Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:43 PM, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

> Karl:
>
> You wrote:  “Secondly, Amelek as a name does fit this context in a
> meaningful way.”
>
> Karl, how can you say such a thing?
>

Simple, because I am reading the text according to its lexical, grammatical
and syntactical meanings. Further, I am referring not to a small snippet of
text taken out of context, rather to the total text as written.


>   Here are three reasons why Amalek cannot be referenced at Genesis 14: 7.
>
> 1.       Victim.  Genesis 14: 7 is describing a series of peoples and
> places wrongly ravaged by the four attacking rulers.  In the rest of the
> Bible, Amalek is always bad to the Hebrews, and is never a victim.
>

By taking the text out of context, you remove the context of several
centuries, long enough that a victim’s descendants can become the
victimizers.

>
> 2.       Wrong Generation.  Amalek is described in the last 75% of chapter
> 36 of Genesis as being a son of Esau, who is a son of Isaac.  The
> descendants of a son of Esau could not possibly be involved with Abraham in
> chapter 14 of Genesis.
>

Logical fallacy. No where in Tanakh is there a requirement that a name can
refer to one and only one individual, nor that a father is forbidden to name
a son after a famous predecessor.

>
> 3.       No Amalek Anyway.  Even scholars agree that chapter 14 of Genesis
> is very old.  But the last 75% of chapter 36 of Genesis is obviously a
> very late addition to the Patriarchal narratives, centuries after the rest
> of the Patriarchal narratives was composed. Not only does Genesis 36: 9
> obviously start over, again saying this is the line of Esau.  But consider
> the following outrageous line of text:  “These are the kings who reigned
> in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.”  Genesis
> 36: 31  That part of chapter 36 of Genesis was written centuries after the
> “four kings against the five” report was written down.  The author of
> Genesis 14: 7 had never heard of Amalek!
>

This paragraph makes no sense.

>
> So for 3 independent reasons, we see that it is  i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e  that
> Genesis 14: 7 could be referring to Amalek, the son of Esau.
>

True, but that does not rule out another Amalek from centuries previously.


>   Accordingly, it’s probably like Judges 5: 14:  the received Masoretic
> Text references Amalek, but the original text originally said and meant
> “valley”.
>

In both cases Amalek can be the correct reading, and I see no reason to
change the text to fit some preconceived proposition.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.