From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bible (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Can someone rewrite this to reflect the proper historical root, using citations from the Torah instead of Biblical derivations (i.e. notice all the quotes are from KJV)? Cowbert (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


I wonder who are 'the Finns' because nobody haven't tried to guess who are they related to... --Ou

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouagadougou (talkcontribs) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Linguistics, their language is related to Hungarian. -- TimNelson (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


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: 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.

Good point. Though egyptian scholars still tend to identify Shishak as shoshenq based exactly on such an argument despite a plethora of modern evidence to the contrary.

By the way does anyone know exactly what evidence there is to suggest that the Tubals and Meshechs spoke a Proto-Iberian language and were not originally rather Indoeuropean tribal designations?Zestauferov 06:52, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article seems a bit biased in that it takes the Biblical view as truth but does not state that view is not necessarily the real truth. Perhaps it is also worth noting the Piter/pitr/whathaveyou means father... even though the connection between Japheth and Jupiter is tenuous at best. D.E. Cottrell 05:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree: there is no conclusive evidence to support the claims made in this article. The article should be edited to put these claims in their true context. Gareth Hughes 12:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Japhetic or Japhethitic?[edit]

Apparently, Japhetic=Japhethitic Gringo300 19:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is your point? Paul B 10:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is exactly what I said. Well, to me the term "Japhethitic" comes across as the more logical term to use. Gringo300 00:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not what you said. You made a rather obscure statement, but never mind. Japhetic is far more commonly used (Google gives 624 results for Japhetic, and 29 for Japhethitic; it also gives 284 for Japhethic and 7 for Japhetitic). Yes, of course, Japhetic is technically not consistent with the well established Semitic and Hamitic since the 'itic' is the suffix in both, wheras in Japhetic it's mereged with the name itself. But it sounds more consistent, since it has the same number of syllables. Anyway, logic isn't how language works! We go with established usage. Paul B 09:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've just checked the online Encyclopedia Britannica. It too uses Japhetic. There are no usages of Japhethitic. Paul B 09:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any objections to taking most of the "race" material on this page and moving it to Japhetic, to mirror Hamitic and Semitic entries? Jokestress 20:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Good idea. There should be a shorthand ref here to the race and language material, but both should mainly be in Japhetic with a link to Japhetic theory (linguistics). Paul B 20:28, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at this and see what you think: Japheth and Japhetic. Jokestress 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The term Japhetic was in common use in the 19th century, but seldom heard in the 20th. I'm a little surprised to see it making a come-back now. But for the future, one should generally wait a little longer than 2 hours to establish consensus for this kind of change. One person saying "go ahead" is not quite the same as an all-round green light. Codex Sinaiticus 23:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I decided to be bold. Please feel free to revise either page, but it seemed to have precedent in light of Ham/Hamitic and Shem/Semitic. Jokestress 00:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Japhetic isn't "making a come-back" anymore than phlogiston is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it, explaining the usage and history of the concept, as we do with phlogiston. The reason that the Semitic and Hamitic articles have been around a lot longer is that these concepts have been far more influential – and they still have an effect on thinking about ethnicity today. Still, I think Japhetic is sufficiently significant to deserve a page distinct from Japheth. Paul B 10:08, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC


Is Gepetto (the golem-maker) a form of Japheth?

I've no idea. Paul B 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Darwinian linguists[edit]

OK, the disputed sentence is as follows "The term "Japhetic" was also applied by William Jones and other pre-Darwinian linguists to what later became known as the Indo-European language group.". Note that the point is not that there is some sort of "linguistics" that is pre- or post-Darwinian, but that there are linguists who are. It's about how they make assumptions about the historical context in which their linguistic models function - as clues to ancient human migations. Post-Darwin the bible-based model fade from academia. Of course Darwin is not the only cause. There were a complex of scientific and scholarly reasons why the Bible ceased to accepted as a basis for judging events in ancient history, but Darwin is a useful shorthand for that process, which explains the difference between Jones, who explicitly tried to fit linguistically-derived models of migrations into a Biblical model, and, say, Max Muller, who avoids the issue. It's relevant to this article because it's about why "Japhetic" faded in significance as a synonym for "Indo-European". Paul B 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds pov to use this phrase since there are schools of thought that reject Darwin, and also those that dispute the degree of relevance of the Bible for studying ancient history, and it's misleading to suggest that Darwinism somehow involved linguistics, especially as nobody accepts the Social Darwinism theory today except maybe neo-Nazi's... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are "schools of thought" that reject Darwin, but that does not make the comment "POV". It's a historical fact that Bible-based models of ancient history ceased to be normative in academia during the nineteenth century. Nobody suggests that Darwinism involved lingusitics. This is about how Darwinism affects the way in which theories derived from linguistics are mapped onto bible-based model of human migration. Linguistics has always been used to model human ethnicities and migrations (e.g. statements about the history of "Semitic peoples", "Indo-Iranians" etc etc). Consistently linguistics has been tied to ideas about racial identity, ethnicity and population migration. Developments such as DNA have significantly affected the way in which the language/race/ancestry connection has been defined. No-one thinks that DNA has anything to do with linguistics as such, but "pre-DNA" linguists had different ideas about the language-ancestry connection. I suggest you read what Sir William Jones says about language, population and biblical history, and compare that to what later writers say. Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with this point, so why you have to bring that in - or mention Nazis - I have no idea. Paul B 23:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus what are you doing?![edit]

