Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum 
Canaan is cursed, ergo Canaan is the guilty party (of whatever), unless it can be shown otherwise. My guess, though far from dogmatic--it was a case of publicized contempt of the patriarch, a violation of the 5th commandment (to speak a little anachronistically). IOW, something that would have been better kept a private sin on Noah's part, became public fodder for mockery.  |
This is similar to the explanation I've heard, namely that the father was responsible for the negligent acts of his son. So if Noah would have cursed Ham for what was done he would have brought condemnation upon himself. Therefore, to place the shame on the actual perpetrator (Ham), he cursed Canaan (the son of Ham) so that Ham would be condemned for his own act. If this is the correct viewpoint, it appears to be a purely forensic solution for attributing blame and condemnation.
Hey....but I could be wrong.