It never happens that a rabbinical theory on any subject comes in a monolithic form; a general line of thought always appears, however; it can be found even from contradictory statements, if there are historical justifications or other supporting evidence. From there, we can categorically say this: the idea that the curse pronounced by Noah affected the whole family of Ham, and the idea that blacks are the descendants of Canaan, the cursed son of Ham, are totally foreign to biblical thought. and rabbinic. The Bible story is clear enough: “When Noah awoke from his drunkenness, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. And he said, “Cursed be Canaan, let him be for his brothers the last of the slaves!” (Gen. 9, 24-25). Rabbinic literature is equally clear: it was not Cham who was cursed, but Canaan. “It has been well tried to say that Ham was also afflicted by this curse, 2 but the Jewish tradition, as a whole, hardly corroborates this opinion.
In the minds of the rabbis, there is never any doubt about the specific identity of the one who was cursed, Canaan, nor about the distinction between him and Ham. In fact, some legends and biblical commentaries arose from the need to explain why the curse and punishment fell on Canaan, apparently innocent, while his apparently guilty father Cham was not punished. This difficult problem had to provoke many answers and many speculative opinions: a good example to show how rabbinic religious thought on any given subject can be diversified.3 And one of the answers proposed as a solution to the problem proves that the rabbis were well aware of the differences between Canaan on the one hand and Kush, the father of blacks, and his brothers on the other. Some, indeed, suggest that the curse fell on Canaan precisely because God wanted to spare the rest of the family of Ham who, of course, understood his brethren (Mizraim, Kush, Put). not this answer; they advance the conjecture that Noah, to avenge himself on Ham who had prevented him from having a fourth son, cursed his fourth son, Canaan, according to the law of reprisals. This answer, however, does not satisfy a certain number of rabbis who propose a syllogism: since God had already conferred a blessing on Noah and his sons (Gen. 9, 1) and since a blessing could not be withdrawn or replaced with a curse, Noah threw the curse against his grandson.
The descendants of Canaan – Who are they?
Relations with Israel
Nowhere in Rabbinic literature do we find that the descendants of Canaan the curse are blacks or Africans.5 And, in fact, this point has never been raised in the rabbis’ mind: it was Kush and not Canaan, who lived in Africa south of Egypt.
Many Jewish biblical and post-biblical sources, as we know, refer to the descendants of Canaan as to Canaanites, 6 and modern epigraphic and archaeological sources tell us much about these same Canaanites. They were geographically, historically and culturally a Semitic people from the northwest who occupied almost the entire territory of the east coast of the Mediterranean west of the Jordan. They wrote and spoke a language related to Hebrew. From this point of view, and also from the ethnico-racial point of view, they were related to the Israelites themselves as well as to the Phoenicians, the famous navigators and traders of the ancient world. It is certain that, from the time of the Old Kingdom (3rd millennium BC), the Egyptians have, at intervals, dominated this region; and that they have controlled it sometimes firmly, sometimes cowardly. But after the decline of Egyptian civilization, towards the end of the second millennium BC, there appeared locally, in the area now occupied by Lebanon, Syria and Israel, a number of kingdoms still at war with each other. others. It was thought, then, that the Israelite nation was born, as one of those who culturally and politically inherited Canaanites. It was then also that the Canaanites, having yielded part of their territory to the Philistines and the Israelites, took the lead in the international expansion of commerce in the Mediterranean world and began to be known as the Phoenicians. Although they were probably farmers at the beginning of their history, as shown by the names they gave to the deities of vegetation (‘Il, Baal and Anat), they ended up being recognized, even in the world of Israelites, like the most eminent merchants and men of business.8 Israelites and Canaanites shared the same territory, or occupied contiguous territories; they were neighbors, not to say relatives; and therefore there must have been continually between them, as in most other states, peoples and societies in similar situations, misunderstandings, quarrels, disputes and wars that have made them forever enemies of politics and antagonism. The story of the Canaan curse was most likely invented to explain the Israelites’ feelings towards the Canaanites and justify the reason for their struggle against the people with whom they were perpetually intermingled? This is fully explained in the Jubilee Book, a post-Biblical Jewish work found entirely only in the Ge’ez (Ethiopian) version. According to this book, “Canaan saw the land of Lebanon as far as the river of Egypt. He saw that she was very good. And he did not go to the land of his inheritance on the west sea side; but he dwelt in the land of Lebanon eastward and westward of the border of the Jordan and the border of the sea. So Ham, his father, Kush, and Mizraim, his brethren, said unto him,
“You have established yourself on a land that is not yours and that fate has not given us: do not do this, for if you do it, this earth will see your fall and that of your sons; know the seduction and you will be cursed, because it is by the sedition that you are installed there and it is by sedition that your sons will fall and you, you will be uprooted forever Do not live where dwells Shem, for this place has been attributed to him and his sons by fate, and are you cursed today and tomorrow among all the sons of Noah by the oath and curse with which we commit ourselves. ourselves in the presence of the Holy Judge and in the presence of our father Noah. ”
In spite of this, he did not listen to them, but he remained in the land of Lebanon. … That’s why this land is called Canaan “10
Thus, it was said that the Canaanites were cursed because their father Canaan had violated the divine decree on the distribution of the land and usurped the territory and inheritance of the Israelites. This curse was to be developed by future generations. It should also be noted that the Canaanites, once a farming people, later became the merchants, sailors and businessmen of the Jewish peasantry world: it was easy to label them as exploiters and to repeat that their ancestor had commanded them to be “thieves, adulterers, and lazy.” Cliché invented probably, like many similar stories, to justify the feelings of the Israelites towards the Canaanites.
