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.Return-Path: <Banyai AT t-online.de>
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.
From Banyai AT t-online.de Tue Jul 6 09:09:40 2004
Dear MIchael and Yigal,
This is somewhat out of my realm, but it seems I may have just read Kenneth Kitchen saying that Kushu was an Egyptian name for the Edomites, a name reflected in the Bible as Kushan:
Hab. 3:7 I saw the tents of Cushan in distress, the dwellings of Midian in anguish.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>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.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.