Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

The Biblical Hebrew word for “Amalek”/(MLQ was sometimes confused in ancient 
times with the Biblical Hebrew word for “valley”/(MQ.  We know that confusion 
existed in ancient times, because at Judges 5: 14 the Septuagint has “in the 
valley”, whereas the Masoretic Text has “in Amalek”.

Here is how jewishencyclopedia.com notes this phenomenon (with the brackets 
in the original): 

“As to the presence of alleged Amalekites in Palestine proper, such colonies 
have been assumed on the basis of Judges, v. 14 and xii. 15. The first 
passage speaks of "Ephraim whose root is in [A. V. "was against"] Amalek"; in 
the second, the judge Abdon is stated to have been "buried in Pirathon 
[southwest of Shechem], in the land of Ephraim, in the hill-country of the 
Amalekite." The Septuagint, however, in both places, seems to have read (at 
least in the Codex Alexandrinus and in the recension of Lucian) "the valley, 
the lowland ('emeḳ)" instead of Amalek, so that these two passages are, to 
say the least, unsafe authority.”
Thus the English Standard Version translates Judges 5:14 as “into the 
valley”, with the following footnote:  “Septuagint; Hebrew in Amalek.”
Likewise, the NRSV translates Judges 5: 15 as “into the valley”, with the 
following footnote:  “Gk:  Heb ‘in Amalek’”.
The moral is this.  If the received text says “Amalekites”, but in context, 
(i) “Amalekites” makes no sense whatsoever (for example, if the passage 
pre-dates the birth of Esau’s illegitimate son Amalek), whereas (ii) “valley” 
would make complete sense, then it’s likely that the original text had 
originally said “valley”, not “Amalekites”.  The most obvious and important 
example of that linguistic phenomenon is Genesis 14: 7.
One of the main scholarly attacks on the historicity of the “four kings 
against the five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is the scholarly claim that the text at 
Genesis 14: 7 nonsensically refers to “Amalekites” prior to Isaac’s birth, 
whereas Amalek (Esau’s illegitimate son) is not even born until after first 
Isaac, and then Esau, have been born.  The answer to that scholarly attack is 
that the original text originally said “valley”.  Genesis 14: 7 has 
essentially the same confusion between “Amalekites” and “valley” as 
manifestly exists at Judges 5: 14 in comparing the Septuagint and the 
Masoretic Text versions of Judges 5: 14.  After returning back north to 
Ashteroth and passing by Qadesh of Upper Galilee and Mt. Hermon, the military 
party at Genesis 14: 7 naturally and inevitably entered the “valley”, that 
is, the Beqa Valley.  There’s a one-letter scribal error in the text here, 
that’s all.  This story concerning Abraham cannot possibly be referring to 
the descendants of Esau’s illegitimate son, the Amalekites.  No way!  Rather, 
Genesis 14: 7 is referring to the “valley”, that is, the Beqa Valley, not to 
the “Amalekites”.  It’s basically the same ancient confusion as to these two 
words as at Judges 5: 14.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois