[b-hebrew] Amalek's attacks before the big battle of Ex 17:8?
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sun Jul 14 08:42:59 EDT 2013
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Yigal Levin <Yigal.Levin at biu.ac.il> wrote:
> Karl, you've got to be kidding. Who identifies Amalek with the Hyksos, and
> what do the "Amu" have to do with anything? Where's the evidence?
If your question is “Who among history professors at a major university?”
then the answer is “No one.” To question the modern consensus other than in
minor details is the kiss of death as far as professional hopes are
If you look outside the narrow confines of major academia, literally dozens
of historians make that connection, and there are hundreds of pages on the
internet where that connection is reported. The first modern person of note
to make that connection was Velikovski, who noticed that there are
major discrepancies between the findings of archaeology and official
history, and since then even professors as minor colleges have backed up
As for the evidence, that would take pages (several of Jim Stinehart’s
essays) to list it all. Google “amalekite egypt” and you’ll find thousands
of pages supposedly making that connection. Just one example is
> ** **
> As far as "Arabic sources", there are no written Arabic sources from the
> biblical period. Anything later (and assuming that these sources are real)
> could have been written by someone who already knew the biblical sources
> and tried to identify Amalek of the Bible with someone or something that he
> knew in his own days.
The Arabic sources were from oral histories that were written down already
centuries ago. While we can’t rule it out, it’s doubtful that those who
recorded the oral histories were familiar with the Bible.
> ** **
> ** **
> Yigal Levin****
> Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew