himself drunk and wasted when he is suppose to be the most pious of men in his generation. And then of all things, to curse a generations of his offspring because of his own shortcomings. If you want to make a point about race, then do so, but write it up elsewhere. When you write in your article that Islamic scholars are "debating the meaning of the curse", you're implying that Islam acknowledges the story to be fact, when the fact is, no scholar nor ordinary Muslim would ever believe a story like the Curse of Ham. The section "Islamic Interpretations" needs to be taken off or at least it should end with the one sentence, "The Curse of Ham does not exist in the Quran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.14.251 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you can't understand what people write. In Islamic versions of the story the drunkenness is usually "written out" and replaced by another explanation, but as a matter of fact there was no ban on alcohol before the specific revelation to Muhammad, and even that is ambiguous, so you don't even know what you think you know. You think that this story should not be believed by Muslims, so you conclude that it never actually was. That's nonsense. Muslims, just like Christians and Jews, are perfectly capable of believing things we think they shouldn't and doing so in the nane of religion. Paul B (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

'Curse of Ham' = Clear misnomer
The article does a good job of explaining that 'Curse of Ham' is a clear-cut misnomer for the curse of Canaan, since in the Bible story as received, Ham was NEVER cursed by the drunken Noah; only Canaan was. For this reason, it is justified and proper to say that this is 'more properly' called the "curse of Canaan". Those who call it "Curse of Ham" are taking liberties with the received Hebrew text to change it, in order to push their own racial supremacist misinterpretations (as also explained in article). This is why I will continue to revert edits obscuring or clouding these facts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to create an article specifically on the Curse of Caanan, please go ahead, but this one is about the Curse of Ham, which is a longstanding cultural/ideological argument that has been held in Christian, Muslim and Jewish cultures. That is the subject of the article. It is not a "misnomer", because the article is about that specific topic. The fact that you don't agree that such a curse exists is irrelevant. I doubt there is anyone who does, so you are arguing against completely imaginary opponents. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What a way to twist my argument completely upside down. Don't pretend you don't understand what I mean.  In Scriptural studies, "Curse of Ham" *IS* a misnomer, because there is NO SUCH THING ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE.  This article is the correct place to explain how that situation came to be (which I assume you aren't attempting to deny), not some kind of POV fork. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is possible for you to resist the tempation to rant? No one is twisting your argument. Read WP:TRUTH. Your argument is no different from those who assert that anti-semitism is a "misnomer" because Arabs etc are Semites. Words and phrases mean what they mean. The curse of Ham is a concept. The claim is that the curse descends on all the family of Ham. Of course no-one actually believes that anymore, but that's totally beside the point. People did believe that, and that's what this article is about, so it is precisely not a misnomer. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your repeated attempt to make this an ad hominem, the definition of "misnomer" remains what it is. This is a scriptural topic, and neither of us apparently disagrees on any of the facts or article content, but if the origin is only in a misunderstanding or perversion of scripture, it may rightly be termed a "misnomer" - an established misnomer in some circles perhaps (racialist ones) but nevertheless a misnomer, since after all the curse was never on Ham according to any canonical document. The term "Curse of Canaan" is a synonymous concept, and suggesting a POV fork seems a tad facetious as well.  Since the "Curse of Canaan" CAN be found in scripture, and is not  a misnomer, this is the significance of stressing that it is the "more proper" term (except perhaps in dwindling racialist schools of thought that still seek to promote the idea today that all Africans were accursed in the Bible by the imaginary "Curse of Ham". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Except this is *completely and utterly irrelevant*. Words are words.  The Norway rat is really from China.  Semites include Arabs, but Anti-semitism is used to refer to dislike of the Jews.  The atom is not actually atomic and can be broken.  Pascal's Triangle was not originally explored by Pascal.  People call World War II despite the fact that it didn't involve the entire world, and if you expand your notions to wars involving merely most of the world, it probably wasn't the second one.  I could go on forever.  The point is, this has absolutely nothing to do with "racialist thought".  As I noted in my edit summary, Wikipedia absolutely does not get involved in the "more properly" business for names, because names literally can't be "wrong."  People decide to call the war between 1939-1945 World War II?  Then it's WWII.  You can't, by your own notions, say "more properly known as World War III since the Napoleonic Wars also involved the known world."


 * If you really, really want to have something on this in the article, then check some sources and see if any reliable source talks about the naming issue. I don't mean "uses the words Curse of Caanan", as it's obviously an alternative name.  I mean "uses Curse of Caanan and says outright this is the more proper name and people should stop using Curse of Ham."  If you can find that, we'd then include a line saying "According to John Smith, curse of caanan is more proper blah blah blah."  It still wouldn't be in the opening sentence, because "more properly" is a point of view, and Wikipedia doesn't take stands; it merely reports the terms people use.


 * Lastly as a procedural note, you cited WP:BRD. You reverted, but didn't discuss at first.  Please don't blind revert good faith edits with no explanation - at least say what the problem is in the edit summary. SnowFire (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really, really want to have something on this in the article, then check some sources and see if any reliable source talks about the naming issue. You are right here; no doubt, plenty of sources have addressed this naming issue, and it will be interesting to see how many POVs can be found, which I hope to look for soon, once I get a chance to do some research into it.
 * Wikipedia does not take stands on naming disputes (from your edit summary) - Great, glad to hear it. Since I now think "Curse of Canaan" which is identical in content, is more accurate and ought to be the proper article title, I can propose an article move for a wider consensus, since I now know that Wikipedia is not "taking a stand on naming disputes" by calling it "Curse of Ham".
 * Lastly as a procedural note, you cited WP:BRD. You reverted, but didn't discuss at first.  That must be why it is called BRD and not BDR'.  But at any rate, I did initiate this discussion, as can be plainly seen. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(de-indent) I'd have no problem at all if you can get some sources on scholarly opinions on the naming. Would certainly improve the article.

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia can only "pick" one title for the actual article name and thus needs to "choose." However, I was referring more to the fact that alternate names don't get a "more proper" or "improperly called" modifier - if this article was moved to Curse of Caanan, then it would simply say "also called the Curse of Ham." That said, to get ahead of ourselves perhaps, I'd currently vote to keep the article here if you did request a move of the article - the WP:COMMONNAME is Curse of Ham, and has been throughout history. I'm also not entirely on-board with "Curse of Ham" being a misnomer - for sure, it is Caanan who is cursed as a result, but from a rather old-fashioned patriarchal perspective, it can be considered that Ham was cursed as well - he was cursed in that one of his bloodlines was cursed. The Book of Job has Job being put into Satan's power, and while Satan can't harm Job's life, apparently killing all his children is fine - Job is the one who matters, and the children are almost like possessions to be taken away and brought back again as rewards and punishments, rather than being individual living beings with their own problems. I'd propose that is part of the reason why it's called the Curse of Ham normally, aside from the obvious (that the curse "should" really afflict Ham if it afflicts anyone. Which it does, in its own bizarre-to-modern-sensibilities way.)  That said, to be clear, this is just my meandering thoughts on the issue - they are 10% of my reason to prefer Curse of Ham as the name, and 90% is that it's the most common name in use everywhere else as far as I can tell, the best test.

You did eventually initiate a discussion. I'm referring to this edit which was done with no explanation - something usually only done to revert vandalism. I'm not even saying you needed to run to the talk page then, but at least saying in your edit summary what the issue is is polite. That said, it's not a big deal, just a note for the future. SnowFire (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In a sense there are two questions here. As you rightly say the term "Curse of Ham" is not a misnomer, since it is Ham himself who is cursed - with the fact that some of his descendents will suffer. Canaan is just the first of those. Also it is Ham's sin that results in the curse which is pronounced on him, not Canaan, so again there is good reason to call it the Curse of Ham. It would be possible to say that it would be a misnomer to call it the "Curse of the Hamites", but it just so happens that it isn't called that. However, there is a tradition of thought which states that there is indeed a curse on all Hamites, not just Canaanites. Indeed most of the article addresses that very topic. In this respect the "Curse of Hamites" is a real topic, and indeed is the main topic of the article. It would not be a msnomer for that theory. However, it happens not to be used, so per WP:Name we needn't concern ourselves with it. Also, it is not for us to say that this interpretation is wrong, though it is fair to point out that there is overwhelming agreement that it is. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidently you have become confused again, since it is NOT Ham who is cursed according to the Bible; Ham wasn't cursed except according to white supremacists who want to push a racist idea that isn't found in the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently you are incapable of understanding the simplest historical facts. Ham was cursed for his sin. His curse was that his descendents by Canaan would be servants. The idea that there was a curse on Hamites as a whole is a different concept. However, it was not invented by "white supremacists", but evolved in medieval culture among both Christians and Arabs. "White suprematism" is concept dating from the 19th-20th century, when the "Curse" on Hamites was not a concept very widely believed, though it is to be found in some sects in America especially. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What sources say about how the Biblical curse of Canaan became the white supremacist Curse of Ham

 * "A genealogical construct for a people became, in the rhetoric of antebellum preachers, explicitly racist. From their pulpits, they turned to a brief narrative in Genesis that they erroneously labeled "the curse of Ham" and performed remarkably pernicious feats of translation and hermeneutics on it to justify the institution of slavery. The original narrative describes a curse of Canaan, not of Ham." -- The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, Regina M. Schwartz - 1998
 * "The most common theory on the origin of the diverse races in light of the Christian revelation was the curse of Canaan, or, more popularly but erroneously known as the curse of Ham... Although the original story in Genesis 9 and 10 held only that Canaan was cursed to be a 'servant of servants' to his brothers, the amended interpretation that the posterity of Ham and Canaan were "smitten black" entered the Jews' oral traditions, when they were collected in the Babylonian Talmud from the 2nd to the 6th centuries AD with various explanations." -- Race and aesthetics in the anthropology of Petrus Camper (1722-1789) By Miriam Claude Meijer
 * "One of the most important ideas was that of the biblical Curse of Ham (or more accurately the Curse of Canaan)... It seems that it was the mediaeval Arabs who first transferred the curse from Canaan to Ham." -- The Eastern origins of Western civilisation By John M. Hobson
 * "The label 'curse of Ham' rather than 'curse of Canaan' reinforced this racialized interpretation, since Ham was associated with blackness..." -- Polemical Pain: Slavery, Cruelty, and the Rise of Humanitarianism By Margaret Abruzzo
 * "The curse of Canaan for centuries became known as the curse of Ham in theological circles. Ham's children were cursed to blackness and slavery -- a conclusion that can be traced back to the rabbinic commentary Bereshith Rabbah, a work that was begun in the second century and completed by the fifth." -- Veiled and silenced: how culture shaped sexist theology By Alvin J. Schmidt
 * "They wanted to put it only upon black men, women, and children, or upon the negroes on the coast of Guinea, and other slave-hunting grounds in eastern and western Africa. So, instead of calling it the curse of Canaan, they called it "The Curse of Ham"; as this name, they thought, was more connected with Africa." -- A voice from the back pews to the pulpit and front seats (1872)

So far I have only scratched the surface of commentary on this matter. Do you hear what the sources are saying? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand perfectly what the sources are saying. Sadly some of them are very confused, but that's neither here nor there. They are expressing a particular point of view, and their point of view can be included in the article, but should not be asserted as fact for reasons that have already been given. Some of your sources seem far from reliabe, since you have evidently trawled Google books to support your POV. A voice from the back pews to the pulpit and front seats (1872) hardly seems authoritative. The weaker sources quoted simply confuse the idea of a curse of Ham (the person) with that of a curse of Hamites (all descendents of Ham), as do you. The more sophisticated sources are aware that that this is a matter of association. The statement that "The label 'curse of Ham' rather than 'curse of Canaan' reinforced this racialized interpretation" is true, of course, but that does not alter the fact that the label is strictly correct. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be asserting the hermeneutical position that the Bible does indeed curse Ham and all his descendants to slavery. I think you may have to go into the 1800s or earlier to find sources expounding your position. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know,, it's almost impossible to talk to you sometimes. I am asserting that Ham the person was cursed, but Hamites as a whole were not. A sub-section of them (via Canaan) bore the effects of the curse and were to be the servant of servants. That's what it says in the book. If you interpret "servant of servants" to mean "slave", then the sons of Ham via Canaan were cursed to be slaves, yes. I don't have any opinion about what "servant of servants" actually means, or whether we are supposed to imagine that the descendents of Canaan, whoever they may be, are still supposed to be occupying this lowly position. You can come up with whatever theory you like. I am simply repeating what it says and what others have said of it. Paul B (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Like Paul B, I have no problem with adding a discussion of the name origins to the article. However, Til Eulenspiegel, it must be emphasized *again* that it is entirely logically consistent to say that "Curse of Ham" terminology may have indeed been spurred on by racist motivations, but that this is still the terminology anyway. It's not shocking for a racist theory to have a racially charged name! I don't see how acknowledging this can somehow constitute an endorsement of racism, which you seem to think it is. SnowFire (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources, PLENTY more out there
Paul seems to feel he has the special standing to dismissively brush off the published sources, since he is more of an expert and knows better than they do, but I will keep them coming for as long as necessary.


