In memory of Jean-Marie Seroney

This month marks the 23rd anniversary since the demise of Jean-Marie Seroney, the first MP of Nandi and one of only five black African advocates at independence. The son of an Anglican Priest, Reuben, Seroney lived as a legislator and is probably more remembered for originating (before the government took over and adopted) the laws that govern the general and presidential elections act. As the law stands today, it is a reminder of his vision, innovativeness and creativity for long before anybody thought of it he was there with a private member's motion. Seroney's political life was chequered because he was not a good friend of the premier Rift-Valley mafia nor was he a boot-licker of the Kiambu mafia either. Undaunted by the resistances, however, he moved on but succumbed to jaundice and anaemia in Dec 1983 and was interred on 13 Dec 1983.

His spirit lives on in such controversial but fond ideologies as the Nandi-Hills declaration and the derision of the 'six bearded sisters' infamy (in league with Anyona, Orengo, Mwachofi, Shikuku, "Seroney girl'- Chelagat Mutai). He was also to make history as the only sitting MP (indeed deputy speaker) to be arrested within the sanctity of parliament in utter contravention of parliamentary immunity. This was after the 'Kanu is dead' quip by his comrade-in-arms, Joseph Martin Shikuku. The remark by Seroney that Shikuku didn't need to substantiate the obvious irked then VP Moi and landed him (Seroney) in further hot soup. Nonetheless, he remains lionised in death and his contribution to Kalenjin identity and pride (in league with Taaita arap Toweet et al) remains a monumental contribution that the hay of history cannot burry.

The son of Kap Rottuk has refused to leave the psyche of the Nandi. In death as in life he remains peerless and all I can say is..Fare thee well John!

The shame of Kibaki government's despotism

We have witnessed, yet again today, the ugly head reared by the ugly forces of men in power who are ready to use any crude means to muzzle Kenyans and deny them their democratic rights. After a state-sponsored take-over of Kanu by the diminutive Kerio-South member of parliament - Kipyator Nicholas Kiprono arap Biwott, the government went ahead and registered the splinter group in record-breaking time. This initiated a roller-coaster for the former misruling party and, by a stroke of the pen, the government took Kenyans back to the dark ugly days of Kanu's brutal disruption of political parties and detention without trial of pluralism activists. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the ranks of the government ministers, not least of whom is the minister for Law-breaking and constitutional disobedience, Martha Karua- are men and women who were incarcerated at will by Biwott's Kanu.

The government decided to break up a peaceful demonstration of legitimate Kanu officials just because torture has left the psyche of the lot that is swimming in power. To merely return Kenyans to the dark days of single-party dictatorship and rule by fiat is a crime against the Kenyan people and I consider it a treasonable act. Where was this brutal force when Kenyans were butchering each other in Kuresoi, Molo and Mathare? Where was this brutal force when Mungiki went on the streets to sing platitudes to some government ministers? Why is this gobernment reversing the gains it made when it won the hearts and minds of Kenyans? Biwott has stolen the party, just like his Kanu presided over theft by servant and plunder of national resources. The Kanu government battered Kenyans into exile and meekness but that did not dissolve the rock-solid determination to change the regime when the time came.

The government's use of brute force, disruption of opposition rallies and theft of political parties will not win the conscience of Kenyans. It only serves to alienate the citizenry from a ruling class that has no memory about the suffering that the country went through as it mourned under the wounds inflicted by a regime that had become drunk with power. When the government turns the instruments that should be used for the protection of the citizens on the same hapless citizenry, the answer is only an exercise of the right to send it packing. For we have no business being led by such people as these. By the way, where are the noise-makers of the yesteryears, Koigi et al, or is because it is not Moi who is visiting terror on harmless people and annexing the citizens' rights. Was it wrong when it was done by Moi but right when it is done under Mr. Kibaki?

The government is provoking civil strive using its manambas in the former ruling party and all progressive forces and Kenyans of goodwill should unite under ODM-Kenya. Biwott has nothing to offer Kenyans having had his time to guide Kanu and Moi as the latter's kitchen cabinet's 'sauce de chef'. This action coming hot on the heals of a similar brutal disruption of an ODM prayer meeting at Kamugunji is an indictment on Kibaki's government. It reflects poorly on its purported respect for human and civic rights. What a shame on Kibaki's government!

Moi and Biwott are enemies of reform and the Kalenjin-reflections from the Orient

Retired president Daniel Kapkarios Toroitich arap Moi is not a statesman. A retired president in the cadre of the iconic Nelson Mandela and the late Julius Nyerere remain lionised because they did not meddle in way their successors managed the affairs of their parties and the running of the state even though they had immense leverage. That is not with Mr. Moi. Several cases drive me to these painful conclusions.

