Am'alek

In Ex 17:14 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven."Except now Am'alek's rememberance is preseved for all time in The Bible!Any thoughts?

quote:

---

In Ex 17:14 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven."
Except now Am'alek's rememberance is preseved for all time in The Bible!

​

Any thoughts?

---

Check out the context. Note the statements in caps and you have your answer in this and in the Deuteronomy text. Putting out the remembrance of Amalek is obviously a qualified statement. What Amalek did to Israel and how God avenged Israel of the evil done to them by Amalek was to be written in a book as history, but as a culture, a nation and a people, they were to vanish from the world scene.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 25:17 REMEMBER WHAT AMALEK DID UNTO YOU by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

​

Exodous 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, WRITE THIS FOR A MEMORIAL INTO A BOOK, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

---

Buz, I have a question: it should be quite easy to answer:Utterly blot out the remembrance of whom?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

netbible suggests:

• This would seem to be defeated by the preceding statement that the events would be written in a book for a memorial. If this war is recorded, then the Amalekites would be remembered. But here God was going to wipe out the memory of them. But the idea of removing the memory of a people is an idiom for destroying them-they will have no posterity and no lasting heritage.

This seems more than reasonable.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-14-2003]

Ah, that's good to hear. Whenever a part of the bible contradicts itself, it's an idiom. I wish modern authors could get away with that...Reader: "But you said that Mr. Brown died, back in chapter 2!"
Author: "Yes; it was an idiom, since it would self-contradictory otherwise. Mr. Brown clearly died a "spiritual death", instead of a physical death."------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Grow up.

To whom is that directed? About what?

The Hebrew word "zecher", which is under discussion, does not just mean something stored in the memory. It also has the sense of "reminder," i.e., that which reminds you that the Amalekites were once present. Zecher is distantly related to "zachar" meaning "male," i.e., that which was understood to be the progenitor. Wiping out the "zecher" could have the sense of wiping out any reminder, any progeny, not erasing from the memory.

So Reb, your stance is that Ex 17:14 should read....And the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the reminder of Am'alek from under heaven." Yet, we are still reminded of him when we read Ex 17:14. I guess I missed what you were getting at?And Conseq. it appears that netbible (and you, I assume) believe that God is refering to the Amalekites, when he clearly is refering to only Am'alek. In which case he is very clear on what his intentions are, to "...utterly blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven." Note, no referance made to destroying the Amalekites...

Note that what is clear to you is not clear to the author(s) of the reference who, in fact, see an idiomatic reference to the Amalekites. It is interesting that, even today, observant Ashkenazi Jews 'remember' there deceased relatives by naming their children after them; every child carries a name explicitely intended as rememberance, and it is a matter of concern when a beloved one does not have someone to carry on his/her name.Whether or not we're dealing with idiom here is a question of fact, not belief and I have no reason to challenge the assertion quoted above. If you do, simply present and defend it. But for someone to dismiss the statement solely because it denies a target and opportunity for juvenile ridicule is petty prejudice.

"that I will utterly blot out the reminder of Am'alek from under heaven." Yet, we are still reminded of him when we read Ex 17:14. I guess I missed what you were getting at?"Here, zecher would mean "vestige" and/or "progeny." Entirely wipe them out, but not erase them from memory.The more problematic passage from Deuteronomy, problematic because it seems incoherent, is "blot out the memory -- don't forget."Here is what I am getting at: Whatever faults one may ascribe to the biblical A(a)thor, that kind of blatant incoherency is probably not one. A better translation of the Deut passage would be: blot out any reminder/progeny -- don't forget/neglect.

-At issue is not the lexicon entry for a word, but the idiomatic meaning of the phrase. Again, the reference states:

• But the idea of removing the memory of a people is an idiom for destroying them-they will have no posterity and no lasting heritage.

If your understanding of Biblical Hebrew is sufficient for you to reject this assertion, I can do no more than defer to your scholarship. However, I have yet to hear you address the matter of idiom, while those who have simply reject it for convenience. On the other hand, the current childnaming tradition seems fully consonant with the reference, i.e., to not have progeny to carry on a name is to be forgotten. In brief, in a culture defined by 'X bar Y', the elimination of 'Y' erases the memory of 'X'.

I think I understand your point. I think you are saying that the phrase "timcheh et zecher amalek" (erase/blot out the "zecher" of Amalek") is an idiom. I don't think "zecher" is an idiom. As far as I understand the word "idiom," it means something like: "an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up."The phrase under discussion is well understandable by anyone who knows Hebrew. The meaning may be inferred from the words. It is not a special expression that requires "inside knowledge." For example, "step on the gas" as a way of telling someone to hurry up is an idiom, because you need to know that "gas" refers to the accelerator pedal in an automobile, and even have to know about cars a bit. A person could understand all the words "step on the gas" but not know what you were asking them to do.Any reader of the Bible who knows what each of the words "timcheh et zecher Amalek" means, knows what the phrase means. In my opinion, the word "zecher" is not an idiom.

That is a remarkable assertion. Presumably, those at netbible who suggested idiom 'did not know what each of the words meant' and simply fabricated something for our amusement, leaving it to you, who apparently does not know what idiom means, to clarify matters. No, the word "zecher" is not an idiom.

So Con, how do you come to this being an idiom? Where is proof of this statement? It must be an idiom in Hebrew, because it is not one in English, or I would understand it as such (being that I speak English and all). And as you state "whether or not we're dealing with idiom here is a question of fact, not belief" then I must ask you were these facts are. Please prove this to be an idiom.And Reb, you said that zecher means: rememberance, something stored in memory, and reminder; and that it is "distantly related to zachar" which means: male, understood to be the progenitor, progeny, and vestige. But why sould we substatute the meaning of zecher with the meaning of zachar? What is this distant relationship you are referring to? If the original authors meant zachar why did they write zecher?