 * "Whatever the biblical story in Genesis 9 describing the curse of Canaan was intended to convey, it certainly misfired (the narrative is even known erroneously as the "curse of Ham" in order to better 'explain' that curse')" -- Questioning God By John D. Caputo, Mark Dooley, Michael J. Scanlon


 * "Misconceptions about the Black presence in Scripture can be traced to many misunderstandings of biblical events. One of the best known of these is the supposed curse of Ham - The curse of Ham was actually a curse of Canaan." -- Biblical Strategies for a Community in Crisis: What African Americans Can Do By Colleen Birchet


 * "So there is no such thing as a curse of Ham. More precisely, it would be the curse of Canaan, yet many have written extensively and made so many erroneous assumptions that it's the black race that is cursed." -- Faces of the Hamitic People By Khamit Raamah Kush


 * "We already sense that by labeling it the "curse of Ham" rather than the "curse of Canaan", which in actuality it is, such interpreters operate with their own unique brand of literalism." -- When the Great Abyss Opened J. Pleins, Welch IRA David - 2009

Oh but I guess all these sources can easily be disqualified, because they disagree with Paul. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh really, Til, none of these are specialist sources. The most specialist literature on this topic is far more subtle is its discussion of the naming, and in any case WP:NAME still applies. No one is saying that this argument should not be discussed. It's just a pity that you are only interested in promoting a one-dimensional POV, not in finding the best sources and looking at the discussion(s) in them. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm almost afraid to ask, but I suppose I'll bite... Could we please see a quote from one of your "specialist" sources? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll let Paul answer, but if nothing else the "Further Reading" section is a good start. The fact that people in 2003 and 2010 were still labeling their books "The Curse of Ham" is a good sign that this is the accepted terminology for the event, and these are solid sources from my Internet searching.  (NPR and the like interview the authors.)  One of the other sources calls it "The Curse of Noah", another entirely fair name in that it goes by the curser rather than the cursee. SnowFire (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much focus on the racially-motivated theories
As a lay-reader who came to this page to get some historical/scholarly insight into these biblical verses, I was a bit disappointed to see that the article focuses almost entirely on the potential racial implications of the curse, and most of that is from a relatively modern perspective, e.g. LDS, etc.

I'm not proposing that these elements be dropped but couldn't we see a bit more discussion on the questions of:
 * WHY is the curse so severe, considering that, in my interpretation, all Ham seems to do is see Noah and tell his brothers - i.e can we get more discussion on what if any LEGITIMATE sources support the ideas of castration, incest; or conflation with Greek or other mythologies about sexual and/or violent conflicts between fathers and sons; etc; that are provided as justification for the harsh curse? This is tangentially referred to in the article and the discussion page but only very superficially.
 * WHY is the object of the curse Canaan only - and not Ham personally, and none of his other sons? In Biblical scholarship is it common for a person to be cursed exclusively by means of the injury of a single child and/or that child's descendants? Have any scholars put this into any greater context that would make it make sense, and/or do apocryphal sources give some background information about prior events involving Ham or Canaan that would clarify this strange action?
 * What OTHER (non-racist) interpretation is there - apocryphal or otherwise - for the manifestation/fulfillment of the curse?

Considering that this dark-skin/racial/slave interpretation seems to be endorsed by evidence that is highly tenuous at best, and largely propagated by cultures or personalities far, far removed from anything remotely contemporaneous to the actual events in question, why is that the only point of view that has received any discussion in this article?

I know that as a non-member and non-expert this comes across as complaining without providing any solutions, so I apologize, but I thought the community might enjoy the perspective of an outsider who perceives this article as well written, but, in many ways, highly politicized and one-dimensional.

Or, alternatively, perhaps the article should have its named changed to "The Curse of Ham [comma] racial controversies surrounding".

Thanks,

Chris Krause — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.23.179 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article could use more scholarly sources. However, having read some on the topic, I wouldn't expect many good answers to your questions.
 * Nobody is sure why the curse is so severe. It does sound harsh to modern ears.  But this isn't the old place where nobody is sure the logic behind various Bible condemnations.  There's a bunch of laws in Leviticus that later rabbis can't see any reason for aside from the generic "set God's people apart as holy."  And there are other Bible passages in which other bizarre, "unfair" things happen directly at God's command as well.  Look at, say, 1 Kings 13 ( http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=141147934 ); one prophet deceives another because...  uh... we're not sure why.  And we're not sure why God insists no food or water as well.
 * I mentioned this above on the talk page, but yes, I'd say punishing progeny is moderately common. From an ancient mindset, the man of the house is the only one who matters - everyone and everything else is mere property to the patriarch.  There are several crimes/sins described that last to the fourth generation, and Job is another good example - Job is punished by having his wives and children slain (and his property ruined), but he gets new ones at the end (and new lands), and this clearly makes up for it.  There's only a dim recognition that these would be separate people with their own lives and not merely toys to be taken away.
 * No, not really any non-racial interpretations of note. There are tons of passages in the Bible that are basically ignored and never preached on, and perhaps get a passing treatise written by some academic in the 16th century looking for an obscure passage to make their mark with.  There's not really a lot to do with the passage; either looking upon naked fathers is super bad (a bizarre sermon or treatise, that), or there's some tribe somewhere that's cursed into servitude.  The latter is the tack the racial interpretation takes.  I'm sure someone can dig up alternate interpretations that got proposed somewhere, by somebody...  but these interpretations never really mattered in the theological world, and were completely unknown for everyone else.  The racial interpretation has historically been a very influential one, one that slavery apologists and many casual Christians would have been familiar with.  So it stands to reason that it should merit a large section of the article. SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Re this edit removing my comments: Excuse me? User:Til Eulenspiegel, it is *extremely* bad form to delete other's comments on the talk page unless they are trolling.  Anyway, my comments *are* relevant to improving the article, since Chris Krause thought that the article was too heavy on the racial interpretation at the moment.  I disagree, and explained why.  That's it. SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your reasons for disagreement included nothing but you using this page for a soapbox to expound your personal opinions and viewpoints on race and religion. Somebody else might care what you think, but we cannot do too much with your personal opinions and viewpoints here; try a blog. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jubilees location dispute
Where does the Book of Jubilees fit on this page?

Points to consider:
 * (1) The content of the Jubilees section are based on interpretations of the Jubilees’ narrative.
 * (2) All of the interpretations on this page are based on the Genesis narrative, not the Jubilees’ narrative.
 * (3) Though the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church holds the Book of Jubilees as scripture, it is considered Pseudepigrapha by most, making the Jubilees narrative a minority view.

