Descendants Of Cain

[Rob Osborn]

The scriptures are rather specific that it is through the lineage of Egyptus, Hams wife, that she preserved the curse of the pre-flood Canaanites because she herself is a Canaanite woman.

[David T]

The scriptures are rather specific that ...  Egyptus, Hams wife,

 

 

 

CFR Egyptus is Ham's wife. Or at the very least, one he was married to when he entered the Ark. She appears to be 'that which is forbidden'. If that' the case, why narratively would have Noah brought her on the Ark? CFR she was alive/born during/before the Flood.

 

The scriptures are rather specific

 

 

This is actually where they are the muddiest and most vague. Tradition took an interpretive assumption and ran with it. Hence its "what we all know".

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T

[Calm]

The preflood Canaanites are in a completely different book where Egyptus is never mentioned and there is no connection made with Ham. In fact the text is quite clear they were despised and making no connection with anyone, they weren't even sent prophets to their separated land to teach repentance. The only connection that can be made is if you assume that the Book of Abraham Canaanites are the same as the Book of Moses and there is no need, since we know of Ham's son Canaan who the Bible teaches is the forefather of the Canaanites who were cursed due to either an act by Ham or an act by Canaan. And there is no reference to anyone on the ark being cursed anywhere, the post flood curse appearing post flood.

In nowhere in the Bible or Book of Moses does it claim that all of Ham's sons were cursed. Explain how it is possible if their mother was of a cursed lineage. Either they all had to be cursed because of her or none.

Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[David T]

FWIW, Its also at odds with the Genesis version of the story, which has Mizraim, son of Ham, as the eponymous founder/father of Egypt.  (Misr = Arabic and Hebrew name for Egypt).

 

From my post,

This Canaan (son of Ham) is the eponymous ancestor of all Canaanites, the constant enemies of the tribes of Israel who inhabited their Promised Land of… Canaan. In other words, they were inhabiting the land where Jerusalem – Zion – would be built, and they were a nuisance that needed to be driven out.

 

In Genesis, Canaan’s siblings were also the eponymous ancestors of other national villains to the Israelites, such as his brother Mizraim – which is literally the name of the nation we known in English as “Egypt”. Roots relating to Mizraim are not only used in the scriptures, but used by modern-day Egyptians to name their nation in Arabic: Misr. (For an example of another modern linguistic disconnect, consider how Germans would say in their own language they live in Deutschland, and Japanese would say they are from Nihon).

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T

[Calm]

Interesting possible relationship between Zeptah and Ham. I had looked at the table but didn't realize I didn't understand it. Harks to stories of Lot's daughters and Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar. In an age where women's power came through their sons as much or more than their husbands (it seems sons are more likely to listen to their mothers than to their wives in the scriptures), power seeking women would use seduction and pregnancy as one of their tools to get what they want....or at least this is how the ancient author portrays them.

[David T]

Interesting possible relationship between Zeptah and Ham. I had looked at the table but didn't realize I didn't understand it. Harks to stories of Lot's daughters and Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar. In an age where women's power came through their sons as much or more than their husbands (it seems sons are more likely to listen to their mothers than to their wives in the scriptures), power seeking women would use seduction and pregnancy as one of their tools to get what they want....or at least this is how the ancient author portrays them.

 

Yes, exactly! And the incestuous story of Lots daughters also yields eponymous ancestors of national antagonists to later Israel - Ammon and Moab.

 

Genesis shows how all nations began as part of the same family, and then sets out how to explain mythically how the modern 'Family Feuds' got started through their ancestors of the same name. It's a 'whos who' of the national threats and alliances of the monarchy. A little fun is had, too. We can look down on Moab and Ammon, Israelites could say,  because they're our illegitimate incestuous cousins. *giggle, chort, etc.*

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T

[David T]

While this topic isn't something covered specifically in the book, Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament - Genesis - Deuteronomy makes a great case for the position that even though Moses/JST and Abraham are very likely modern pseudepigrapha that do not represent any specific ancient Ur-text, they DO show remarkable insight and consistency with expanding on prominent ancient themes. It is very possible to acknowledge them as modern works with inspired thematic consistency. Which is very much what I do.

