PDA

View Full Version : David and Saul



flooda34
Oct 11th 2008, 02:29 AM
In 1 Samuel 17:55 Saul asks his army commander whose son David is, however he was already told who David was in 1 Samuel 16 when David was brought to Saul to play the harp. Does it seem odd to anyone else that Saul would need to ask again? Did he just forget?

Biastai
Oct 11th 2008, 04:58 AM
May be separate accounts strung together. I don't have detailed knowledge of the manuscript sources, but other places in the Bible show likelihood of separate writings being patched together.

An example of this that comes to mind is the rape of Dinah chapter (34?) in Genesis. It's a disjointed digression compared to rest of the flow of the book around the neighboring chapters, and it just seems to have been inserted.

scourge39
Oct 11th 2008, 05:15 AM
1 Samuel 17:55-58 is most likely a flashback to some events taking place before 1 Samuel 16. I doubt that a redactor was involved with its inclusion. I'm not sold on the whole 'insertion' theory, and neither are most Evangelical OT scholars.

crossnote
Oct 11th 2008, 06:31 AM
In 1 Samuel 17:55 Saul asks his army commander whose son David is, however he was already told who David was in 1 Samuel 16 when David was brought to Saul to play the harp. Does it seem odd to anyone else that Saul would need to ask again? Did he just forget?

Could be evidence of an early case of Alzheimer disease for Saul, Seems like he forgot more than 'who's son David is?'. Saul was also prone to depressions and demonic influence.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 08:10 AM
Or maybe he just plain forgot. A king's got a lot of names to keep track of, especially in a war.

markedward
Oct 11th 2008, 08:39 PM
Something to mention:

When David is first brought before Saul to play the harp, Saul is told that it is David, son of Jesse.

When Saul says "Whose son is this?" he was not asking who David was. He was asking who David's father was. It is very possible that Saul simply didn't remember that David was "son of Jesse", and upon the incredible defeat of Goliath, Saul wanted to know who David's father was, perhaps to determine if David was from a family of warriors, or something to that extent. "David killed Goliath? Who is David the son of?"

Regardless of whatever the actual reason might be, what should be remembered is that the "second" time around, Saul was not asking who David was, he was asking who his father was.

flooda34
Oct 12th 2008, 02:00 AM
Something to mention:

When David is first brought before Saul to play the harp, Saul is told that it is David, son of Jesse.

When Saul says "Whose son is this?" he was not asking who David was. He was asking who David's father was. It is very possible that Saul simply didn't remember that David was "son of Jesse", and upon the incredible defeat of Goliath, Saul wanted to know who David's father was, perhaps to determine if David was from a family of warriors, or something to that extent. "David killed Goliath? Who is David the son of?"

Regardless of whatever the actual reason might be, what should be remembered is that the "second" time around, Saul was not asking who David was, he was asking who his father was.
This is a good observation in that he was not asking who David was, but rather who his father was. I didn't notice this originally.
However in 1 Samuel 16, Saul's servant tells Saul who David's father is also. It just seems a little odd that Saul would forget who David's father was especially since David would play the harp for him on many occasions and he sends word to Jesse to allow David to remain in his service because Saul liked him so much. You would think saul would remember such a thing consdiering the impression David made on him, but maybe he just forgot:)

markedward
Oct 12th 2008, 02:48 AM
It's a simple thing to forget.

For one, we have it written down. For us, the amount of time between Saul hearing "David son of Jesse" in chapter 16 and Saul's apparent forgetfulness in chapter 17 is only a few minutes of reading time. In real life, it could've been days, weeks, or even months later (perhaps even a few years, but that might be a stretch) between the two events. If "son of Jesse" was a comment made in passing to Saul, during a time when he was being troubled, it's not farfetched to suggest he easily forgot it, especially in the likelihood he may not have been paying full attention to what was being said to him. And there's no reason to believe that Saul was reminded David was the "son of Jesse" on a regular basis, simply because David was part of his court on occasion.

I've been taking design classes for three years. In my first class there was another student named Cory. The next time I had a design class with him was two years later, in my fourth design class. Two years later, and I recognized him, but I couldn't even remember his name until someone else told it to me. And that was the individual himself. Let's say in class two years ago he mentioned his girlfriend's name. It's been two years, so there's no reason that I must remember his girlfriend's name, if he mentioned it in passing on maybe a few occasions. Heck, I probably wouldn't even remember her name two hours later even if I had heard it a couple of times by then, let alone two years later.

Again, to us, Saul forgets David's father's name in only a few minutes, between chapter 16 and 17. To them, it could've been far longer than that.

Biastai
Oct 12th 2008, 05:05 AM
"The writer did not identify himself as the writer in the book. Statements in the Book of Samuel imply that someone who had witnessed at least some of the events recorded wrote it. However someone or more than one person must have written most of it after Samuel's death (i.e., 1 Sam. 252 Sam. 24) and some of it even after the division of the kingdom following Solomon's death (e.g., 1 Sam. 27:6). These features have made it difficult to date the book.
Most conservative scholars prefer the view that Samuel may have written or been responsible for noting the record of earlier events in the book (chs. 124). Then some unidentifiable writer or writers put it in its final form later, perhaps soon after Solomon's death.
Rationalistic critics of the book tend to believe it was the result of much more piecing together, and some of them date its final form as late as 500 B.C. The Talmud (ca. A.D. 500) attributed authorship of both 1 and 2 Samuel to the prophet Samuel. However, it is unlikely that Samuel wrote both books."

From Dr. Thomas Constable's 1 Samuel notes

Separate piecing together of a book is not uncommon at all in the Bible. Its not allowed even as a possibility here? For example, theologists have accepted that Isaiah 1 through 39 is the work of one author, followed by 40 through 55 the work of another author (frequently named Deutero-Isaiah). Chapters 56 through the end of the book is the work of yet another author (Trito-Isaiah).

markedward
Oct 12th 2008, 05:14 AM
Separate piecing together of a book is not uncommon at all in the Bible. Its not allowed even as a possibility here?I didn't say that. But there are reasonable explanations for the apparent contradiction many see in the two "introductions".


For example, theologists have accepted that Isaiah 1 through 39 is the work of one author, followed by 40 through 55 the work of another author (frequently named Deutero-Isaiah). Chapters 56 through the end of the book is the work of yet another author (Trito-Isaiah).A claim as this, however, can only be taken as criticism against the authenticity of a book internally claims to have been written by one individual. Even Christ (assuming we trust the gospels, right?) quoted from Isaiah, but never gave his listeners the idea that multiple people penned it.

The Preacher
Oct 12th 2008, 05:20 AM
In 1 Samuel 17:55 Saul asks his army commander whose son David is, however he was already told who David was in 1 Samuel 16 when David was brought to Saul to play the harp. Does it seem odd to anyone else that Saul would need to ask again? Did he just forget?

This incident occurred right after David slew Goliath. One of the rewards was that his house would go tax free in Israel. Perhaps Saul wanted to make sure the right family got this benefit. If not I go with the flashback theory. This sort of apparent violation of chronological order occurs in numerous places in the scripture.

markedward
Oct 12th 2008, 05:29 AM
1 Samuel 17:55-58 is most likely a flashback to some events taking place before 1 Samuel 16. I doubt that a redactor was involved with its inclusion. I'm not sold on the whole 'insertion' theory, and neither are most Evangelical OT scholars.Verses 55-56 are certainly flashbacks, but they cannot be flashbacks to a time prior to 1 Samuel 16, because the verse directly says "As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine".

Verses 55-56 "flashback" to right around verses 40-44, while verses 57-58 are explicitly stated to happen after "David had returned from killing the Philistine", and not before Saul had ever met David.

Trying to claim that that events of 55-58 are flashbacks of something that took place before chapter 16 (or even before just chapter 17) requires ignoring two whole sentences from the four verses; specifically the two sentences that say exactly when those events took place.

Biastai
Oct 12th 2008, 03:08 PM
A claim as this, however, can only be taken as criticism against the authenticity of a book internally claims to have been written by one individual. Even Christ (assuming we trust the gospels, right?) quoted from Isaiah, but never gave his listeners the idea that multiple people penned it.

"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
'The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'"
Luke 4:16-18, NIV

Are you referring to this passage? How would this quoting of Isaiah by Christ in any way refute that the book was written by three authors? It neither supports or refutes that claim. He didn't go in depth about the sources of the book; he simply read a short passage of it.