I propose that the interpretation of the Jubilees’ narrative be located under “Interpretations” at the very end. I also propose that the title be called: Interpreting Jubilees’ narrative.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The content described the actual canonical text until you altered it to justify calling it an 'interpretation'. That is not fair because it deserves to come in the section with other works regarded as canonical scripture.  It should also be pointed out that the book of Jubilees was included at Qumran and quoted by early fathers.  It is not an 'Ethiopian view' nor is it a view at all but a primary text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I ammended the Jubilee section, by adding additional information to the existing content. There were no quotes before and that section does not constitute as a quote only section. All of the information on this page are interpretations except for the "Genesis narrative" section... which is the only quote only section. The bottom line is, Jubilees is not an authority on the Genesis narrative account and has not been canonized as scripture by all but one church, holding a minority view of that primary text. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is part of the Ethiopian Bible, I cannot follow your rationale for wanting to stick it at the bottom of the 'Interpretations' section as if wikpedia were showing some preference to one canon over another. It is not presented as a secondary source, but is itself a primary text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Book of Jubilees was not intended to be seen as a commentary on or interpretation of Genesis but as a complementary part of the canon. But, it is still a later work which does build upon Genesis, though it is earlier than the material in the interpretations section.  Also, the interpretation is not about Jubilees, but about Genesis.
 * I recommend the following restructure:
 * -Source text (the Genesis narrative)
 * -Latter expansion
 * --Jubilees (and any other religious texts, canon or pseudipigrapha, which expand on the story. Does the Qur'an comment on this?)
 * --Interpretation
 * That way, Jubilees is not treated as equal with Genesis (upon which it is based), but it is not treated as uncanonical interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also consider chronology of authority:
 * Jewish tradition holds the most authoritative weight of the Hebrew Bible because its studies of the Hebrew bible text are the oldest among any group of scholars. Second to Jewish tradition are Christian studies developed during the 1st millennium CE/AD. Third to that are Islamic views of Hebrew text developed since the 7th century CE/AD. When does a full examination and study of Jubilees occur? After the 15th century upon discovery of the Ge'ez texts. Quotes from classical antiquity commentators does not constitute authoritative examination of the Jubilee text, at least not until you have something to work with. Jasonasosa (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. You are ignoring early Christian scholars who quoted it at length in the first few centuries AD, not to mention those in Ethiopia who never ceased to be aware of it. Is their position on this controversy so insignificant in your estimation? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic information being suppressed

 * Jubilees also adds the detail that Ham was so displeased in response, that he departed from his father and brothers and built a city at the foot of Mount Ararat named after his wife, Ne'elatama'uk.[Jub. 7:13, 14]


 * In Jub. 10:29-34, Canaan is cursed again, this time for his own action of being the first to violate the agreed land division as set by his grandfather. He refused to travel to his allotted land "west of the sea", but rather settled in territory (Lebanon) that was allotted to the sons of Shem, specifically to Arpachshad. In this way, the Israelite conquest of Canaan is attributed not only to the promise made by YHWH to Abraham, a descendant of Arpachshad, but also to this curse.

If this is not the correct article, where should this be mentioned? Do we need a distinct article to discuss this "Curse of Canaan"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. lol. Jasonasosa (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the curse of Ham is really directed at Canaan and the curse of Canaan is usually refered to as the curse of Ham, information on the curse of Canaan should probably stay here. However, as Dougweller pointed out, there should probably be secondary sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This page is dedicated to the interpretations of Genesis 9:20-26, Jubilees 7:6-12, and 4Q252 FI, CII, Line 6-8 and the effect that the Curse of Ham had/has on political/religious movements. Anything beyond that... is off topic, or another apocrapha just waiting to be pasted on to this page. I propse that the "second curse" of canaan be posted on the Canaan (biblical figure) page, thats where that really belongs. Jasonasosa (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for further comment
This is shaping up into a debate over article WP:SCOPE. Information from the Ethiopian Bible that is significant to the curses of Canaan is being systematically excluded from this article for a variety of pretexts. It seems there is some agenda that the position of the Ethiopian Bible with regard to Ham, Canaan and the curses, be minimized as far as possible. It's as if the Ethiopian positions are ineligible or not welcome in the same smoking room where white scholars confer to determine what Biblical doctrines about the African races supposedly are, and where racists have proclaimed the famous lie for centuries that the biblical curse on Canaan is really a "curse on Ham" and by extension all persons of colour. Some are even quoted as arguing that the curse was a justification for the conquest of Canaan, which the deleted text has a direct relevance to. I therefore will pursue requesting a wider range of comments regarding where this pertinent information about the "curses on Canaan" from the Ethiopian Bible best belongs, and will place it according to discussion and consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Note also I have several great cites we could use to represent the widespread pov specifically objecting to the re-labeling of the biblical curse of Canaan as the "curse of Ham" for purpose of promoting slavery. see above section on 'what sources say about'... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is another subject... whether to rename this page as "Curse of Canaan" or not. Honestly, It's really hard to say... for the following reasons:
 * Commentators as early as Classical antiquity have interpreted Ham being cursed, even before the harvesting of Africans from Africa. (So the term "Curse of Ham" was already an accepted view. Does it take precedence over the naming "Curse of Canaan"? I don’t know.)
 * Goldenburg, scholar in Jewish Religion and Thought, strongly believes that only Canaan and his offspring were cursed... not Ham. So, why then, did Goldenburg name his book: "The Curse of Ham, 2009, (ISBN 1400828546, 9781400828548)" ? (Because its the popular view? Maybe.)
 * And then finally:
 * The concept "Curse of Ham" is what drove movements to push proslavery... not the concept of the "curse of Canaan", even if the curse really started with Canaan, it doesn't matter.


 * The article is driven by what expression was used to move people to do what they did, or believe in today... whether its right or wrong, true or false.  Jasonasosa (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How should the postion of the WP:Bible be presented
An editor has suggested that "Information from the Ethiopian Bible that is significant to the curses of Canaan is being systematically excluded from this article for a variety of pretexts. It seems there is some agenda that the position of the Ethiopian Bible with regard to Ham, Canaan and the curses, be minimized as far as possible. It's as if the Ethiopian positions are ineligible or not welcome in the same smoking room where white scholars confer to determine what Biblical doctrines about the African races supposedly are, and where racists have proclaimed the famous lie for centuries that the biblical curse on Canaan is really a "curse on Ham" and by extension all persons of colour. Some are even quoted as arguing that the curse was a justification for the conquest of Canaan, which the deleted text has a direct relevance to." Comments on this are requested. I am raising this formal RfC because the editor started a section headed "Request for comment" but has asked (so far) only at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and I wish to get a wider input. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ham and his mother
Hi, I greatly expanded the section on Ham and his mother. It's funny, I'm rather undecided on my own interpretation, but I still feel as though the new section may come across as slightly bias. I feel adamantly that both sides should be represented, but I don't want either side to be the clear 'winner'. What do you think, does either the section 'Ham and his mother' or the subsection 'alternate perspectives' seem bias at all? BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good info... but the title doesn't fit Wiki's standard because of the "An" in front of it... Besides, you don't even need a title there at all. Both the pros and the cons can occupy the same subsection. I propose that you just remove the title only, an alternate perspective, entirely. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good call about the title. I am still kind of learning the ropes of Wikipedia's formatting. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed 2 paragraphs here
The following 2 paragraphs included in the Bible quote section, instead of interpretation section, seemed out of place, and I can't see where in the intrepretation section they might go, if anywhere. The first paragraph is OR and unsourced. The second reference goes to a Google book that refuses to show page 79, and nothing on page 78 supports the claim.  Ham is not directly cursed for his actions; instead the curse falls upon his youngest son Canaan. The curse seems unduly severe for merely observing Noah unclothed. An explanation sometimes offered notes that the phrase "exposing or uncovering nakedness" is used several times elsewhere in the Pentateuch as a euphemism for sexual relations: the story may therefore be obliquely describing Canaan's origin as the result of an incestuous relationship between Ham and Noah's wife (his own mother); or it may be describing Ham sodomising his father. The story describes Yahweh as "God of Shem", but not of Japhet. The story also says that while Shem is to be "blessed", only Japhet is to be "enlarged", and that he shall "dwell in the tents of Shem." These factors support a composition date in the post-Exilic period of Jewish history, i.e., after 539 BCE, when the Japhetic (i.e., descended from Iapetos) Persians took over the Semitic Babylonian empire and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem: thus after 539 Japhet/Persia was "enlarged" and "dwelt in the tents of Shem", while the Yahweh-worshiping Jews returned to their homeland with the national project of subjugating the "Canaanites", those who had remained in the land of Judah but did not share the same worship. References 

Also, the picture does not seem appropriate there either, and seems more appropriate, if anywhere, in the intrepretation section where the opinion expressed by the picture is also expressed. Also, with a controversial topic like this, it seems best to have only the Bible text, without comment, in the narrative section.

