2

In Genesis 14:7 we see this verse.

Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon Tamar.

This implies that the Amalekites existed before Esau was born. However, we are told in Genesis 36:12 that the Amalekites are a descendant of Esau.

Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.

0
3

I misread. I thought it said that they conquered the Amalekites, not "the whole territory of" the Amalekites. This is an intentional anachronism.

1
  • 1
    >Some writers distinguish the nomadic Amalekites normally found in the Negeb and Sinai area, from the descendants of Esau, because Gn. 14:7, which pre-dates Esau, refers to ‘the country of the Amalekites’ (Heb. ’amālēqî). The distinction is unnecessary if we regard the phrase as a later editorial description. Thompson, J. A. (1996). Amalek, Amalekites. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (3rd ed., p. 27). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. – Perry Webb Sep 30 '18 at 20:50
0

While OPs answer is good, instead of viewing all the Amalakites as descendents from Amalek (grandson of Esau) which would make the language in Genesis 14:7 mean "all the country of the Amalekites", there's another view and this is the view Merrill F. Unger has taken

Amalek (...) may have been progenitor of a tribe that was merged with the original Amalekites so as to form part of the great Amalekite race, or he may have taken his name from some connectionnwith the Amalekites, possible as Scipio won his Africanus, or it may have been a mere coincidence.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.