Posted: May 31, 2015 4:22 pm
by iskander
tolman wrote:
iskander wrote:What about the Amalekite? Why is such an implausible story there? The liar is an Amelekite, that is the explanation .

What 'liar'?
You sure you don't mean it the other way round?

iskander wrote:It impossible to believe that David was ignorant of the outcome of the battle and the death of Saul three days after the battle.

Yet you suggest that the Amalekite did believe in David's ignorance (and in that ignorance being indefinitely prolonged), in a situation where the Amalekite had to somehow learn of the manner of Saul's death, and in a situation where you suggest there were multiple [if distant] eyewitnesses to Saul's suicide and where the details of Saul's death would have been essentially the top news item.

You seem to be suggesting less 'lying', more 'suicide-by-king'.

Yet, of course, if you're right, then the whole story about the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1 is nonsense, not simply the words of the Amalekite.
That story has David (who you claim absolutely must have already known about the death) and his men going through an elaborate charade of anguish and grief over the death of Saul both before and after killing the Amalekite, as a direct result of hearing his words.

Therefore you are claiming that whoever wrote 2 Samuel 1 just made up a pack of lies.


It is a story as any other one can find in a any book.
There is the death of a king and two versions of that death.
One version is more credible than the other.
The Amalekite in the story was lying when he spoke to David.

Why is the liar Amelekite in the story? to discredit the Amelelites who were then the local bogey men.
It is only my personal reading of what is for us now a trivial story.