See comment block for other minor edits if any made after posting this message. Thanks.—Telpardec (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The second para looks like something by Van Seters. Pretty standard. PiCo (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've added a reflist template above to display the footnote. —Telpardec TALK  16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This article...
...is really weird. PiCo (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pico, I see that overnight you have boldly restructured the article deleting huge portions of it that were hard squabbled over by other editors. This is one of the most controversial subjects of all time, and it can never be a one man show.  The need for extreme caution and slow, patient collaboration with others should be self evident here.  I haven't had a chance to look at what you've done yet, but I have a feeling we are going to have to reset the Pico version back to the last multi-editor COMPROMISE version, and take it all again MUCH MUCH SLOWER. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit boldly, that's me :)
 * Have you read Ruiten on Jubilees? The introduction gives a good overview of the history of the text, from the discovery of the first manuscripts in the Ethiopian monasteries in the 19th century to the discovery of Hebrew texts at Qumran. That should be useful to the article - it shows that Jubilees is at least as old as Qumran, and that was originally in Hebrew. (Must admit I haven't read Ruiten in full yet - still going through). PiCo (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)



Jubilees 7:6 And he rejoiced and drank of this wine, he and his children with joy.

7 And it was evening, and he went into his tent, and being drunken he lay down and slept, and was uncovered in his tent as he slept.

8 And Ham saw Noah his father naked, and went forth and told his two brethren without.

9 And Shem took his garment and arose, he and Japheth, and they placed the garment on their shoulders and went backward and covered the shame of their father, and their faces were backward.

10 And Noah awoke from his sleep and knew all that his younger son had done unto him, and he cursed his son and said: 'Cursed be Canaan; an enslaved servant shall he be unto his brethren.'

11 And he blessed Shem, and said: 'Blessed be the YHWH ALMIGHTY of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.

12 YHWH shall enlarge Japheth, and YHWH shall dwell in the dwelling of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.'

<BR />(--www.yahwehsword.org)</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mythological comparison
According to the text published in 1498 by the monk Annio da Viterbo purporting to be an ancient Babylonian chronicle ("Pseudo-Berossus"), 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. 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 account also abandons his wife who had been aboard the ark and had mothered the African peoples, and instead marries his sister Rhea, daughter of Noah, producing a race of giants in Sicily. Viterbo's text, while finding scholarly acceptance in the 16th century, has been widely dismissed as a forgery since ca. 1600. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.140.19 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Found a way to fit this in, by enlarging the subsection on medieval Europe and bringing in some additional material. Can you provide a reference for this? PiCo (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Two paragraphs removed
<DIV style="background:#ffd;padding:8px"> A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that a first edition of the Book of Genesis (and therefore the story of Ham and Noah and the curse) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC and was later expanded into a work very like the present-day book. This latter stage, when Genesis reached something very close to its modern form, is thought to belong to the 4th century BC.

===Further questions===

There are more unanswered questions in the story. Why do Shem and Japheth walk backwards with a cloak over their shoulders? (Walking backwards is associated with dying, and a cloak on the shoulders is an idiom for burdens that only God can remove); what does it mean that Japheth will be "enlarged" and "dwell in the tents of Shem"? (Shem was the traditional ancestor of the Israelites, while Japheth was the traditional ancestor of the Greeks and other northern peoples); Why does verse 25 apparently call Shem and Japheth the "brothers" of Canaan? ("The existence of such a variant ... would suggest a fluidity that is quite common among orally transmitted segmented genealogies").

References

Sources

</DIV>

The first paragraph above does not belong in the Bible quote section, (source criticism answers none of the questions at issue,) and I see no other place for it. The claim that walking backwards is associated with death was claimed by Bailey on the basis that the priest Eli fell backwards and broke his neck after hearing some bad news, but he was sitting, not walking. Side issue questions without answers don't add anything useful. —Telpardec TALK  16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should consider leaving the para about the composition and date of the story in - there's at least one other place in the article where we talk about the story being a reflection of the political realities of the period when it was written. Without this, it sort of hangs, unexplained. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stepping back and thank you
Thank you all for letting me have a free hand with some pretty massive editing of this article. I've tried to slim it down and bring out the major important things about the subject, as I can see them - those things are, the origins and original meaning of the story in Genesis, the attempts of commentators from ancient days to the present to explain problems with the story, (those two are connected but distinct), and the development of the story from its origins to a justification for slavery. That last part shouldn't, in my view, be overstated - it only took hold between the 17th and 19th centuries - but it was important enough.

Anyway, I won't edit this any more, and so please feel free to change whatever I've written if you wish, and even to revert the whole thing. (I've saved the main bits that I cut out, here on Talk, above - you can pick them out and put them back if you wish). PiCo (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

—Telpardec TALK  16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll take your not-edit statement to mean in the short term, to allow other editors time to examine your blitzkrieg of more than 200 edits, but that you'll return after a wiki break eventually. While I disagree with some of your edits, there is plenty of useful information also, so I for one would like to say THANKS for volunteering so much of your valuable time toward improving the article.


