CHAPTER VIII THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS Noah as the Vine-dresser and his three Sons Genesis ix. 18-29 IN the short section, which follows the narrative of the Flood, is related the prophetic declaration of the Patriarch Noah concerning the future destiny of the races that were to spring from his three sons. The description of Noah as the first vine-dresser recalls the style of iv. 17-24; and the incident, it will be observed, has no direct connexion with the narrative of the Flood. It is, therefore, not impossible that what is here related (vers. 20-27) was drawn by the Jehovist from a distinct source of ancient Israelite tradition, and was connected by him with the Deluge section by means of vers. 18 and 19. The suggestion is worth remembering in view of the well-known difficulty, in the present passage, occasioned by the fact that the curse is pronounced, not upon Ham, but upon Canaan. The theory has been advanced (1) that, in one Israelite form of the tradition, the three sons of Noah were Shem, Canaan, and Japheth; (2) that it was Canaan who treated his father with contumely, and therefore received his father's curse; (3) that the compiler of the book, on appending this narrative to the story of the Flood, harmonised it with what had gone before by the insertion of the words "Ham the father of" before "Canaan," in ver. 22, and by the explanatory gloss "and Ham is the father of Canaan," in ver. 18. This explanation, bold as it appears, deserves consideration. It accounts for the sudden mention of Canaan's name in vers. 18 and 22; it satisfactorily accounts for the curse being pronounced upon Canaan in ver. 25; it explains the abruptness which marks the introduction of the whole incident. The more usual explanation is that the prophetic glance, which could see in Shem the chosen race of Israel, saw also in Ham the Canaanites that were to be Israel's foes; and that Ham, who shamed his father, received the curse in the prediction of the shameful destiny of his own youngest son. But we should expect that, if the curse were pronounced upon Canaan as the typical son of wrath, the blessing would also have been prophetically pronounced upon some typical son of grace. The difficulty at once disappears, if vers. 20-27 represent a separate stratum of Israelite tradition in which Canaan was a son of Noah; and if the parenthetical words in vers. 18 and 20 reflect an endeavour, on the part of the compiler, to harmonise this tradition with that which has already appeared in the story of the Flood. It is a sad reflection, that the words of the curse pronounced upon Canaan (ver. 27) were only a century ago quoted in justification of negro slavery. Literalism must indeed have been tyrannous, when men who recognised that slavery was a curse could justify it on the ground of the Patriarch's prediction, and were even found ready to associate themselves with its actual infliction. Modern interpretation is exposed to perils of quite a different class. No candid exegesis of the oracle of Noah would now permit us to harmonise his words with modern scientific conceptions as to the distribution of races. It has now for a long time been well known and generally recognised, that the old and simple plan of assigning the population of Asia to the descendants of Shem, that of Africa to the descendants of Ham, and that of Europe to the descendants of Japheth, is utterly unscientific; it fails in nearly every respect to satisfy the complex problems presented by the history of language and the descent of nations. Even in recent times, scholars have too rashly sought to trace the fulfilment of the curse upon Canaan in events of Greek and Roman history, which, if disastrous to Hamitic races, were equally so to the kindred of Israel, e.g. the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians, the Syrians and the Assyrians. We should do wisely not to read into this section of Scripture the discoveries of modern ethnological science. Probably, the most reasonable line of interpretation is that which will consistently decline to expand, by a process of mere conjecture, the range of this prophetic oracle beyond the circle of those races which were known to the early Israelite people (see chap. x.). To their restricted view, Ham (or Canaan) represented especially the heathen who dwelt on the borders of the Promised Land, whom Israel had but partially dispossessed; Japheth represented the nations at a greater distance, of whom but little was known. The thought of the mission of Israel to the world supplies the key to the utterance of Noah. The curse of Canaan is the curse pronounced against Israel's greatest foe and constant source of moral temptation; the shamelessness of Ham reflects the impression produced, by the sensuality of the Canaanite, upon the minds of the worshippers of Jehovah. The blessing of Shem is bound up with the family of Israel, who alone worshipped the one true God, Jehovah. The blessing of Japheth is made dependent on the connexion of the northern races with the Hebrews, and on their peaceful relations with Israel: "He shall dwell in the tents of Shem." Israel's blessing granted by Jehovah shall be dispersed, by the instrumentality of the other nations, throughout the world. It is in reality a Messianic forecast. It is a proclamation of the blessing which, through the line of Israel, is assured to them that are "afar off," as well as to them that are nigh. The Table of the Nations The Israelite compiler follows a clearly indicated plan. His immediate goal is the history of the chosen family. Before he can reach that point, it is needful he should account for the rise of the other nations. After a brief but comprehensive survey, he will notice the line of the descendants of Shem (chap. xi.); then, still more narrowly restricting this area, he will devote himself to the traditions of the family of Terah (xi. 27-32, xii.-l.). Wearisome as the list of names will seem to many a reader of the chapter, it is the more necessary for us to recognise its place and its true religious significance in the Hebrew Scriptures. It reminded the Israelites that God made of one blood all the nations of the earth, and that the heathen, who knew not Jehovah, were nevertheless brethren of Israel. It reminded him that his own nation was only one among the nations of the earth, by origin and descent in no way separated from them, but, only by the grace of God, selected and chosen to be the bearer of His revelation to the world. Thus |