How do we know the Esau's grandson, Amalek, is the one the Amalekites are descended from?

Question

In Genesis 36, we have the genealogy of Esau which includes his grandson, Amalek (verse 12) which, after researching, I am told is the father of the Amalekites, but I can't find anything (other than a Wikipedia article from the Book of Mormon) that tells me that it's actually that specific Amalek that they are descended from. I just know that there are parts in Scripture where names could be common. Am I just to assume that since I don't see another Amalek in scripture, that he must be the one?

Answer 1

The Hebrew name עֲמָלֵק ('Amaleq) occurs 39 times in the OT. The first two are the key to the rest:

• Gen 36:12 - Additionally, Timna, a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz, gave birth to Amalek. These are the grandsons of Esau’s wife Adah.
• Gen 36:15, 16 - These are the chiefs among the sons of Esau. The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: Chiefs Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz, Korah, Gatam, and Amalek. They are the chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom, and they are the grandsons of Adah.

Note that we have in Gen 36, the origin of the man Amalek and that he was also a chief or leader of a tribe, namely the Amalekites. This is shown subsequently in later references such as Ex 17:8-16, Num 13:29, 24:20, Deut 25:17, 19, Judges 3:13, 5:14, 6:3, 33, 7:12, 10:12, 1 Sam 14:48, 15:2, 3, 5, 6, etc.

Further, the fact that Amalek is so singled out in Gen 36:12, 15, 16, says that his origin is important to the history of the Israelites, who, a few hundred years later, often fought the Amalekites (see above references.)

Answer 2

I don't think this is true. Consider this passage, where "Haran" refers to both a place and a person, but the place was not named after the person:

And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there. So the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran Gen 11.31-32

Therefore while tribes are named after a patriarch, it's not the case that every person with the same name as a tribe must be the tribal patriarch.

As for "Amalek", the first mention of "Amalek" is in Genesis 14.7, during Abraham's battle to rescue Lot.

And they returned, and came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar. KJV

So the Amalekites were already established when Abraham rescued Lot, and they might come from a placename, e.g. from Judges 12.15:

And Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died, and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the mount of the Amalekites.

Alternately, another origin has been proposed[1]:

The Egyptian Leiden Magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345* (ed. Massart 1954) mentions in the context of deities venerated in the Canaanite area a mountain deity ḥmrq (III 9; XXIII 3). This deity seems to be related to a mountainous area probably in the Eastern Sinai. The identity of the deity is further unknown. Görg (1987) suggested the identity of ḥmrq with Amalek and the interchangeability of the tribal name with the divine name. His surmise is based on an assumed phonetic similarity between Egyptian ḥmrq and Hebrew ʿmlq. Egyptian /r/ can easily be equated with Hebrew /l/. Egyptian /ḥ/ is more problematical. It generally stands for Hebrew /ḥ/, while Hebrew /ʿ/ is rendered in Egyptian with /ʿ/ (as in ʿynw עיון Ijjon); /q/ (as in qḏt עזה Gaza) or /g/ (as in gḏt עזה Gaza). Therefore, Görg’s surmise is not convincing.

Regardless of the origin of the Amalekites, in Genesis 36:12, Amalek is a born in the line of Esau, who is Abraham's grandson:

And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.

So there could have been another Amalek that the Amalekites are named after or it could be one of the placename origins, or (what is more likely, IMO) this existing tribe was later called "Amalekites" because they became associated with Amalek of the line of Esau at the time these accounts were redacted -- church traditions say that Genesis was written in the time of Moses, who had battles with the Amalekites, so it could be that by the time of Moses, this tribe became associated with Amalek and so was referred to as such.

Amalek is a very special, almost mystical foe that Israel is doomed to keep fighting. So there is a lot of symbolism, with Esau associated to Adam, the firstborn, because he was the firstborn and was "red" (Adam was made from the red dirt), thus giving rise to Edom, which is a pun on Adam. The Amalekites appeared like a ghost haunting Israel in the wilderness whenever they started grumbling, or seeing lack, thus Adam-nature attacks us as we see lack and so it would be natural to associate this tribe with the line of Esau.

[1] B. Becking, “Amalek,” ed. Karel van der Toorn and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 26.

Answer 3

Regarding authorities that specifically call the Amalekites the descendants of Amalek, one can turn to ancient rabbinical sources. (e.g. Pesikta Rabbati 12:1 and others) - "As long as the seed of Amalek survives, it is as if a cover hid the face (of G-d)."

One problem raised by the OP is that the "Amalekites" appear in Genesis prior to their supposed ancestor, Amalek. The time frame is Abraham's early history in Canaan, prior to the birth of his or Jacob's children.

They then turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they subdued the whole country of both the Amalekites and the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar. (Gen. 14:7)

This could be explained by the possibility of the author referring to the "country of the Amalekites" from his own time frame rather than the time described. In other words, the land was known as the "country of the Amalekites" in Moses' time but not in Abraham's.

@Fred Chama (the OP writer) also mentions the objection that "Amalekites are said to inhabit the land in the South of the South (Nagev) of Israel, and not from Edom (Numbers 13:29)." This is explained by the fact that 400 years elapse between Genesis and Numbers. Israel itself moved from the land (later called Edom) that Jacob shared with Esau, first to the west and then to the south, to Egypt. Since most of these tribes were nomadic herders it is more than plausible that the Amalekites also moved west and south as they grew larger and sought pasturage for their flocks. The same may be said, incidentally, of the Midianites - another tribe apparently named for a descendent of Abraham. (Genesis 25:4)

The reference to Amalekites as the "first of the nations" need not be taken literally. The context is a kind of proverb, like Jesus' saying "the first shall be last." It could mean "foremost" rather than earliest, or it could simply be a poetic expression. To take it literally contradicts Gen. 10 which gives the names of specific nations and city-states that emerged after the flood; Amalekites are not among them.

Conclusion: we cannot know for certain that Amalek is the ancestor of the Amalekites but this inference can easily be drawn. Each of the objections to this idea can be overcome as indicated above.

Answer 4

Thank you so much. I have also thought that the Amalek that, many times, Israel fought with are not the descendants of Esau.

Apart from that this Amalek was already a nation in the days of Abraham (Gen.14:7), These Amalekites are said to inhabit the land in the South of the South (Nagev) of Israel, and not from Edom (Numbers 13:29). While the descendant of Esau is said to be one of the Chiefs in the LAND OF EDOM (Gen. 36:12,16).

It can also be considered further by what Balaam the son of Beor said in Numbers 24: 20, that Amalek was the first of the nations. Not just in regard to Israel, but, first of the NATIONS.

The evidence of the scriptures seems to suggest that the Amalek, descent of Esau, is not the Amalek that Israel was fighting with.