Library › St Irenaeus of Lyons › Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

St Irenaeus of Lyons, tr. Robinson, 1920

Chapter 20

Now of these one fell under a curse, and the two (others) inherited a blessing by reason of their works. For the younger of them,¹ who was called Ham, having mocked his father, and having been condemned of the sin of impiety because of his outrage and unrighteousness against his father, received a curse; and all the posterity that came of him he involved in the curse; whence it came about that his whole race after him were accursed, and in sins they increased and multiplied. But Shem and Japheth, his brothers, because of their piety towards their father obtained a blessing. Now the curse of Ham, wherewith his father Noah cursed him, is this: Cursed be Ham the child; ² a³ servant shall he be unto his brethren. This having come upon his race, he begat many descendants upon the earth, (even) for fourteen generations, growing up in a wild condition; and then his race was cut off by God, being delivered up to judgment. For the Canaanites and Hittites and Peresites and Hivites and Amorites and Jebusites and Gergasites and Sodomites, the Arabians also and the dwellers in Phoenicia, all the Egyptians and the Libyans,⁴ are of the posterity of Ham, who have fallen under the curse; for the curse is of long duration over the ungodly.

Notes

The Armenian corresponds to the Greek ὁ νεώτερος (Gen. ix. 24). As there were three sons of Noah, the comparative causes difficulty. Origen took it as a superlative: for in later Greek (as in French) the comparative with the article is used as a superlative. He went on to argue that as Ham was not the youngest son of Noah, the word “son” was used for grandson, and that “Noah knew what his grandson (Canaan) had done to him”: hence the curse falls on Canaan. This accorded with a tradition given him by his Hebrew teacher (Comm. in Gen. ix. 18; Lomm. viii, p. 65). The trouble arose from the fact that “the curse of Ham” was not pronounced on Ham, but on his son Canaan. Justin Martyr (Dial. 139) says that Noah cursed his son’s son; “for the prophetic Spirit would not curse his son, who had been blessed together with the other sons by God.”
Irenaeus makes no difficulty about speaking of “the curse of Ham.” It is clear that he had a text of the LXX, which enabled him to do so. The Hebrew of Gen. ix. 25 gives us: “Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” The LXX has: ᾿Επικατάρατος Χανάαν· παῖς οἰκέτης ἔσται τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. But some MSS (E and some cursives) read Χάμ for Χανάαν. When παῖς was taken with the preceding word, Χὰμ παῖς was no doubt intended to mean “the child of Ham,” i.e. Canaan: it might however be understood as “Ham the child.” So here the Armenian translator does not give the genitive case of Ham, but the nominative: and it would seem that he rightly interprets the meaning of Irenaeus.
Gen. ix. 25.
Irenaeus seems to have drawn on Acts ii. 9-11 to amplify his list.