Posted: May 31, 2015 6:34 pm
by iskander
tolman wrote:
iskander wrote:
tolman wrote:As I said, you're really saying that the entire story with the Amalekite in is made-up nonsense.

Made up in the sense that the story uses the Amelekite as a device to inform the reader of the political situation at the time.

'Made up' in the sense of 'not true', and 'not even competently-written in the context of neighbouring stories'.

iskander wrote:
When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings:

That story also makes no sense in the context you claim was obviously the case, which was that David would clearly have already long-known of the facts of Saul's death, as would large numbers of other people.
The only context that and the more specific Amalekite story makes sense in is one in which David not only didn't obviously already know the news, but that the rational expectation among others would have been that he didn't already know it.

The Amalekite story seems an odd one to make up as a character assassination job on Amalekites, since the Amalekite in it is stating he did something to Saul which according to the other story, Saul had unsuccessfully asked his own faithful retainer to do.
If the point was supposed to be that Amalekites were untrustworthy, why all the delayed histrionics, and why not make a point of calling the Amalekite a liar before killing him?


Yes, made up in the sense being only a literary device .


The story tell the Israelites that to kill the anointed king will never be allowed , and also that no one should ever even think that David is happy to benefit from the death of the king. David is a righteous man.


The story chooses an Amelekite because they were of no importance. It was safe to say anything of them, and safe to do anything to them.

It is only my interpretation, nothing more than that.