The Amalekites, their gods and their habitat

[Chris Watts]

I have not over the years ever come accross evidence that the Amalekites actually had any deities, unlike the Moabites and Ammonites, I do not see any references to them even adopting any foreign god. As I understand it there is also no evidence that they built towns. That they lived a life rather like the North American Indians, moving with the season, moving with opportunities and resources. Would this be a fair assessment even though it is generalised?

Thankyou
Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Chris: it depends to which historians you listen.

The Bible doesn’t have much to say about the Amalekites, their living situation and doesn’t name their gods.

If you listen to Kenneth Kitchen and his followers, I don’t know of anything they had to say concerning Amalek.

I think the same is true of David Rohl and his followers. However, Kenneth Kitchen and his followers have so dominated academia that those who disagree with them, such as David Rohl, are effectively denied degrees and university professorships.

Then there’s the historical school started by the polymath Immanuel Velikovski. That school has a fair amount to say about Amalek. They claim that Amalek = Hyksos. The pharaoh had a son, but he was succeeded by his brother. Almost immediately the Hyksos invaded and conquered Egypt “without a battle” because the Egyptian army had just drowned in the Red Sea while pursuing Israel in their exodus. The Hyksos ruled Egypt for about 400 years until King Saul helped break the back of Amalekite power. Egypt didn’t invade the Levant until after Solomon died, thanks to the Amalekite/Hyksos rule.

Of the three schools of historians, I think the third one is the most accurate. There are several clues more than just the identity of Amalek with Hyksos that lead me to this conclusion. I don’t agree with them 100% but their outline appears to be most accurate.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Chris: it depends to which historians you listen.

The Bible doesn’t have much to say about the Amalekites, their living situation and doesn’t name their gods.

If you listen to Kenneth Kitchen and his followers, I don’t know of anything they had to say concerning Amalek.

I think the same is true of David Rohl and his followers. However, Kenneth Kitchen and his followers have so dominated academia that those who disagree with them, such as David Rohl, are effectively denied degrees and university professorships.

Then there’s the historical school started by the polymath Immanuel Velikovski. That school has a fair amount to say about Amalek. They claim that Amalek = Hyksos. The pharaoh had a son, but he was succeeded by his brother. Almost immediately the Hyksos invaded and conquered Egypt “without a battle” because the Egyptian army had just drowned in the Red Sea while pursuing Israel in their exodus. The Hyksos ruled Egypt for about 400 years until King Saul helped break the back of Amalekite power. Egypt didn’t invade the Levant until after Solomon died, thanks to the Amalekite/Hyksos rule.

Of the three schools of historians, I think the third one is the most accurate. There are several clues more than just the identity of Amalek with Hyksos that lead me to this conclusion. I don’t agree with them 100% but their outline appears to be most accurate.

Karl W. Randolph.

Well I am not too clued in to Egyptian History unfortunately so can not comment on the Hyksos. I would however deviate on the idea that Amalek = Hyksos. My reason would be solely based upon Amalek's Geneology, his presence in Israel and mount Seir and the fact that scripture's geneological information is trustworthy along with he most important fact that Amalek is classed as "the first of the nations to attack Israel" . Once again I would be at a disadvantage in holding an historical conversation on this outside of what scripture says.

Chris watts