1. One is the chorus and clamour for ‘Moi should rule for life’. Those calls by his political thermometers (The late Sharif Nassir, RIP and one clownish Barngétuny) should have offered Moi an opportunity to make a statesman’s pledge to the contrary. All he needed to say was “I have led this country for so long and it is time for me to retire”. That he didn’t say that means that the exuberance of his flutes had his tacit support. To me that is failure to seize the moment and I had no doubt in my mind then that Moi’s anti-change campaign was not doing any favour to the Kalenjin. Forget that he grudgingly gave up power to Uhuru Kenyatta. Moi’s choice of Uhuru may have been driven by the misplaced wisdom that the young Kenyatta was inexperienced, unschooled in intrigue and therefore malleable. No wonder that Moi refrained from seasoned politicians that had established a stranglehold on some political constituencies. I am always at a loss as to what might have happened if Moi had backed Saitoti just like Kenyatta backed him.
2. When the clamour for a new constitution finally became inevitable, Moi failed to see how he could immortalise his name in the psyche of Kenyan polity. As a neutral player with no vested interests in the outcome of the constitutional review, Moi had the golden opportunity to midwife the process to conclusion. Not only would the process have benefited from the freedom of the intrigues we see today, the process was nearly complete. Moi chose to dissolve parliament a week to the conference that was meant to ratify the new constitution. Because Moi had gripped the country with fear, chances are that the new constitution would have been passed with few hitches, he could have accented to it and therefore left his signature on the only document that generations to come would always leaf through and find his immortal signature. He could be remembered as the president who destroyed the economy and repented to give Kenyans the instruments to prevent future plunders and blunders. The failure to midwife the process remains one of Mr. Moi's monumental errors of judgement. In my mind, therefore, I only see Moi’s green signature on public land allotment letters giving away public toilets and road reserves to buy political support and shore up sagging fortunes during his wee days in power. Not many people in Nandi country will forever forget that one of the swansongs of the Moi regime was to flood Nandi country with surplus teachers offloaded from his native Baringo. What the implications are on the performance of Nandi schools remains to be seen. Neither shall we , the proud Nandi of Kenya, ever forget the unfairness attending to the way prime portions of the Tanning & Extract land in Eldoret was dished out.
3. Even when Kenyans, in there grace, forgave him for the looting and political assassinations that are all associated with his regime. Moi continues to prick our conscience and reminds us of the ugliness of his misrule. The people of Nandi remember Kenyatta’s regime with nostalgia. Kenyatta had a Nandi State House comptroller, the late Andrew Limo Ng’eny. I don’t need to remind anybody that he was the first and only Nandi to serve in that capacity. His death has had some unanswered querries and it remains to be seen whether Mr. Moi will be forgiven for drawing a blanket caveat on the Nandi thereafter. Consider Jean-Marie Seroney and Miss Chelagat Mutai them of the six-bearded sisters infamy. At independence in 1963, Kenya had five black African lawyers. Charles Mugane Njonjo and the former Deputy Chairman of Lonrho Plc, Uddy Gechaga (Mark Too's predecessor who snatched Mashariki motors from Lonrho because he knew the rights of a director) represented the portion from central Kenya. Argwings Kodhek and Omollo Okero represented the lakeside contribution. Jean-Marie Seroney, Moi’s classmate at Kapsabet High School in 1939 completes the list of the pioneers. What happened to cause the imbalance we see today? Needless to say that Moi went into politics (Legco) courtesy of the Nandi of Kapsabet because the white man believed he was a Nandi from Sacho. When Kenyatta wanted to tame Seroney, Shikuku, Orengo, Mwachofi, Anyona et al, it was Moi doing the foot work. I am at a loss as to whether his recent frequent visits to his former residence of 24 years is not part of that scheme-to do legwork for the current regime. No wonder he was appointed by a mere minister as an ambassador for piece (oops! peace). How else does one explain the coincidence of his visit there and the emergence of a shameless alleged takeover of Kanu by Biwott and his ilk. Is Mr. Moi angling to shepherd Biwott’s tribal outfit into a marriage of convenience with Narc-Kenya as a convenient way to seek forgiveness for raping the country? Biwott has some questions lingering over his head regarding some issues close to Kenyan’s hearts not least of which is his shadowy presence in every economic plunder, albeit without trace. Needless to remind you that he remains an eyesore to those of us who fondly remember Bob Ouko, RIP. I will forever remember that it was during Moi-Biwott hegemony that the Nandi were balkanised and disenfranchised economically as a certain axis of the Kalenjin prospered. Moi played tribe against tribe, clan against clan- even brother against brother. I am always tormented by a sneaking to the "lofty house" that we did while at university and listened in on some conversation like “who is your enemy”. As the audience pronounced (or is it denounced?) one name after another of those prominent activists of pluralism, each name was refuted as it was announced. Finally, a familiar voice croaked “Nandiek”. I do not need to expound the obvious.
4. Having driven Mr. Kenyatta down the throats of Kanu members, those who voted for him did. I would have voted elsewhere. My mother, although ignorant in so far as education is concerned voted for Kibaki (Narc), Kiprono (Kanu) and Kipyego (Narc) the latter two as MP and councillor respectively. Why has Mr. Moi turned against his own project? Many reasons may be offered to explain the fallout. None seems more convincing than the fact that in the emerging political landscape, Moi’s covert project (his son’s ascendancy to the presidency) seems to have been overtaken by events. None of his son’s or handlers feature anywhere in the Raila-Kalonzo-Ruto-Kosgey-Mudavadi planar and it vexes Moi that the pentet don’t seem to express gratitude to him for ‘making’ them. When Biwott denounced the election of Mr. Kenyatta although he was thoroughly beaten in an election that many witnesses agree was free and fair, Moi and Biwott exchanged some unpleasant superlatives. However, I am not shocked that the two have come together again. On one of those many occasions that Moi attended university graduation ceremonies, he stopped at Cheboiywo trading centre just a stone’s throw away from Moi University. He spoke in his squeaky voice and declared that Biwott was the rust-less metal (karnet). He used platitudes that are not easily reproducible in English, but in a gist he was saying something related to Biwott not being guilty of the death of Bob.
5. Moi has never been a reformer. His politics speak of conformism and lying low, speaking with one voice, selection and agreement by consensus rather than contested and competitive politics. I am not sure whether Moi really believes a thing when he says that Kanu can rule again without any other party. Granted, Kanu carries some dirty sentimental value, if only to remind us as a nation what a saviour can become. For that is what Moi's Kanu did. It was going to swallow its own children. Consider this in the light of the fact that he says this like today and goes to see Kibaki the next day. Not that Moi should not see the president; everybody has a right to see the president. But what do they say to each other especially because one claims to want to take back power from the other. Knowing well that Kenya cannot be ruled by a single party, Moi must be doing something that only he and Biwott know or alternatively Biwott doesn’t know what Moi is up to. Chances are that neither knows what they want, however. One thing that grates Moi is the emergence of a progressive Kipsigis-Nandi axis coalescing around the youthful William Kipchirchir Samoei Ruto. Mr. Ruto graduated from Kapsabet High School nearly 50 years after Moi left the institution. Biwott was also a student at the institution at one time. The consequence of the Moi-Biwott grabbing of Kanu is that the Kalenjin are fragmented with the Tugen-Keiyo on one side and the others on the other. Chances are that the government will be formed by ODM-Kenya, at which time Biwott will tuck his tail between his wet legs and high-tail to ODM for an alliance. Alternatively, in the case of a hang-parliament, he may be hoping that he can have the power to swing the power either way which will shore up his market value. All in all he belongs in the gallows. Mr. Moi stands a face of a control freak African ruler (he was never a leader) who moves from being lionised to being demonised. I will remember him as a man who dismembered the Kalenjin in spite of countless efforts to unite the community. In my mind, something comes up every time I remember Moi’s distaste for the emerging scenario in Kalenjin land. Moi was never a fan of Koitalel Samoei and whatever a rejuvenated elevation of this icon of Nandi resistance to British invasion meant for the Nandi (the community that should be at the pyramid of Kalenjin unity). The fact that Koitalel has found a place in the post-Moi Kalenjin polity as a unifying factor and the emergence of an independent Kass FM, an FM station not singing his (Moi’s) praises gives the old Professor of politics sleepless nights for it has taken thunder from under his shaky massive feet. For Moi never ever dreamt that anybody could fail to see him for what he wants us to believe--a saviour. No wonder in one of those clips on FM radio you hear him saying "I went to get friends for you...." With Moi-brokered friendships, who needs enemies! Doesn’t Moi know that the Kalenjin stand better chances to recapture power in ODM-Kenya than in a cold New Kanu?
6. Finally, some food for thought. During the 2002 elections, the Kalenjins largely voted for Uhuru and Kanu. This scenario was not found in Nandi land. In areas like Tindiret, the Kanu MP obtained more votes than Uhuru. The Nandi elected Kibaki by two-thirds. Only a third stayed on with project Uhuru. At inception, the Kibaki government found one Nandi permanent secretary, one Tugen and one Kipsigis. The Nandi elected two MPs on Narc, today apart from one little known Ps who was plugged from KFA the Nandi have no stake in this government. Upon taking over, Kibaki swept the Nandi out of government in spite of the massive support that we gave him. On the contrary the Tugen and Kipsigis (pardon me I am not begrudging them their luck) have found a stronger presence in the Narc government.

Voting with progressive Kenyans that desire change for the good of the country is in the strategic interests of the Nandi. Those Nandi people and the Kalenjins that still retain any hopes of ever returning to power should stick with the ODM-Kenya. In any case, being associated with the emerging Moi-Biwott axis is all the bad things that Kanu stood for (economic mismanagement, political assassinations and tribal animosity including the pain of the tribal clashes). I only pray that Raila's plan for ODM-Kenya does not include one ugly relic of the Moi executors of Nandi disenfranchisement, Mark Kiptarbei arap Too. You may need to read Tiny Rowland's autobiography ("Tiny Rowland: a Rebel Tycoon" by Tom Bower, Published by William Heineman 1993- ISBN: 0434073393) to see what he said about Mark. Nor should we count on Kipruto arap Kirwa and Stephen Kipkiyeny arap Tarus. They have run out of options, if ever they had any. Narc represents a miscarriage of change and Kibaki embodies a jilter while Moi stands for no good of the Kalenjin. We are better off without him. The Kalenjin were never united because of Moi, Kalenjin unity has come in spite of him!

The big 'rungu'-wielding Moi does not understand the politics of coalitions because to him the way to win was to win, even through rigging. After winning accolades for having given up power like a gentleman, Mr. Moi has shepherded Kanu courtesy of the dreadful 'Total man' into a tribal enclave. When Moi blurts around that he is a nationalist who does not subscribe to tribal parties, one is left wondering what Mr. Moi calls tribal in ODM-Kenya as compared to the club of Biwott's New Kanu. The Biwott-Moi still-born baby is a representative of all the things that went wrong with old Kanu. It embodies the evils of a tribalised party, symbolised by the ugly powerbrokers of the yesteryears. On the other hand, ODM-Kenya is the rainbow coalition of the beauty of the mosaic of Kenya's diverse ethnic communities. It represents hope for erasing tribalism which was sponsored by Moi and is fast being revived by Biwott. Moi and Biwott live in the museum of the mlolongo infamy and single-finger waving, 'single-voice' oppression and the backward no-dissent politics. It has no place in today's Kenya!

The abandonment by Mr. Moi of the Uhuru-Ruto-Kosgey-Okemo-Madoka-Kerrow axis is good riddance. Apart from removing the burden of a tainted Kingmaker interested only in grooming marionettes and his vestiges of misrule off the back of the young Kenyatta, it takes away the stigma associated with Moism and the Kokwet-elder type of politics. Additionally, it removes any veil from the false elder and reveals him for who he truly is, a control-freak whose departure from the political scene is long overdue. Moi alligning himself with the Biwott axis is good-riddance and any Kenyan who wishes well for this country should celebrate this unloading of the heavy burden that has always hung around Uhuru's neck. Kenya needs progress to tap the wealthy resource embodied in the rich diversity of our ethnic communities.

Going to Germany

Beginning February 1st 2007, to take up a postdoctorate research fellowship at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany based at Nutrition and Food Research Center, Freising-Weihenstephan. This is a great honour in recognition for exemplary work done during the PhD research. The new challenges that come with such an appointment are enormous but the determination to succeed is equally exceptional. For someone who started off as a herds-boy for hire, arriving at the pyramid of academia has been long and chequered. Merely through resilience and persistence did I achieve this. Patience was a great attribute. Needless to say that the MSc was completed in an unprecedented 20 months, the programme takes 36 months here in China.

The PhD programme was particularly challenging but God endowed me with a rare gift of robust health and aptitude. The programme was successfully completed in a record setting 30 months. Most students here take at least 42 months but on average it takes 48 months to graduate with a PhD here in China. Not to mention the requirement for publication of scientific papers reporting on one's research. One obvious reason that gave me the chance at TUM (one of only three Euro key universities in Germany and the 14th top University in the world) is the quality and number of scientific publications and the novelty of the research area that I undertook during the PhD programme. I take this chance as a great honour not only for me but for my family, the people of Nandi, Kenya and those who have struggled to overcome myriads of hurdles in search of education.

For all this I can only say, all the Glory and Honour be unto God Almighty, Him who gives to everyone according to His riches in glory.

Recently Published papers

1. Cheison, S. C. and Wang, Z. (2003).

Bioactive Milk Peptides: Redefining the Food-Drug Interphase- Review. Paper 1: Antimicrobial and Immunomodulating Peptides. African Journal of Food, Nutrition Science, Agriculture and Development 3(1): 29-38.
2. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y.(2006). Multivariate strategy in screening of enzymes to be used for whey protein hydrolysis in an enzymatic membrane reactor- International Dairy Journal.

3. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y.(2006). Hydrolysis of whey protein isolate in a tangential flow filter membrane reactor-I: Characterisation of permeate flux and product recovery by use of multivariate data analysis- Journal of Membrane Science, 283(1-2):45-56.

4. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y. (2006). Use of macroporous adsorption resin for simultaneous desalting and debittering of whey protein hydrolysates -International Journal of Food Science‑ (Accepted 24 Aug 2006).

5. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y. Use of response surface methodology to optimise the hydrolysis of whey protein isolate in a tangential flow filter membrane reactor- Journal of Food Engineering‑ (Accepted 6 Sep 2006).

6. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y. Hydrolysis of whey protein isolate in a tangential flow filter membrane reactor-II: Characterisation for the fate of the enzyme by multivariate data analysis- Journal of Membrane Science, 286(1-2):322-332.

7. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y. Hydrolysis of proteins in ultrafiltration membrane bioreactors: A review of the timeline evolution of the substrates, enzymes and membrane systems –Enzyme and Microbial Technology - Submitted 20 Sep 2006.

8. Cheison, S. C., Zhang, S-B, Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y. A Spectrophotometric method for determination of the degree of hydrolysis of whey protein hydrolysed in a tangential flow filter ultrafiltration membrane reactor. Submitted to the International Dairy Journal - Under review

9. Cheison, S. C., Wang, Z. and Xu, S. Y. Immunological and Antioxidant Properties of Desalted Whey Protein Hydrolysates Obtained from a Single- and Two-Stage Enzymatic Membrane Reactor: Characterisation by Multivariate Data Analysis. Submitted to the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry - Under review

Again, Given in the public interest...Not my story!

Refuting the Negro Slavery and The Myth of Ham's Curse

I am not African-American. I am Indian-American. I was born in India but I lived most of my life here in the United States and I am a proud citizen of this great country.

I am also a Christian. I converted from Hinduism when I was fourteen. As a Christian, therefore, I am deeply troubled that there are still quite a number of people who believe that there was a biblical justification for enslaving the black people of Africa. Those who hold to this view say that Noah, in the Book of Genesis, cursed Ham and that the black people of Africa being descendants of Ham were justifiably enslaved and treated with contempt. This belief is far from being extinct in our society so it is important that this belief is examined in the light of what the Bible actually teaches.

The particular passage in Genesis 9:25 has been grossly misinterpreted. First of all, Noah never cursed his son Ham. The actual curse was on Canaan the oldest son of Ham. Ham also had other sons but they were not cursed by Noah. The servitude (or subjugation)of the Canaanites occurred at various times in history under various rulers. Their ultimate subjugation came under the Romans (who were descendants from the line of Japeth) when the Romans destroyed their final stronghold which was the ancient city of Carthage (a Phoenician or Canaanite colony) in North Africa, thus fulfilling Noah's prophecy in Genesis 9:27 that Canaan would serve Japheth. The Canaanites were also once slaves of the Hebrew people (descendants from the line of Shem) who themselves were once slaves of the Egyptians and, thus, fulfilling the Biblical prophecy that Canaan's descendants would be a "servant of servants." The Canaanites were also at one time ruled by their brothers the Egyptians. Thus, the Biblical prophecy concerning the curse of the Canaanites had been completely fulfilled long ago.

The Bible teaches that the Black (or Negro) people are descendants of Ham (who was one of the three sons of Noah). Obviously, Noah and his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japeth each carried the genes for producing several races since ultimately all the races of mankind had descended from them. Genetically, it was possible for Noah and his three sons to carry the genes for producing different races just as it is genetically possible today, for example, for a person of European origin to carry genes for producing children with different color hair. The principle is the same. Although you and I today may not possess genes for producing different races of people, Noah and his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japeth did possess such genes.

