1 Sam 16-24

Ian normally on this site maintains a healthy interest in religion- and I too as an agnostic am very interested in religion particularly in the religions that in many ways have influenced me most- Judaism and Christianity. Given that, I have a rather amateur interest in the historicity of the Old Testament and what it tells us about the people of that time- it strikes me for instance that the psalms are some of the most evocative poetry I've ever come across- and in times of darkness they can be a comfort even to those who have no religion.

It will therefore come as no surprise that this discussion of the first book of Samuel by the faculty at UCLA fascinated me, supplemented of course by this related note. The articles are long and well worth reading for themselves- they consist of a deep textual analysis of the parts of the first book of Samuel dealt with and referenced in my title, which largely deal with the fall of Saul and rise of David. There are a couple of notable points- for example, one academic points out that Saul as much as David may be the focus of the chapter, another tries to deal with the way that God communicates with David, there is much discussion of David's character, his wilyness and political skill and a brief discussion on which I'd love people's views about the degree to which Samuel's dire prophesies about monarchy were not born out by Saul's reign but within the reigns of David and his successors.

So much, so good. I want to make though one brief criticism of the articles and that is of their criticism of the source. What you have here is a very detailed account of the way that the text deals with various things- but what we don't have here is an account of the problems with the text which would make one see some of the contradictions they note disappear. For example its perfectly sensible to argue that the bible was actually written and recompiled by several different authors and that the division of books (made centuries later) does not reflect the way that the text's authorship was divided. At one point a speaker does argue this and also suggests the fairly sensible point that the text looks like it was produced to be an ex post facto justification of David's assumption of rule in Israel. Obviously they are aware of this- it just makes me wonder though about the attention they have to the detail of the text- wondering about Doeg the Edomite seems a little problematic when the text we have is something reworked from a version written after the events. We don't know for example that in the tenth century Doeg's nationality would neccessarily have worked against him and whether 'the Edomite' were words added later.

There is a further connected point- which is that the authors argue that David is perhaps a parallel character to Odyseus and that there may be a case here of influence. Their argument is based upon the idea that Phoenician sailors would have heard the first Homeric poems and brought them back across to Palestine. There is some merit in that example- but in my view it strains credibility- to say that something is a possible influence isn't the same as saying that it was an influence and probably if you are going to look for outside influences, I would look to the mythologies of Phoenicia itself and other surrounding peoples- rather than presuppose a Greek influence. Just because we have Homer and we have the Bible- doesn't mean that other stories were circulating in other cultures at the time.

Having said all this- the discussions are well worth reading- whether you are religious or not- the world of Ancient Israel is a fascinating and very interesting one- and this set of close readings of some of the few texts that tell us about that world are well worth reading- even if you end up disagreeing with their conclusions!