Talk:Semite

I vote for deleting this page. Semitic is essentially a language grouping, to which a handy dandy biblical appelation was attached. We already have a (poor) article on Shem (Ham and Japeth) by HJ. This does not really tell us much. Danny

STOP!!! This is getting to sound like The Idiot's Guide to the Bible. There is some serious scholarship going on in this field, but claims are being made here without any real basis (while some of them are just plain wrong). Once again, I vote vigorously for deletion. Now to deal with Noah. Danny


 * Perhaps the bits and pieces should be merged to a new article Sons of Noah, mentioning all of the medieval twaddle, as well as the valid linguistic usage, and a pointer to anti-Semitism? The medieval nonsense is a valid subject for an encyclopedia, even though it is wrong -- in fact this is what needs pointing out!I vote for doing that instead. The Anome


 * 1) It is NOT medieval. It is biblical. It has been interpretted this way since ancient times. I have studied those primary sources and can quote them if necessary. Calling it medieval is a mistake.
 * 2) Semitic today is interpretted as a language grouping.
 * 3) The ancient and medieval (and there are even a few modern) interpretations are being misrepresented. Danny

Anome also wrote:
 * The medieval nonsense is a valid subject for an encyclopedia, even though it is wrong -- in fact this is what needs pointing out!

And I think that the Shem, Semitic and anti-semitism articles should be linked. To shed light on the POV that "Arabs aren't anti-semitic", if nothing else.

I vote for keeping this page. --Ed Poor

Please, Ed. I spent many years studying this particular subject. You are mixing up a number of related but unconnected ideas. Shem has nothing to do with whether Arabs are anti-Semitic or not. The Bible is a source, not the main source, for our understanding of the ancient Middle East, its history, languages, ethnography, etc. Too many issues are getting lumped together, in many cases from an (unstated) fundamentalist perspective, and the few ascertainable facts are getting lost in the jumble. Danny

Then why not say this is the article:
 * Some people see a connection between Shem, Semites and Semitic languages. They advocate against using the term anti-semitism to mean only Jew-hatred and insist that Arabs, being a Semitic people, cannot possible be considered "anti-semitic" in the light of their definition.

This would take the wind out of their sails, eh? --Ed Poor 07:35 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)

I am not interested in "taking the wind out of anyone's sails." I am interested in understanding the ancient world described in the Bible from a contemporary, scholarly perspective, based on corroborative evidence and historical interpretation. That people speak a Semitic language does not make them Semites (even if there is such a thing, and there is not). Anti-Semitism was coined as a euphemism in the 19th century to describe the hatred of a particular, self-defined, ethnic/cultural group, many of whose members lived in Europe at the time. Oddly enough, some anti-Semitic literature posits that the Jews are not Semitic at all--they are descendants of the Khazars. Others, such as Christian Identity, claim that the Northern Europeans are the real Semites. Furthermore, using "Sons of Noah" in this context has also been used to justify slavery (Ham) and promote the cultural superiority of Europeans (Japheth) over other peoples. Finally, there is no scientific basis for any of this crap. Do you see how confusing it can get? Danny

Please stop deleting page contents. Discuss in talk first, or I will lock the page. --Ed Poor

Ed, you are writing about things you know very little about. You are confusing language groupings and ethicities. Google, although it is a fine search engine, is not a scholarly source. Furthermore, you have to know how to interpret the information you find there. There is an article on Semitic languages. There is no such thing as Semitic peoples, except in the context of people speaking related languages. Danny

Ed, what you added with the Khazars was not my intention at all. It simply shows your lack of familiarity with these issues. Again

SEMITIC IS A LANGUAGE GROUP, NOT AN ETHNICITY.

I speak English. I am not ethnically Angle or Saxon. Jews in Europe spoke Yiddish. They were not ethnically Germanic. The Bible gives an extensive listing of the sons of Shem. Who were those peoples? What relationship (if any) did they have? Was it linguistic? Was it cultural? These are all complex questions about a text reporting its own understanding of peoples and places long since forgotten. Please stop dropping information that is out of context. Danny


 * Have you looked at the sources? I just spent 15 minutes, laying it all out for you. Please look at the three references at the bottom of the article, and tell me what you think of their credentials, and their reasoning. If you disagree, please explain why. I'm not trying to impose my point of view; I'm just reporting what legitimate-sounding websites said. If they're full of beans, we can choose better references.


