[b-hebrew] Amalekites!

Yigal Levin leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
Sun Aug 8 18:23:09 EDT 2004


Dear Chris,

Let's leave the apologies aside. We're all learning here.

Your question was "WHY say this [the field of the Amalekite] and not refer
DIRECTLY to whoever was defeated in that particular land?  Surely that would
be the same as if I said: "and Hitler invaded the lands of the Jutes, angles
and saxons"????

There are three possible answers:
1. The author of Genesis 14 did not really know who lived there in Abraham's
time - which brings the historicity of  the whole section into question.

2. The author of Genesis 14 did not really care who lived there in Abraham's
time -  remember, the Bible is not a work of history, but one of theology.

3. The author of Genesis 14 purposely used "Amalekites" to make a point -
what point I do not know.

Yigal

----- Original Message -----
From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 7:54 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Amalekites!


> Hallo Yigal,   Firstly it will never be my intention to question anyone on
> this board in a negative manner.  Far from it  --  I am the least educated
> of you all and by no means can do that.
>
> Secondly please read carefully the below mentioned statement, I talk about
> the SAME source and not you, I have always appreciated your comments as
> being helpful.  OK.
>
> "-----------I must also add that the same source says that some
> proffessionals consider
> amalekites to be mythological, but that is without question an absurd
> conclusion.-----------"
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ------------------------
>
> Now for the rest........As far as Zoar is concerned the scripture leaves
us
> with no doubt that this is a FUTURE name by the words "the same is Zoar"
so
> that is cleared up.  Dan is mentioned and from the context obviouly refers
> to that territory which is OBVIOUSLY not dan's yet, everyone would know
that
> right!  The country of the Amalekites seems not to be so clear.  And this
is
> ONLY a question OK,  WHY say this and not refer DIRECTLY to whoever was
> defeated in that particular land?  Surely that would be the same as if I
> said:
> "and Hitler invaded the lands of the Jutes, angles and saxons"????
>
> Lastly,  the source came from a bible archeology dictionary on the web,
> unfortunately I did not note the reference since I knew I would be likely
to
> receive more reliable up to date knowledge from this board.
>
>
> Chris  --  Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
> As far as the ONE mention of "the field of the Amalekites" in Gen. 14:7,
in
> a story that is connected to Abraham: the same chapter also mentions Zoar
> (verse 2), which would only be given that name in Gen. 19:22, and Dan
(verse
> 14), which would only be given that name in Josh. 19:47, when it would be
> named after Abraham's great-grandson! The book of Genesis in particular is
> full of such "anachronisms", in which a "later" name, which would have
been
> familiar at the time the story was written. We could understand "the field
> of the Amalekites" as meaning the area in which the Amalakites would live
> later on.
> All other references to the Amalekites make them contemporaries of the
> Israelite wanderings up until the early monarchy. Based on the Bible
alone,
> it would have been David who finally "broke" them.
>
> Yigal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list