Scholarly speculations and the making of Amalek

By Nissim Bellahsen and Shmuli Phillips

Initially I thought we’d missed the boat for an Amalek post, it being several days since Parashat Zachor was read. But upon further reflection on the quality of scholarship behind the latest offering from thetorah. com, it seemed more fitting to run with it for a Purim post instead.

A story is told of the Dubner Maggid – a rabbi famed for his ability to find a mashal for any given lesson or occasion. The Maggid was once questioned how he managed to be so prolific with his parables. The wise sage explained (with a mashal of course): A man walking in the forest sees a boy not far from a tree with a number of arrows right in middle of the bull's eye. He asks the boy who shot those arrows? "I did" replied the boy. "And how did a boy your age manage to hit the center every time?" "Simple", said the boy, "first I shot the arrows then I painted the target".

An amusing anecdote? Perhaps. But like all good fables, it has a serious message too. In this instance it provides a biting critique of the methodology which appears to have been adopted by many in the field of academic biblical studies, through which they build up entire theories and stories based on the flimsiest of indications in the text.

The scholarly article in question, which seeks to uncover the origin of Amalek’s special biblical status, sees Dr Gili Kugler – a senior lecturer in Bible Studies in the University of Haifa – take this methodology to an extreme. The pre-drawn target for Kugler’s analysis of Amalek can be found at the end of the article: A highly speculative supposition that, since narratives describing military victories of both Saul and David over Amalek are found within twelve chapters of each other, this can only mean that rival groups of scribes must have mischievously manipulated the text. The article can be viewed here: https://www.thetorah.com/article/amalek-a-pawn-in-the-rivalry-between-saul-and-davids-legacy.

THE GRAND THEORY

The two sets of scribal antagonists firmly in place, Kugler now lets her imagination run free. Rather than basing her theory on the text of the two passages in question, she instead superimposes her own theory that the Saul narrative initially praised him for a resounding rout of Amalek. Unfortunately for Saul and his scribes, however, the Davidic scribes had the last laugh, editing the biblical account of his victory so that it shouldn’t upstage David’s later triumph over the same enemy:

“The fact that both David and Saul have a story about how they defeated the Amalekites is no coincidence. Saul and David represent two different dynasties, whose founding figures competed—whether in reality, or in the minds of their later adherents, or both—for the identification and legacy as the founder of the monarchy in Israel.”

“It is probable that YHWH had no role in the older version of Saul’s war against Amalek, before it was reworked by the redactor of 1Samuel 15. I suggest (all or part of) verses 4–9 are the core of the older story, which told how Saul fought against Amalek on his own initiative

But the account of Saul’s defeat of Amalek was then revised to include an introduction, with YHWH specifically telling Saul to proscribe (cherem) all the animals. This made Saul’s not doing so—which would not have been an issue in the core story—a direct violation of YHWH’s command, and allowed for Samuel’s dramatic confrontation of Saul, ending with Saul’s painful humiliation.

MANIPULATING THE EVIDENCE TO MATCH THE THEORY

No evidence of any sort is offered for this rereading of Saul’s battle with Amalek. Two somewhat similar episodes of victory over Amalek within a twelve-chapter distance, coupled with an imagined scribal rivalry, appear to be regarded as a sufficient foundation for her proposed violence to the text. Unfortunately the article continues to deteriorate yet further from this low point.

Kugler recognises that her grand theory faces a challenge. Given the prominent prior appearances of Amalek in the Torah along with the clear command that they be wiped out, she asks, why would the claimed “original version” of the Saul battle not have required him to eradicate the Amalekites? Why would this context need to be subsequently supplemented by Davidic scribes?

In order to resolve this conundrum, Kugler scales new heights of speculation and misrepresentation of the Torah’s text. The initial version of the Torah, she charges, viewed Amalek as just another one of Israel’s enemies to be defeated alongside the Canaanites. In order to make their claimed corruption of the Saul narrative appear convincing, the Davidic scribes then had to turn their scalpels and quills to the text of the Torah itself, effortlessly inserting two passages which consider Amalek the eternal enemies of God and requiring them to be annihilated!

“Historically speaking, the conflict with Amalek was likely nothing out of the ordinary at first, and this is reflected in how they are remembered in many biblical texts, i.e., just another group whom Israel fought with. The decision of the pro-David scribes to turn Saul’s military victory into a religious defeat changed this picture.”

“This command made its way into Exodus, with the oath that war with Amalek would be fought throughout the ages. Deuteronomy, with the account of Amalek’s cruelty in attacking the weak and defenseless first, is a further elaboration of this perspective”

We must remind ourselves at this stage, that the entirebasis for the grand theory that Dr Kugler has concocted is her identification of two broadly similar narratives at a twelve-chapter distance coupled with the rivalry she has imagined there to be between Saulide and Davidic scribes.

In order to support her claim that the two passages requiring Amalek to be eradicated are later additions, Kugler seeks to show that other “non-Davidic” passages do not depict Amalek in this way as Israel’s special enemies. Her citations of the sparse references to Amalek in the book of Bereishit – centuries before Amalek’s attack on Israel took place – are scarcely relevant. She then notes that Amalek are mentioned alongside other Canaanites (receiving no special treatment) in the episode of the spies. It is not clear, however, that every mention Amalek throughout the Tanach is expected to disclose their status as eternal enemies. Particularly in the context of Israel’s campaign to take possession of the Land, a band of cruel cut throats in the Negev deserts do not deserve greater attention than the armies protecting the powerful walled cities.

Finally there is Bilaam’s treatment of Amalek which, according to Kugler, considers them as “just one of several nations that Balaam predicts Israel will crush in the future” and does not recognise them as Israel’s eternal enemies. Yet this claim relies upon a questionable translation of Bilaam’s utterance “reishit goyim Amalek” as “a leading nation is Amalek”. The translation adopted by Onkelos and the vast majority of traditional commentators, however, is “first of nations is Amalek”. This translation is consistent with how the term “reishit” is used elsewhere in the Torah, and is taken by all the commentaries to refer to Amalek’s special status – earned by being the first nation to attack the Israelites in the desert.

While Kugler claims that: “Israelites have other negative encounters but only Amalek become God’s eternal enemies to be wiped out”, we find that the Midianites are practically wiped out for their attempt to obstruct the Israelite’s progress through the desert.

To summarise, there is little if any supporting evidence in the biblical texts for Kluger’s theory that the special enemy status of Amalek as the result of a later scribal rivalry which caused them to drastically edit existing biblical passages.

SNUBBING A SIMPLER SOLUTION

Before freely wielding the scalpel to carve up the Torah’s text, Dr Kugler might have considered the principle of Occum’s Razor which gives preference to simple theories over their more complex counterparts. She mentions in passing that the verse in Devarim explicitly limits the commandment to destroy Amalek to “when the Lord your God grants you respite from all your enemies who surround”. Very simply, this earlier condition explains why Amalek’s special status is not relevant when the Torah describes the initial military campaign to take possession of the Land of Israel, and is certainly inapplicable to David’s battle with Amalek which occurs while he is in exile – taking refuge with the Philistine king, Achish.

Saul, by contrast, having united the nation under his kingship and defeated other enemies, was perfectly placed to receive the divine word to wipe out Amalek. Did Dr Kugler pause to consider whether this single principle – explicitly contained in the Torah’s text – provides a simpler and considerably more convincing account of the Amalek episodes than her complex tale of unmentioned rival scribes having inflicted unseen violence on various biblical passages?

She might also have found a more satisfying theory for why Amalek alone among Israel’s opponents is deemed the eternal enemy of God. While Amalek’s military prowess deserves no special mention alongside the other Canaanite nations whom Israel would battle for the Land, they certainly stand out in the biblical text for their eagerness to cut down the weak and weary at the start of Israel’s journey through the wilderness.

The Song of the Sea recounts how “Peoples heard, they trembled; a shudder seized the inhabitants of Philistia. Then the chieftains of Edom were startled; the powerful of Moab were seized with trembling; all the inhabitants of Canaan melted” – a report which is echoed by Rahab at the start of the book of Joshua. Only Amalek refuses to be in awe of the miraculous progress of the Israelites –instead attacking this newly-freed nation which challenges the Ancient Near Eastern order of oppressed serfs and cruel, immoral pagan rites. Amalek – like Haman the Aggagite [Amalekite] in the Purim story – fundamentally opposes the divinely-ordained mission of the Jews to spread their light and thereby refine and assist the rest of the world.

Based on highly speculative theories such as this one, academics and publishers at theTorah.com similarly seek to deprive both the Jewish people and the wider world of the God’s revealed mission for the Jewish people, and the Torah’s core historical messages of ethical monotheism. In its place they prefer to highlight weak parallels and use them as the basis for a conspiracy of scribal rivalry that QANON would be proud of. A Purim Torah – yes. But one with a very serious message.

First posted on Facebook on 16 March 2022, here.