Noah's Curse : The Biblical Justification of American Slavery

by Stephen R. Haynes

"A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." So reads Noah's curse on his son Ham, and all his descendants, in Genesis 9:25. Over centuries of interpretation, Ham came to be identified as the ancestor of black Africans, and Noah's curse to be seen as biblical justification for American slavery and segregation. Examining the history of the American interpretation of Noah's curse, this book begins with an overview of the prior history of the reception of this scripture and then turns to the distinctive and creative ways in which the curse was appropriated by American pro-slavery and pro-segregation interpreters.

Genres: History, Religion, Politics, Race, Theology, Nonfiction, American History

322 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Stephen R. Haynes is Professor of Religious Studies, Albert Bruce Curry Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College. Dr. Haynes holds a Ph.D. in Religion and Literature from Emory University, the M. Div. from Columbia Theological Seminary, an M. A. from Florida State University, and a B. A. from Vanderbilt University. Professor Haynes has been at Rhodes since 1989 and offers courses on the Holocaust, the Bible and its reception, religion and reconciliation, and religion and addiction. In addition to these subjects, he has research interests in Jewish-Christian relations, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the biblical justifications for slavery and segregation. Dr. Haynes was ODK Untenured Teacher of the Year at Rhodes in 1993 and SGA Outstanding Faculty Member in 1995. In 1997 he received the Clarence Day Award for Outstanding Research and in 2001 was awarded the Clarence Day Award for Outstanding Teaching. He is also a graduate of Leadership Memphis. Since 2016 he has directed the Rhodes Liberal Arts in Prison Program at West Tennessee State Penitentiary.

Reviews

[Stefan Tomasi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent dissertation. An appropriate and educational opportunity for those who reject Critical Race Theory. Reading leads to comprehension; comprehension leads to evolution.

[Frederick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen R. Haynes is Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis and Theologian-in-Residence at Idlewild Presbyterian Church. He is the author or editor of eleven books, including books on desegregation in American evangelical churches and works on the theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Haynes attempted in Noah’s Curse to provide a comprehensive survey of the Biblical justifications for slavery as expressed in the Antebellum South before the Civil War. He also included counter-interpretations, the use of the specified part of the Bible to fight desegregation in America, and historical interpretations of the Biblical text in question prior to the Antebellum era. The key word here is comprehensive and that is where the author overreached himself.

In the commonly used version of the Bible in Antebellum America, known as the Authorized Version or the King James Bible, a great flood destroyed all life on earth that breathed except for eight people and the selected land animals and birds in the Ark, the ship Noah built. There were three sons of Noah who were the progenitors of all human beings who came afterwards; Ham, Shem, and Japheth. After the flood waters receded and the passengers on the Ark left the ship Noah built a vineyard, made wine, got drunk, and fell asleep naked in his tent. His son, Ham, saw him naked and reported the scene to his brothers, who proceeded to cover their father without looking at him. Immediately after that, Noah pronounced or foretold a curse on Canaan, Ham’s son, a curse that was fulfilled when the Hebrews, former slaves of Egypt, conquered the land of Canaan’s descendants and subdued them. There is no mention of any type of illicit sexual encounter, no mention made of mocking or laughing, and no mention of race in the Biblical text. However, these very interpretations were used in the Antebellum South to imply that Ham had sexual relations with either his father or his mother, that he mocked and insulted his father’s condition, and that Ham was the father of the African races, a black man. The curse on Canaan is read back to Ham in this interpretation and became a justification for the black man to be in perpetual slavery to white men, presumably the descendants of Japheth. Although twisted interpretations of the Bible, or any religious text, are not uncommon as religion is typically used to justify already existing prejudices and bigotry this particular interpretation of the Bible became popular as a justification for racial slavery in the southern United States before the Civil War.

Haynes thoroughly reviews the major proponents of this type of Biblical interpretation in the South and the ways they used these passages as a religious bulwark to slavery. By using modern post-Enlightenment Bible versions in addition to the AV Haynes clouds the issue by not focusing strictly on what his subjects would have in front of them. His use of ancient Rabbinical and Christian sources, while interesting and useful on a scholarly level, also takes away from his stated intention, to explain how Southern Christians before the Civil War grew to interpret these passages to justify slavery. It is certain that the majority of Southern evangelicals who interpreted the Bible the way they did were not aware of either ancient Rabbinical or Christian interpretations, as a cursory review of the primary sources Haynes used that are readily available to the reader reveal. Haynes’ problem in his overreach is that while his evidence and interpretation of the evidence are not in doubt the relevance to his subject of much of the evidence he presents is, although edifying in a general, unrelated sense. While a desire to place the interpretation in historical context is edifying to the student of the history of Biblical interpretation it is possible that such a desire can obfuscate the motivations of the Antebellum evangelical to the student of American history.

The book’s review and analysis of the meaning and uses of the pro-slavery interpretation of the events of Genesis, chapter 9, meet the author’s stated intentions and give validity to the book’s title. However, in his attempt to place said interpretation in an historical context the author reduces the force of his argument and clouds the meaning and value of his research.

[Steve Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb analysis of the long history of Judeo-Christian racial and racist interpretations of Genesis 9-11. Haynes focuses primarily on racist interpretations for the justification of slavery in antebellum America, but he goes beyond that with chapters dealing with the introduction of Higher Criticism as well as modern scholastic interpretations of the passage.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Haynes thoroughly analyzes the history of Judeo-Chrisitian interpretation of Genesis 9-11 as pro-slavery text. With chapters on biblical exegesis, cultural analysis of the American South, and important, representative figures like Palmer, Haynes covers a lot of ground in a fairly short book. My primary critique has less to do with Haynes and more to do with what seems like straightforward motivated readings on the Bible. I would have liked to see more detail on how the various Jewish and Christian legends become canonical in their own way.

[Christopher Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author does a reasonably good job showing that the story of Noah's curse was popular in antebellum America partly because it resonated with the Southern honor culture. I was also quite happy with his inclusion of the Nimrod legend in his history. I wasn't aware of how closely the Ham and Nimrod stories were linked in Southern defenses of slavery. For the most part, however, the author's analysis isn't particularly deep, insightful, or inclusive of non-obvious primary sources. I was especially disappointed by his failure to discuss how proslavery Bible readers rationalized applying Noah's curse to all Hamites when Genesis clearly applies it only to descendants of Canaan.