Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yigal:

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 concerned.

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 those findings.

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 http://www.hope-of-israel.org/amalekit.htm

 

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.