Thanks for the clarification. I think you answered my question quite soundly.

(1) Posterity bears consequences.
The castation of Noah seems to be a controversial explanation of the this curse and only later in the game. In fact the first time in Rabbinic lore that this is discussed it happens in a scene where 2 rabbi’s are arguing about possible explanations and neither contestent is favored. The explanation doesn’t seem to fit though since Ham’s other Sons are not affected by the curse.

(2) Canaan really means Ham.
This seems like nothing but supposition on Casutto part. However I don’t think I would completely write it off.

(3) Canaan was the transgressor.
This is a very late interpretation and there is nothing in the text that supports the contention. I think I would reject this conclusion.

(4) People of Canaan cursed.
This sounds like interesting reasoning. However I think it fails under later scrutiny. The Canaanites religious, personal, and sexual lives in both historical and biblical records appears to be NO different than those of each and every other of the 70 nations known to the Isrealites. I think this is a modern interpretation but it fails miserably with further scrutiny.

Robert, you have mentioned this book several times and I am guessing that Casutto backs himself up better than what you have presented here. I would love to hear what you believe are the strengths of his arguments and you personal opinions on the matter. I am enjoying our dialogue here.

Do you think the curse on Canaan for stealing the lands is a continuation of (or reference to) the curse pronounced on Canaan when Noah was naked (Jubilees 7:10 and Gen 9:25), or is this a new curse for a new sin?

(For Cassuto’s take on the curse Noah pronounced on Canaan look here.)

Mike, although I think a good case can be made that the curse on Canaan in Gen 9 was written retroactively (comment #15), I still think it’s useful to read the text as though it was written chronologically (I’m appealing to a literary approach here not necessarily a literal approach). Good point about the curse of Cain.

At this point, I would answer BrianJ’s question by first making Mike’s distintion between antediluvian and postdiluvian Canaan, then point out that the curese in Gen 9 is toward the people of Canaan not the land itself. So as long as Abraham abnd his posterity doesn’t become wicked (like many of the Canaanites will become), the curse will not apply to them.

This doesn’t address Julie’s question though–why Canaan, a centrally-located land? One possible answer would be to show the rest of the world that the God of Abraham was more powerful than their other Gods, a theme that seems common in the OT. It would be interesting to follow the theme of exodus and migration (in scriptures and for the pioneers) and see if there are patterns. My conjecture would be that the Lord’s people leave lands when there is little chance of missionary work and high risk of wickedness propogating, and the Lord’s people enter lands where there is more chance for missionary work and less risk of absorbing surrounding wickedness….

In any event, there is no connection — expressed or implied — in LDS scripture between the antediluvian Canaanites and the postdiluvian Canaanites. We only connect them because the name is the same and they were both cursed. And connecting them has been useful to perpetuate the myth of the “curse of Cain.”