XPost: talk.religion.misc, soc.culture.jewish, alt.religion.christian   
   From: riain@zion.org.il   
      
   SAMUEL, DAVID AND GOLIATH   
   Multiple sources and editing   
   in the history books of the Bible   
      
      
           As an interesting example of multiple traditions edited together   
   within the Biblical manuscripts, consider the famous stories of King   
   David, and in particular the story of David and Goliath. Few other   
   legends are so well known, or read so often, and and yet remain so   
   poorly understood. Mythology is the language of religion, but in the   
   Judeo-Christian tradition this has been lost, submerged under the   
   doctrine of inerrant history. Myth is drained of meaning and then   
   Christian apologists struggle to prove that myth is inerrant as history.   
   In this way the Bible, and stories such as that of David and Goliath,   
   which is mythological and legendary in nature, are drained of meaning.   
   Futhermore, it can be demonstrated that the ancient Levitical scribes   
   and priests had no sense of legend and did not understand the language   
   of myth, as is demonstrated in their editing and redaction in the book   
   of Samuel in the Bible, a clear attempt to hide the mythological nature   
   of the stories in the book, and attempt instead to present these myths   
   as history in the Bible. The Bible is left open to constant ridicule,   
   and the church is left poorer, being that one religion with no spiritual   
   connection to the language of myth.   
      
           Saul had an evil spirit tormenting him 'sent by God'. (1 Samuel   
   16:14)   
      
     Someone recommended David to play the harp, calling him,   
       "a brave warrior, a mighty man of war." (1 Samuel 16:18) . "David   
   came to Saul and entered his service."   
       (1 Samuel 16:21)   
      
     Saul took a liking to David and told his father,   
       "'allow David to enter my service,' for, 'he loved him dearly.' " (1   
   Samuel 16:21)   
      
           The second version of their meeting is found at the end of 1   
   Samuel Chapter 17 . David spoke of killing Goliath, and his words were   
   reported to Saul. (1 Samuel 17:31) Saul did not want to let David fight   
   Goliath, for David was not a trained warrior. David was just a lad and   
   out tending sheep, and his job was to deliver lunch to the soldiers. (1   
   Samuel 17:18)   
      
       "You are not able to go to war against the Philistines. You (David)   
   are just a boy, and Goliath is a man of war."   
       (1 Samuel 17:33)   
      
     Saul relented, and   
      
       "clothed David with his armor and said, 'go! May God be with you.'"   
   (1 Samuel 17:37)   
      
     David killed Goliath. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem, but he   
   kept his sword in his tent. (1 Samuel 17:54) Jerusalem was not captured   
   from the Jebusites until after David became King (or was it?) and the   
   sword we are told (in another variant) was kept in a temple at Nob. (1   
   Samuel 21:1) No sooner had David cut off Goliath's head than Saul asked,   
      
       "who is that young man?" (1 Samuel 17:55)   
      
     David was introduced to Saul   
      
       "with the Philistines head still in his hand,"   
       (1 Samuel 17:57)   
      
     and Saul asked,   
      
       "who are you?" and David replied, "the son of Jesse."   
       (1 Samuel 17:58) "That same day Saul kept David and would not let   
   him return to his father's house."   
       (1 Samuel 18:1)   
      
     Rather than a harp player the young adolescent boy was made   
      
       "commander of the fighting forces," (1 Samuel 18:5)   
      
     an act which pleased everyone, including Saul and his officials.   
      
           A few verses later an editorial comment is inserted in a futile   
   attempt to harmonize the compounding contradictions and multiple   
   inconsistencies.   
      
       "David played the harp for Saul, as he had done before," (1 Samuel   
   18:10)   
      
     for an evil spirit was tormenting Saul. In this variant David was   
   removed from Saul's household and   
      
       "made a commander" (1 Samuel 18:13) because, "Saul was afraid of   
   David for he saw that God was with him." (1 Samuel 18:12)   
      
     Note that David was living at home and tending sheep just before   
   killing Goliath, and was not living with Saul, and 'playing the harp for   
   him as he did before', as this weak editorial excuse would try to   
   suggest. When David killed Goliath, they do not know each other. 'That   
   same day' David entered the service of Saul. It then follows that David   
   could not have 'played the harp for Saul, as he did before.' The comment   
   was inserted by an editor well aware of the inconsistencies between the   
   two stories, in a futile attempt to reconcile the multiple versions of   
   events and fuse them into one (pseudo- consistent) manuscript.   
      
          Also note that another editorial comment was included for the   
   same purpose.   
      
       "David occasionally left Saul's house (where he was the resident   
   harp player) to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem." (1 Samuel 17:15)   
      
     This futile excuse is intended to explain why David was not 'living   
   with Saul' and 'playing the harp for him as before' but rather living at   
   home with his father and tending sheep just before killing Goliath.   
      
           Note that David is both a 'skilled warrior' and 'a young boy,   
   untrained for war.' David is both 'living at home' and 'living with   
   Saul'. Saul knows David, as his personal harp player, even outfitting   
   him to battle Goliath. Saul does not know who David is, and must be   
   introduced to David after he kills Goliath ("who is that young man?')   
   David enters Saul's service as a harp player, and as 'commander of the   
   fighting forces', on two different occasions.   
      
           It is remarkable that a story such as that of 'David and   
   Goliath' could be so famous and so little understood. Another excellent   
   example of the same sort of thing is the story of Moses and the Ten   
   Commandments, or the story of the Exodus from Egypt both stories also   
   famous and also composed of contradictory strands of material woven   
   together in a similar way. So it is correct to state that the David   
   stories are contradictory, but of greater interest is to make note of   
   the obviously awkward attempt made at concealment. The editorial   
   revision did not succeed by harmonizing the inconsistent accounts, but   
   instead demonstrates that there was an obvious attempt made to   
   'harmonize' two stories, that, in their original form, were completely   
   contradictory. Apparently allowing the two variants to exist side by   
   side was out of the question, and we can deduce from this that there   
   were minds at work that could not tolerate contradiction or allow for   
   diversity or uncertainty. So we can note that even during the process of   
   creating the Bible an attempt was being made to support future claims   
   that the book was ‘infallible' as history.   
      
           The Bible was obviously composed from different source   
   materials, and it is obvious that the editors made a (foolish) attempt   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)