Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Amalekites!

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Amalekites!
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:07:29 +0100

On 13/08/2004 15:12, Yigal Levin wrote:

Karl,

Nowhere does the Genesis "claim" to be "accurate history", at least not in
the modern sense of the word, that is, a factual reconstruction of events
based, as much as possible, on critical evaluation of as many sources as
possible. Or, I'll put it another way - where do Gilgamesh or Kirtu NOT
claim to be "accurate history"? In what way is Genesis different? The
ancient simply did not have the same conception of "history" that we have.


Put it yet another way, where do modern history books (I mean general purpose historical accounts, not advanced research material) claim to be accurate history? Sometimes in their introductions, I agree, but the concept of a separate introduction does not seem to have existed in the ANE. The presentation of past events is in itself considered to be a claim that they actually occurred (although of course a claim that needs to be tested). And the same is true of Gilgamesh, who was very likely a historical figure even if there are mythological accretions. According to many scholars, Genesis *is* based on a number of different sources. These clearly were not incorporated complete into the existing text, which implies some kind of critical evaluation. Sometimes in the HB historical books, although not in Genesis I think, specific sources are named, even bibliographies for further reading about certain kings. The ancient conception of history may not have been as different from ours as you suggest.

Ask yourself, where would the Israelite writer have even gotten a list of
the descendants of Esau to the third and fourth generation - including
people who do not seem to have been particularly prominent in themselves? ...


Oral tradition. Among such groups remembering genealogies was considered very important.

... If
you assume, as Shoshanna does, that the Torah as we know it was given by God
to Moses directly, than no problems. As a scholar, I can not accept that as
a solution. So either he, or the tradition that he was following, "invented"
the list. Out of the blue? No. He used the traditions available to him (that
we now have no way to trace) and created the genealogy in order to connect
the tribes that he knew of that lived in the area, which he pictured as
being "Edomite" territory. Why do I think this. Because that's how
genealogies are used in tribal societies.


You have ignored a third real possibility that the author incorporated into his work real genealogies as related to him by Edomites etc who he had contact with. Whether these genealogies are in fact accurate is not the point, rather that they would come from Edomites themselves rather than being invented by Moses or whoever.

Is it possible that Esau had a grandson named "Amalek", whose name had
nothing to do with the tribe that lived in the same general area as did
Esau's descendants? Anything is possible, but not very likely. And if he
did, why would the author of Genesis bother to tell us about it?


I consider it highly probable that a traditional genealogy among the Edomites listed Esau as their original founder and Amalek as his grandson. I also consider it highly probable that such a genealogy is reasonably accurate (although perhaps giving a succession of leaders rather than a strict father-to-son listing), and that said Amalek became the leader of a group which became known as the Amalekites, even if he was not necessarily the biological ancestor of all of them.

Do you agree that Gen. 10 is a literary description of the relationships
between the nations of the world (as the author knew them)? Or did Japheth
just happen to have sons whose names were the same as several non-Semitic
nations, all on the northern periphery of the biblical world, and did his
son Yavan ("Greece") just happen to have sons named Cyprus, Crete and
Rhodes? If you see this, what makes Gen. 36 any different besides the scale?


The level of literal accuracy may fall off at this point, but there is a real possibility that these places were originally named after an individual, the leader of a group who settled there - something which is attested also in modern times e.g. Pennsylvania, (former) Rhodesia and very many American etc city names including Kirkland, Washington which is named after my great great uncle who founded it - and that the tribal relationships are more or less as recorded there.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page