The Contradictions In Saul & David's Tale

[ladsin]

Some of the discussions I've been having lately have revolved around contradictions in the Bible, and my recent go-to has been the contradictions in 1 Samuel 16-18. If I extended this a few chapters I could bring in a few more contradictions, but for sake of ease I'm just going to cover two contradictions within these three chapters as they're all right next to each other.

When Did Saul Meet David

The first we'll cover is the contradiction regarding when Saul and David initially met. The first time that we hear Saul and David met is in 1 Samuel 16:21-22

21 David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, “Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.”

This occurs at the end of 1 Samuel 16 and then we hear the tale of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. 1 Samuel 17:32-58 show that in fact Saul did not know David until after David kills Goliath despite engaging in a rather lengthy conversation with him. To demonstrate this I'll just give the last verse to demonstrate the point.

58 “Whose son are you, young man?” Saul asked him.

David said, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”

This contradiction is never reconciled in the text, and in fact 1 Samuel 18 appears to pick up the story as though 1 Samuel 17 never happened. It specifically retells the tale "6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine" as though David hadn't already defeated the Philistine in the previous chapter.

Attempts To Reconcile

The typical answer is that these are in contradiciton, but merely are a result of trying to stitch together two separate David traditions. This is believed to be quite common in the OT as there were many different traditions and texts that were later brought together to make our canon. Evangelicals cannot accept this conclusion though as it would mean that God's holy word has the unmistakable marks of human authorship thus they've attempted a few apologetical answers which I, and many others, find rather laughable but I'll mention them here.

1) The text doesn't explicitly state that this is a chronological recollection of events. Despite the fact that the text appears to be written in a chronological order they state that this may not be the case here because there are other contradictions that would arise if this were the case. They point out that if written in chronological order 1 Samuel 17:51-58 makes no sense. I would have to agree, it doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean that it's not an attempt to patch together separate traditions, rather it makes more sense as an attempt to do so.

2) They state that it's possible enough time had passed between 1 Samuel 16 and 17 that Saul forgot who David was. This is an un-evidenced assertion that David returned home after chapter 16 that 16 does not appear to support. Additionally 1 Samuel 18 seems to follow 16 discussing David as a flute player who knew Saul's son and had been with him for some time.

3) In 16 it is stated that Saul was going mad, specifically "14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him." then there's no mention of this evil spirit from the lord in 17 and it is referenced again in 18. Their argument here is that Saul was going crazy thanks to this evil spirit and perhaps he was so mad he forgot who David was.

4) They suppose that perhaps Saul was jealous of David and as such decided to pretend that he didn't know who David was. This is baffling. David and Saul had an extended conversation prior to David's slaying of Goliath and again the presumption that he was both jealous and would blatantly lie to discredit David is unevidenced.

5) The last attempted apologetic is that Saul did know David, but was simply asking who his family was in order to give David's family some boons for David's defeat of Goliath. This apologetic also falls on it's face. Saul was informed of David's lineage twice in chapter 16 and even wrote to David's father by name in 16 to request/ demand that David stay in his employ. Adittionally it seems ludicrous to conclude that Saul and David had an extended discourse in 17 but there'd be no mention of their prior relationship.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=807

When Did Saul Decide To Kill David?

Another contradiction is when Saul decided to kill David. This again is typically deemed to just be a contradiction resulting from different traditions, but Evangelicals cannot abide this and thus come up with some apologetic means of reconciling them.

The first attempt on David's life that we're made aware of is in 1 Samuel 18:8-11

8 Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?” 9 And from that time on Saul kept a close eye on David.

10 The next day an evil[a] spirit from God came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usuallydid. Saul had a spear in his hand 11 and he hurled it, saying to himself,“I’ll pin David to the wall.” But David eluded him twice.

Then again in 18:17-25 Saul continuously tries to trap and have David killed, but to avoid too long a quote I'll just post 24&25

24 When Saul’s servants told him what David had said, 25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

Lastly (in this chapter) we hear about Saul finally deciding to be David's enemy "continually" in verse 28

28 When Saul realized that the Lord was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David, 29 Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.

The only apologetic offered on this portion is that Saul had not viewed David as his enemy "continually" before verse 28, but this assertion is also absurd as the entire selection of verses from 8-25 "continually" depicts Saul as viewing David as his enemy and that Saul was "continually" attempting to have David killed.

http://www.christcreated.com/con/bible/contradictions/saul-become-davids-enemy/

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9a-vQ-Pxbp2T2mwud42TMy81UsiQtBThxlUwuE-i2LytdrRw0

Alrighty. I think that's enough for today. Thoughts, opinions, disagreements are welcomed as always.

[Mishthamesh]

I'm not xristian but I can try to make clear the story.

The explanation you used:

"5) The last attempted apologetic is that Saul did know David, but was simply asking who his family was"
Could be his family quality or history through his father's identity. Ambiguous connotation can be adhere to that expression.

"Saul was informed of David's lineage twice in chapter 16"
It's true, but that doesn't inform him about the same question with a connotative different meaning, knowing his father's name but not his father family background for example.

"and even wrote to David's father by name in 16 to request/ demand that David stay in his employ."
Not at all. The author only says (v. 19,22) that he "sent to Jesse, saying: 'Let David..." not says explicitly that he wrote his father by name.

"Adittionally it seems ludicrous to conclude that Saul and David had an extended discourse in 17 but there'd be no mention of their prior relationship."
Agree.

[ladsin]

I appreciate your input, but I think you got some things wrong. The most egregious would be your second point so I'll address it first.
"21 David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, “Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.”" So perhaps you're refutation was specifically of the word "write", but I think you were referencing the request/ demand by name. I could be wrong though.

Your first point is somewhat lost on me, perhaps you could clarify it, because when Saul asks David, David's response is, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.” Which is all information Saul supposedly knew in Chapter 16.

[Mishthamesh]

Let's try.

"So perhaps you're refutation was specifically of the word "write""
Exactly. Saying "Saul sent word to Jesse" doesn't imply necessarily saying those words with Jesse's name included on it, but the author saying for example "it was to that commoner named Jesse". It could be orally too without explicitly calling him by his name but the narrative/narrator specifying the name of the person receiving the request. It's totally probable that the mean was oral instead of written letter (like those Mesopotamian or European kingdoms in some other eras)

"because when Saul asks David, David's response is, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”"
That's it, reasserting his common family origin in a context of a question asking his own origin then his family background. It does exist precedents of that kind of inquiries before.

[ladsin]

Sure. It’s possible Saul sent a servant to David’s father Jesse and not a handwritten letter 😂
I didn’t think it was that confusing, I actually would doubt that he wrote a letter as Jesse being a shepherd would likely not have been able to read, but whatever.

“knowing his father's name but not his father family background for example.” I think this is what was confusing to me. Your assertion is that he could have known David’s fathers name, but not have known his fathers background? Is that correct? Because that’s not a question anywhere within the text.

[Mishthamesh]

"I think this is what was confusing to me. Your assertion is that he could have known David’s fathers name, but not have known his fathers background? Is that correct? Because that’s not a question anywhere within the text."

Let me try to explain you again. Take note that they don't always construct their discursive structure like a modern western linguistic cultural framework, that's one of the problems some readers have when trying to understand ancient text or non-western texts.

In Hebrew language to question "Who's you father?" doesn't necessarily mean the name of your father like in a western language sense, but your family background or history. Look for example: "'What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? And one of the same place answered and said: 'And who is their father?" First Book of Shmuel Chap. X. So try to re-read.

[Gedaria]

You read it as a novel. The problem Saul has is that he is side stepping the law of god by his actions and god as taken his right to rule. Saul is aware David is the next king. and is more popular than Saul that is why he is trying to kill him.
The incident at 1kings 16 ;58 is that David had become a servant of Saul. But in 17 was the killing of goliath , in 17 it also goes into davids family again, since 16 had already gone through this at his anointing.
Saul was a beaten man in king only by name and he knew that David would not kill Saul because he had said he is the anointed king. Just that alone is to send a man mad. But I see no contradiction...

[ladsin]

I don't know if English is your first language or not, but I had some trouble understanding your comment so I will try to figure it out.
My understanding is that you're saying, "David was a servant of Saul in 16, but 17 is a chapter about something else, and Saul is being tormented by an angel of God. So it makes sense."

If I were to try and guess I think you're saying:
1) These two chapters aren't in chronological order
2) Saul is crazy, so it makes sense that he forgets things.

If that's the case I'll just have to have you reread my responses to those assertions.

[MrsBaker]

definitely see your first point here, but the second one not really. It's just like "he threw a spear at him, then told him to go kill a bunch of phillistines hoping he'd be killed, then swore to be his enemy for life"... I don't really see a contradiction there. It's just a buildup. That happens in a lot of stories.

With the first one, although I want to agree with you, you would have to consider that David, the king's small, young harp player and armour bearer, has just taken down the giant Goliath with no more than a sling and stone.
It would be believable if Saul didn't consider the fact that David could possibly be that person, since he seemed shocked when David even asked to fight. He obviously doesn't see David as a warrior, and so it would be natural for him to "not believe his eyes" and ask if it was really David.

[ladsin]

Thanks for your comments. I'll address them with my second point first.
As I said, there is no buildup in chapter 18. Saul was continually attacking and trying to get David killed from verse 8 on. If there was no distinction made in 28 I would agree, but he couldn't again decide to be David's enemy when he already been David's enemy for quite some time.

On the first point. He had an extended conversation with David prior to the killing of Goliath. Your understanding that he could have had this whole discussion and Saul never noticed that this was the boy who had lived with him for an extended period of time seems quite odd to me. Again it's based on the unevidenced idea that David at some point went home after 16 but was never mentioned.

[MrsBaker]

No, I meant he recognized him, but it would be like if your baby brother went and finished all your geometry homework. You'd be tempted to question if it was really him-- at least I would.

And he wasn't openly his enemy before, that I could tell. The first time it basically says god made him throw the spear, lol. The second time he sends him to fight, hoping he dies. But it is more like he's sort of in denial about actually trying to kill David (similar to what David himself does successfully years later, and doesn't realize he murdered the man until the prophet makes him face it for what is was).
Then he finally seems to decide, screw it, he must die and I'll kill him! Like when you're trying to reach something without getting off the couch, then you finally just get up off the couch anyways and grab it.

Thats how I saw it, anyways.

[ladsin]

Hmm.
Well I’d just say that’s another hypothesis that doesn’t have any evidence. If your brother did your homework could you reasonably see asking him, “who is your father so that I can grant him boons”? That would seem almost schizotypal in my opinion.

Did you read chapter 18?

[MrsBaker]

I have read it before, and it's just like that. Not quite the same, as david had basically won the war for them and Saul was the king lol. Customs were different back then. If he hadn't believed it was really David, then as the king of the people David had just helped a ton, I think it's understandable to want to give him one his family a reward.

I don't hold any value in the Bible as truth it's just a story, and wouldn't care if this did turn out to be a contradiction, but as I see it it isn't really one.

[ladsin]

I’m not saying it wouldn’t make sense to reward David, I’m saying it wouldn’t make sense to know David and Jesse in chapter 16 but not in chapter 17. Does that make sense?

[MrsBaker]

Yes it does. I'm just saying under the circumstances it's not too far fetched to think Saul might doubt what he sees, and double check.

[ladsin]

Umm. Alrighty. So he doubts his eyes when he sees and talks to David before David kills Goliath as well?

[MrsBaker]

No. I get the feeling you aren't taking me seriously at this point.

He sees it's David, then David goes out and does what should be pretty impossible for David to do, so it could be Saul starts to think he was mistaken, because surely David can't have done that.
Thats what I was saying.

[ladsin]

Then why wouldn’t there be any recognition of that? Why didn’t he say, “David, are you sure you can do this? The lord goes with you” “David, you’re but a boy you can’t fight this giant” “David, you’re a simple musician, but with the lords help all things are possible” or any such thing?

Where in this text are you seeing anything that’s indicative of the claim that in chapter 17 Saul knew David before David introduced himself?

[Gedaria]

You are still expecting things to move along like a story. Chapter 17 covers the time when David killed golieth. 18 carries on with another episode in his life.
Same thing when Jesus was on the earth it not a day to day account. It's different times in his life that lead to his death...

[TrixiePooch]

Men translated the text from scrolls and are not infallible in translation of trying to piece them together. After all, the scrolls, like the Dead Sea Scrolls were in pieces and not in much of an order. Men tried to figure that out. Men also decided what books would be included in the Bible and which ones were not. Blame it on men for things not making sense.

[ladsin]

Sure.