According to the Bible the ancient Egyptians were descended from Ham through the line of Mizraim. Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan (Genesis 10:6). The name "Mizraim" is the original name given for Egypt in the Hebrew Old Testament. Many Bibles will have a footnote next to the name "Mizraim" explaining that it means "Egypt." The name "Egypt" itself actually comes to us from the Greeks who gave the Land that name (i.e. "Aegyptos" from the Greek). In addition to the name "Mizraim," the ancient Egyptians also referred to their land as "Kemet" which means "Land of the Blacks." Western historians, however, say that the word "Kemet" refers to the color of the soil of the land rather than its people. But, the word "Kemet" is actually an ethnic term being a derivative of the word "Khem" (Cham or Ham) which means "burnt" or "black." Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah and the direct ancestor of the Egyptians, was black. The Bible, in the Old Testament, repeatedly refers to Egypt as the "Land of Ham" (i.e., Psalm 105:23, 27; 106:22). Regarding the ancient Egyptians, there is also considerable historical evidence, aside from the Holy Bible, that they were of Black or Negro origin. Even today the true Egyptian is not to be found in the cities but in the country sides and farmlands of Egypt. Most of the Egyptians in the cities carry a mixed ancestry of European and Asian, but mostly Asian from the immigration and invasions of various people into Egypt throughout the centuries. Very few people realize that Cleopatra was of Greek origin because the Greeks once ruled Egypt and she was descended from one of those Greek rulers. The true Egyptian found in the countryside, however, has dark brown to black skin and very pronounced Negro features. This is particularly true the further south one travels in Egypt. It was from the south that the original pharaohs and the people of Egypt settled the land. The original rulers and builders of Egyptian civilization were of completely Black or Negro origin.

An interesting piece of evidence showing how the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves is found in the tomb of Ramses III (1200 BC). On the wall of this tomb is a painting of four human figures. Each figure is identified with a particular race or group of people with whom the Egyptians had contact. The first figure is that of a finely clothed man who is entirely black with wooly hair who represented the ancient Egyptians. The second figure is that of barely clad fair-skinned man who represented the Europeans. The third figure is that of a finely clothed man who is entirely black with wooly hair who represented the other Blacks of Africa. The fouth figure is that of a finely clothed light brown-skinned man who represented the semitic people. Thus, the ancient Egyptians saw themselves as fully black!

It is important to understand, however, that the Negro or Black race is not monolithic. I realize that there are many scholars who make a distinction between being Negro and having black skin complexion because they take into consideration physical features (i.e. shape of nose, texture of hair, etc.) into their criteria for determining race and not just the criterion of skin color or skin complexion. However, these are all quite artifical criteria. In fact, the very classification of human races is in itself artificial since there really is only one race - the human race within which there are variations and permutations. Even the Bible has no terminology for race. Instead, the Bible refers to the divisions found in mankind in terms of tribe, language, or nation - but never race. However, since in our modern times the word "race" is so popular in designating divisions of mankind we are going to use the term. But, it should be kept in mind that there are wide varieties of characteristics even within a single race. Even among white Europeans, for example, you have varying shades of skin tone, hair color, and other physical traits or characteristics. The same is true of the Black race, but to a much wider degree.

DNA analysis of blacks in Africa confirms that African blacks possess a greater margin of genetic variability. It seems that black Africans carry a greater number of alleles - genetic variations of the same gene(s) in their DNA as compared to Europeans and others. Thus, it is not surprising that there are much wider physical varieties among blacks. For example, in Sudan, Somalia, and South India (where I am originally from) the blacks have more fine features. In fact, even blacks of ancient Nubia (also known as Kush) comprised individuals who had both straight hair as well as wooly hair. Just as whites have varying hair color (i.e. brown, red, blond, and brunette), so too blacks have varying hair texture (i.e. wooly, straight, wavy, and curly). The black aboriginals of Australia, for example, have curly/wavy hair. Many of the aboriginals even have blond hair. Such is the wide diversity within the Black race. Ancient Egyptian statues and paintings depict a wide variety of these Black types. Also, in certain characteristics of language and culture ancient Egypt is uniquely linked to other Black cultures of Africa and this reinforces the Black identity of ancient Egyptian civilization since these unique linguistic and cultural characteristics are notfound among Indo-European peoples. For example, the ancient Egyptians like their African brethren were matriarchal whereas Indo-Europeans were and are patriarchal. An exception to this were the ancient Etruscans of Italy. Although the ancient Etruscans, who were Indo-European, were matriarchal, their matriarchal culture and budding civilization was actually due to the influence of trade with the ancient Phoenicians (Canaanities) who were Hamitic and matriarchal. The ancestors of the ancient Egyptians, therefore, were not the patriarchal Indo-Europeans from the North as white supremicists would have us believe but rather the matriarchal black Africans from the South (Upper Egypt). Geographically speaking, the southern regions of ancient Egypt are referred to as "Upper Egypt." The reason for this is explained below in another paragraph.

It should be understood that the people of North India and Europe share a common linguistic and racial heritage and that is why they are referred to on the whole as being "Indo-European." The people of South India (comprising four states and making up roughly twenty-five percent of India's total population) are linguistically and racially known as Dravidians. The Dravidians of India are generally shorter, broader-nosed, with dark brown to black skin complexion and straight or wavy hair. Both archaeological and linguistic evidence shows that it was the ancient Dravidians who built the Indus Valley civilization (also known as the Harappan Civilization which was one of the world's four oldest civilizations after Mesopotamia and Egypt). The ancient Harappan civilization existed in what is now Pakistan. The Dravidians of the Indus Valley were conquered, killed in great mass, and enslaved by white nomadic barbarian invaders called Aryans who came from the north. The Dravidians who escaped Aryan enslavement or slaughter fled to the south and were able to hold their own against any further Aryan encroachment and advancement, and that is why the linguistic and racial make up of South India is different from that of North India. Of course, over the centuries there has been so much crossbreeding between the two peoples that neither the north now is purely Aryan nor the south purely Dravidian anymore. Historian, anthropologist, and educational psychologist Dr.Clyde A. Winters has provided much painstaking research and numerous resources and references showing the ultimate cultural and phonetic/linguistic links between the peoples of South India and Black Africa. It is worth visting his site C.A. Winter's Homepage.

Another excellent, scholarly, well-documented, and highly acclaimed book for study on this subject is The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by well-known West African scientist, scholar, and Egyptologist Cheikh Anta Diop. The book is generally available at bookstores or may be ordered through any bookstore. The book may also be purchased over the internet (i.e. amazon.com). Although I agree with most of what Dr. Diop says in his book, I do strongly disagree with his support of Darwinian evolutionary theory concerning human origins and his belief that Judaism and its offspring Christianity is a by-product of Egyptian civilization. There is no doubt that some Judeo-Christian themes, principles, and truths existed in civilizations and cultures much older than that of the Hebrews (the Jews). The concept of one God, for example, was also believed and promoted in ancient Egypt by a certain pharaoh before there ever were Hebrews or Jews who possessed this truth. Elements of God's original truth have been scattered in all cultures of the world including that of ancient Egypt, but I believe (and with good reason) that God uniquely revealed Himself to the Jews in such a way that He gave them His truths unmixed with any errors. The Christian Scriptures teach that the Jews were not selected by God because they were deserving or because they were a great people, but precisely because of the opposite. God delights in using the lowly, undeserving, and insignificant to accomplish His great purposes, and it was God's marvellous plan and purpose to use the lowly, undeserving, and insignificant Jews as His instrument to bring all mankind unto Himself so that both Jews and Gentiles in Christ become equally His children with eternal promises and blessings.