 

In other words, it's not a pure dichotomy of Purely Ancient Text or Purely Modern Ideas. There a fascinating interplay going on where something new is given a timeless character - not properly fully ancient or modern. 

 

One can plausibly take the story of Egyptus and Pharoah to tell a highly relevant, dynamic, and tragic story. Through the poor decisions of one family, opportunities were lost for many. Pharoah is presented as being righteous, and striving to imitiate the good things he learned. But his parents, who because of their choices did not properly obtain Priesthood blessings (can anyone tell me who Egyptus' husband, the father of Pharoah is? The narrative point and lineage presented is that of the Matriarch Egyptus), cut off a whole people for generations, until it wasn't even understood that they were imitating the original without authority. They truly perpetuated the tradition (Started by who?) that their authority was real, and it came through Ham and Noah (from Egyptus? Her Husband?).

 

Generations later, Abraham (who also had found himself cursed as pertaining to recieving the priesthood because of his inability for his father to perpetuate it until he found Melchizedek, who independently bestowed the Right due to his righteousness) , under direction from the Lord, came to Egypt as a True Messenger to reveal the counterfeit nature of the Egypt's authority, teach the gospel, as well as to play the role of Melchizedek and offer to restore the authority. Unfortunately, it looks like the proferred gift was refused.

 

It's a rich story of sin, arrogance, agency, deception, mercy, and restoration. It even has beneficial things to say about those who strive to copy the good without having access to the authority (Pharoah, being righteous all his days).

 

And it has sadly been traditionally mushed down into "blacks couldn't get the Priesthood, because Cain." - And it is believing holders of the last opinion who most often suggest that a nuanced non-traditional, but literal reading and approach to Abraham on its own terms  "disregards it as scripture", or considers it "just a made up story" and denigrate it to having no value.

 

Please.

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T

[Calm]

It definitely makes sense of the story in a way that the story of how after the Lord goes to all the trouble of Enoch removing all the righteous from the land, Noah only taking eight souls on the ark as the Lord destroys all the wicked for a fresh start and yet one of those eight hails from the worst of the worst of the unrepentant doesn't (make sense). It makes it sound like God was intentionally setting them up to fail as soon as possible. One wonders how they managed to be righteous long enough on the ark with such a character in their midst.

But perhaps people are too prone to look at women in the bible as only wives and mothers, total nonentities who sit in the corner and grinds meal and mends clothing, never saying a word ignoring the characters of Deborah, Judith, Jael, Jezebel and Salome.

If Zeptah was the daughter of Canaan, who is cursed in the story for himself and his children to be servants to his brothers' family, she would might have been trying to make use of a loop hole by connecting back to the uncursed grandfather thinking that would give her child an uncursed status...but the child is a daughter who can't hold the Priesthood anyway.

Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[David T]

If Zeptah was the daughter of Canaan, who is cursed in the story for himself and his children to be servants to his brothers' family, she would might have been trying to make use of a loop hole by connecting back to the uncursed grandfather thinking that would give her child an uncursed status...but the child is a daughter who can't hold the Priesthood anyway.

 

A really wierd outcome to following this narrative strand is that it ends up looking like a better scriptural precedent and example of women not having the Right of Presiding Priesthood than a foundation for automatically excluding all African Blacks. Something I was CERTAINLY not looking for, let alone expected to find, when analyzing the text.

 

Definitely a case of letting the text guide interpretation rather than the other way around. (Not that I endorse using the text to try and prove that particular point, either! )

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T

[K-2]

Please demonstrate where "Cain" is mentioned in those verses:

 

 21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

 22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

 

Why does Egyptus have a name that signifies "that which is forbidden"? Could it be because she was under a curse such as the curse put upon Cain? Why does Ham's name mean "black" ? Could it be because he married a black woman - Egyptus? What curse did the sons of Ham and Egyptus preserve after the flood?

