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