 * Thanks for the thanks :). No, I won't edit the article again at all - but I'll watch for a while, just out of curiosity to see what happens. PiCo (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

76.79.136.186 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)"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"

well of course! there weren't many black people around in the court of henry the 8th were there? this sentence is trying to downplay the idea that 'sons of ham' was used in a racist way. the only reason for this is that there weren't any black people around until slavery to apply it too. this sentence is sympathetic to christianity and not NPOV

NPOV Source Shows it is All three groups
Even in the book (Goldenber -- hardly the most balance person) used heavily here it clearly identifies THREE (not only Muslims -- Many who would have been African) So it is a violation of NPOV to use the lead for an agenda of "Rise of Islam = Rise of racism against "blacks"". In the book it states., The Arab racism ECHOES earlier racism against people of color. i.e. The Arabs inherited it. The most incredible thing about the curse of Ham was the Atlantic slave trade. But that didnt make the lead. Is it in the Qur'an? No, so it is a Judo-Christian book that spawned it. --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Muslim jurists in the Middle Ages wrote that, as a consequence of this supposed 'Curse of Ham' (which actually isn't even in the text), Ham's descendants had to be instructed keep their hair so short that it not extend past the ear. And African Muslim men who make a note to keep their hair so short as not to pass the ear in any direction, are thus buying into this fictional 'Curse of Ham' thing, perhaps without realizing it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The origins section cannot be NPOV... as it gives the POV from many different periods. As long as it is presented with balanced wp:weight, it should be fine. It's basically giving a historical outline in chronological order, which is about as NPOV as you are going to get. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

John Bale. Noah sodomised by Ham
I inserted some text on the writings of John Bale recently. I thought it would be helpful to some people to clarify why. As a starting point we all know that Ham did not exist as a historical person, and thus God cannot have literally have cursed him. Therefore what this article aims to do is set out what people over various centuries have understood this Biblical passage to mean and how (if at all) it is has influenced religious thought and social affairs. One of the traditional interpretations is that Ham sodomised Noah ( - incidentally I don't understand this odd suggestion that the "spirit of sodom" entered him. What does that mean?) This reading was certainly made by some 3rd century rabbis (as the article sets out). I therefore added the writings of John Bale to show that this idea was still in place in the early modern period and probably influenced later protestant writers up to the victorian period. It's therefore clearly not editorialising nor (I'm sorry to say) original research. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't we already have this conversation about this content that you've included?
 * First of all, you don't even have a page number to back up whatever you're posting. So by any count, any of us editors could easily charge that your insertion is wp:original or wp:synth.
 * Your placement of this text is right in the middle of the castration theory... which is sorely misplaced.
 * Starting off the paragraph with "Certaintly..." is pretty much wp:editorializing
 * You are at the edge of an edit war, because this has already been reverted twice before by two editors.
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  10:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we haven't had this conversation. Perhaps you thought I was there when you were conversing, but I can assure you that it wasn't me (unless you are referring to the curt edit summaries on the article page?).
 * The writings of John Bale are from the seventeenth century, so page numbers are rather irrelevant. However, to meet your concern I have now added a reference to the secondary source, in which Bales' writing on the issue can be found (Tom Betteridge, Sodomy in Early Modern Europe, p157).
 * My placement follows the sentence that runs..."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". So can you clarify why you say that is in the section dealing with castration?
 * Is "certainly" really editorialising? I fear you are grasping at straws. But I've suggested a more direct approach if you really think that is needed.
 * I wouldn't threaten me with an edit war, thanks. I'd rather we approach this in a mature way. No-one is warring.
 * Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "As a starting point we all know that Ham did not exist as a historical person, and thus God cannot have literally have cursed him." WRONG. That is not a "starting point".  That is YOUR view of history, and YOUR opinion you are pushing with an "everybody knows ___" type of fallacy.  According to many churches' view of history, however, Ham DID indeed exist as a historical person, so you are directly contradicting Church teaching with your "everybody knows ___".  Second point: Try reading a little about the topic before pontificating here. Nowhere is it even claimed that God cursed Ham, to begin with.  Rather, the Bible says it was CANAAN who was cursed, and not by God, but rather by the drunken Noah. If you missed that, what are you even doing here?
 * Finally, as for the quote you keep adding. This does have some relevance, because it does mention the topic of Ham's transgresion, but you are completely misconstruing it.  What it literally says, speaking in the voice of "Sodomy", is that this spirit was possessing Ham when Ham SCORNED his father.  You are taking a big leap by pretending this quote definitely means Ham sodomised his father.  If you want quotes saying that, I suggest you look for different sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Look I greatly respect people's personal beliefs - honestly I do - and people can believe whatever they like. But this is a secular encyclopaedia and we must ensure that the highest levels of intellectual rigour and honesty are maintained. There is absolutely no historical, archaeological or historical evidence that Ham ever existed. We must rely on rationalist thought and note that there was no man called Ham that lived on a boat with lots of animals. I cannot accept any "dumbing down". This is simply a story (and not proper history), and the point of the article is to consider how people have interpreted the story over the centuries. As for contradicting church teaching, well who doesn't? The christian churches also taught for many years that the sun went around the earth (sorry to break that one to you but....) I recognise that you may not want to accept this, but I'm afraid there's not much more to can do. To turn to Bale - I suggest you read the whole of the work in question (it's not very long). The lines attributed to Ham come within a section where the character of 'Sodomy' talks about several historial and religious figures and their engagement acts of sodomy. Indeed the work is part of wider protestant poelemic to attack perceived degeneracy and sodomy in the Catholic church of the time. The text can't be read in any other way. However I'm intrigued to hear if you think it can? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Great points Til, I wholeheartedly agree and I'm glad you tackled User:Contaldo80's "starting point" because... I really didn't want to go there. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe you do. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Til is a great wordsmith when it comes down to it. Good job removing that wp:editorializing. I couldn't have done it better. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I genuinely believe that you couldn't. And what is this red-herring about editorialising. Please be specific, rather than alluding to something in general terms. There is no editorialising in taking something from a secondary souce that sets the context - ie perceptions in the early modern period. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Contaldo, but this is strictly a NEUTRAL encyclopedia, not a place for you to push your personal secular POV. There is no way to disprove Ham's historical existence merely by lack of archaeology. It's a view of history, it's a valid view of history, it is a widely held view of history, and you are seriously over-reaching your ground to pretend the authority to declare it "wrong", and the churches that teach this "wrong". Nobody has figured out a way to send a camera back in time and find out who really lived when. Wikipedia must neutrally note what all the alternative views of history are, but none has been "proven" wrong to everyone's satisfaction, so we cannot go ahead and simply "declare" the people who hold such and such a view of history to be absolutely wrong and still call ourselves "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are so far out of it that there's no useful starting point to help you. I really wish I could. "Send a camera back in time" - beautiful. This is not history, it is myth. But hey you go on and believe whatever you like if it makes you truly happy. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever asking for your "help", I'm doing just fine, thanks. But you are also entitled to your point of view, as long as you don't try to force it down wikipedia's throat as the only "correct" point of view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed perfectly good sourced text. Don't do that again without first setting out your reasoning. You are starting to take a bullying approach on this issue, based on a shocking level of personal ignorance of how to approach the historical record. Is editing on wikipedia really the right place or you?Contaldo80 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rich coming from you, since you a moment ago blundered in here thinking the Bible says that "God cursed Ham" so you obviously haven't bothered to find out the first thing about this topic yet. I have already explained the problem with your edit.  Put simply, your source states that Ham SCORNED Noah while the spirit of Sodomy was half joined to Ham, and you are pushing a viewpoint that this means they thought Ham sodomized Noah.  Don't include the quote at all if you cannot do so accurately. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For as unnecessary as the John Bale material is, Til neutralized it the way it should have been, otherwise keep that noise out of the article. At present, I agree with Til's entire removal of the paragraph. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be reasonable but I fear you two editors are trying to prevent a sensible discussion based on personal religious beliefs. I suggest we go to an administrator please and get this resolved. I cannot build consensus with you two alone. You present this as original research but I have demonstrated the secondary source that supports the reading. I will make the point again that there is no point trying to find out literally why God cursed Ham (or Canaan or whoever) because there was not a fixed point in time at which God actually physically cursed Ham/ Canaan. Ham, Noah, Canaan, Mrs Noah, Mrs Noah's pet cat etc did not exist (and no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise). What we must do is set out in this article how people interpreted it. 3rd century rabbis suggested it was because Ham sodomised Noah, and what I was trying to show through my amendment is that this was a common belief up until the early modern period (if you can understand yourselves what the early modern period is). Incidentally "God" cursed the House of Ham (Ham and his offspring) - I haven't even started on the debate about whether this is a misnomer! So it isn't blundering. And if it's such a big deal then you could start with the image at the top of the page which is captioned "God cursing Ham"! You can present this as an edit-war if you like, but it isn't (at least not on my part). For some reason you both don't like the issue of sodomy presented in any meaningful way in this article. Do you accept or not that Betteridge says in his book that Bale referred to Ham sodomising Noah?Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Contaldo, did you really "NOT HEAR THAT" or are you just pretending? Please try to comprehend basic English:  Nobody has claimed that "God" cursed ANYONE in the story.  At issue here is the story of whom NOAH cursed, when NOAH was drunk.  I again question why you are trying to "fix" this article when you haven't even got that point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right - my mistake. Hands up - apologies. Noah cursed Ham; not God. A temporary mental abberation caused by a tedious, frustrating and fruitless discussion. It does't really change anything though. One authority figure is much the same as another. Only to underscore the point with even more certainty that Noah didn't exist and so couldn't have literally cursed Ham. Now will you address the point about Bale or do I need to make a complaint against you? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You've still got the Bible wrong. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Bible says Noah's curse fell on Ham's younget son CANAAN.. NOWHERE does it say Ham was ever cursed by anyone, except in the false arguments for things like slavery of Blacks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012
 * I suggest you read more widely the academic literature. The case is not clear cut. Some interpret the curse as falling on Canaan, but some also on Ham (by cursing Canaan). It's not straightforward; and the article should deal with it more honestly. It's not a case of reading the words in the Bible and taking them on face value. It's obvious that nothing in the Bible is ever meant to be read literally. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't I say there are sources even now today trying to push the lie that there is a "Curse of Ham" mentioned in the Bible? I am well aware of this.  And evidently wikipedia editors who favor these sources. And they always use the same argument you just made: "The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it really says what WE want it to say." (in this case, that it somehow endorses slavery of Blacks.) But if any sources like that are going to be mentioned, they must, per policy, be attributed and not endorsed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(UTC)