No discrimination
The biblical story of this curse, or the subsequent Haggadic elaborations and legends about Canaan and his descendants, reflect the political and socio-economic realities of ancient Israel. Yet, despite insults, insults, and slanderous defamation against the Canaanites, there is no biblical or post-biblical scripture that challenges their human dignity or denies their equality with the Israelites as human beings, as was the case. to do so in the modern West some racist ideological and scientific theories about non-Europeans. The biblical and post-biblical writers, as well as the rabbinic masters, certainly believed in the idea of a moral election (ie, that God chooses those who obey His laws, or that God has chosen Israel to give Him the law). But the doctrine of racism, according to which certain peoples are biologically and naturally superior to others, is foreign to their thought. The rabbis, like the ancient Israelites, thought that those who transgress the law of God may be subject to various punishments; and the concept of “curse and blessing” applies not only to the Canaanites but to the Israelites themselves if they transgress the law. “And so, if the Canaanites are condemned to perpetual slavery because of their disobedience, he the same goes for the Israelites, punished in the land of Egypt by becoming the slaves of the Egyptians, and still punished in all the places of their exile. ” Ham has sinned and his son Canaan is cursed; Is Israel sinning? his land will be cursed. “According to one rabbi, the sin committed by the Ten Tribes of Israel is even more serious than the sin committed by Ham, the father of Canaan, and this is why their punishment is more rigorous:
“If Ham, the father of Canaan, who did not strike (his father), but merely cast his eyes (on his nakedness), was condemned, with his descendants, to perpetual slavery, how much more will he be who curses and strike at once! ”
This allusion, concludes the rabbi, is aimed at “the Ten Tribes who refused to bear the yoke of God, and as a result Sennacherib came and took them captive …” “Just as the Israelites who sin against God can be cursed. and the Canaanites who obey God may be blessed, that is, there is no dogmatic view of the curse of Canaan, so that the Canaanite Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, was able to escape, as a such, to the curse. ” A Canaanite tribe, that of the Girgashites, left Canaan by herself and went to the north of Africa; so God blessed them by giving them a land “as beautiful as theirs.” Similarly, because the Canaanites did welcome the Israelites when they came to the land, God allowed the land to bear their name. ” Finally, like anyone who can turn to God through repentance, the Canaanites can repent and be accepted into the land of Israel.
The curse of Canaan is, conceptually speaking, a political myth with elements of national chauvinism; but it’s not a racial ideology. Moreover, even assuming that one seeks to forge racial implications, it is absolutely impossible to argue that the prejudice of the Israelites against the Canaanites applies to Kush, the traditionally recognized father of black peoples.