[ManOnFire]

Arguments about contradictions in the Bible do not interest me. But I will say the only thing I care about in this Take is the passage saying that the Lord sent an evil spirit to torment Saul. Very shaking and curious: the LORD SENT an EVIL spirit to torment him? That just baffles my mind.

[ladsin]

You have to remember that in the original mythos god claimed he was also the author of evil.

Our Satan was initially a servant, but later (apparently after the Babylonian captivity) he was turned into an enemy of god.

[ladsin]

“I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.” Isaiah 45:6-7

I think other translations translate “darkness” to be evil here, but as I used the NIV above for consistency I stayed the same to not cherry pick

[ManOnFire]

Ohhhh then I need to read the NKJV version, cuz that's what I always use.

[ladsin]

I used the NIV, lots of people use different versions. I think the ESV is supposed to be the most literal, but I can’t remember.

[ManOnFire]

So are you saying you believe in God or you're atheist?

[ladsin]

Atheist.

[ladsin]

I called the scripture myth... But who knows there are a lot of Christians who agree. So whatever.

[Phanta]

I'm a Christian but I believe that there are numerous contradictions and errors in the Bible. This is okay since my faith does not require me to believe that the Bible is God-authored. I'm only required to believe in Christ alone. I go into depth on this and other issues on my website: www.thezap.net

[nerfetiti]

The bible is full of them we humanity or should I say those who are religious chose to ignore or simply do not question any contradictions in the bible and the book is full of them. Humanity has been (I am talking about religious people here) has been told and taught not to question the divine word of GOD it is the beginning and the end and cannot and shall never be questioned to do so is to go against GOD.

[genericname85]

yeah the bible contradicts itself. the reason for that is that several people wrote the thing in different times in different places, none of them was actually there to see what they wrote about. it's all just phantasies of not overly smart people, therefore it contradicts itself.

[Jack_L_andTurn]

1. Much more likely astonishment that a lowly shepherd was so capable, so clarifying it.

2. How are trying to get him killed, failing, then seeing even his own daughter loves the guy so remaining his enemy a contradiction of any sort?

By the way, I'm agnostic.

[ladsin]

1.) You think it makes sense for him to know David and Jesse in chapter 16 but not 17 because he wants to clarify it?

2.) it’s not. It’s the claim that he only “continually” sees him as an enemy in 25 when he saw him “continually” as an enemy from 8-24 as well.

[Jack_L_andTurn]

Now in order to show a contradiction one must demonstrate that the situation requires A and Not A existing at the same time in the same relation. Any, and I do mean, any, plausible explanation eliminates the contradiction. A cut and dried contradiction would be the Quran claiming that the universe was created in six days and then claiming it was created in 8 days. While you might not like the explanations, the fact that any plausible one exists means that a logical contradiction does not.

[ladsin]

Possible does not mean plausible though. All of these 5 explanations are not at all plausible.

[Jack_L_andTurn]

Even if you do not grant plausible, possible actually still eliminates the contradiction. A true contradiction requires an impossibility.

[ladsin]

Ugh no. Is the pixie hypothesis of why we keep our feet to the ground possible? If so does that mean it's not in contradiction to the theory of gravity?
Possibility is something that we tend to grant to all things, hence the phrase "all things are possible."
The case that we have here is in chapter 16 David is in Saul's employ and they know each other. Further, Saul knows who both David and his father Jesse are. Then in Chapter 17 he does not know these things. In any other text we would just say, "Ah, that's a contradiction, we probably have two traditions here, no big deal", but it's only with the holy texts that people act dissimilarly.

[winterfox10]

I always get a kick out of reading things like this. You talk about the apparent contradiction between Saul and David meeting and knowing each other, but then you've taken lines out of scriptural and social context. Back in the days that these books were written, last names weren't a thing. Just before David goes to kill Goliath, he and Saul are discussin

[winterfox10]

Discussing the battle about to take place. The fact they are discussing the battle at all would imply a familiar relationship. In those days, you would address someone by their first name, and if people needed addition identification, you would say, "son/daughter of..." I would be Daniel, son of Ken, for example. In a servant's relationship to a king, that distinction wouldn't be addressed. So when Saul was impressed by how David handled himself in battle, Saul asked who he was son of, as a way to determine if he was related to a gifted warrior.