It is important over-all to remember that there were both primitive and advanced black societies in ancient Africa just as there were also both primitive (barbarian) and advanced white societies in Europe during ancient times. However, keep in mind that Western (or White) civilization came on to the world's scene thousands of years after Blacks had already established and built their civilizations, notably Egypt. There is good reason to believe that the ancient Greeks borrowed much of their philosophy, religion, mathematics, and sciences from the Egyptians. Of course, the Greeks definitely modified and gave their own Greek names to these concepts which they learned and borrowed from the Egyptians. Many prominent ancient Greek philosophers admitted in their own writings (of which we have a record) that they learned their scientific and mathematical concepts in Egypt. Writers and publishers of modern history textbooks make sure not to mention or include these confessions. The simple fact is that history shows that the ancient Greeks never really advanced as a society or people until they made contacts with Egypt. Then, as they say, they really took off. In fact, it would not at all be pre-mature to say that the Black society and civilization of ancient Egypt jump- started Greek civilization which in-turn jump-started all Western or European civilization. An excellent and scholarly article to read which summarizes the various historical and archaeological evidences which exist supporting the Black heritage of ancient Egypt is Ancient Egypt: Africa's Stolen Legacy published in "New African" magazine. Another one is Still Out of Africa written by Dr. Charles S. Finch, III, M.D. of Morehouse School of Medicine. And, still, another very excellent and quite comprehensive website is: Ancient Africa's Black Kingdoms. If you wish to read an excellent essay which explains why the hair found on Egyptian mummies is straight rather than wooly go to: Hanging In The Hair. Please understand that the purpose of my webpage, which you are now reading, is to provide only general information. It is not my purpose here in this site to present detailed documentation and references. Such necessary and important detailed documentation and references are available through contacting the sources that I mention on this page.

One must realize that geographers refer to northern Egypt as "Lower Egypt" and to southern Egypt as "Upper Egypt." The reason for this is because the Nile River in Egypt, unlike other rivers of the world, flows from the south to the north. So up the Nile is actually going south and that is why the southern part of Egypt is called "Upper Egypt" and down the Nile is actually going north and that is why the northern part of Egypt is referred to as "Lower Egypt."

In ancient times the border of southern (or "Upper") Egypt was much further south than where it is today. Upper Egypt in ancient times extended well into what is now the country of Sudan (known in ancient times as Nubia or Kush). It was from Upper Egypt (Nubia or Kush) that the first pharaoh of Egypt Narmer (also known as Menes) went out to conquer and unify all of Egypt into one nation or kingdom. It was from here (the South) that the original ancestors of the Egyptians, following the direction of the Nile River north, settled the land of Egypt. The Egyptians themselves recorded in their writings that their ancestors came from the south. For example, the Edfu text (which is an inscription still found in the Temple of Horus at Edfu) states: "Several thousand years ago, we were led by our king from the South to settle up the Nile Valleys."

Western Egyptologists and historians continue to ignore such evidence and will certainly not publish it in school history textbooks. Western Egyptologists and historians continue to use the specious argument that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians (also known as Cushites) could not have belonged to the same race because they were separate countries and throughout history they fought one another for supremacy. But, ancient history shows us that separate nations that were white also fought one another (i.e. the ancient Romans and Gauls), but no one would argue that because of this the people of those nations didn't belong to the same race. In fact, Egypt was originally a colony of Nubia (Kush or Cush) but eventually separated from Nubia and became independent and even stronger than Nubia.

Throughout history both nations (Egypt and Cush) fought one another for political dominance even though both belonged to the same Black race. When the Jews were enslaved in Egypt they adopted many of the Egyptian customs including the Egyptian prejudices towards the Cushites. That is why we read in the Bible that after the Jews left Egypt Miriam (Moses' sister) criticized Moses for marrying a Cushite woman. The language of the ancient Egyptians was related to the black nation of Kush (Nubia) to the south. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the language of the ancient Egyptians that is related to Indo-European or Semitic. Ancient Egyptian language was not Afro-Asiatic as Western historians presently claim. It was entirely Hamitic.

There were also early black civilizations in Asia (such as the Sumerian civilization of Mesopotamia, for example, before various Semitic peoples entered and dominated the region). In fact, according to the Bible the descendants of Ham first settled in Asia (i.e. Mesopotamia and Arabia) before entering Africa. But, such black societies or civilizations which existed originally in Mesopotamia or Asia were not Semitic in origin, and, therefore, they were not Asian in that sense. Ancient Sumerian language truly was related to the Africoid or Hamitic languages of ancient Nubia and Egypt because they were essentially one people even though the Sumerians, who were blacks, built their civilization in Mesopotamia (Asia). This is not to say that Semitic peoples did not live in the region at the time of the Sumerians. Such Semitic peoples would probably have used the Sumerian language as the common language just as French persons today in the United States, for example, would use English as their common language. As was mentioned, the Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia was later replaced by various Semitic cultures and peoples. Of course, long after the ancient Nubians and Egyptians had established their civilizations, Hamitic peoples mixed with Semitic peoples on the East African coast resulting in languages that were both Hamitic and Semitic in character, but the language of the original Egyptians was completely Hamitic from its foundation all the way up.

To get around all of this, Western Egyptologists and historians say that even though ancient Egyptians used a language connected to a black race and nation (the Kushites of Nubia) the Egyptians themselves, however, were white. That is why Western Egyptologists and historians refer to the ancient Egyptians as white Hamites even though there is not a shred of objective evidence to support this twisted hypothesis, and, in fact, there is an abundance of evidence to contradict it, not to mention plain good old common sense and logic. Western historians and Egyptologists would never apply such deficient logic and reasoning to other disciplines, but when it comes to the race of the ancient Egyptians their minds will bend over backwards to deny the predominantly Negro origins of ancient Egyptian history and civilization. This has not been the case with all Western historians and Egyptologists but it has generally been the case - with very few or rare exceptions. The interesting thing is that Eurocentrist Egyptologists and their radical supporters like Dinesh D'Souza and Lefkowitz who oppose scholars such as African Egyptologist Diop never give specific reasons as to why Diop, for example, is wrong. They will say that Diop's arguments are unsound, but they will never explain how or why they are unsound. The comprehensive scientific evidences and logic presented by Diop are never addressed or refuted specifically by these opponents, but only generally. It is also interesting to note that Diop was head and shoulders above over other Egyptologists in his formal education and in his scientific (he was a physicist), linguistic, and Egyptological credentials.

Today Egypt is referred to as an Arab nation, but this is only because the Arabs conquered Egypt centuries ago and imposed upon the original people their Arab language, culture and Moslem religion. Many modern Egyptians of today are really the descendants of Arab, Persian, Greek, and other non-African peoples that entered into Egypt over the many centuries. The ancient or original Egyptians, however, were of African or Black (Negroid) descent, and this is still mostly true of the bulk of Egypt's rural population, especially in the south. Long before the Arabs invaded and conquered Egypt the famous and ancient Greek historian Herodotus (who is known as the Father of History) visited Egypt and wrote concerning the Egyptians: "They have burnt skin, flat noses, thick lips, and wooly hair" (Herodotus, Book II, p. 100, translated by George Rawlinson, New York: Tudor, 1928). Readers may wish to obtain the book Return to Glory. The book, written by white author and professional speaker Joel F. Freeman, discusses the historical and archaeological evidences for ancient black Egyptian civilization.

Now to get back to our subject. Even though Noah had pronounced a terrible curse on Canaan, the curse did not apply to the blacks of Africa who were taken as slaves to the Americas because those blacks were not descendants of the Canaanites. It must also be understood that the curse applied to the Canaanites in a national sense only. That is clear from the context of Scripture. Individual Canaanites in history who trusted in the true God were delivered from the curse (i.e. Rahab the harlot mentioned in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament. The same Rahab is mentioned in the New Testament as being an ancestor of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ). As to why Noah pronounced a curse on Canaan for a sin that his father Ham had committed is not clearly explained in the Bible. In one sense it could be said that Ham was punished in his son Canaan. It also might be that Noah foresaw by revelation from God that Canaan would more likely follow and take after in the immoral footsteps and behavior of his father Ham. We know from history that the Canaanites practiced very gross sexual and other forms of immorality - even to the point of sacrificing their children in the fire to their idols which they worshipped and for this they were ultimately cursed with extinction as a nation.

This is not my Story!

Noah's Drunkenness, Ham's Sin, and Canaan's Curse

Among my many childhood memories, one particularly early memory (relating to the interpretation of Scripture) stands out. When I and my siblings were young, we would gather in the mornings with our mother to read two chapters of Scripture - this was a daily habit. Over the course of several years, we covered nearly all of the Old and New Testaments, sometimes circling back around and covering old territory again.

While reading through Genesis, I was perplexed by the story of Noah's drunkenness in Genesis 9. In that story, Noah drinks too much wine, and falls asleep in his tent. His son, Ham, comes into the tent, sees his father's "nakedness" (as the text says), and invites his brothers in to see it as well. They decline, instead bringing a blanket to cover their sleeping father. When Noah wakes up from his drunken stupor, he learns what had happened, and proceeds to curse ... Ham's son? So says the text. As a youngster, I could not understand why Noah would curse Ham's son for a sin that Ham himself committed.

Through varied study over the last several years, I have since come across several scholarly papers that attempt to address this issue, and as the ideas have been batted around, it seems that a child-hood riddle has now at last been solved - at least to some extent. It will be the purpose of this essay to relate and regurgitate some of that material in order to answer the question: what was Ham's sin, and why did his son have to bear the brunt of the curse?

In Genesis 6-9, we have what amounts to a recapitulation of the Creation story - and indeed, I believe Moses was intent on constructing the narrative of the Flood story with exactly that purpose in mind.

In Genesis 1, the earth was covered with water, and the Spirit of God "hovered" over the chaotic deep; likewise, during the Flood Noah finds himself in a situation where the earth is again covered with water, and he sends out a dove to see if there is inhabitable land in sight. The image of the dove, hovering over the flooded earth, is reminiscent of the Spirit of God hovering over the original chaotic waters of Creation (curiously, at the baptism of Jesus in Matt. 3, the Spirit of God hovers over Him precisely in the form of a dove).

At the end of the Creation narrative, God commands His first children to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1:28) Similarly, after Noah and his family have de-boarded the Ark, God's command to Noah and his sons is "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." (Gen. 9:1)

Adam is placed in the garden to till it and cultivate it; Noah is described as "the first tiller of the soil." (Gen. 9:20)

The Creation story culminates in a sin committed by Adam in the garden, consisting of eating forbidden fruit; the Flood story, then, culminates in Noah eating of the fruit of his own garden (vineyard), getting drunk, and concludes with the commission of a great sin (by Ham).

Adam, as a result of his sin, is aware and ashamed of his nakedness; Noah, as a result of his drunkenness, winds up lying naked in his tent. Both the Creation and the Flood narratives end with a hair-raising curse: against the serpent in Gen. 3, and against Canaan in Gen. 9.

The full text of the narrative in Genesis 9 is as follows:

The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Gen. 9:18-27)

What are the problems raised by the story of Ham's sin in Genesis 9? There are several.

First, why does Noah react with such intensity against what appears to be such a minor infraction? Ham's sin is, on the surface, apparently nothing more than a rather juvenile prank - he sees his father's nakedness, and goes to tell his brothers. Does that really warrant a cursing of Ham's lineage in perpetuity?

Second, the text says that Noah uttered his curses after he "awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him." (9:24) How in the world did he know what Ham had done? It seems that there would have to have been some kind of visible effect of the sin of Ham (perhaps he left a sandal behind in Noah's tent?) in order for Noah to have knowledge of it. Perhaps one of Ham's brothers played the tattle-tale and told Noah what Ham had done - the text doesn't say.

Third, why does the text describe the sin as an active offense - "what his youngest son had done to him" - rather than a passive offense, which is how we would normally consider an act of voyeurism? Ham only looked at Noah, says the text; it isn't as though he actively caused Noah any harm.

Fourth, and most obviously, why is Ham's son Canaan the recipient of the curse, and not Ham himself? What did Canaan have to do with the sin of his father? It is so much a matter of common sense that it hardly warrants stating explicitly: Canaan is nowhere mentioned in connection with the sin, and so strict justice would demand that the offender himself should be punished, not his offspring.

Fifth, why was Noah naked in the first place? It is plausible that a man might get drunk; it is also plausible that, after getting drunk, the man might pass out for a while. But who gets drunk, strips naked, and then passes out? Did he start out naked when he began drinking (a bizarre thing in itself, if it were true)? If not, why would he take the time to take off his clothing before passing out?

Sixth, why would one man seeing another man naked be considered a sin at all, even if they were father and son? Consider that both Abraham and Jacob required men of their houses to swear oaths that involved placing a hand "under my thigh." Abraham makes Eliezer place his hand under Abraham's thigh; the case of Jacob is even more interesting, because he makes his own son (as opposed to a servant, as Eliezer was) place his hand under Jacob's thigh.

The Jewish Targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament, which in many places contain explanations and interpretations of the text by way of paraphrase) are even more explicit about what this oath-swearing ceremony involved - i.e., to place your hand under "the thigh" of the other party was a polite way of saying that you place your hand on the reproductive organs of the other party:

And Abraham said to Eliezer his servant, the senior of his house, who had rule over all his property, Put now thy hand upon the section of my circumcision. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, sec. 5, XXIV)

And [Jacob] called to his son, to Joseph, and said to him, If now I have found favour before thee, put thy hand on the place of my circumcision. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, sec. 12, XLVII)

The question presents itself: if Jacob could ask his own son Joseph to actually touch Jacob's reproductive organs, why is Ham punished for merely looking at his father's nakedness? Someone could object that Joseph suffered no repercussions because his actions were specifically requested by his father, and in the context of a sacred oath-swearing ceremony; but that is precisely the point: if the act of touching/seeing your father's sacred parts was inherently evil, no righteous patriarch would ask his son to do it, much less include it as part of a sacred ceremony.

I would suggest - following the conclusions presented by my research - that more is involved in Ham's sin than merely a passive act of voyeurism. Rather, the evidence suggests that the sin of Ham was an act of sexual aggression.

To put it plainly and state the conclusion up front: the sin of Ham was, in all likelihood, an act of maternal rape, politely described in Genesis 9 using the euphemistic terminology of "uncovering the nakedness" of Noah.

There is a certain pattern that can be detected in various Old Testament narratives: a pattern wherein sons attempt to either secure their own familial position of blessing and power, or to usurp the father's authority in general, by taking advantage of the father's harem.

