Our every record of Amalekites in other, incidental passages (i.e., focused on other items or characters), support the view of their vicious culture:
oThey attacked the stragglers when Israel first came out of Egypt (As we pointed out in the other piece, they had to LEAVE HOME and travel a great distance to do this.)
oThey later attacked Israel AGAIN without provocation (Ex 17, coming all the way to the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula at Rephidim!), but were defeated. [We would think a smart group of people would do what the Canaanites did and migrate, but they didn't.]
oThey partnered with Eglon and attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (3.13)
oThey participated in a 'scorched earth' policy toward Israel ["Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. 4 They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys .5 They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it. (Jud 6.3)]
oThis plundering is referred to in Saul's time: "He (Saul) fought valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, delivering Israel from the hands of those who had plundered them." (1 Sam 14.48)
oSaul obviously DID not exterminate the entire tribal group (which probably ranged far south into the Sinai area [ABD, "Negev (Iron Age)]), for they lived to continue raiding and hauling families off for the slave trade ["David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided (lit. "stripped") the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, 2 and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off [lit. "drove them", as the cattle in v.20] as they went on their way. 3 When David and his men came to Ziklag, they found it destroyed by fire and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. 4 So David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. (I Sam 30.1)]
oEven their treatment of their slaves looks bad : [1 Sam 30.11: "They found an Egyptian in a field and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat—12 part of a cake of pressed figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, To whom do you belong, and where do you come from? He said, I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago.]
From ancient sources:
• "...people who know no inhibitions...with human instinct but canine intelligence..." (The Curse of Agade) cited at [Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat. Greenwood Press:1998]
And scholars point out that these groups (and some of their near-modern descendents) LIVED by violent exploitation of the sedentary population:
• "Their "campsites were regarded as threats" [Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat. Greenwood Press:1998
And the trend line of data points on 'accurate portrayal' of biblical characters is very positive:
• When the OT tells us that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice, we have archeological data to support that (i.e., this wasn't just Israel misrepresenting the Canaanites).
• When the OT speaks of the anti-Asiatic attitudes of Egyptians in antiquity, we have extra-biblical literary data to support that (i.e., this wasn't just Israel misrepresenting the ancient Egyptians).
• When the OT speaks of the arrogance of the Assyrian war-lords, we have several types of historical data to support that (i.e., this wasn't just Israel misrepresenting the ancient Assyrians).
Thus, the "control data", the non-biblical data that we do have (in related situations) supports the reliability of the Israelite portrayal of these people.
And finally, Israel never actually trespassed on Amalekite territory at all. It was not in the original land-grant at all, and even the path that Israel took on the east side of the Jordan would not have brought them into contact with Amalek at all.
In summary, the only data we have--scattered throughout the biblical record and in many cases in incidental mentions--supports the view of the Amalekites as being a malicious and persistent oppressor and menace to Israel. And we don't have the traditional earmarks of a self-glorification or political-justification document
Credits and Sources:
Glen Miller: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
James Patrick Holding: http://www.tektonics.org/
Loading...
8:56
"Genocide" and The Bible Part 18 The Amalekitesby mdean1215171 views
All Comments