HJ, what on earth are you doing with Ham, Sem, and Japhet? Who are 'the Europeans'? Are you asserting this to be (a) true, (b) a piece of authentic Biblical text, (c) a piece of folklore? The least you could suggest is "in some interpretations of material from the Book of Genesis," because otherwise we'll assume that you're very poorly informed about history. I hesitate to point out, because this may be a joke on your part, that the Bible's version of anthropology and ethnology is even LESS trustworthy than Claudius Ptolemy, whom you seem to believe about something he called 'magna Germania'. Oh - and you mispelled 'Israelis' on the Sem entry. --
MichaelTinkler
I think he means Shem, Ham, and Japeth. They are the three sons of Noah mentioned in Genesis (chapters 6 and following). But I agree the stubs are very stubby. Ed Poor
Also, there are some theories that the descendants of Ham went to Africa and eventually become the modern blacks. I think these theories are regarded as "racist".
Ham is significant in Unification Church theology, because he incited his brothers to cover up Noah's nakedness. This is considered a sin by the church, but it is unrelated to the "racial" theories (which I would prefer not to see aired). Ed Poor
The Japhet needs to be combined with Japheth , engl. spelling.
MichaelTinkler, I see that you did not stay away for very long. HaHa
??. Answer to all From ca 1890 German Pierer's Lexikon .Japhet(h) (hebrew :fare distant spreading out), third son of Noah. Is considered the Stammvater father of whom descend the Meder, Armenians, Greeks, Kelts, Germans, and Slavs , all together called Japhet(h)ites. Is the Japetos of the Greek legends.
website , outside link : Uni-Press, Bern Switzerland:
http://publicrelations.unibe.ch/unipress/heft104/beitrag10.html from booklet 104 April 2000 Die Wiedergeburt der Kartographie , The Rebirth of Cartography 500 years ago, first "world map" of 1472 showing Noah's sons S(h)em , Ham , Japhet(h). You can answer for yourself what is true and what isn't. H. Jonat
It doesn't matter whether the 1890 view is true or not. Just please rewrite the article, so that readers know who said it. Ed Poor
No, it does matter whether it's true. But it can be mentioned as, "people used to believe" with a citation.
Even on the 'people used to believe' front this entry was pretty bad. I tried to qualify it a little. I
totally cut the absurd 19th century parallel between Japeth and Iapetos. If someone who understands comparative religion (unlike whoever wrote the initial mess) wants to rewrite it as an example of
Interpretatio Romana that at least would be interesting. Japeth - human son of human father, putative ancestor of other people. Iapetos - divine son of Mother Earth, putative ancestor of other divine people. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, even if the first 2 syllables are somewhat similar. The assumption of pre-modern scholars that any similarity was better than nothing and is enough to at least
speculate about is
no longer acceptable. It can be, I guess, reported as 'folks used to believe,' but it must be qualified as such.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)