Talk:Shem

[Untitled]

The Messiah is descended from Shem in an unbroken line. This is a very odd statement to be made baldly in an encyclopedia, without any cultural or historical context. Genealogy of the Messiah is a concept that developed somewhere, was expressed in some literature, was important to someone. Even a link to an entry like the Tree of Jesse or something would help. Qumran? I'm at a loss... Wetman 19:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

@ Mustafaa, I know they still talk about the North-East Afroasiatic languages as Semitic, but I suppose my colleagues must be talking about "The Semite" only after I leave the room then. :-) Zestauferov 11:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair point! I'll change it to reflect that... Mustafaa 17:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

descended from Shem in straight line?

Jesus was born of a virgin,remember? Joseph was not Jesus's blood father, there is no bloodline from Adam to Jesus, unless Mary herself somehow was descended in a direct line from Shem - which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the bible. Just a thought.

- - I have removed the direct line reference, to avoid confusion. However, in a strict Jewish legal sense, there is indeed a direct line from Adam to Jesus, as Luke outlines (using the word 'supposed' with a nod and a wink), because Mosaic law allows that Joseph is the legal father of Jesus (to the fullest extent of the law), despite him not being the physical father. The rule was first invoked by the daughters of Zelophehad.

Cobblers 13:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mary decended from David through her father right. David decended from Abraham who decended from Shem. Whats the problem? Other than Jesus in accordance to the Bible was truly a decendent straight from God as He was part of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revert of this page to 15 July 2007 version

Many now claim that the Anglo-Saxons are the descendants of Shem. This is one of the new contributions to this page that was added to this page since 15 July. I went back through the history trying to find the last version that seemed mainstream, NPOV, and appropriately referenced, and I found this July 15 version. Since that date I have found a number of edits that appear to violate Wikipedia policies, including addition of numerous links to websites that don't satisfy our WP:RS requirements. Since I'm not a regular editor of this page, I don't know what the local standards might be, but the new sources are certainly not suitable. I came here due to this linksearch for www.dhushara.com, a web site that was complained about on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

Please comment if you disagree with reverting back to what I consider the last good version. Thanks, EdJohnston 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Shem as main contributer to Caucasian family tree

In support to the above poster that many now claim (and have for many years) that Anglo-Saxons are decendents of Shem and also the article found saying that the Greeks, Persians also decend from Shem.

It is belief to many that the caucasian race decends from Shem, The Mongoloid race come from Japheth and the Afroid race decend from Ham.

The Armenians and the Aramaic language are from Aram. The Elamites of southwest Iran are from Elam and spoke Elamo-Dravidian. The Chaldeans, Syrians, Jews and Arabs from Peleg (Jews and Arabs are from Abraham who we know came from his fathers city of Ur of the Chaldeans but moved to Canaan and his decendents adopted the canaanite language). The Indo-Aryan / Indo-European races from central Asia are from Joktan. The Asyrians were perhaps from Asshur.

Nimrod building cities in Shinar and then in Assyria does not nessessarily mean that these people came from him as this is a reference when the whole world were one people and not split into tribes. The regions were probably given their names after the nations divided.

There is no evidence to support that Flavius Josephus writings had any grounds of true knowledge behind them other than they were Flavius' own ideas and therefore the many theories based on his writings are far from factual. (unsigned)

Look, all Wikipedia really does (supposedly) is mirror what the actual sources say. Our own editorial points of view are supposed to be irrelevant. We already have Josephus as one source, now if you have any source beside yourself for the things you are saying, then we can look at it. Various authors have disagreed about these things for centuries, but we aren't here to argue about which source we personally agree with or disagree with as being 'factual' - remember that there are also some schools of thought that would argue none of this is factual anyway - hence the concept of "neutrality". We can attribute any relevant POV that is reliably sourced to the author who holds it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous books by Christian theologists that mentions that Shem = Caucasians, Japheth = Mongloids (Turks etc) & Ham = Africans. Perhaps based on the 'Book of Jasher' thing. I'll have to look some up. I can also recall seeing a kids cartoon of Noah and his three children looks like this (forget the last bit as I have spent about an hour trying to find a site that features the cartoon).

Age at the time of the flood

His age at the time of the flood was not 98. I have corrected this to 99, after considering the six possible orderings in the calendar year of:

* Noah's birthday
* Shem's birthday
* The flood date 

As well as the following passages:

Genesis 5:32 - "Noah was 500 years old when he begot Shem..."

Genesis 7:11 - "In the year when Noah was 600 years old ... the rain fell on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights".

Genesis 11:10 - "Shem was 100 years old ... two years after the flood."

From the first two passages, Shem's age at the time of the flood was either 99 or 100 (after considering the six possible orderings of the three events described above). But if the last passage were stating an exact "two years", Shem would be 98 at the time of the flood. Hence, "two years" is an approximation, rounded up.

Mebden (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, our policy against "Original Research", of which this is the very epitome. In order to use your calculations, they must be cited to some reliable, published source, not to a wikipedian. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Origins in Egyptian Mythology

Gray Greenberg of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York has written alleging to show that the origin of the word "Shem" can be found in the Hermopolitan creation myth. I would like to include, or see included, a section on this claim, which appears to me to be prima facie credible. "Shem" means "name" in Hebrew, and odd name to give a son, but also "shemoneh", or eight. This corresponds to the eight Hermopolitan deities which emerged out of the creation flood in Hermopolitan mythology, along with Ja-Ptah, or the God Ptah, and Cham, or Keme, the black soil of the Nile valley. Would there be any objections if I were to add a paragraph describing this claim? Evolvon —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not as impressed with this hypothesis being "credible" as you, but according to policy, just about anything can be added, as long as it is properly attributed to a reliable published source, and is not given undue weight... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prima facie" credible! That means I see no reason to believe it logically inconsistent or othwerwise impossible. Greenberg seems to be a serious archaeologist and probably merits inclusion, but since I'm NOT an archaeologist, credible or otherwise, I thought I'd better see if anyone else thought it was complete pants. Evolvon —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Gary Greenberg isn't an archaeologist, he's a lawyer, see his website [1]. I don't think is a reliable source dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be mentioned that Shem...

...is etymologically equivilant to the name element Sam in Samuel. It mentions that it is the origin of Semitic but not this, that he is the father of the Eberites too should maybe be mentioned next to the Semitic bit that Eberite is the root of the word Hebrew too as on the Eber page. 74.209.54.32 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Roots

This important map http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg can explain where the Shem came from and this map http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg also support the future research. Bocah anon (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases), and a map from a tourist trap. Those don't amount to any sort of evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted info

I did not put this section in the article, but saw it was just deleted as 'Original Research'. Having read many books, I can vouch that it is a very familiar and significant POV to the topic; I do not believe whoever added it was conducting 'Original Research', which means something never before published anywhere else but on wikipedia. Thus I have no doubt a source can easily be found, and the questioned text should appear here on the talk page for the time being. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"In Genesis, while Sheba and Seba are listed among descendants of Cush son of Ham in 10:7, another Sheba is listed as a son of Joktan, son of Eber in 10:28. These names are associated with Semitic tribes on both sides of the Red Sea in Yemen, Eritrea, and Ethiopia (See Sabaeans). This situation may reflect combined Hamito-Semitic ancestry postulated for Ethiopian peoples. The Tigray-Tigrinya and Amhara of Eritrea and Ethiopia can also trace their ancestry to Shem."

Maybe for the first two sentences. Less likely for the third, and I hope we aren't going to claim that anyone can trace their ancestry to Shem (that was added today). Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They do traditionally trace their ancestry to Shem. To state it in terms of what they 'can' or 'can't' do seems like arbitrary whim, even imperialist. The word "can" should thus be removed and the word "traditionally" could be added, since that is a fact whether they are correct or not. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally is fine when sourced, the sentence added today that I removed stated it as fact (which I guess must be imperialist if 'can' is imperialist). Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

scholarly contribution?

This article, interesting as its subject matter may be, doesn't meet academic standards. views from the Bible and other holy books are taken as absolute truths, which may suit certain religious groups but should not be part of an encyclopedia. I recommend adding phrases like `according to the bible'.

I assume that such genealogies were created in order to establish a) a hierarchy, and b) a common ancestry of the peoples of the world. this would show that all peoples descended of Adam and so 'prove' the claims of Genesis. In a similar vein, greek mythology traces the origins of the greeks back to the sons of Hellen, a name interpreted to mean `greek'. His sons and other descendants bore names like `Thessalos' who would have been the ancestor of the Thessalians etc. This is not FACT, but rather "closure" - a way to come to terms with the outside world.

referring to Javan, I would stress, as many scholars have done, the similarity of that name and that of the greek tribe of the Iaones, i.e. the Ionians, who lived around Athens and in present-day Western Turkey. These Ionians are well attested in non-fictional sources, and were in existence during the time of the Babylonian Exile, the setting that the book of Genesis is believed to have originated in. It is striking to read that according to some Sem's descendants have chased the Javans to northern Europe and have occupied their territories. Why not claim that the Javans then occupied the Indonesian island of Java?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.54.234 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged ambiguity at 10, 21

What is the basis for claiming that the Hebrew is ambiguous? It may be that the reading the verse by itself Hebrew is perfectly clear, but because this contrdicts the data for Shem's age at the Flood, some translators have not rendered the Hebrew literally. If it were really ambiguous surely all translators would seek to exploit this to avoid a seeming contradiction. We need a source here with Hebrew expertise. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The basis is given right after the claim. SentientParadox (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation not needed

I'm removing the citation needed flag from the following passage since the sources are already cited directly in the article context right after the flag. Placing a citation at the bottom of the page would be unnecessarily redundant.

"Genesis 10:21 refers to relative ages of Shem and his brother Japheth, but with sufficient ambiguity to have yielded different English translations.[citation needed] The verse is translated in the KJV as "Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.". However, the New American Standard Bible gives, "Also to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, and the older brother of Japheth, children were born." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SentientParadox (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

UNsourced racist material

I deleted a large amount of material that was unsourced (no reliable source, that is) and reflected 19th century racist ideologies. If any editor wants to revert, we'll take it to RfC and beyond, as I don't like seeing Wiki used for racism.PiCo (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, that was a good edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@PiCo: I did not pay close attention when I reverted you; my apologies and I thank you for removing that material as it violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Ariel ^✡ 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Birth and death year of Shem

According to the book Genesis Genealogies by Rev. Abraham Park, Shem was born on 1558 AM, which is equivalent to 2556 BC, and passed away on 2158 AM, equivalent to 1956 BC, at the age of 600. I saw on the Shem page that the date is disputed. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually his existence is disputed, and we certainly don't know a date. Why should we care what Rev. Park thinks? To actually state that Shem was born violates WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research

This sentence seems to be OR but instead of removing it, I added a "which?" and an OR template (seen in brackets),

"According to some[which?] Rabbinic traditions, Shem was born without a foreskin (aposthia); which may indicate a basis for circumcision that predates the covenant of Abraham.[or]"

Can someone name which Rabbinic sources say Shem was born with aposthia, and the synthesis following that, as above? Thanks. RupJana (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Family Tree

The Family Tree section does not identify its sources, and in fact does not agree in its treatment of "Cainan" with either the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible, there is no Cainan mentioned as the son of Arphaxad. In Luke, Cainan does appear, but she is not the brother of Arpachshad's son Shelah -- Cainan is the father of Shelah. The Family Tree, in disagreement with both the Hebrew Bible and Luke, makes him Shelah's brother. In order to fix this in the least intrusive way, I'm going to simply remove Cainan and add a note to the beginning of the section to reflect the sourcing of the remaining Family Tree (solely Hebrew Bible, without Luke's information). If anyone objects, and wants Cainan to be added back in, I have no problem with that. However, if you do add Caianan back in, he needs to be included as the father of Shelah, not as the brother of Shelah. I really don't care whether the family tree reflects the Hebrew Bible's point of view or the New Testament's point of view. It just shouldn't reflect a third point of view that agrees with neither.Alephb (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Responding to "family tree" discussion

Ok so I can't respond under the thread, but, the issue with Cainan and other notable dating problems is because in old Hebrew, "son and daughter" also refers to general descendants. With this in mind, multiple descendants, such as miziram, cush and so forth can be roughly traced back as founders of such societies tens of thousands of years to a few thousand years. 2A01:598:D831:F70E:F496:44C9:4AF4:5744 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture

@Howardcorn33: I reverted to the old pictures here, on Ham (son of Noah), and on Japheth for three reasons: (1) We have to be very careful not to convey the idea to our readers that Biblical characters from patriarchal times were real people. The current pic in its archaic simplicity might - in my view - serve that purpose. (2) We already have the Tissot painting just below the infobox. We don't need the same picture twice. (3) According to MOS:IRELEV pictures should not be only decorative, but should have an educational value. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)