Jacob's son Reuben is passed over for the patriarchal blessing in Genesis 49 because he slept with Jacob's concubine:

Reuben, you are my first-born, my might, and the first fruits of my strength, pre-eminent in pride and pre-eminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have pre-eminence because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it--you went up to my couch! (Gen. 49:3-4)

This act is described earlier in Genesis:

Israel journeyed on, and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder. While Israel dwelt in that land Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine; and Israel heard of it. (Gen. 35:21-22)

Likewise, when Absalom leads a rebellion against his father the king, one of the first things he does after driving David out of Jerusalem is to pitch a tent on the palace roof, and methodically violate each member of David's royal harem:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel; what shall we do?" Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. (2 Sam. 16:20-22)

Following on the same principle, David's son Adonijah, when he wished to secure the kingdom for himself in place of his half-brother Solomon, requested permission (via Bathsheba, Solomon's mother) to marry Abishag, David's last concubine before he died:

Now King David was old and advanced in years; and although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm. Therefore his servants said to him, "Let a young maiden be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait upon the king, and be his nurse; let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may be warm." So they sought for a beautiful maiden throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The maiden was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and ministered to him; but the king knew her not. (1 Kings 1:1-4)

Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, "Do you come peaceably?" He said, "Peaceably." Then he said, "I have something to say to you." She said, "Say on." He said, "You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however the kingdom has turned about and become my brother's, for it was his from the LORD. And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me." She said to him, "Say on." And he said, "Pray ask King Solomon - he will not refuse you - to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife." Bathsheba said, "Very well; I will speak for you to the king." (1 Kings 2:13-18)

Solomon recognized immediately what his half-brother and contender for the throne was up to, as is indicated by his otherwise-inexplicably harsh response - Adonijah loses his life as a result. Solomon knew full well that by taking King David's concubine, Adonijah would have a greater claim to the throne itself, and so he responds decisively:

[Bathsheba] said, "Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as his wife." King Solomon answered his mother, "And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother, and on his side are Abiathar the priest and Joab the son of Zeruiah."

Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, "God do so to me and more also if this word does not cost Adonijah his life! Now therefore as the LORD lives, who has established me, and placed me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day." So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died. (2 Kings 2:21-25)

Keeping this pattern of usurpation-by-sexual-relation in mind, we can look at another pattern found in the Old Testament narratives: the diabolical serpent always attempts to insert himself between the Covenant Head and his Bride. This is merely a variation on the above theme, and examples can be seen in the acts of Reuben and Absalom. Both men attempt to come between the Covenant Head (Jacob, in the one case, and David, in the other) and their "brides." Other examples can be seen in the attempts of Pharaoh and Abimilech to steal the wives of Abraham and Isaac, respectively.

When Abram entered Egypt the Egyptians saw that [Sarah] was very beautiful. And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. (Ex. 12:14-15)

When the men of the place asked [Isaac] about his wife, he said, "She is my sister"; for he feared to say, "My wife," thinking, "lest the men of the place should kill me for the sake of Rebekah"; because she was fair to look upon. When he had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out of a window and saw Isaac fondling Rebekah his wife. So Abimelech called Isaac, and said, "Behold, she is your wife; how then could you say, 'She is my sister'?" Isaac said to him, "Because I thought, 'Lest I die because of her.'" Abimelech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us." (Gen. 26:7-10)

All of this is nothing new, of course. The primary model for this paradigm is found in the very beginning, in the Creation narrative. The serpent himself comes between Adam, as Covenant Head, and his bride, Eve. There is a strong sexual undercurrent (albeit a subtle one) in the narrative of the Fall.

It begins with a word-play that associates the serpent's subtlety with marital nakedness: ignoring the artificial chapter/verse distinctions, the transition between chapter 2 and chapter 3 reads as follows:

And the man and his wife were both naked ['arowm], and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was more subtle ['aruwm] than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. (Gen. 2:25-3:1)

This is followed by the account of the serpent tempting Eve to eat of some kind of forbidden fruit. If interpreted as a kind of metaphorical "eating," or even as a literal eating of a fruit which is simply symbolic of something else, there is a strong sexual element here. "Fruit" is the Scriptural designation for children, i.e., the "fruit of the womb."

Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Ps. 127:3)

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Lk. 1:42)

Further, in the Song of Solomon, marital/sexual relations are described in terms of the Lover going to his garden to eat of its fruit (incidentally, in conjunction with the question of Ham's sin, it should be noted that drinking wine is also used by Solomon as a metaphorical way of referring to marital/sexual relations):

A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed. Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with all choicest fruits ... Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its fragrance be wafted abroad. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. (Canticles 4:12-16)

How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride! how much better is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than any spice! ... I come to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gather my myrrh with my spice, I eat my honeycomb with my honey, I drink my wine with my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink: drink deeply, O lovers! (Canticles 4:10; 5:1)

It is not surprising, then, that the ancient Jewish commentaries on this narrative are far more explicit in seeing sexual overtones in the Fall. One commentary says that when the serpent "saw [Adam and Eve] engaged in their natural functions, he conceived a passion for her." (Gen. Rabbah, 18.6)

Another commentary is even more explicit:

When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust. (Yebamoth, 103b)

This is not at all to conclude or put forward the notion - as some later rabbis were to do - that the sin of the Garden was a literal act of adultery, wherein the serpent literally conceived a child with Eve. It is merely to point out that there is, in fact, a strong undercurrent of marital/adultery imagery in the Genesis 3 account, which can (so it seems) be taken too far in the literal direction, but need not be discounted entirely.

Perhaps the most interesting comment of the rabbis, for our purposes in this discussion of Ham's sin, is this: in answer to the question of where Adam was during Eve's temptation, the commentary states:

He had engaged in his natural functions [intercourse] and then fallen asleep. (Gen. Rabbah, 19.3, emphasis added)

This is a parallel situation to Noah, because he was, as I will argue, preparing for "his natural functions" when he passed out from too much wine - which explains why he was naked when Ham happened upon him. Along these same lines, to create another tentative connection with Noah, another Jewish commentary links Adam's sin precisely with wine

the ancient Adam ... through wine, received the penalty of death. (Num. Rabbah, 10.2)

Finally, even in the New Testament we find some support for seeing sexual overtones in the temptation of Eve: in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul says that he wishes to present the church to her Divine Husband as a parthenon hagnen, a "chaste virgin." However, he expresses his concern for them by contrasting his ideal - chaste virginity - with what happened to Eve:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2 Cor. 11:3)

Eve, so goes the argument, was a chaste virgin herself, prior to her encounter with the serpent; the implication is that, after her encounter with the serpent, she was no longer chaste or a virgin. This is, perhaps, why St. Jerome translated St. Paul's words in his Latin Vulgate as sicut serpens Evam seduxit - "as the serpent seduced Eve."

But we must return to the question of Ham. All of this digressionary material is simply supplied to show that, to the already-numerous parallels between the Creation and the Flood, we must include this: that just as the Creation narrative ended with the serpentine seduction of the Covenant Head's bride, so also does the Flood end with an evil seduction of the bride, with an intruder who violates the sanctity of the marriage relationship.

Again, a cautionary note is in order: I am not claiming that the temptation of Eve necessarily included a literal sexual act; only that there are several strong suggestions in the text, and in later commentaries, that there was a sexual element (whether literal or metaphorical) to the temptation.

This tentative link between the Fall and Ham's sin is obviously not the only (much less the strongest) evidence for suggesting that Ham's sin was one of maternal incest. The internal evidence of the Genesis 9 text itself is far stronger.

For example, this narrative contains the first reference in Genesis to Canaan, Ham's son. There is no genealogical introduction, as we would normally expect. It seems an odd place to simply insert the name of a previously-unmentioned character, especially when the point of the narrative is to recount a sin of that character's father.

Yet the narrative seems to emphasize - in the midst of recounting the sin of Ham - that Ham was the father of Canaan. At the beginning of the narrative, we read:

The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. (Gen. 9:18)

This genealogical fact is repeated a few verses later, at the very point in which the narrative describes the sin of Ham itself:

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father. (Gen. 9:22)

This oddity is explained if we understand that Moses is recounting the sin of Ham precisely to recount for his readers the genealogical origins of Canaan. In a an article for the Journal of Biblical Literature, Drs. John Bergsma and Scott Hahn quote one author's summation of this textual quirk:

It is striking that Ham is named father at the precise moment when he is introduced as a son. Later, at the transgression of Ham, exactly the same thing happens ... Evidently the text wants to put all the emphasis on the fatherhood of Ham or, rather, on the fact that he is the father of Canaan (Ellen van Wolde, Stories of the Beginning, p. 146, cited in Hahn/Bergsma, "Noah's Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Gen. 9:20-27)", JBL 124 [2005], p. 35)

Hahn and Bergsma argue, quite rightly, that this repetition in the text makes complete sense "if the pericope is explaining how Ham fathered Canaan." (ibid., p. 35)

This would explain the presentation of Ham's sin as an active sin, rather than a passive sin - "Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him."

