Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00131)

--- In theos-talk@y..., Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
According
> to the Talmud, the Israelites left alone any group that agreed to 
leave
> the Israelites alone (including the Moabites, the Philistines, and 
the
> Samaritans, who DID exist back then). Only those who insisted on 
war got
> it. The Amalekites, rather than fight the Israelites head-on, made a
> sneak attack on the women and children; that is why they were 
ordered to
> be destroyed entirely.


That is possible. It should be borne in mind that the rampaging 
across Egypt which was led by Moses, and which is referred to in 
Exodus, in the Egyptian account by Manetho, and also in the Tell-el-
Amarna letters, seems to indicate a warlike, and not a pacifistic, 
people. Bear in mind that this all happened more than 3,000 years 
ago and has nothing to do with their modern warlike and not 
pacificistic descendants. It also should be considered that nobody, 
including Talmudic scholars, considers the Talmud to be of much use 
as an historical document. Even when it refers to first century 
conditions and incidents shcolars take its testimony with a very 
great deal of caution. I am not disputing the interpretation you 
propose, but Talmudic evidence regarding an event that took place 
2,200 years before the document was written calls for some 
substantiating evidence.

According to ancient authors, if the Samaritans were "hated" it was 
because they rejected the Temple cult centered in Jerusalem and had 
their own temple. There are complex reasons for this, and the 
Samaritans were not alone in disputing the authority of the Jerusalem 
centered Temple cult. The Essenes are thought by some to have been 
founded because of the proliferation of this very sentiment in other 
quarters.