2. Shem, Ham, Japheth

A common Jewish tradition is that the three “races” were the progeny of Noah’s three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham.
Gen 9:18-19
^“The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) ¹⁹ These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.”
Here is how they and their progeny theoretically became the various races of mankind.

1. Shem of the Mongoloid race:
The peoples of the Middle East and Southern Asia. (Gen. 10:21-32)
Eber: Abraham (the Jews) was the sixth generation of Eber who settled in Mesopotamia in the area of Ur of the Chaldees.
Elam:  The Elamites became a strong nation East of Babylonia.
Asshur:  The Assyrians of the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Lud:  The Lydians of Asia Minor.
Aram: The Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia.

2.  Ham of the African race:
The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites. (Gen. 10:6-20)
Cush: The peoples of central and Southern Arabia.
Mizraim: The Egyptians of upper and lower Nile River.
Phut: The North Africans & specifically Libyans.
Canaan: The Canaanites.
Sidon (Zidon): The people who inhabited the whole Phoenician coast.

3. Japheth is traditionally the father of the Western/Caucasian race:
The Indo-European of western Asia and of Europe. (Gen. 10:2-4)
Gomer:  The Cimmerians which are mentioned by Homer as the people of the far north.
Magog:  The Scythians of Southern Europe and the Tartars of Russia.
Madai:  The Medes who lived in area of Caspian Sea.
Javan: The Ionians (Greeks).

This is fine, I suppose, as a theory.  I am not confident that the account of Noah is/was intended to be considered strictly historical, or if we even understand how it was intended by Moses (or whoever the original author of the account was).

I have no trouble with it being historical, if it is. I do think the language leaves a lot of margin for that conversation. However, this is probably still the most common biblical perspective for the division of races. I am concerned about building much in the way of theology from such a deeply ancient passage from the culture and literature that we understand with such uncertainty.
One of the things that is important to note about these biblical accounts is the curse of Canaan. (AKA by its misnomer, The Curse of Ham).

When I taught this material recently, I had an African American man ask me about “the Curse of Ham” which has apparently been used as an excuse to mistreat or diminish and even enslave people of African descent. I was a little stunned.

Here is the passage being referred to:
²² And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. ²³ Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. ²⁴ When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, ²⁵ he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
²⁶ He also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.  ²⁷May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.” (Gen 9:22-27)

For the life of me, I do not see how this would be a curse of Ham. It is a curse of Canaan. Granted, I have no idea why Canaan is cursed;* clearly there is something we are missing here. However, it isn’t even that much of a curse of Canaan!

Canaan is going to be the “servant of servants” to his brothers, and apparently, his uncles.   Obviously, this is only, at its base level, about Canaan, personally. I know that it is taken as a curse that continues on through the generations, but that is certainly not clear in the passage. It just looks like Canaan is going to be on K.P. duty quite a bit for the rest of the family.

* A quick look at some of the various thoughts on why Noah would curse Canaan rather than Shem can be found here. I don’t know this website’s other material, but this seems as good a visitation of this topic as anything else… and any critical reader will see that anytime you are working with the deep Old Testament, there is as much guess work with an ancient culture that we honestly just don’t understand well.

So, even if you DID interpret this curse as somehow being something that is going to haunt Canaan’s descendent for time immemorial… it is still focused on Canaan and has no bearing whatsoever on the other sons of Ham that I can see! And, any remnant of that “race” would now be lost and intermixed with others and have no longer any kind of stand-alone culture. Soooo, there is no way to interpret the curse of Canaan as applying to people of African descent… and even if you did think this curse somehow made it ok or right to enslave the offspring of Canaan, that culture and race is long gone.  Any claim on slavery from this argument is off base.

So, what is the application to race from the theory of Shem, Ham, and Japheth? None, except that perhaps it would be further evidence that we are all one race and descend from a single couple somewhere in the past.

Not very divisive a view of race from where I stand… and even better, I have a little surprise for you at the end of this article that connects to this theory.
How about the Tower of Babel? That is next.