Codex Sinaiticus, I did not get that information out of the "Book of Jasher", I have never even heard of it!, I got the information off of the first website listed under "External Links". I stopped deleting Irish off of Magog, so will you stopped writing what I wrote as the Book of Jasher? Thank You. --CSArebel-- November 14, 2006

You may have got those names off your website, but trust me, I have looked into these things thoroughly, and the origin of those names (eg. Elichanaf, Chazoni, Lotalso, Lupirion, etc.) is only from the so-called "Book of Jasher" that first came to light in 1625. Those names can't be traced in any source older than that. The Jewish encyclopedia thinks this book may date to the 12th century AD, various other scholars have proposed that it dates between the 9th and 16th centuries AD, but apparently, only certain Mormons once took the claim of the book at face value, that it is the original Book of Jasher written ca. 1200 BC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Barlow's claim on "Relevance"[edit]

I do not see how a link to the M-word is relevant to this article. User:Paul Barlow claims it is relevant. I suppose he will answer me here.----DarkTea 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because the "Japhetites" have historically been tied to models of race - in particular to modelling of racial distinctions tied to Biblical genealogies. Your edit summary was a pack of piffle. Coon did not believe that Mongoloids were "less evolved". In fact in the Origin of Races he has a picture of the "Alpha and Omega" of human populations - with an Aboriginal Australian on one side and a Chinese professor on the other, putting the Chinese professor as the "Alpha" of human development! Coon did not even create the category. All he did was add "..iod" to the endings of prexisting categories (Caucasian/Mongolian/Negro to Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid). The term was almost universally accepted by anthropologists, and used in the Enclyclopedia Britannica, so your citing of WP:RS is both spurious and, I suspect, disingenous. It's treated as an historical category by the EB now, but it's also still used literally in their Nepal article. It's also still widely used in anthropological literature, as you well know, since the fact has been many times pointed out to you. Paul B 10:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
When Coon refered to some trans-Caucasoid/Mongoloid peoples as retaining forms of a lower Mongoloid stage of evolution, he stated in the same breath that Mongoloids are less evolved than Caucasoids. Your "Alpha Omega" example only shows he considered Mongoloids to be better than Australoids, further backing my assertion that he is a non-reliable source. I contend that he did make the term "Mongoloid". You say that he merely added the "-oid" suffix to the term Mongolian, retaining the original concept. If the people before Coon wanted to racialize the term "Mongolian" and not use a different word, then it's their fault. They incorrectly used the term "Mongolian". On the contrary, Coon created a new idea when he devised the "Mongoloid" race. Since Coon made the term, he is still the source, irreparably attaching the "less evolved" standing he gave it regardless of continued usage. Any complete Enyclopedia will link the term to him, granting him definitive authority.----DarkTea 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In forensics, it may also be used to guess ancestry based on skull shape, but I did not remove the term from the forensics articles. Notice, I only removed the term from the articles about the ethnic groups.----DarkTea 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the Alpha and Omega image refers to human populations as a whole, not a contrast of Australoids and Mongoloids. Read the book. You have not quoted any passage from Coon saying that Mongoloids are "less evolved" in some way, only referred - without any reference - to a supposed passage in which he claims that some "trans-Caucasoid/Mongoloid peoples" retained some features of a "lower stage" (your words, not his). Frankly, this sounds like a twisting of an argument that a transitional population retains earlier stages of features that were later fully developed in the type. However, since you don't quote the passage, it's almost impossible to say. Nor have you demonstrated that he created a new category - you just assert it with no argument whatever. Anyway, the originator of a term or concept does not determine its established meaning, not does the term become invalidated in some way if some of the originator's ideas are later rejected. Usage defines meaning. Many established terms have been created by people some of whose theories are now rejected. That's progress. The term Hysteria is not determined by ancient Greek theories about womb-movements. Paul B 11:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at this quote, "Has probably assimilated some evolved mongoloid, but owes its partly mongoloid appearance more to the retention of an early intermediate evolutionary condition"[1]. I suppose "early" may not mean lesser, but given Coon's character described by Bindon, I conclude my interpretation is correct. Bindon, an expert, described Coon as believing in "racial superiority".[2] Secondly, I did make an argument that Coon devised the term "Mongoloid"; I did not merely assert this belief. My argument rested on him creating a new term, so he could have definitive authority. Coon's category has not significantly changed in scope, making it practically the same. This means that it is the same definition unlike the hysteria example you gave which has changed in definition. Since it has retained its definition, Coon's ascription of racial inferiority is inextricably tied to it because his definitive authority has not been challenged.----DarkTea 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The quotation says nothing about Mongoloids being "less evolved" - indeed it refers to "evolved Mongoloid"s, which means nothing more than that fully Mongoloid features evolved from some earlier stage - a view that even modern researchers would not deny, unless you want to deny evolution itself. The passage means, essentially "this group probably gets its looks partly because it mixed with some modern mongloid populations, but mainly because it it retained some features from a proto-Mongoloid population". It would be a wild misinterpretation to give it the meaning you suggest. Coon's "definitive authority" is non-existent because the categories already existed. All he did was popularise slight variations in nomenclature that helped to avoid confusion between pheotypical and ethnic categories. There are numerous examp0les in history of nomenclature that exists independently of its creators. e.g Oxygen ("acid-former") took its name from the totally false belief that it was contained in all acids. That's irrelevant, as is that fact that the person who first describved it was an alchemist, whose theories are now thoroughly discredited. That's how science develops. It's not like religion. There are no sacred texts. I am moving this discussion to the more appropriate Mongoloid page. Paul B 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

could the Indo-Europeans (or more specifically the Indo-Aryans) be from the sons of Joktan?[edit]

The Jutes & Goths sound like the Jatts, Jati and Gotra of India. Sanskrit is very similar to ancient Persian which we known came from Central Asia. In the south of India they speak the Dravidian language type which is believed to have been spoken over all of India prior to the spread of Sanskrit based languages and Dravidian is believed to have been connected to the Elamite language that was once spoken in western Iran.

In ancient history there is often reference to tribes entering Europe from Asia and it is believed that the Slavs and Macedonians etc may have come from these people.

The original inhabitants of the British Isles are believed to have originally come from the Mediterranean and are known as the beaker people. This would explain the Canaanite words found in Welsh which have lead people to draw a connection with Wales to the lost tribes of Judah.

In France and Spain the people known as Basques speak a language not connected to Indo-European and they claim to be the original inhabitants. There were also other language types found in Northern Russia and Italy and the islands off Greece.

There have even been blonde haired Caucasian mummies found in western China that date prior to the Mongoloid people arriving. It seems the people of Central Asia who once occupied a large area of Central Asia were pushed west and south by Turkic speaking Mongoloid people.

Could the sons of Japheth been the original Mongoloid type race?[edit]

Could the Mongoloid eyelid, the fewer sweat glands and less body hair be something to do with being coastal people?

Could the sons of Shem be references to the original Caucasian racial type hence the Indo-European and also the Elamites (Western Iran), Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Chaldeans (Iraq & Syria) are also Caucasian in racial appearances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems coincidental that there are three sons and in truth there are three racial types.[edit]

It seems coincidental that there are three sons and in truth there are three racial types.

Mongoloid Caucasoid Afroid

Australoid and other types are believed to be a mix racial type, perhaps mongoloid and Afroid.

All mentions of the decendents of Ham tend to be African type people. Mantions of Shemites i.e. Elamites (Elam), Armenian (Aram), Chaldians & Syrians (Peleg) are Caucasoid.

So it is fair to consider the possibility that this is a reference to the three racial types populating of the Earth.

There is even a belief that the original Javanites (Crete) could have been Mongoloid. They mixed with the Caucasiods of mainland Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talkcontribs) 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the talkpage. This page is used for discussing changes to the article text, and the published sources we can find. Many people have various conflicting conjectures and hypotheses, both published and unpublished, but we should all strive to keep these to a minimum on this page, unless we can show where they are published. Thanks! Til Eulenspiegel 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone here needs glasses, they document the scythians as descendants of Gomer AND Magog. ? How can Magog be the descendant of the blonde scythians AND another VERY distincet race of people ? Also note, there is absolutely NO mention of the Native American peoples. There are FOUR distinct races of people, and the 6th and 7th book of Moses which the Orthodox Roman Catholic Church hid from humanity documents that there were originally 72 nations of people. Somebodies not telling us something here ! Chica Geronimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chica geronimo (talkcontribs) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Japheth spelling in Arabic[edit]

> I don't understand why does his name is spelld in Arabic as well, it didn't come from Arabic sources...

