Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.
|
The problem is that most of what the commentators refer back to (prior commentators) were mired in finding a support for almost any kind of racism against blacks. Even if only a passive "it's genetics" kind of racism.
Commentators are too often simply supplying opinions. Many of their opinions at least bring some clarity to what is actually said. But mostly there is either clear words upon which to opine, or there are other references to it that provide a basis to go beyond what is written. Many bible scholars thinking anything that is not clearly there is just that — thinking. It is opinion. It needs more than the thought that it could be an euphemism — even by a number of people — for it to be so.
Reading commentators is quite difficult. And in the time in which the older ones were writing, they were a somewhat limited group. Few outside their numbers could hope to understand enough about things to question their conclusions. And then you have something said like "this might be a euphemism for something else" followed by someone reading that, and thinking "yeah, that could be right." Now there are more than one who has this idea. Nothing that makes it so. Just an idea. And so others join in because there have been some that said it. Now, in 2017, we read a group of commentaries and capitulate the words in the actual text to the opinion that there is something else going on.
There is a good chance that if the originators of those comments had been writing in 2017, then would have been more tentative in what they said about it. They would know that there is nothing making their conjecture true. But they would not be incorrect to suggest that it could be true, but without anything to make it so.
And more and more the preachers who refer to various commentators would read that, along with many others and see that there is a variety of opinion. Then in their sermon they might acknowledge that there is such a variety of opinion, even stating some of the notions, then typically move on to stick to the text and avoid the unsupported opinions.
What I'm saying is that when you find commentators — even more than one, or one of some stature — that takes a position that is not clearly there in the text (scripture), it is never obvious that it is the right opinion. Just an opinion.
I note that the reasons for the eventual call for the extermination (if that is rightly understood that way) of the Canaanites was not that the father of their tribe exposed Noah, but that they refused to acknowledge and worship God, and instead fought against God did detestable things in their worship of their false gods. There is no link back to Noah or that curse.