Blog Archives
A Review Of George Ogalo’s “Emotions and Ideology in the Noah-Ham Conflict (Genesis 9:24–27): A Narrative Clue for Noah’s Characterization” in ShahidiHub International Journal of Theology & Religious Studies- ISSN (Online): 2788-967X- Vol. 3, No. 1 (2023), 1–16
The chief contribution of this publication, from the perspective of its author who is a graduate of Egerton University and Africa International University, is its surfacing of contextual and linguistic clues to the narrator’s negative characterization of Noah.
The narrator’s first negative characterization of Noah, as per Dr. George Ogalo, is his emotional-laden response to perceived aggrievement. As regards Noah’s sense of aggrievement, there are two linguistic cues in Gen 9:24 that point to the same. There is the prepositional phrase, ל֖וֹ, which emphasizes that Noah is the victim of Ham‘s action however one understands that action to be. Then there is the verb ידע whose occurrence here Ogalo suggests parallels Est 4:1 where, after Mordecai learned (עַ דָי) all that had happened, tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes, went out into the midst of the city, and cried out with a loud and bitter cry. In Gen 9:24 Ogalo proffers that the verb evokes a reaction that entails emotions.
Speaking of the evoked reaction, Ogalo is of the opinion that the mere act of pronouncing maledictions and blessing pronouncements certainly evokes emotions. More specifically, though, the hapax עֶ֥בֶד עֲבָדִ֖ים (“lowest of slaves”) in Gen 9:25 points at the extent that Noah felt offended and the emotions evoked in the process of malediction. These feelings, Ogalo adds, are also embodied in the repeated maledictions against Ham in verses 26 and 27
The narrator’s second negative characterization, assuming one agrees with Dr Ogalo’s take that the adjective קָּטָֽן does not refer merely to the birth order of Ham vis-à-vis his other two siblings but rather carries the meaning of “young” in the sense of Ham being little or insignificant, is a portrayal of the father-son relationship in terms of social power hierarchy with Ham as the less significant one and Noah as the superior one
Yet another of the narrator’s negative characterization according to Ogalo is through the conjugation יֵּינ֑וֹ (“his wine”) consisting of the pronominal suffix (“his”) and the noun (“wine”). As is the case with 1 Sam 1:14 where Hannah is faulted for “her wine” albeit mistakenly, so is Noah derogatorily linked to wine through “his wine” in Gen 9:24.
The Blessing of Africa: The Bible and African Christianity, by Keith Augustus Burton, InterVarsity Press, 2007
The hallmark of this book is two-fold: (a) its redefinition of what territorially constitutes “biblical Africa” and (b) its identification of Put with sub-Saharan Africa. Capitalizing on the tendency to equate Ham(ites) with Africa(ns) as evidenced by the common misconception that Noah’s curse targeted Ham and thus the Africans, the author proposes that his readers consider the equation of “biblical Africa” with the “land of Ham.” Understood as such, “biblical Africa” would therefore encompass all the territories traditionally associated with the descendants of Ham as reflected in the “Table of Nations.” These regions include Saudi Arabia (associated with Seba, Sabteca, Sabtah, Dedan and Havilah), Yemen (associated with Sheba and Raamah), Iraq (associated with Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Calneh, Assyria), Egypt/Sudan (associated with Misrayim), Ethiopia (associated with with Cush), Libya (associated with the Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites), Crete (associated with Caphtorites), Israel/Palestine (associated with Canaan), Lebanon (associated with Sidon, Hivites, Arkites), Turkey (associated with Hittites), Jordan (associated with Amorites), and Syria (associated with Arvadites). In other words, an equation of “biblical Africa” with the “land of Ham” expands the definition of what encompasses Africa and who constitutes an African to include not just the continent of Africa and its dwellers, but parts of the Middle East and their respective citizens.
Having argued for a broader definition of “biblical Africa” (part one, chapters 1-4) and catalogued the Africans in the Bible assuming the broader definition (part two, chapters 5-7), the book takes and maintains to the very end a historical slant during which the following historical topics are discussed: (a) the development of Christianity in biblical Africa (part three, chapters 8-10), (b) the growth of Islam in biblical Africa (part four, chapters 11-12), (c) the impact of European colonialism on biblical Africa (part five. Chapters 13-15) and (d) the place of the Bible in present-day biblical Africa (part six, chapters 16-18).
Even if the reader does not buy into the author’s attempt to promote a broad definition of what geographically constitutes biblical Africa and consequently who composes an African biblically, this book remains a wonderful resource to students of church history and students of the Bible in general.
Nicholas oyugi's Weblog 