Racism in Genesis 9

[OldWiseGuy]

At least we are staying on topic with a topic that deals with racism where none exists.

59 posts of nonsense according to "oldwiseguy".

I began stirring the pot with post#52.

 

[RDKirk]

Jeremiah seems to make a disparaging comment about 'black skinned people' here.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)

Racist?

No. That verse is taking notice that an "Ethiopian" (or "Cushite" in some translations) has a skin tone very distinctive from that of the Semite or Grecian. Both of those tones can range from extremely light to dark tan, but the Ethiopian's tone would be nearly black--as distinctive as the spotted coat of the leopard. It's only making a metaphoric point.

This verse does not attach any disparagement or make an moral or intellectual judgment on Cushites. Further, we have at least two definately positive Cushite references in the OT and another positive one in the NT.

 

[RDKirk]

I was asking if anyone thought it was.

While I don't think the bible contains racism I do believe that racism has been present from the time significant differences in appearance and culture appeared between tribal groups.

What we see in scripture is bigotry. Bigotry is a sin of the flesh, to which the flesh is as prone as to adultery or greed. Racism is merely one of the forms of bigotry.

We see bigotry played out in the early church as the irritation first between Hellenist Jews who became Christians and Hebraic Jews who became Christians. Later we see it continued between Gentile Christians and Hellenist Jewish Christians.

Notice that all the opposition to Paul was from the same Hellenist Jews who had been earlier discriminated against by the Hebraic Jewish Christians.

Ironically, it was because of blind bigotry that the Hellenist Jews were the ones who attacked Stephen...a Hellenist Jew himself who was charged to make sure the widows among Hellenist believers were properly cared for.

So the bigotry we see fought against in the NT is the same sin of the flesh that we experience as racism (and other forms of bigotry) today.

But--just in case others in this thread are not aware--I know that you--OldWiseGuy--have already espoused in other threads a belief that the races should be kept segregated, so I know where you're going with this tangent.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But--just in case others in this thread are not aware--I know that you--OldWiseGuy--have already espoused in other threads a belief that the races should be kept segregated, so I know where you're going with this tangent.

You are wrong on both counts.

I have never espoused segregation although I have offered some humorous comments such as quoting Comedian Paul Rodriguez on the subject; "The sooner we all look like Filipinos the happier we'll be."

Espousing, and, offering an opinion, are not the same thing.

This is not a tangent. The OP presented an incorrect scriptural reference which replaces the original 'and' for 'but' and thereby corrupts the whole narrative. Only when the correct translation is applied can the discussion move forward honestly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Trying to retrofit modern post-Industrial concepts of "race" to a pre-modern people or text is not going to work out. Simply because the very notion of "race" that we have today didn't exist until rather recently in the history of civilization.

People then understood that there were tribes or nations of people, but a bronze age Levantine people would have had no notion of "black" and "white" as these are used today. Certain people were lighter and darker, and that was known sure; and different tribes and nations of men shared different characteristics, cultural, linguistic, physiological; but that is a far cry from the language and ideas that we typically employ today which is rooted in a particular recent history and unfortunately flavored often by various pseudosciences of the 19th century (such as the "five race" theory).

But the Bible doesn't know this, because it couldn't know this; no more than it could know about Mexico or the Magna Carta.

Instead the story serves to describe a tribal genealogy, a mythological telling of the foundation of nations which Israel understood. Shem is clearly the important son of Noah, not because he founded a "purer race" or some nonsense, but because through Shem comes Abraham, the patriarch, who is given the promise of child and nation, to whom is born Isaac, and to Isaac is born Jacob, renamed Israel, and his twelve sons the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Shem's importance is found in the fact that he is the genealogical father of Israel in the entire Noahidic episode. And Genesis is, more than anything else, the story of beginnings; specifically Israel's national beginnings. Serving as a prologue to the Exodus and the establishment of the national covenant at Sinai.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Trying to retrofit modern post-Industrial concepts of "race" to a pre-modern people or text is not going to work out. Simply because the very notion of "race" that we have today didn't exist until rather recently in the history of civilization.

People then understood that there were tribes or nations of people, but a bronze age Levantine people would have had no notion of "black" and "white" as these are used today. Certain people were lighter and darker, and that was known sure; and different tribes and nations of men shared different characteristics, cultural, linguistic, physiological; but that is a far cry from the language and ideas that we typically employ today which is rooted in a particular recent history and unfortunately flavored often by various pseudosciences of the 19th century (such as the "five race" theory).

But the Bible doesn't know this, because it couldn't know this; no more than it could know about Mexico or the Magna Carta.

Instead the story serves to describe a tribal genealogy, a mythological telling of the foundation of nations which Israel understood. Shem is clearly the important son of Noah, not because he founded a "purer race" or some nonsense, but because through Shem comes Abraham, the patriarch, who is given the promise of child and nation, to whom is born Isaac, and to Isaac is born Jacob, renamed Israel, and his twelve sons the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Shem's importance is found in the fact that he is the genealogical father of Israel in the entire Noahidic episode. And Genesis is, more than anything else, the story of beginnings; specifically Israel's national beginnings. Serving as a prologue to the Exodus and the establishment of the national covenant at Sinai.

-CryptoLutheran

The incident where Moses is set upon by Aaron and Miriam for marrying an Ethiopian woman might reveal some early racism. Israelite men could marry other women from outside of Israel. Why the fuss over a black woman?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The incident where Moses is set upon by Aaron and Miriam for marrying an Ethiopian woman might reveal some early racism. Israelite men could marry other women from outside of Israel. Why the fuss over a black woman?

The issue seems to be that Moses--God's anointed leader of the people--has married a foreigner.

It's likely more an example of xenophobia than racism. Miriam and Aaron use Moses' marrying a non-Israelite as an excuse to complain about God's seeming favoritism of Moses.

There's no indication that the color of Moses' wife's skin was of any consequence. Especially as chances are that a person from Nubia wasn't going to be all that much darker than the Israelites themselves who, having spent the last four centuries working as slaves under the hot Egyptian sun were likely to be as dark as any Egyptian. They certainly weren't white or fair skinned.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

TMiriam and Aaron use Moses' marrying a non-Israelite as an excuse to complain about God's seeming favoritism of Moses.

Yes, that is the primary issue of the passage. Remember that Moses was the baby of the family.