Talk:Books of Samuel/Archive 1

Archive 1

undated

Is this article correct? For example, 1 Sam 8 includes the condemnation that choosing a mortal king was a rejeciton of YHWH-God as King... can that really be part of the "Monarchial Source"?? You'ld honestly call that "pro-Monarchy" propaganda, that choosing Saul-David = rejecting YHWH?? A better division seems to be along the lines of WHO SAUL FOUGHT. For, in ONE version, the pro-Samuel / anti-King version, it is SAMUEL who defeats the Philistines, and then is even then rejected by an ungrateful Israel, who wants a king so that they can be like the pagan nations (!!) = 1 Sam 8, 1 Sam 10:17ff. Then, because SAMUEL has ALREADY beaten the PHILISTINES, Saul goes on to fight the AMMONITES (=1 Sam 11) and then AMALEKITES (=1 Sam 15).

MEANWHILE, in the pro-King version, Saul is sought after by Israel and is duly and properly annointed by Samuel (=1 Sam 9-10:16), and then organizes a campaign against the Philistines (=1 Sam 13-14). Saul tries to usurp Priestly authorities (1 Sam 13) and is rejected, so Samuel then goes and annoints, duly and properly, David in his stead (=1 Sam 16). This version is pro-King and portrays the king as nothing more than the old annointed judges. This is EXACTLY how JULIUS CAESAR and AUGUSTUS potrayed the new EMPIRE that grew out of the Roman Republic — they styled themselves as just First Citizens, occupying the old office of Dictator for emergencies.

It seems to me that the "Republican vs. Monarchy" analysis is flawed, and you will PLEASE NOTE that it DID come out of EUROPE in the 19th century, when the politics of the day was INDEED dominated by Republican socialists vs. Conservative Monarchial parties. It seems clear to me that the REAL division of the actual books of Samuel is along a "Pro-Prophet/Anti-King" rant vs. a "Pro-King" appology.

---

Out of curiousity... who are these "Modern Critics" and where can their views be found, in specific? I'd like to understand the rational of the view that the books were written later. It seems likely enough to me that they were written contemporarily, but I'd love to see the counter argument. Fieari 21:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The literary structure is actually rather well-ordered for something that was apparently pieced together over time from oral tradition. The point of the book isn't simply to chronicle David's reign - that is what the Chronicles are for (go figure). Read it more carefully - note how in the first half of the book, David keeps God's law and sees spiritual, personal, and political prosperity. Then right in the middle, there's the sin with Bathsheba, you know, David committing adultery and killing the woman's husband so that nobody knows. From there the slope is downards - we see David's spiritual, personal, and political life go down the drain. Samuel wrote the book not simply as a record of events (which would most likely have been written chronologically) but as a warning to Israel: you serve God, you prosper. You turn away, you meet defeat and failure. -Crazy Hobo

Meribaal vs. Mephibosheth?

I'm reading the NIV and the son of Johnathon who is lame in both feet is described as being Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 4:4). Is this just a discrepancy between versions or a mistake in the article or my printing? balletgirl313 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well it says Mephibosheth in both NASB and KJV and NKJV, so that should definitely be changed. Jack Daw 14:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• The ending for Meribaal is Baal, which can refer to the owner of something (like property) but it became more closely associated with the idolatry of the heathen who surrounded the Jews. Possibly because of Ex.23:13, those who had Baal as a part of their name, had Bosheth substituted in (Bosheth means "shame"). I have covered this more extensively in my exegesis of 2Sam. 4:4 located at http://kukis.org/Samuel/2Sam_04.htm Scutfargus 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

External Link Removal

I have noticed in several areas which relate to religion and to Biblical topics that links are reduced to a bare minimum; many of the links which remain are innocuous and probably rarely used (e.g., links to the KJV of the Bible). I added the following link with the following verbiage:

• • 3 Online translations of 1Samuel with extensive commentary Every Hebrew word of every chapter is given along with its complete morphologly. A very literal translation is also compared to the Septuagint (the earliest Greek translation). A moderately literal English translation and a paraphrase rendering are also provided.

Originally the link was much shorter, but I felt that perhaps I needed to justify its existence, after it was removed. This is an online, 4000 page commentary on the book of 1Samuel. Every single Hebrew word is given along with its complete morphology. If a person wanted to know exactly what was "behind" the English, this is an excellent source. Within this commentary are 3 translations: one unbearably literal, one which is quite literal, and one which is somewhat of a paraphrase.

Also removed was an excellent link to a number of other commentaries on Samuel.

It is interesting that, on some topics, like "Michael Moore" and "Global Warming" there are a plethora of links; however, when it comes to the Bible or Biblical topics, the external links are often a fraction of the number of external links found elsewhere.

It is also interesting that, one topic I examined, fasting, had links to a variety of religions and their views on fasting, but not a link to Christian fasting. Maybe there is a pattern here to this censorship? Scutfargus 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scutfargus (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Edited Authorship

I changed the lines "However, this theory is not supported by most modern scholars" and "Though a slim majority of scholars disagree" to "However, this theory is not supported by some modern scholars" and "Though some scholars disagree." Using any language implying a majority is misleading, as there is no way to prove the majority without taking a survery of all the scholars in the world concerning the dating.

I also changed "What is definitely considered likely" to "What is considered likely" seeing as the former contradictory.JJ Dangerously 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the phrase "though many modern academics think this is a later edit to the story and it was originally the birth narrative of Saul. Hannah pronounces a poem concerning Yahweh's magnificence that has strong similarities to the later Magnificat." This phrase implied a majority view without referring to credible surveys taken among Biblical scholars. And without citation, the supporting statement referring to "Magnificat" appears to be Original Research. 11:28, 30 July 2008

Census of David

It says "God makes David angry with the people", but isn't it David who makes God angry with the people? Also I think it should say that as a result God incited (NIV)/moved (KJV) David to make a census. Jack Daw 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Census of David (2 Samuel 24:1–25). Yahweh becomes angry with the people and Satan tempts David to order a census" I think that your statement is mis-leading. Your statement sounds like that this was recorded down in a document. Where?

In 2 Samuel 24:1 (KJV) "Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." No mention of Satan can be found here.

Only in 1 Chronicles 21:1 (KJV), Satan was mentioned. "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

Therefore, your statement is only an interpretation based on 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 together. This should be made clear; otherwise readers may mistake that it is recorded down in the biblical source as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.236.160 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A Jewish translation of the text translates 2 Samuel 24:1 in the following way - 1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them, saying: 'Go, number Israel and Judah.' This verifies that in both Jewish and Christian translations, Satan is only mentioned in Chronicles. Since this article specifically is about the Book of Samuel, it's not appropriate for Satan to be mentioned here. I'm removing it.(216.15.62.119 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Dating?

Cf. from Necromancy, where it claimed the earliest literary reference to necromancy was a Homeric text from ~700 BC. The life of Saul took place substantially before then, but I cannot provide dates to accurately place the Book of Samuel before then. If someone with access to greater resources could provide a "circa" for me I'd like it; thanks. 207.228.60.204 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

David and Jonathan

The article says: Saul's son Jonathan becomes friends with David, which some commentators view as romantic.
Well, some in this specific case is all, as what thing more romantic is there than disobeying one's own father at the price of one's own inherited kingdom for the sake of one's friend and for justice? The sentence makes sense only if we suppose "romantic" as an encryption of something else that is really something different. --84.154.60.236 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortened summary

I shortened the summary of the bible story. My own feeling is that this long summary was off-putting - people won't really want to read such a huge slab of writing. Also, all the detail involved obscures the main themes of the book, which is that God gives Israel two kings, in succession, only one of whom is suitable (David), but that David's sins nevertheless set the stage for later disaster. Anyway, if anyone has any comments, feel free. PiCo (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

STRUCTURE: I deleted this section entirely, and not without misgivings, but when I started looking at various commentaries it turned out that no two agreed. What that meant was that the so-called structure was just a list of the various episodes in the story, grouped together (or separated) pretty much arbitrarily. So I thought it better just to delete this entirely. On the other hand, a list of episodes could be useful, if it could be arranged as a template or side-bar to the main article. PiCo (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article title (proposed move)

There is a discussion at the talk page for the article Books of Chronicles that suggests this page (along with Books of Chronicles and Books of Kings), be moved to article names reflecting the singular nature of the six works in the Masoretic text.

It's probably best to have individual discussions on the talk page of each article, so anyone interested should feel free to chime in below, as well as at the other talk pages. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the discussion is centralized in one place for convenience and coordination Jpacobb (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it at Talk:Books of Chronicles, then, as that's where it started. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Books of Chronicles - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)