Talk:Saul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saul article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] First King of Israel

Does anyone know why the first king of the united tribes of Israel was chosen from the tribe of Benjamin. The twelve son of Jacob (Israel) and not from the tribe of Reuben. Jacob's First son?

I believe he was either chosen by Lot, or because he was very tall (not Goliath tall) and stood out from the crowd when Samuel picked him.

The tribe of Benjamin was centrally located between the north and south, and was small and politically unimportant compared to the larger tribes. The tribal leaders were used to the old order of tribal federalism, and were maybe somewhat fearful of a monarchy. A hero from the tribe of Benjamin seemed less of a possible threat (the tiny tribe of Benjamin wasn't likely to dominate the other eleven), yet at the same time the stature and charisma of Saul was deemed sufficient to lead them in war against the Philistines--and they needed that. It seems they needed a leader who could unite the people and recruit a large army from all of the tribes--but yet they were probably being cautious in their choice.Firecircle (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nativity

User:FDuffy appears to have identified a single source for claims that e.g. "many" scholars believe that Samuel in the story of Hannah (Bible) really refers to Saul. The source is identified in the King Saul article as the personal web site of Rabbi Moshe Reiss, [1], a self-published source. Per WP:RS,

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

None of the exceptions to self-published sources (e.g. by someone known to be highly regarded in a field) appear to apply here. Accordingly, it appears that this content is not reliably sourced and should be deleted. The claim that "many" scholars hold this view appears particularly unevidenced. --Shirahadasha 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I should warn you that Francis is probably going to mention, as he did when I challenged this theory on Samuel, that some American Bible translation even mentions this theory in the footnote for Samuel - see Samuel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the material here:

Many scholars of Hebrew, however, find Samuel (literally name of God) an odd name to be explained by this etymology; the traditional translation heard of God (i.e. God heard) requires a linguistically awkward rendering, as heard of God is actually Shamael; Saul, on the other hand, would have fit the explanation near-perfectly, since the Hebrew term used for asked is sha'ul (in a similar way to there was a young lady from Bude, who went for a swim in the ... ending with lake would be less plausible than it ending with nude).
Many Biblical scholars therefore think that the text originally spoke of Saul as being the child of Hannah that she dedicated to God, and brought up in God's tabernacle; scholars think that a later scribe censored the narrative (by swapping Saul's name for Samuel's) due to the religious sensibilities that would have been offended by the latterly negative figure of Saul having been divinely appointed and raised. The Song of Hannah, a poem interrupting the prose text at this point, supposedly being Hannah's response to the birth of her son, is according to textual scholars more realistically a song of praise directed towards a monarch, and hence more likely to have been inserted into a narrative about the birth of a future king (Saul) than of a prophet (Samuel).

--Shirahadasha 13:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That website is not my source, and it is quite disingenuous to claim that my source is the website. I have not even seen that Rabbi's name, let alone his website, until reading this. My source is the Jewish Encyclopedia. You can also see it for example, in the footnote of the New American Bible (a fairly significant translation) - (footnote 2) --User talk:FDuffy 14:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would make a suggestion to change the beginning part of "many biblical scholars" to "some Talmudic Scholars" I think that this would be a more appropriate description, as many people see the bible as the Old and New Testament, and if the suggestion of Saul being in fact Samuel coming from the Jewish Encyclopedia and this rabbi, I think the description of Talmudic scholars would be more appropriate. Instead of throwing all of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologians in one category of belief, which is actually quite a rare and not very solid belief that all three religions carry. --User talk:reubendevries 10:05, 27 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

Back in the 1970s I took a course entitled "Ancient Hebrew Civilization" under Prof. William J. Horwitz at the University of Oklahoma. He said the same thing in regard to Saul and Samuel's name. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Samuel you will see that Samuel really means "name of God" not "asked of God". While the opinion may not be popular to the average Bible reader, it is widely held by textual critics on Samuel. Firecircle (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bipolar?

Saul may have been bipolar: [2] --Max 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Anointment" vs. "Appointment"

There's a need to distinguish the holy from the secular act, as is the customary distinction made. --151.202.69.175 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I don't particularly like the current title. It's a weird way of disambiguating. My preference would be to treat him as a primary subject, and have him at Saul, with the current Saul page at Saul (disambiguation), as we do for David and Solomon. Alternately, I think he should be at Saul (king) or Saul (king of Israel). john k 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is really no other "Saul" which could ever be expected to be referred to without some qualifier. Srnec 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree? john k 00:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saul the son of Agag and kish!!!

Just for clarification, there is no confusion or discrepancies in the Bible as to who the parents of Saul was. His lineage comes from his father, Kish. I and II Samuel clearly state that Elkanah and Hannah bore Samuel, not Saul.

I Sam. 1:19 - 20 "And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her. Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, [saying], Because I have asked him of the LORD."

Samuel was the priest that annointed Saul as king of Israel and is found frequently in the story of Saul, up until God had had enough of Saul's disobedience and informed him that he would not remain the king for long, because he had instructed Samuel to annoint another king. This was of course the now familiar David. It would be several years before God brought an end to Saul's reign and instated David as king.

Droverthecowdog 02:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


His birth parents are Kish and Agag. I looked in the Bible.

[edit] Michmash and Jonathan's Defection

The article states:

'The text explains that Jonathan and a small group of Hebrews left the Israelites and sneaked into the Philistine camp to attack them from within, without the Israelites noticing the absence; many scholars of biblical criticism regard this as simply being an editorial excuse to justify the Hebrews' initial presence among the Philistine army [citation needed]. It would appear that the Hebrews betrayed the Philistines and changed sides, the text adding that Jonathan had started attacking the Philistines from within their own camp, causing panic. When the Israelites noticed the chaos, Saul consulted the Ephod for advice, and then decided that the Israelites should join in the attack on the Philistines.'

However, verses later in 1 Samuel:14 clearly state Jonathan's intent:

- Then Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, "Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the Lord will work for us, for the Lord is not retrained to save by many or by few'. (14:6)

- But if they say, 'Come up to us', then we will go up, for the Lord has given them into our hands; and this shall be the sign to us. (14:10)

The God of the Hebrews (or the Israelites) would not work for Jonathan to be against the Israelites.Calbookaddict (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tense?

I just changed the entire section about enmity of David to present tense because most of it already was, but I just noticed most of the rest of the article is past tense. Is Saul meant to be considered as a character in the Bible/Torah or a person in the past tense? At some points in the article it's phrased as if it suggests the former, which would mean present tense, but I think most would consider him an actual person who lived, which means it should all be past tense. Any input anyone?Dan Guan (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of References

The Reference section now has two types of references. Do you think those which are unnumbered should be put in a separate section with its own title: such as "further reading" or some such? Firecircle (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)