Re Ham's existence: considering most other myths, no matter how fantastic, are based on some other observable phenomenon, it's reasonable to consider that Ham was modeled on or inspired by a historical figure (or combination of figures), or a personification of some early society or portion of an early society. "If it hasn't been proven, it's false" is unscientific. If it hasn't been proven, then the possibility is weighed. Last year, the Higgs-Boson wasn't proven (I know they're still working on it but are still pretty sure), but it was considered highly likely. That there was someone named Ham in the middle east is plausible (oddly enough, a traditional name for Egypt is Cham or Kham). Seeing how sons continue to displease their drunken fathers, it's completely plausible that this "Ham" (be it a person or rival but related tribe) went against the ancestral traditions of some whoever first told the story of Ham. This is not to say that the flood, Noah's curse, the table of nations, or any other part of the Bible is historical: just that the existence of Ham, as a person or persons, is not something that archaeology or history is going to dismiss. You are not the personification of archaeology or history, so you are in no position to declare who did or did not exist.

Back on topic: For the record, I personally doubt that Ham was a single historical individual, regardless of my other religious beliefs. Still, I have to say that Contaldo80's actions in this are only wrong. Contaldo80, accusing other of censoring you because of their personal beliefs without evidence is a personal attack, and I recommend you apologize and withdraw that remark.

Here's one way you could properly cite Bale - The dramatic writings of John Bale: Bishop of Ossory, by John Bale, p.22 and 97, Priv. print. for subscribers by the Early English drama society., 1907. However, I advise you do not, as you need a secondary source to establish that this line in a renaissance play is notable or representative (think of it this way, we don't cite fan-fiction for canon info). I also advise against it as it does not mention Sodomy. Seeing how the following line (from "God" says that Nimrod treated Him the same way, "In like case Nimrod against me wrought abusion,") it's more clear that Bale was implying Ham masturbated to the sight of his father. Your addition was nothing but original research (which we do not allow), and poorly done original research at that.

As for your attempts at secondary sources, I searched for Betteridge, and here are the mentions of Bale. Nothing supporting what you wrote. I did not include a search for Noah, Ham, or Cham because Betteridge does not mention them at all. I cannot assume simultaineous good faith and competence on your part for that citation. Looking through my lovely searchable e-copy of Garton, there's no mention of Bale, Noah, Ham, or Cham either.