Typically, most Abrahamic traditions are reflected both in Hebrew and Arabic history, with their own canonical spellings (as they share the same linguistic root - see Semetic). Because the Tanakh also became canonized into the Christian tradition, everything tends to have a corresponding Greek (Koine) and (Old) Latin translations as well (via the Septuagint). Cowbert (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Noah's family Chart[edit]

Ignores the Armenian or Georgian chronicles. See Article Togarmah —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For Til[edit]

Just go through my edits and see if there's anything there you think worth having. PiCo (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


The sons of jefet are mainly the turco-mongolic races. all the central asians are the sons of shem. please look carefully in josefus' and stop with this anachronism.

Age at Death[edit]

Is there a source (apocryphal or otherwise) for the age of Japheth at the time of his death? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Get it right![edit]

Whoever keeps changing the FACT of Japheth's age please stop! Not only is your assertion that Japheth was the youngest of Noah's children Wrong, you cite Scripture that clearly states Japheth was the oldest and Ham was the youngest!!! Incorrect facts and incorrect citations give Wikipedia a bad reputation!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't that simple. The translation YOU are using may say that, but there is disagreement by different scholars about what the Hebrew is. That's why we have a dedicated section "order of birth" to explain this situation; please do not tamper with it. Thanks, (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It needs to be tampered with, since it contradicts itself, and there are scholarly sources which do say that Ham was referred to as the youngest. There should not be an assertion about the age-order presented as fact, since the interpretation of the text is, as you say, debated. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of Japheth's name[edit]

The connection apparently comes from Genesis 9:27, "May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant” (יַ֤פְתְּ אֱלֹהִים֙ לְיֶ֔פֶת‎ [...]). Here the consonantal spelling of the name "Japheth" and verb "enlarge" are identical and very near each other, making the connection seem likely. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia entry Japheth, the root is פתה. See also [3]. However there is not a wiktionary entry on this root and its meaning is not everywhere considered obvious.

(Also, everything else aside, maybe it would be more accurate to say that יַ֤פְתְּ means "he enlarges or he expands", since the name of God is not included. Currently the article says "May God enlarge". I'm not sure if "may" is really a literal reading either.)

OK, that being said (and sorry if this comment is not well-organized), what about the purported relationship to Iapetus (mythology)? Wikipedia says Ἰαπετός means The Piercer but wikt:Ἰαπετός isn't so sure. He's ᾿Ιάφεθ in the Septuagint by the way.

Of course it's not Wikipedia's job to settle this issue, but perhaps it could be presented more clearly in the article, describing how much support there is for each perspective, and maybe describing how the Greek-origin proponents with the biblical/Hebrew etymology argument. Maybe people who have been working on this article lately (User:PiCo, User:Alephb — hello again!) can clear things up a little. groupuscule (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to etymology, we have to be careful with biblical names. Sure, one option is that Japheth is originally a name coming from the root for "enlarge." If we take that option, then "May he [God] enlarge" is a reasonable guess, or perhaps "may he [Japheth] have space", as the Holman Bible Dictionary reads the name. However, it's worth noticing that the biblical author doesn't make the claim that the name comes from "enlarge." Instead, it could be that the biblical writer noticed that Japheth sorta sounds like "enlarge" and then used it as wordplay. Another option is to read "Japheth" as coming from the root yph (an option mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopaedia). Or, yet another option, that "Japheth" is not originally a name of Hebrew origin, and comes from some other language -- Greek or something else. For the moment, I think I'm going to remove the unsourced etymological claim in the lead, because there's an ongoing quality control issue with biblical etymologies on Wikipedia. A lot of these questions simply can't be answered with any certainty.
As for Iapetos, I don't know. I really should read up more on the parallels between Japheth and Iapetos in Greek mythology before I comment.Alephb (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Correction -- the etymology is a sourced claim. I disagree with the source's apparent confidence that the name's meaning is known, but that's another story. If I had the time to spare, I'd round up a variety of conflicting sources and try to balance them out, but I'm a little pressed for time at the moment. Alephb (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The link to Hebrew "enlarge/enlarged should be added. Bear in mind that the Hebrew authors didn't actually deal in etymo0logies, but in meanings - if one word sounded like another, that was enough. The Dictionary of Deities and Demons might help here. PiCo (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Here it is. The entry is by Bob Becking. He cites authorities from the 60s through to the early 90s, but I think they're outdated now. Anyway, the sources he uses propose that there is a connection, and that it might run either way - the Greeks borrowed from the Hebrews or the Hebrews from the Greeks - and on grounds of what he considers historical probability he believes the former is the more likely. His "historical probability" obviously rests on the old idea of the documentary hypothesis, with a J source dating from Solomonic times. This has now been discarded and not even modern proponents of the hypothesis support such dating. So I think this source (i.e. the Dictionary article) is not really up to date enough for us.PiCo (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)