[b-hebrew] Amalekites exist OUTSIDE the scripture sources???
formoria at carolina.rr.com
Mon Aug 9 16:09:49 EDT 2004
On Monday, August 9, 2004, at 04:32 PM, Yigal Levin wrote:
> 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
> 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
Oh, I couldn't disagree more. There is reason to believe that - as far
as geographical polities considered Arabian go - namely the Amalekites
and the Shebans (Sabaeans), the Qu'ran and earlt Muslim imams have
something to add to the body and disourse, independent of Jewish and
Christian source we already know about.
> As far as the Hellenistic references to the Malichae, which may or may
> be identical to the Assyrian Meluhha: the etymological connection to
> 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.
> 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
> as convincing.
> ----- 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
> 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
>> I pointed you to the fact that this evidence is only the youngest
> 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
> 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
> scarce references to the Malichae (by Plinius - para-Malacum that is a
> beyond the Malichae - in the same position like the Malichae of Ptolemy)
> during the late antiquity is the obviously very little known geography
> Arabia. Arabia was during all the helenistic and roman time a big
>> I furthermore pointed you to the fact that the coeval mention of
> in Assyrian and Akkadian sources parallels that of Amalek in biblical
> being used for a country in Arabia, ocasionally stretching into the
> 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
> the same name as later used for Egypt. See for example Sfire and the
> Assyrian inscriptions speaking of BZ, and M$R.
>> The reason is the identity of the Meluhha/Amalekites with the Hyksos.
> Hyksos labelled the name of their polity onto the conquered Egypt. For
> this there exists a huge and detailed argumentation.
>> Now, I can not remember in which point you have tried to correct me
> now. Should this have happened, than I will politely excuse myself not
> having answered your objections.
>> Best regards,
>> Bányai Michael
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew