Sure, if you want to put together some lists like that that’d be one way to find some kind of definitive statement about it. I think you’re expecting me to understand what you’re thinking, though, through your posts, which have a lot of religious lingo, phrases like crushing your heart etc which have completely different meanings in everyday language, and the overall sense that this is primarily a religious text. I’m guessing at what your meaning is, as it’s not clear from your posts.
I feel confident I've been referring you to Psalms 51. Line-by-line. Not my thoughts, not different meanings. Yes. I just checked. Whew. I was worrried I meant to say it and left it out by accident.
"Regarding the phrasing "crushing the heart", it's just a reminder of the method which is described in the psalm. Line by line"
So, guess work should not be needed.
To my mind 1 Samuel is more of a political text, moving away from the idea of kings as divine through god as king to a king who isn’t divine but follows divine orders, a pretty major shift in thinking at the time. The whole Saul/David narrative plays some part in illustrating that, maybe providing an example of how ruthless a king who obeys god (or rather puts the survival of his particular tribe/community above all other considerations) should be, but also how righteous he should be in dealing with his own people, and how he should also exercise some fairness towards non-threatening neighbours - all of that and more. Saul gets pushed out of the picture because he doesn’t really want the role, he’s not committed and not very good at it. All the repentance stuff is relatively incidental, at least in terms of why the text was written.
"All the repentance stuff is relatively incidental, at least in terms of why the text was written." - Right! Which is why I pointed to the idea of validating the prophet. When I read it, as a religious person, I noticed that the prophecies were being validated. Whether we agree or disagree about the book being political or religious, this notion of comparing David and Saul is not the primary objective by the author. But, that's the topic of the thread. So here I am trying to discuss your topic. I think it's an important topic and a lot of good lessons ( religious lessons ) are being taught. But, as a religious person, I read it in a certain way.
It's not that I cannot escape the religious mindset, I have not always been religious, but just as something practical... These books, the prophets, 1 Sam and 2 Sam, were chosen for inclusion in the canon. The stories included are not super good. Not super good at all. Consider what happens immediately after David's child dies? David, if I recall, and my recollection has been not great, looks terrible, a terrible role-model.
Why would the Jewish sages choose to include these stories? They could have chosen a different book? Or maybe editted out the bad parts. Why include these stories of disaster and leaderhship gone horribly wrong?
My vote? It matches a prophecy. And this can
even be applied to all of the prophets. In the Torah it says.. "don't or else..." and they "did". And the "or else" is the story in the prophets. Read in this way there is a consistent message, a consistent story, and a consistent lesson being taught all the way through.
I understand for an atheist ( I think I recall you identified as atheist ), this sort of message and lesson will not be interesting, or perhaps even noticed. And most non-religious people like to split up the canon, assigning different dates to it, and splitting things into different authors ( all of which is guess work ). So, seeing 1 Sam as political and a departure makes sense. But I don't read it that way. I'm looking for a consistent story and message, and if I find it, then, I think that was the intention.
