We can choose to read it literally, as a pseudo history. Or, we can choose to read it as literature. In both cases, it is dangerous to apply Western logic and reasoning to what we read.
[Note: I will use the transliteration of the Biblical Hebrew names, rather than the conventional names used in English language Bibles]
By way of background, Genesis is explicit. Noakh (Noah) had 3 sons: Shem, Kham, and Yafet.
The 1st son, Shem, had 5 principal sons and other "sons and daughters". He was the progenitor of the line of Avraham (Abraham or Ibrahim)--giving rise to Israelites/Jews, early Christians and Muslims.
The 3rd son, Yafet, had 7 sons, giving rise to the peoples of Greece, Germany, etc.
The 2nd son, of whom you speak, Kham, had 4 sons: Kush, Mitzraim, Put, and Kna’an. Kush refers to Northeastern (Black) African peoples. Mitzraim is the Hebrew name for Egypt (referring to the Ancient Egyptians, not modern day Egyptians who are of Arab origin; note: modern Egypt is also called Mitzraim in Hebrew or Masr in Arabic). Kna’an is the Hebrew name for Canaan.
The Hebrew names of sons and peoples typically refer to a specific geography and their peoples, or they have other meanings.
Kush had 6 sons: Seva’, Khavilah, Savtah, Ra’mah, Savtecha, and Nimrod. Nimrod is the progenitor of Mesopotamian peoples, including Babylonians and Akkadians.
Mitzraim gave rise to many peoples, including the Philistines. (Scholars see the Philistines as of Greek descent.)
Kna’an, which occupies a hated position in the Bible, was also progenitor of many peoples, including the ’Emorim (Amorites) and in theory the Sinim (Chinese).
I would say that if you look at this part of the Bible as a precise description of man’s origins, you will run into many challenges. To me it says more about the prejudices of its authors. Kham and his "sons" were not looked upon fondly by the Israelites. As such, they include some of Israel’s greatest enemies...excepting Amalek who derives from the line of ’Esav (Esau).
You ask whether Kham had a Black wife. Our contemporary knowledge of science tells us that for a non-Black man to give rise to Black peoples, there must have been a Black woman as the mother. The Bible is quiet about this, as it often is when it comes to mentioning women. But, ancient rabbis also were curious about this. Their unscientific explanations in Jewish legend (’Aggadah) say that Kush’s color was a punishment for Kham’s sins. That wouldn’t fly today.
I think what is interesting is not the racial derivations but the world view back at the time of the Bible. I look at this text as more geographic. It is also interesting to read who gets tossed in with the "good guys" and who gets lumped together as a descendent of Kham and Kna’an.
I will paste in a couple interesting articles for those with greater interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04772.html
[Encyclopedia Judaica]
CUSH (Kush)
(1) Cush was the name of an ancient kingdom in N.E. Africa. The portion of the Nile Valley between the First and Sixth Cataracts was called Cush by the pharaonic Egyptians, though western nations preferred the Greek appellation Nubia. One of the earliest mentions of the name Cush is found on an inscription of the early Middle Kingdom (c. 1970 B.C.E.). During the second millennium B.C.E. Cush was absorbed into the Egyptian empire, first as far as the Second Cataract under the Middle Kingdom rulers and then as far as the Sixth by the New Kingdom pharaohs. When the New Kingdom disintegrated (c. 1050 B.C.E.), Cush, which had been thoroughly Egyptianized, gained its independence under a line of native kings. It was probably the Cush-ite king Shabako (c. 707–696) who encouraged *Hezekiah of Judah to resist the Assyrians under Sennacherib and sent the relief army that the Assyrians crushed at the battle of Eletekh in 701 B.C.E., since Taharka (*Tirhakah), mentioned in II Kings 19:9 and Isaiah 37:9, had not yet come to the throne. In fact, the biblical account is believed by some scholars to be a conflation of two campaigns. After the Assyrian conquest of Egypt in 666 B.C.E., Taharka’s successor Tanwentamani at first succeeded in freeing Upper Egypt as far as Memphis from the Assyrians in about 663–662 B.C.E., but he was driven out by the avenging armies of Ashurbanipal. The ancient capital of Thebes was so savagely plundered that 50 years later it served the prophet Nahum as an example for the forthcoming destruction of Nineveh (Nah. 3:8, 10). From this time on, Cush ceased to intervene in the affairs of Egypt.
