Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)]

Hallo Yigal,

I have not published any part of the paper yet. Checking the whole data down 
to the last point is an immensely painfull work, since this is a panorama of 
the history over literally the whole ANE.

I give you right concerning the arabic mentions of Amalek, they can be 
followed down to the Koranic mentions. Mohammed should have had much to deal 
with the Amalekites turned to Jewishness, which he later expelled out of 
Mekka and Medinah toward Syria. We of course have no older mention of them in 
arabic literature, since this is the very oldest existing.

However we can link these mentions with the ones in the roman and greek 
sources (for example Claudius Ptolemeus) pertaining to the same geographic 
region and slowly make thus the link to the Assyrian, and Biblical ones. It 
appears they were known to the Assyrians as the Meluhha, while at the same 
time known as the Amalek to the biblical writers.

I´ll take your papers under sight. Of course you are right that the biblical 
Cush here has to be understood as the babylonian Kish. I place here no doubt. 
I however beleave there could be a link between the babylonian Kish, first 
seat of an all babylonian kingdom, and these widely dispersed semitic 
kusithes all around the fringes of this fabulous kingdom. THIS is of course 
just a supposition, while the Kish=Cush equation is certain.

All the best,

Bányai Michael