1. Bekor 13a; Kid 67b; 7a etc.
2. See Pesikta Rabbati 21, 22. Some early theologians (see also Qur’an XI), 44s) already claimed that Cham had suffered the consequences of Noah’s curse, but it was only in the Middle Ages that writers, both Christian and Jewish or Muslim, directly attributed this curse to Ham. See Mas’udi who writes clearly: “and he says” Cursed be Cham … “”. See the text published by C.B. de Meynard and P. de Coteille, The Prairies d’Or, Paris, 1861, ch. III, p. 76; and finally, for example, Richard Jobson, The Golden Trade or A Discovery of the Gambia River and the Golden Trade of the Aethiopians, 1623, ed. Charles G. Kingsley, Teignmouth, 1904, pp. 65s; for an essay on historical explanation, see Albert Perbal, “The Negro Race and the Curse of Ham,” University of Ottawa Review, 1940, vol. X, pp. 157s where it is said that the curse of Ham was forged, and the punishment was transferred from the person of Canaan to the whole family of Ham to justify slavery and colonization. Augustine calls Ham “the wicked brother” and explains that Ham (who means warm), second son of Noah, while remaining among his brothers, is, as it were, separated from them, not belonging to the first strain of Israel, nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, and that it symbolizes the heretic world, carried by the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, as are the hearts of the heretics who disturb the peace of the saints. (De Civitate Dei, Book XVI, 2). Elsewhere he compares Cham to Cain. Chrysostom also speaks of Noah’s sons worthy of esteem because they loved their father “while the other was cursed because he did not love his father”. (Homily on I Th, 4). Compare also to: “Tertia decima generatione cum ex tribus filiis Noe, unus medi er, patri fecisset iniuriam, posteritati suae ex maledicto conditionem servituis induxit” (Clementis Romani, Recognitiones, Book I, 30). It would be wrong, however, to accuse these theologians of racism on this subject, for such was not the purpose of their exegetical exposition or preaching. (See Cave of Treasures, 19b – Budge,
p. 121.)
3. Ber. Rabbah 36: 5-7; Tanhuma Buber 49-50; Tanh. Noah 13-15; Sanh. 70a; Pes. 113b; Mid. Haserot; Jonathan Targum; etc.
4. Mid. Haggadol Bereshith, Noah 25.
5. There are only a few indications concerning the presence of Canaanites in North Africa: we see one in the fact that the Canaanites actually welcomed the Israelites upon their arrival, and therefore God said to them, “You have opened the country wide, that he is called by your name, and I will give you another land as beautiful as yours. ” Some say it would be Africa (North). In the same way we find another indication concerning the Girgashites, who voluntarily left the country of Canaan, came from Egypt at the time of Alexander to take back the territory of Israel, but were sent back. (Nb R. 17,3, Lv, R. 17,6); See also ad locum Wayikra Rabba, ed. Margulies, Jerusalem, 1954, pp. 3s.
6. Gn. 10.15s; I Ch. 1,13s; R.H. 3a; 13a; B.B. 56a; 117a; Mak. 9b; 10a.
7. O (il) (Doi.v (fi Lvixii, Phenicia, leo 1, – çoç, (Do tv ix Lvog Phénicien).
8. Their very name meant “merchant”. Is 23.8; Ez. 17.4; Bone. 12.8; Zeph. 1.11; Lv. R. (Mesora) 17.5. On the general history of the Canaanites, see W. F. Albright, “New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, LXXXIII, 1941, pp. 14-22; The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization, Studies in the History of Cultures, 1942, pp. 11-50; B. Maisler, “Canaan and the Canaanites,” Basor CH, 1946, pp. 7-12; Mr. Noth, “Die Syrisch-palastinische Bevalkerung des zweiten Jahrtausends y. Chr. im Lichte neuer Quellen, “Zeitschrift des deutchen Pastastina-Vereins, LXV, 1942, pp. 9-67.
9. It is quite common for people who live in perpetual tension with others to invent stories that serve as psychological weapons against their enemies by denigrating them. Just think of the opposition between English and Irish, Flemings and Walloons and even Americans and Russians. The poetry and traditional songs of Ethiopia speak of Europeans who invaded this country as being Araman (race without God and without culture) and farani (foreign and without culture), word derived from “Franc”. In Ethiopia, as in other parts of Africa, white people are often called “satans” or “demons”. See also note 31.
10. Jub. 10, 28-34. It is very interesting to note that here Canaan is not cursed by Noah but by his own father, Ham, and his brothers, Kush and Mizraim.
11. See Dt 32-34; Is. 1, etc.
12. Gn. 15.13; Ex. Ls; A. 17; 25; Bone. ls; Am. Ls; Is .1, s; Jr 17s; etc.
13. Lv. R. 17.5; Midrash Tadshe 17.
14. Ex. R. 30.5.
15. Lv. R. 17.5.
16. Lv. R. 17.6.
17. Nm. R. 17.3.
18. Sotah 35b.