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?
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. Yigal Levin From: K Randolph [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 1:30 AM To: Yigal Levin Cc: B-Hebrew Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Amalek's attacks before the big battle of Ex 17:8? Yigal: Addendum to the last message: I didn’t google for the other peoples you mention, so I can’t answer concerning them. But the Amalekites, because they are also identified with the Hyksos / Amu do show up in other histories, some were referenced in the documents I read claiming Arabic sources. Arabic would be extra-Biblical. Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Yigal Levin <[email protected]> wrote: Karl, I would love to see where you're getting this from. As far as I know, the answer to David's question is no: there is now known evidence, outside of the Bible itself, that a people/tribe called Amalek ever existed. The fact that later writers, already with the biblical text, identified Arabian tribes that they were familiar with with the biblical Amalek is not proof of anything. By the way, the same is true for the Midianites, the Gorgashites, the Jebusites and several other groups. Yigal Levin
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