Edited March 5, 2014 by K-2

[Calm]

Hopefully today the legs will be calm enough to read all of your thoughts on this and not the little bit here and there it has been the past few days.

[Calm]

Why does Egyptus have a name that signifies "that which is forbidden"? Could it be because she was under a curse such as the curse put upon Cain? Why does Ham's name mean "black" ? Could it be because he married a black woman - Egyptus? What curse did the sons of Ham and Egyptus preserve after the flood?

Why is it said of Ham he walked with God if he married outside of the covenant like Esau?

Ham was named before he was married unless you are suggesting that isn't really his name but one given to him later. If so, then why not Egyptus as well and because people were trying to justify their atttitudes to their relatives the canaanites which they were not treating that well.

There is no need for a preflood curse to be imported post flood. There is already quite a handy curse available of...wait for it...Canaan! Wow, what a coincidence that there is a curse mentioned and it just happens to be the father of the Canaanites.

And not all of Ham's sons are spoken of as cursed...only one...again there is that strange coincidence as it is only Canaan that is cursed.

[David T]

Why does Egyptus have a name that signifies "that which is forbidden"?

 

Very good question which is not answered in the text. I have my thoughts, though!

 

 

 

Could it be because she was under a curse such as the curse put upon Cain?

Doesn't narratively make any sense.

 

 

 

Why does Ham's name mean "black" ?

Not fully known, but perhaps a fun play on words for the name of Egypt: "The ancient Egyptian name of the country was  〈km.t〉, which means "black land", referring to the fertile black soils of the Nile flood plains, distinct from the deshret (〈dšṛt〉), or "red land" of the desert.

 

 

 

Could it be because he married a black woman - Egyptus?

No.

 

 

 

What curse did the sons of Ham and Egyptus preserve after the flood?

Doesn't talk about preserving something in reference to the flood. It discusses blood line of Canaan being perpetuated in the land of Egypt.

Edited March 5, 2014 by David T

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, the Bishop was sitting in the class.  Frankly, also, I like the calling I have now and don't want to be called to be Gospel Doctrine teacher!  

 

Yuck! That's the next worse thing to ward missionary or deacon's teacher.

[cinepro]

While this topic isn't something covered specifically in the book, Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament - Genesis - Deuteronomy makes a great case for the position that even though Moses/JST and Abraham are very likely modern pseudepigrapha that do not represent any specific ancient Ur-text, they DO show remarkable insight and consistency with expanding on prominent ancient themes. It is very possible to acknowledge them as modern works with inspired thematic consistency. Which is very much what I do.

 

In other words, it's not a pure dichotomy of Purely Ancient Text or Purely Modern Ideas. There a fascinating interplay going on where something new is given a timeless character - not properly fully ancient or modern.

 

= Off the Reservation

[Rob Osborn]

CFR Egyptus is Ham's wife. Or at the very least, one he was married to when he entered the Ark. She appears to be 'that which is forbidden'. If that' the case, why narratively would have Noah brought her on the Ark? CFR she was alive/born during/before the Flood.

 

 

This is actually where they are the muddiest and most vague. Tradition took an interpretive assumption and ran with it. Hence its "what we all know".

The scriptures already quoted several times on this thread states that Hams wife was of the lineage of the Canaanites from the pre-flood world.

[rongo]

Don't know if this has any bearing on any of this or not, but it appears (to me, anyway) that Ham had a different mother than Shem or Japeth: Why else put the bolded detail in?

 

"And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was  the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham." (Moses 8:12)

Edited March 5, 2014 by rongo

[Senator]

Don't know if this has any bearing on any of this or not, but it appears (to me, anyway) that Ham had a different mother than Shem or Japeth: Why else put the bolded detail in?