[winterfox10]

I'm not even Christian, and I know that your argument is poorly researched at best. You can't be cherry picking bits of scripture, man. If you're going to take issue with an idea, take issue with the whole idea.

[ladsin]

You like to make some assertions that aren't at all evidenced in the text. Your interpretation makes very little sense. Why then, pray tell, is Saul asking Abner who Daniel is then? You also seem to be confused about how Daniel and Saul met in Chapter 17. In chapter 17 Daniel is getting into an argument with soldiers because they are being cowards. Then, " 31 What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him" There's nothing here explicitly nor implicitly that would lead one to the conclusion that Saul and David knew each other before this exchange. To presume so is just a marker of bias, not of anything within the text of 17.

I also find it interesting that you've come up with your own apologetic that even apologetic websites aren't aware of...

[winterfox10]

My apologetic sounds different, because I am explaining the text of the Bible from the perspective that it is being written. The people writing those scrolls are doing it with the understanding that some things are common knowledge, which as you are demonstrating: is not always the case.

If you read the actual text out of the bible, across most every translation (that I clicked on, at least), you'll observe that Abner and Saul talk about whose son David is, as a means of identifying him. As you stated in your take, the first mention of Saul and David meeting is in the prior chapter; where Saul chooses David to be an armor bearer (which would really be a vague job description, entailing a lot of different things). This encounter is NOT the same as Saul and David having a heart to heart. This would be like you paying a few neighborhood kids to help you do some yardwork, and you're so impressed by one of them, that you offer to keep paying him for chores in the future.

[winterfox10]

David is reported to Saul for calling the men cowards. Saul meets with David who is very much still his subordinate, and gives David the chance to prove himself, in part, because of the fact that David has been Saul's Armor Bearer.

So in my yardwork analogy. Imagine that the kid you've selected to keep doing chores for you has gotten into an argument with other kids you've hired, because they won't stop complaining about how hot it is, so he calls them whiny. When you ask him why he called the other kids whiny, he says that he's not worried about the heat, and that he'll take out a big stump in the mid day heat, by himself.

So you tell him to do it, and sure enough, he does. After he finishes, you're so impressed with his work ethic, that you turn to your loving wife and you ask her if she knows which neighbor's kid he is.

[ladsin]

Which translation are you reading that says David is an armor-bearer for Saul in 16 or 17?

"here Saul chooses David to be an armor bearer"

[markscott]

If you don't understand that the bible is often not written in chronological order, even when it appears to be on the surface, then you will find many seeming contradictions, that are not contradictions.

[ladsin]

Which sections are you thinking of within 1 Samuel?

[markscott]

ladsin: I'm not thinking of any particular section of 1 Samuel. I'm referring the bible in general.

[ladsin]

Oh well yeah. You can’t take different books and compare them. For example the gospels obviously are different versions of the same story. They aren’t in chronological order, but within each gospel they’re in chronological order.

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

Yeah, whatever you say. You are so apt to point out apparent contradictions in the Bible but you'll never do an article that uplifts the Bible because you are so adamant on mocking the Bible.

[ladsin]

Uh what?

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

Why don't you do an article about some positive things in the Bible?

[ladsin]

Plenty of people do that all the time and it doesn't hold my interest. If you want to do something like that feel free to do so.

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

You're bias against the Bible.

[ladsin]

Uh. Why’s that? Am I biased against the Quran because I think it says abhorrent things and is full of contradictions?

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

You are bias against the Bible because you as an acclaimed 'atheist', which doesn't exist, will only point and pick out bad things you see in the Bible and not focus on the healthy and good things in it.

[ladsin]

Right right. I don’t exist. I’m just another voice in your head.

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

I didn't say you didn't exist. I said atheists don't exist. Why would you assume that I am lying and mock me that I can't know they can't. The Bible says they don't exist, yet you expect me to believe you over the Bible. How freaking arrogant. You're like AronRa, Daniel Dennett, Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris.

I bet you didn't expect me to know who those men were, eh?

[ladsin]

I'll take that as a compliment

[jacquesvol]

Saul was jealous of Jonathan

[ladsin]

Because they did gay stuff

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I gave you a clear explanation and you still write this Mytake... smh

[OfDeath]

Yep. The Bible is largely bullshit.

[Anonymous]

like always
you make yourself look stupid

go be a troll lol

[Penelope_]

Good take!