The maternal incest view, moreover, explains why Canaan is cursed by Noah - providing more support for this position from the internal evidence of the text itself. True, this position still leaves us with the difficulty of a son being punished for an act he did not commit, but this is not an insurmountable difficulty. The difficulty of the "voyeurism position" is that Canaan's curse is arbitrarily imposed by Noah, since Canaan had no immediate association with the sin of Ham, other than that Ham happened to be his father - but then again, it must be consider, Ham had other sons than Canaan, and they were not cursed by name. The maternal incest position provides an answer: while Canaan was not the perpetrator of the sin, he was intimately associated with the sin, because he was the cursed fruit of this illegitimate sexual union.

Put another way, the text is intent on emphasizing that Ham "was the father of Canaan," because it wants to show how Ham became the father of Canaan: he "saw the nakedness of his father," an incestuous union with Noah's wife that resulted in the birth of Canaan.

Finally, we look to the most relevant evidence of all: the idiom "saw the nakedness of his father."

It is in the book of Leviticus that we find the most suggestive evidence of the nature of Ham's sin. In Leviticus 18, a litany of prohibited sexual acts is enumerated, with the curious repetition of the phrase galah 'ervah - "uncover the nakedness." For example, we read:

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife. (Lev. 18:15)

The usage of the phrase "uncover the nakedness" indicates that it is a euphemism for sexual relations, and not for a literal act of undressing a woman and viewing her naked body. This is confirmed by a similar prohibition:

You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. (Lev. 18:19)

This does not refer to merely seeing a woman in a state of undress, but to the ritually impure act of having relations with her during her monthly cycle.

What is significant in this discussion is that one of the very first sexual perversions listed in Leviticus 18 concerns uncovering the nakedness of one's own father - the text shows us that this is a code-phrase which actually means something else:

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. (Lev. 18:8)

Thus, to uncover the nakedness of your father is, in reality, to "uncover the nakedness" of his wife - i.e., to have sexual relations with her.

It should be noted in passing that the command "You shall not uncover the nakedness of ... your mother" (v. 7) is distinct from the command "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife." (v. 8) The former command concerns sexual relations with one's biological mother, while the latter command concerns relations with one's step-mother - not the woman who bore you, but the woman your father married after you were born.

I draw attention to this only because there is some speculation that Noah's wife (identified in some midrash commentaries as "Naamah" of Gen. 4:22) after the Flood was not his first wife, nor was she the mother of Ham. If that is the case, then Ham's sin is very much like that of Reuben and Absalom, for they did not rape their mothers, but their fathers' concubines.

To this growing collection of evidence must be added the opening verses of Leviticus 18, the words which introduce this list of sexual perversions:

You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. (Lev. 18:3)

If what has been suggested about the sin of Ham is true, then this verse means that Canaan, who was conceived by an act of incest, went on to become the founder of an entire tribe of sexual degenerates who perpetuated the sin by which their patriarch was conceived - such that they became known for and identified with the sins listed in Leviticus 18.

Allow me to summarize and clear up a few loose ends, then. In short, what is being proposed here is that Noah became drunk with wine, and entered into his tent (or perhaps his wife's tent - the Hebrew leaves the question open) to have relations with his wife; he got carried away with the wine and wound up lying on the ground naked and asleep. Ham found Noah and his wife in this condition, and took advantage of his step-mother, in an effort to usurp his father's authority and the rights of primogeniture of Noah's first-born son Shem.

What took place with Shem and Japheth is unclear; that they covered Noah's nakedness with a garment may be literal, metaphorical, or both at the same time. It may mean that they merely refused to participate in the sin of Ham, or it may mean that they literally covered their father's nakedness with a garment. Perhaps it was a literal act that had a significant meaning, in which case, both explanations are acceptable.

It is entirely possible that Ham kept his father's garment as proof of his "victory," and showed it to his brothers - this would not be the first time in Scripture that we find one of the participants in a sexual encounter keeping articles of clothing as proof of the deed (c.f. Judah and Tamar in Gen. 38:24ff; cf. also the rules for a wife who must prove her virginity in Dt. 22:13-19). In this case, we might speculate that Ham took his father's garment as a trophy, and that his brothers took it back and returned it to their father in an effort to restore some of his dignity.

Ham's evil act was later discovered by Noah (indeed, it would be difficult for him to not realize that his wife had become pregnant), and the fruit of this illicit union was roundly cursed as a result.

It may be objected that Genesis 9 says that Noah realized what Ham had done to him, not to his wife - therefore it is more likely that, if any sexual sin is involved here, it is a case of paternal rape, not maternal incest.

But this is unlikely for a few reasons. First, this position does not explain the emphasis in the text upon Ham as "father of Canaan"; second, it does not explain why Canaan is cursed instead of Ham; third, to "uncover the nakedness" of someone, as a euphemism used in Leviticus, always refers to a heterosexual act - not to an act of sodomy.

The phrase galah 'ervah ("uncover the nakedness") is used repeatedly to describe a man's illicit relations with his mother, his father's wife, his sister, his grand-daughter, his step-sister, his aunt, his brother's wife, a menstruating woman, etc. When it describes acts of sodomy or acts of bestiality, however, it does not use galah 'ervah - it uses shekobeth, "to lie with."

The lone exception here is the case in which a man sleeps with a woman who is already married; this is the one and only case in which a heterosexual relationship is not described with galah 'ervah, but rather, with shekobeth zerah, "to lie with the seed." In this case, the word tame' is used to describe the result: it is a "defilement" or a "pollution." The same word ("defile/pollute") is used for acts of bestiality.

We may speculate that this is the case because an adulterous union would be the union most likely to involve some form of contraception, and, like bestiality, would be a sterile sexual act. There may be some connection here with the consistent historical Judaeo-Christian use of the term "pollution" or "defilement" with regard to Onan's sin of contraception. Either way, the point remains: galah 'ervah is never used to describe anything but a heterosexual act.

The "maternal incest" position, in short, appears to best explains the riddle of Genesis 9. It makes the most sense out of all the data given there, and it offers explanations for the six issues raised at the beginning of this essay:

1. Why does Noah react with such intensity against what appears to be such a minor infraction? Because it was indeed a major offense, a violation of the sacred marital covenant
2. How did Noah know what Ham had done? The visible effects of the sin were evident in his wife's body, and in the son she bore
3. Why is the sin of Ham described in active, rather than passive terms? Because his sin was indeed an active sin of sexual assault, not merely a passive act of seeing
4. Why is Canaan the recipient of the curse, and not Ham? Canaan is cursed precisely as the result and fruit of Ham's sin
5. Why was Noah naked when he passed out? His drinking of the wine was a prelude to marital relations, as was his nakedness
6. Why would an act of seeing another man's nakedness be considered a sin? According to Leviticus, to "see" or "uncover" another man's nakedness is to engage in carnal relations with his wife

Finally, this position connects itself with the Genesis narrative of the Fall, and also finds a natural home within the broader paradigm of serpentine/sexual violation of the Bride of the Covenant Head.