 

"And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was  the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham." (Moses 8:12)

 

That's a possibility. We would then have to assume one of the wives died, as there were only eight on the boat.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the good sister teaching the lesson stated that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  She stated this as if it was an indisputable fact.  I questioned this statement and asked for a scriptural reference that actually directly says this.  Instead, one of the brethren who is a neighbor and friend showed me several scriptures that deal with the descendants of Cain being "black" and also the Cannanites (who have nothing to do with Cain) being a cursed lineage and then concluded that there is no doubt that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.  This just really rubbed me the wrong way.  Should this be taught in Gospel Doctrine?  I see this as blatantly racist and "folk doctrine" as best.  Am I wrong?

I wanted to give a second reply. It no longer matters, so the entire doctrines that surrounded it are moot. I would not care if it were my linage, as that would not and could not define me, or anyone else.

[Kevin Christensen]

A couple of other points from Abraham in Egypt, the chapter titled, "The Trouble with Ham".

Nephi was referring to the children of Canaan when he warned his brothers against feeling superior to them: "Do ye suppose that the children of this land, . . . who were driven out by our fathers . . . were righteous? . . . Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? Behold I say unto you, Nay. Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God." Then he makes the significant statement that "the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers" (1 Nephi 17:33—35). The same land is both blessed and cursed, and the inhabitants likewise are blessed or cursed not by virtue of their family connection, but according to their behavior: "It is a holy land; and I curse it not save it be for the cause of iniquity" (Enos 1:10). The old Hasidic curse on the land of Canaan is virtually identical with that which is pronounced on this promised land in the Book of Mormon:144

And I like his mention of Joseph's marriage to Asenth:

At many points this relates to the classic story of the marriage of Joseph and Asenath,157 which explains the mingling and reconciling of the blood of Ham with the blood of Israel. For Asenath, it will be recalled, was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Genesis 41:45; 46:20), and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim (Genesis 41:50—52; 46:20). The purpose of the story is to tell how she became an Israelite and he became the heir of Pharaoh.

That little account does throw an interesting wrench into the traditional misreadings.

Nibley and Sorenson have both contextualized the Book of Mormon language regarding "skin of blackness" in terms of both Hebrew and Egyptian expressions. The language refers to a way of life, rather than a look.

Kerry Shirts, in happier days, pointed out that Andre Orlov was very interested in how our Book of Moses might relate to the 1 Enoch account of the white and black bulls in the Animal Apocalypse. Worth checking out.

Nephi did say that we cannot understand the things of the Jews unless we're taught the culture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 6, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[katherine the great]

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the a loins of b Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the c Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the a Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of a Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first a government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Please highlight the part that says that Egyptus was a Canaanite.  It looks to me like it says that Ham's grandson or great grandson was a Canaanite.

[katherine the great]

The scriptures already quoted several times on this thread states that Hams wife was of the lineage of the Canaanites from the pre-flood world.

Which scripture is that?

[katherine the great]

A couple of other points from Abraham in Egypt, the chapter titled, "The Trouble with Ham".

And I like his mention of Joseph's marriage to Asenth:

That little account does through an interesting wrench into the traditional misreadings.

Nibley and Sorenson have both contextualized the Book of Mormon language regarding "skin of blackness" in terms of both Hebrew and Egyptian expressions. The language refers to a way of life, rather than a look.

Kerry Shirts, in happier days, pointed out that Andre Orlov was very interested in how our Book of Moses might relate to the 1 Enoch account of the white and black bulls in the Animal Apocalypse. Worth checking out.

Nephi did say that we cannot understand the things of the Jews unless we're taught the culture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

That is interesting.  Do you think though that Moses 7 links the "blackness" of the Canaanites to the heat?

[katherine the great]

I wanted to give a second reply. It no longer matters, so the entire doctrines that surrounded it are moot. I would not care if it were my linage, as that would not and could not define me, or anyone else.

I agree.  So why throw an old folk legend into a Gospel Doctrine class?

[katherine the great]

 Why does Ham's name mean "black" ? 

Maybe he had black hair or black eyes.  Heck--maybe he liked to wear black clothes or a black hat.  People refer to cowards as "yellow".  Titian haired beauties are sometimes called "Red."  I've know a Mr. Brown, a Mr. Black, a Mrs. Green.  None of them had those particular skin tones.