(2) According to the Bible, Cush was the son of Ham (Gen. 2:13; 10:6–8; Ezek. 38:5; I Chron. 1:8–10) and the eponym of the N.E. African people. In several verses the name refers to other peoples; the distinction is not clear in every single case (Num. 12:1; II Chron. 14:8; 21:16). In the Septuagint the name appears in two forms: in those verses in which it designates the son of Ham it appears in the form Χονς while in other cases it is Αιθιοπια, i.e., Ethiopia. Most modern translations follow the Septuagint. The whole of East Africa was called Cush by the Greeks, and in modern times "Cushi" is a Hebrew term for a black person.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
A.J. Arkell, History of the Sudan (19612), 55–173; Lambdin, in: IDB, 2 (1962), 176–7 (incl. bibl.); Wilson, ibid., 4 (1962), 652 (incl. bibl.).
[Alan Richard Schulman]
Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Encyclopedia Judaica]
HAM (Heb. חָם), one of the three sons of Noah. Although he is always placed between Shem and Japheth (Gen. 5:32; 6:10, et al.), he appears to have been the youngest of the three (9:24). The Bible relates how Ham observed Noah drunk and naked in his tent. He "saw his father’s nakedness," implying in the biblical Hebrew a sexual act or even rape, i.e., sodomized him (cf. "see the nakedness" in Lev. 20:17, and see Sanh. 70a). In contrast, when he told his brothers of the incident, they at once covered Noah, doing so with the utmost delicacy (9:22–23). When Noah became aware of what had transpired, he cursed Canaan for his action: "Cursed be Canaan; the lowest of slaves to his brothers" (9:24–25). The reason for Noah cursing Canaan, and not Ham, is not clear. Actually "Ham the father of" in verses 18b and 22 seems to be a somewhat crude link between verses 18–19 and 20ff., in which Noah’s sons are Shem, Japheth, and Canaan. Ugaritic epic poetry makes it clear that a son had the obligation to take special care of his drunken father, and not to disgrace him (cf. Isa. 51:17–18). Accordingly, the biblical depiction of Ham-Canaan’s depravity is probably to be taken as an ethnic slur rather than as a reflection of Canaanite reality (see *Canaan, Curse of ), a tendency continued in Jewish Midrash (see below). Ham had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan, who became the progenitors of numerous nations (Gen. 10:6–20). As the home of the most important nation descended from Ham, Egypt is poetically called "Ham" in one psalm whose date is controversial (Ps. 78:51), and "the land of Ham" in two late psalms (Ps. 105:23, 27; 106:22; cf. Genesis Apocryphon, 19:13). Egypt is apparently the nucleus of the Hamite genealogy, the others having been added because of geographical proximity or political ties.
[Max Wurmbrand /
S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]
In the Aggadah [curious7s: rabbinical legends and stories told to try to explain anomalies in Biblical text; they often tell more about the rabbis and their Diaspora context than the original Biblical text]
Ham’s descendant (Cush) is black skinned as a punishment for Ham’s having had sexual intercourse in the ark (Sanh. 108b). When Ham saw his drunken father exposed, he emasculated him, saying, "Adam had but two sons, and one slew the other; this man Noah has three sons, yet he desires to beget a fourth" (Gen. R. 36:5). Noah therefore cursed Canaan (Gen. 9:25), Ham’s fourth son, since through this act he was deprived of a fourth son (Gen. R. 36:7). According to another opinion, Ham committed sodomy with his father (Sanh. 70a) and Noah cursed Canaan because Ham, together with his father and two brothers, had previously been blessed by God (Gen. R. loc. cit.). Another tradition attributes the curse to the fact that it was Canaan who castrated Noah. Ham was nevertheless to blame because he informed his brothers of their father’s nakedness (PdRE 23). Canaan was so wicked that his last will and testament to his children was: "Love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth" (Pes. 113b). Ham was also punished in that his descendants, the Egyptians and Ethiopians, were taken captive and led into exile with their buttocks uncovered (Isa. 20:4; Gen. R. 36:6). Ham was responsible for the ultimate transfer to Nimrod of the garments which God had made for Adam and Eve before their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. From Adam and Eve these garments went to Enoch, and from him to Methuselah, and finally to Noah, who took them into the ark with him. When the inmates of the ark were about to leave their refuge, Ham stole the garments and kept them concealed for many years. Finally, he passed them on to his firstborn son, Cush, who eventually gave them to his son, Nimrod, when he reached his 20th year (PdRE 24; Sefer ha-Yashar, Noaḥ, 22).
[Aaron Rothkoff]
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
A. Reubeni, Shem, Ḥam ve-Yafet… (1932), 71–182; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (1912), 181–7, 200–4: Jeremias, Alte Test; Maisler (Mazar), in: EretzPage 291 | Top of Article Israel, 3 (1954), 18–32; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (1964); Ginzberg, Legends, 1 (1942), 166–73, 177; 5 (1947), 188–95. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: N. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary Genesis (1989), 63–72; E. Isaac, in: ABD, 3, 31–2.
Source Citation: Wurmbrand, Max, S. David Sperling, and Aaron Rothkoff. "Ham." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 8. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 290-291.