Contaldo80, you didn't get the Bible story right, you didn't get Bale right, you completely misrepresented Betteridge right, and totally made up what was in Garton. If you continue to push this, I will only be able to assume you are either too incompetent to actually help the site or are editing in bad-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should assume either. The line: "In like case Nimrod against me wrought abusion," is not from Bales' "Comedy Concerning Three Laws of Nature, Moses and Christ, Corrupted by the Sodomites, Pharisees and Papists Most Wicked". So can I clarify why you have referred me to it? The latter play is clearly a reference to sodomy, and not masturbation. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The bit from God's promises does clarify that Bale thought it was masturbation. In Three laws, Ham scorned Noah, and says nothing about Ham sodomizing Noah.  The "half-joined" is between the narrator (the devil) and Ham.  My point that you need secondary sources still stands.  Still, would you please explain why you cited Betteridge when he doesn't mention Noah, Ham, or Cham at all, and Garton when he doesn't mention them or Bale? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked out User:Contaldo80's source used for the John Bale paragraph, (Tom Betteridge, "Sodomy in Early Modern Europe", University of Manchester, 202, p157 ISBN 9780719061158) and there is nothing on that page that provides a proper source for such content. Do you [User:Contaldo80]] just pick page numbers from out of... the air, to post your edits? What are you pushing man?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  18:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to me as "man" - thank you. Yes, I have to apologise. My source for John Bale was Rictor Norton ("Essays on Homosexuality") that references the "Comedy Concerning Three Laws of Nature". I disagree that the reading of that work by Bale discounts sodomy (in favour of masturbation). I think that's no less a case of original research. But I accept that neither Betteridge nor Garton explicitly make the link themselves, and I'm reluctant to cite Norton (as it's a web-page rather than a book; although Norton has published several books). In which case I accept there is no point for the time-being pursuing the Bale reference. This is reinforced in my mind by Freedman (who I have now referenced in the main article) that medieval and early modern Christian thought was hardly influenced by the Talmud (within which the point on sodomy is first made). I had thought the belief was more widespread; I accept now that that there is no evidence that is was (pace Bale). But 3 more issues are now raised and require resolution:
 * Does the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 70a) actually use the word ‘sodomised’? As in at least one translation I’ve seen it as Ham ‘sexually abused’ Noah (which is not necessarily the same thing). I assume here we are relying on Goldenberg’s translation.
 * There is considerable editorialising in the ‘Analysis’ section eg - “The details of the story, however, are mysterious: What did Ham do? Why did the punishment fall on Ham's son instead of Ham?’ and  ‘There are further puzzles:’ I know some editors have a big thing about editorialising, so puzzling that they missed this.  This needs to be amended. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Contaldo80, this was a good call on your part. Thank you for finding this problematic section. I've made the following changes on:
 * 18:28, 15 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,799 bytes) (+162)‎ . . (→‎Analysis: User:Contaldo80 was actually right about the Curse of Ham#Analysis section as referenced on Talk:Curse of Ham#John Bale. Noah sodomised by Ham item #2; Revamped entire par riddled with "mysteries"; might be WP:CLICHE) (undo)
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  18:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3. I suggest we make a reference somewhere to hyper-phallism. Several commentators I have read note a connection between the curse of Ham and the influence of European beliefs (early modern period onwards) in the highly sexualised appetites of Africans (contributing to rumour about large phalluses).
 * None of this changes my initial points about the need for this article to reflect various interpretations of the Biblical episode over time. There is nothing to be gained from trying to ascertain a literal truth as to what actually happened; only perhaps what the original Biblical writers meant in presenting the story. We must be guided by rational thought and avoid any approach that takes Noah, Noah's Ark, or Ham to be genuine historical actors. The academic consensus is clearly against this, and it is intellectually dishonest. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, why did you make up the material in Betteridge and Garton? It isn't that they fail to explicitly make the connection, they do not even implicitly make it, or begin to.  This is the only essay that mentions John Bale by Norton (proof, the only other two pages are bibliographies).  Garton is not cited at all on that page, neither is Betteridge for that matter.  This is the only page where Betteridge is mentioned (proof), but it in no way connects it to Noah or Ham, just Bale (which does not connect it to Noah or Ham).  Garton is not mentioned once in the entire site.  No serious academic would have jumped to the conclusions you did.  This sort of screw up would result in failing any college course.
 * As for the Talmud bit, if you check, you'll see that it's cited to a secondary source discussing the Talmud's account. Personal examination of primary sources is usually (and is in this case) original research.  Regarding what you think is editorializing, it is only summarizing Sadler 2006.  That you failed to see that, and the way you've completely bungled re Bale, Betteridge, and Garton, leaves me concerned about your ability to edit (and that's assuming good faith).
 * And as I explained earlier (but covered up since it was supposed to be slightly off topic), most myths (no matter how fantastic) try to describe some sort of observable phenomenon. Considering how a traditional name for Egypt was Cham and that both Egyptians and Semites are Afro-Asiatic, it's reasonable to see it as a Euhemerism for a disagreement over paternal traditions.  This does not make the story false, it only changes the sense in which it is true.  Because stories can be interpreted in a variety of ways, real anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians (none of which you represent) do not go around like religious fundamentalists pointing at various cultures' traditional stories screaming "you're wrong!  My worldview is superior to all others!"  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should retract your insults. You've accused me of "incompetence", being a "screw-up", and "failing a college course". If you can't be civil then I suggest you stop editing. I haven't directed any personal abuse at you; so your comments are uncalled for. I must say you've made editing this article one of the more unpleasant experiences I can remember. I won't restate my arguments again but Norton talks about Bale and makes the connection to sodomy. Betteridge and Garton, while not linking Bale's views on sodomy specifically to Ham, do nevertheless reference Bale as a polemicist that used sodomy in his writings. I accept that the connection should have been more explicit. The Talmud point remains important - I recognise that the secondary source says "sodomy" but I was raising the question as to whether the source mistranslated "sexual relations" and was therefore reliable. My point on editorialising remains valid and I'm glad to see that other editors have taken a more constructive approach in trying to rectify. Incidentally, you are wrong, I have a university degree in history so can represent the discipline adequately - despite your sniping. The continued suggestion that Ham, Noah and Canaan were real people remains intellectually insulting, and there is no evidence (none whatsover) to say otherwise. I don't think it's appropriate to go further into your personal views - which I undestand to be argument that a historical man called "Ham" was the literal progenitor of the entire Egyptian race? Unless you wish to present some of your own for these absurd claims, then I suggest we continue on the assumption that the article interprets what intention the mythical story was meant to convey. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I actually said instead of putting words in my mouth. I did not call you a screw up, I said you screwed up. I said that that sort of screw up would result in failing a college course, I never discussed you going to college. You made up the contents of references. Betteridge only discusses Bale in the first 25 pages of his work, not page 157. Betteridge does not mention "Noe" (Noah), or "cham", though you wrote "With Noe's son Cham I was half joined, when he his drunken father scorned" as referenced in Tom Betteridge, "Sodomy in Early Modern Europe". You did not just quote him as discussing Bale's non-Hamitic thoughts on sodomy, you quoted him as justifying your interpretation of Bale. And once again, Garton does not reference Bale at all, I have my searchable electronic copy right in front of me, and I've searched for Bale multiple times and found nothing. Page 75 of Garton discusses the historical relationship between marriage, prostitution, and homosexuality -- not Bale, not sodomy, not Noah, not Ham. And yet you cited him only to say that your interpretation of Bale's belief was popular in the 16th century. You wrote an addition and cited sources that had absolutely nothing to do with the addition, and now you're pretending you were citing them for something else. That is not done with both honesty and competence, so which is it you are lacking here? Your continued attempts to change the subject make it really hard to continue to assume good faith with this addition. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know what, I guess I did mess up. I got the pages numbers wrong - and misread the sources. It wasn't deliberate - I wasn't intending to mislead. I genuinely thought my amendments were consistent with mainstream academic opinion. I realise now that they were not, and I did try to correct that. My intention was simply to make the article more rounded and shed some light on how artists/ writers/ theologians might have approached the issue in the medieval and early modern age. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It happens. I make mistakes as well and I will admit when I'm wrong, so I can respect your position. Besides, this article is a hot controversial page, moderated quite frequently by avid editors. So even greater care should be taken when editing these types of articles... but it's all in wp:goodfaith, we understand. :)  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To address User talk:Contaldo80's item #3 regarding phallus magna Africae is completely wp:fringe. Save it for your own personal blog. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was fringe then it wouldn't be covered in some detail in several academic works on the curse of Ham. HHave you read any academic works on the curse of Ham? But seeing that any editing to this article needs to pass through committee, then I'll save my energies for something else. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)