Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Samuel

[Rogue One]

Usually I find big blocks of text tedious and verbose but your language and conviction made this comment flow very well and it was very enjoyable to read. Thank you

[jimwalton]

Well, thank you for saying so. You're welcome.

[Axle Paint]

The other christians that replied to this topic don't seem to agree with your view. Who's right? The ones that say that the amalekites deserved to die for being sinful, or you that say that the genocide was just a warfare rhetoric?

[jimwalton]

Oh, don't get me wrong. Many Amalekite political officials and many soldiers died. There was definitely judgment for sin exacted that day. They got what they deserved. But there was no genocide. No slaughtering of women and children (that's rhetoric). The action was taken against the "powers" of the people group (kings & military) to effect the destruction of their cultural identity.

[Mortal Kombat]

> The Amalekites were a nomadic group spread over a large geographic area. Their territory includes most of what we know as Saudi Arabia today, though not as far south as S.A. goes. Most Amalekites did not live in cities (more than 90% of the ancient populations did NOT live in cities, and the number may have been higher for nomadic groups).

Do you have a source? The only reason I am asking is I like your line of argumentation. And I would hopefully like to see where you source it, because that would be a stellar proof.

[jimwalton]

The Amalekites as a people group are unattested by name outside of the Bible, and no archaeological remains can be positively linked to them by name. However, archaeological surveys of the region have turned up ample evidence of nomadic and semi-nomadic groups like the Amalekites during this period.

Archaeologically, some scholars have suggested links between Amalekites and certain small fortified settlements in the Negev highlands, while others have debated whether "the city of Amalek" (1 Sam. 15.5) is to be identified with Tel Masos, a site some 7 miles ESE of Beersheba. For explicit information about the Amalekites, however, the Bible is our only source for now.

Since there were nomadic and semi-nomadic groups in the region during this era, and since there are evidences of small, fortified settlements, just as the Bible describes, do you have any evidence or reason to doubt the biblical record?

[Mortal Kombat]

Lets not conflate what the bible says with what you are offering. Because there is no specific settlement we know as the Amalekites the best argument you can make is abductive. Given the biblical background and the settlements in the area being nomadic, even if both premises are true, the conclusion could be false meaning the Amalekites could have been, given the semantic domains of the words used, wiped out genocidally or in one city.

Just because some people groups in the area were nomadic doesn’t necessarily mean the Amalekites were nomadic.

The Bible says Saul destroyed the Amalekites save for Agag and some livestock. As far as theodicy goes thats not an issue, deductively if God exists and is omniscient, He foreknows who will be His elect and is therefore justified in commanding Saul to destroy rebel sinners. If the premises are true in that argument the conclusion necessarily follows.

A really good argument from your position might be archeological evidence that shows at least two instances of places the Amalekites were simultaneously. Especially if one showed signs of warfare and the other did not.

Your argument as it stands now is possible and plausible but I dont find it as convincing as the deductive argument I presented. In addition to that my argumentation doesn’t have to make an appeal to authority; yours does, and its a valid appeal to authority, but that comes with me being a presuppositionalist and is somewhat subjective. So no fault on your end.

[jimwalton]

> Because there is no specific settlement we know as the Amalekites the best argument you can make is abductive.

This is correct.

> Given the biblical background and the settlements in the area being nomadic, even if both premises are true, the conclusion could be false meaning the Amalekites could have been, given the semantic domains of the words used, wiped out genocidally or in one city.

It's remotely possible, but not plausible. In the Bible, a reasonable amount of information is given about the Amalekites in various texts. They are recorded as being in the far eastern area of Saudi Arabia (1 Sam. 15.7; see Gn. 2.11). They attack the Israelites at Rephidim (far west area of Saudi Arabia, very near the Sinai Peninsula, Ex. 17.8-13). 1 Sam. 15.7 says that Saul attacked them all the way from Havilah to Shur. The text also mentions a city of Amalek (15.5). Numbers 13.29 locates them in the Negev. According to the Bible, they ranged widely, from the area of Ephraim in the north (Judges 12.15), Ziklag in the west (1 Sam. 30.1-2), and Havilah and Shur (already mentioned). So if we are going by what the Bible says, it matches what archaeologists have found: a wide-ranging Bedouin group with a smattering of small cities.

Back to 15.7, where Saul attacked them all. Though it is not impossible that Saul waged an extended campaign to wipe out the entire people group, other possibilities are allowed in the wording of the text. One is that he chased a particular group of soldiers along that road (the road that goes from Havilah to Shur). Another is that he attacked a particular group of Amalekites working that trade route. A third is that he attacked them "from the wadi" to Shur, meaning that he drove a particular group from the wadi near the Egyptian border off into the direction of the wilderness of Shur toward Havilah.

The text also says that "the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites," seemingly indicating a particular locale. In addition, the battle seems to have taken place all in one night (15.12-13).

The upshot is that a particular battle seems to be what is referenced (15.5: setting an ambush in the ravine), and not a genocidal campaign.

> The Bible says Saul destroyed the Amalekites save for Agag and some livestock.

The problem with this is that the Bible admits that the Amalekites still remained as a people group. Haman of Esther 3.1 is of Amalekite descent.

> Your argument as it stands now is possible and plausible but I dont find it as convincing as the deductive argument I presented.

I don't have that argument. You must have presented it in response to someone else. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste it here so I can see it? Thanks.

[Axle Paint]

So it's both . Don't you see there is a big problem here? Where does it say any of what you are saying?

[jimwalton]

There's no problem. The whole concept of *cherem* in the Bible is not "kill 'em all," but rather "remove from human use; devote to the Lord." There are 4 distinct categories of things that can be *cherem*:

1. Inanimate object like plots of land, plunder, metal objects, and a field. These things are devoted to God to be use for Him.
2. People.
3. Abstractions like nations. (This idea is in this text in 1 Sam. 15.) The idea is that their identity as a people group would be eliminated. Essentially it's like disbanding an organization. You don't kill the members, but you take away what holds them together in a common identity, in this case the king and their capital city.
4. Cities. Occasionally this means destroy it (as in Jericho), but apart from Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, not *cherem* city was destroyed. Instead it was emptied out and removed from use. They drove the population away.

So there's no problem here. In one particular city the king and the soldiers were killed. The text says Saul laid an ambush in one particular ravine (15.5), and whatever military action he took occurred in one night (vv. 12-13). There was no genocide.