[b-hebrew] Amalekites exist OUTSIDE the scripture sources???

Yigal Levin leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
Mon Aug 9 16:32:12 EDT 2004


Dear Michael,

I'll put it this way: it is logical to assume, or at least suspect, that the
Arabic/Islamic references to Amalek were influenced by Jewish and Christian
sources, and thus do not reflect any independent knowledge of the
Amalekites. The Quran has its own versions of many biblical stories, and
unless you believe (as believing Muslims do) that the Quran was revealed to
Mohammad by the angel Gabriel, it is irrelevant as a source of independent
testimony.

As far as the Hellenistic references to the Malichae, which may or may not
be identical to the Assyrian Meluhha: the etymological connection to "(MLQ"
is superficial, and the geographic range of these people, within Arabia,
does not match the Amalakites range in the Negeb.

I would very much like to see the Amalekites attested in ANE sources. Other
desert peoples, such as the Meunites, the Kedarites, the Ithureans and
perhaps the Nabateans are. But in this case, I just don't see the evidence
as convincing.

Yigal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Banyai" <Banyai at t-online.de>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Amalekites exist OUTSIDE the scripture sources???


> Beg your pardon Yigal, but I can not see how you replyed the evidence for
the Amalekites, I brought in my paper.
>
> The only point you have made was that any arabic (not to say islamic)
sources concerning the Amalekites postpones our biblical literature by a
millenium.
>
> I pointed you to the fact that this evidence is only the youngest showing
the Amalekites as a people dwelling in the same region later islamic
reference had them. See for example the position of the Malichae (of
Ptolemaios) on the map reconstruction of Arabia by Groom - once more in the
region Mekka/Medinah - as in the arabian and kuranic lore. Taking a place by
Iathrippa (Medina) and Macoraba (Mekka). One must add, the reason for the
scarce references to the Malichae (by Plinius - para-Malacum that is a Greek
beyond the Malichae - in the same position like the Malichae of Ptolemy)
during the late antiquity is the obviously very little known geography of
Arabia. Arabia was during all the helenistic and roman time a big mystery.
>
> I furthermore pointed you to the fact that the coeval mention of Meluhha
in Assyrian and Akkadian sources parallels that of Amalek in biblical ones,
being used for a country in Arabia, ocasionally stretching into the Sinai,
anyway filling the Arabian desert till to the Euphrates by the bridge of
Bazu (probably Zeugma=Greek bridge). See for Bazu both the geography of
Sargon of Akkade and the inscription of Sfire.
>
> You could have take notice that a further name given to Meluhha was Musri,
the same name as later used for Egypt. See for example Sfire and the coeval
Assyrian inscriptions speaking of BZ, and M$R.
> The reason is the identity of the Meluhha/Amalekites with the Hyksos. The
Hyksos labelled the name of their polity onto the conquered Egypt. For all
this there exists a huge and detailed argumentation.
>
> Now, I can not remember in which point you have tried to correct me till
now. Should this have happened, than I will politely excuse myself not
having answered your objections.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bányai Michael
> Stuttgart
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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