 * What I'm looking for is something like Professor Maimonides of XYZ University says that the concept of "Semitic peoples" is sheer nonsense. The accident of their happening to speak similar languages is irrelevant to blah, blah, blah..." Otherwise, it looks to me like the term is in serious use.


 * I know there's an argument trying to co-opt the term anti-semitic based on some kind of outdated, bs theory. But we have to DOCUMENT that it's outdated. We can't just omit it, because that wouldn't be NPOV. --Ed Poor

Absolutely. Wrong ideas are often interesting, because they reveal a great deal about those who believe or believed in them. They most certainly are a fit subject for an encyclopedia -- documenting them, and saying that they are wrong, is the right thing to do. The Anome

Ed, I know the sources. I've researched the sources. I've even read most of the primary sources in their original languages. Please answer the points instead of referring me to Google. One instance you give as a Semitic people is the Assyrians. Yes, they speak a Semitic language. However, the biblical account gives two conflicting origins for Ashur, the eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians. He is listed in the geneology of Shem (Gensis 11:22), but he is also connected with Ham (11:11). A conflict? Perhaps. Or perhaps it reflects on the redacted texts and attempts to reinterpret political alliances at the time of the redaction of the Bible, which conflicted with earlier traditions. That is just one example. Furthermore, the Canaanites are listed as being Hamitic (11:6), yet they spoke a "Semitic" language--actually various dialects, most of which were Semitic: the Hittites, who are often listed with the Canaanites, spoke an Indo-European language. Are you getting even the slightest idea of how complicated this all is. Anti-Semitism is a modern construct, used to describe an old phenomenon. This is common. It has nothing to do with Semitic languages or peoples that spoke them. Semotic refers to Lydians. Are you prepared to classify them? What is Arphachshad doing in the list. That is a biographical mention, not an ethnic one. Please do not confuse all these issues. Danny

Sorry, I was trying to clarify. But you seem better qualified. In fact, most of what you entered above could go into Semitic people or some other article. If you want to begin the article by saying something like the concept of a Semitic people is a modern construct and proceed to demolish its authenticity, I will sit back and applaud. I have no opinion. I want to know. I want to learn from you and Uri and others who have spent years researching theses matters. The whole thing sounds complicated, and I'd like to see it straightened out. I think you're the man to do it. Do you feel up to the task? - Ed Poor

hi there,

i'm completely unqualified on this matter, but i am researching it as an interested and (to my best ability) neutral party. the american heritage dictionary discribes "semitic" (adj) as 1. refering to the semites, the language, or culture, and 2. of or relating to the language sub-group that includes hebrew, arabic, etc. as a noun, it refers only to the language; semite is the noun for the people. i think it important to note all of the above: yes, anti-semitic was coined to mean anti-jewish; yes, "semites" include arabs; and yes, some people have tried to redefine anti-semitic to mean something other than anti-jewish. i'm writing from the point of view of an "average" researching using wiki to get a deeper look at a very, very complex phenomena.

thanks, slam

We must delete this misleading article, as it contains no valid science or linquistics. Let's not present 18th century specualtive racial science, which has been proven false, as fact. There is no such thing as a semitic people or a semitic race. And contrary to what this article currently claims, the term Semitic people is not ever used by linguists. I can't imagine who made this claim, or why. Not only is this article incorrect and misleading, it is dangerous. (See the Talk section on anti-Semitism.) RK

I think the following facts are worthy of inclution in an encylopedia: In my opinion the most appropriate place to list this information is in this article, Semitic peoples, however I would not object if others feel it might be better to integate this into Semitic languages, Shem, or perhaps Race. Efghij
 * 1) Semitic people or Semities was a term used by 18th century scolars to decribe a "race" consisting of Jews, Arabs, Assyrians and Akkadians
 * 2) Modern genetic research indicates that the two remanining groups (Jews and Arabs) are decended from a common population
 * 3) The Bible and traditional Muslim sources claim that these people are desended from a man named Shem


 * or indeed semitic? Martin

Keep & improve this article
There is a Semitic people, politics should be kept out of this page! Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)