Bad chronology - Samuel, Saul and David

by Jeffro 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  According to 1 Samuel 13:1, in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, Saul ruled for two years (assuming Saul actually existed at all, for which there is no hard evidence). However, various [Christian] translators assume this 'must' be an error because Acts 13:21 says Saul reigned for forty years. Saul's age at 1 Samuel 13:1 is conveniently missing from the oldest manuscripts. (Josephus twice gives the length as 20 years, thouge one instance is altered to add up to 40 in many translations.)

  1 Samuel 8:1 says that before Saul became king, Samuel was already old, and had adult sons who were to be appointed as judges, but they were deficient and there was outcry for a king to be appointed instead. So Samuel, in a hurry because of his already advanced age, anoints Saul as Israel's first king. Before Saul becomes king, Samuel is "old and gray" (1 Samuel 12:2)

  Shortly after Saul becomes king, he appoints various military positions, including his son Jonathan, who is implied to be at least 20 years old (Numbers 1:3). Saul soon offers an illegitate 'burnt offering' and is 'rejected' as king of Israel.

  According to 2 Samuel 4:2, David becomes king when he was 30 years old, and therefore wasn't even born until Saul had been king for ten years. Yet Samuel, who was already "old and gray" when Saul became king, apparently was in no hurry to appoint a replacement king after Saul was rejected. By the time the even older and grayer Samuel gets around to secretly anointing David, Saul had supposedly been king for about twenty-five years. And even then David doesn't actually become king for another 15 years after that, during some of which time a very very old Samuel goes into hiding with David (1 Samuel 19:18).

  Before David becomes king, Saul supposedly commits suicide (1 Samuel 31:4) and he is killed by an Amelekite (2 Samuel 1:10). If we are to believe Saul reigned for 40 years, and we assume Saul was as young as 15 when Jonathan was born, Saul would have to be in his mid 70s when he died on the battlefield.

  On the other hand, if 1 Samuel 13:1 is accepted for what it actually says, Saul actually only ruled for two years (assuming Saul actually existed at all), and would probably be in his 40s when he died. This would also make Jonathan much closer to David's age, likely with less than 10 years difference (with Jonathan more likely being the younger).
• 

  Comatose

  Interesting when you lift the veil on the bible and look at it candidly.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Thnx, Jeffro for posting this analysis. It certainly raises some interesting questions about the historical accuracy of the 'history' texts.
• 

  jgnat

  Forty works better with Hebrew numerology. You don't think these numbers were ever meant to be taken literally, do you?

  http://carm.org/gematria
• 

  Jeffro

  jgnat:

  You don't think these numbers were ever meant to be taken literally, do you?

  Assuming Saul existed at all, the "two" as given in 1 Samuel probably can be taken literally. The forty from 'Acts' is irreconcilable drivel.
• 

  Jeffro

  According to Josephus, "Saul reigned eighteen years while Samuel was alive". Josephus originally said Saul then ruled a further two years after Samuel died, but this is corrupted in translations of his work for no reason other than to make Acts sound correct.

  If we are to accept that Saul ruled for forty years, then by the time David was eight, not only had he been anointed by Samuel, but he had also killed Goliath (and a lot of other people), been and gone from Saul's household after Saul tried to kill him, and gone into hiding with Samuel in Naioth.

  If Saul ruled for twenty years, then David would be twenty-eight by the time Samuel died. Jonathan could have been in his twenties, and Saul in his forties when he died in battle. But then Jonathan would not have been old enough to have had a position in the army when Saul first started ruling.

  If Saul ruled for two years, David could still be twenty-eight when Saul first started ruling, Jonathan could still have been around twenty, and Saul could still have been in his forties when he died.

  So the twenty years assigned by Josephus and the length of reign given in Acts (and the 'correction' of Josephus to match Acts) are almost certainly both wrong.
• 

  Jeffro

  Note that if Acts 13:21 is interpreted as meaning that Saul was forty years old, either when he became king or when he died two years later, it can then be reconciled with 1 Samuel. However, problems remain for anyone with superstitious numerological requirements in 'biblical chronology' prior to Saul.

  The Watch Tower Society's whimsical notions (particularly in Awake!) about David being good friends with a much older Jonathan are unsalvageable.
• 

  Jeffro

  To reconcile the biblical account for Ish-Bosheth, either his age when he began to reign in Israel or his relationship to Saul is incorrect, or Saul was actually around sixty when he died (but still only reigned for about two years), and Jonathan would have been at least thirty-five (because he was older than Ish-Bosheth) when he died, depending on how long after Saul's death Ish-Bosheth began his two-year reign in the available 7-year period before David ruled over Israel.

  Ish-Bosheth is not named as one of Saul's sons where his children are listed at 1 Samuel 14:49-50, unless Ish-Bosheth is the same person as Ishvi.
• 

  Jeffro

  It should also be noted that the Bible never actually says Jonathan was older than Ish-Bosheth. This is only assumed because he is listed first at 1 Samuel 14:49. However, it is possible he is only listed first because he is a more prominent character in the account. But, the story is consistent with Jonathan being older than David (up to about 10 years older). There is not the latitude for Jonathan being as much as thirty years older than David.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Acts (of the Apostles) is recognised as providing stories that cannot be relied on. Which is of itself interesting, inasmuch as the WTS relies on Acts 15 for its authority.

  I have no knowledge of the matters you raise, so I wonder why you rely on the Hebrew text when the Greek is so much older. Is the Greek different to the MT?

  Doug