Talk:Saul

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 13 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Craigcullen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

They probably chose from Benjamin because they didn't want to risk civil war between the larger tribes like Judah or Manasseh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.151.9 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They chose Saul because he was God's choice when they wanted a king, and in the usual tradition of God in anointing this that is considered insignificant by humans, God's choice was of the most unimportant tribe and of one of the most unimportant men -- all according to the Bible. All other ideas are just speculations by people who do not want to accept what the Bible claim and should only be mentioned if there are any significant scholar or a significant number of scholars that hold on to it.--KMA "HF" N (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason he was not from Reuben was because Reuben was rejected by his father Israel on his death bed, for having sex with his stepmother. The three children of Israel that were most loved, and given the greatest blessings were Joseph (who was sold into slavery in Egypt, saved the land from famine, multicolored robes, et cetera), Judah (described as the ruler of his brothers, he was the only one of the four eldest sons of Israel who was not rejected, Simon and Levi were cursed for murdering all the people of Shechem after one of them raped their sister Dinah), and Benjamin (who was the youngest and Israel's favorite) not surprisingly the three royal houses first chosen to rule the Israelites was the House of Saul from the tribe of Benjamin, the House of David from the tribe of Judah, and the House of Jeroboam from the tribe of Ephraim (Joseph). Later the Samarians chose kings from other tribes including Issachar.--Newmancbn (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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) --RekonDog writes:
I added the story on why Saul was anointed as King, as per reference in the Old Testament. Hope this fixed the problem.
RekonDog (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

First King of Israel Saul Arabic Talut

Investigating the scriptures one will find that many a word is only symbolic. Is he tall, was he tall or does it simply mean he stood out of a crowd, is it a sign of his status etc... this is what should be investigated. I've recently gone under deep investigation and study into the holy scriptures. The same with the Ark of the Covenant, people are searching for it and looking everywhere but only found dust and rock so one should return to the scriptures for the answer with questions such as what is an ark what is the covenant etc... I look at everyones comments and take a deeper look so I can find the missing links, I wonder what your views are on the article I've recently read just google tabut al sakina and ahron harbeit.

Bipolar?

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

"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)

Saul was definitely "anointed" and was one of the only kings of Israel, Samaria, or Judah to be so. The Israelites record a ritual in their texts where they pour olive oil scented with flowers (one of which may have been cannabis 'qaneh bosem') on high priests and kings. Only Saul, David, Solomon, and some of the kings of Judah were given this ceremony according to the Tanakh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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.

Could you please give a reference to where you read that Agag was a parent of Saul? I know that Kish was the father of Saul, it is stated many times, but Agag is usually the name of the king of the Amalekites, whom Saul was supposed to kill but was let alive. Agag was then killed by Samuel. The evil Haman in the Book of Esther is by some traditions or interpretations said to be a descents of that Agag. But I cannot remember that I have ever read that Agag was the name of Saul's mother. --KMA "HF" N (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Republican Source?

fairly sure there is no such thing, this is some kind of joke. Please find correct Biblical source and change back. J, E, D, P. There is no R that I'm aware of in Biblical redaction studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.146 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Merciful?

Saul opposed to killing the children because he viewed it as evidence of God’s distrust in Israel’s faith and dedication to performing God’s will. (Children were not considered worth killing by themselves but Saul was disappointed that God was afraid that Israel would fail to kill some of the men if they were told to kill only the men.)

Saul opposed the killing of the cattle because he thought he would need the cattle for an offering after killing the men, as prescribed by the Torah. He thought that the offering would be necessary because the men to be killed were innocent.

The paragraph is trying to attribute Saul’s actions to humanitarian motives, which is an anachronism.

--Yecril (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

The idea that the Israelites were led by a man named Jonathan is simply an ethnology - indicating that the Hebrews were a branch of Israelites (and distinct from the others), rather than that they were led by a son of the Israelite King.

I can't figure out what this means. 151.200.120.52 (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates of life and reign

An earlier version of this article gave different dates depending on the authority. The current exact dates, given without references, are probably too exact, and not verifiable without the sources. Generally, few dates of around 1000 B.C. can be given to the nearest year. JMK (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Witch of Endor and "Samuel"

Why is Samuel put in double-quotes in the Witch of Endor section? Is the New World Translation considered the definitive source for Wikipedia? This is the only translation that I know of that portrays Samuel in double-quotes.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Historicity

Is Saul considered a historical figure? The article doesn't touch on this question at all, merely presenting the Biblical account as fact in its leading paragraph. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I could find one reference that called the entire existence of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) into question; from what I read earlier about the origin of the biblical stories, they don't contain verified historical accounts until ca. the Babylonian captivity, 7th century BCE. The rest of the article still seems to present the biblical account as a credible source with no backing from serious history or archeology, which is reason enough for a {{Religious text primary}} tag. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 00:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Qwertyus:I do not think the statement about the existence of Saul and the Kingdom of Israel being called into question by scholars is necessary. Firstly, while archeology has not found direct proof of the united monarchy of Saul, there as been nothing found which disproves it, in fact, every archeological discovery that pertains to the Israelites has agreed with the Hebrew Bible on issues like who their kings were and what they did and when they lived. Secondly, the beginning of the article already states "according to the Hebrew Bible" so the reader knows the information about this person comes from the Tanakh (which leads to my next point about the Qur'an being mentioned) which should indicate to the reader this is a figure from an ancient religious text who may or may not have been as he is represented in the text. On the subject of archeology, it appears that if the Hebrews did make up stories, they did accurately record the names of their kings and major historical events. We have an explicit reference to the Samarian king Omri in the Mesha stele and his son Jehu in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. See this wiki for more artifacts. The archeological record verifies Israelite history far before the Babylonian exile. The oldest secondary source for the existence of the Israelites outside of the Hebrew Bible is the discovery of 140 hill top settlements that crop up in 1200 BCE in Judea and Samaria that have no pig bones, and a more simplistic, Arabian form of pottery compared to the elaborate Greek and Egyptian influenced pottery of the Philistine and Canaanite colonies. The next sources would probably be the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha stele. The Balaam inscription seems to prove the Israelites were around during the time of this prophet Balaam, due to their having mentioned him in their Torah. Some scholars maintain that the Ipuwer Papyrus from 1400 BCE, thought perhaps to be the Egyptian story of the exodus of the Hyksos out of Egypt in the 14th century BCE, is the actual historic origin for the exodus story in the Torah. We have references in the Mesha stele for example of the House of Israel, and other ancient obelisks and steles mention the House of David, so we have extra-biblical sources dating back to the divided monarchy in the First Temple period, to the time of the Kingdom of Samaria and the Kingdom of Judah. We do not found any obelisk or stele that mentions Saul, but why would they, he only supposedly ruled Israel for a few decades before the throne was apparently usurped by David. We have direct proof the Israelites existed in 1200 BCE Palestine. We have direct proof they had two kingdoms, Judah and Samaria, which evolved eventually into the Jews and Samaritans of antiquity and today. We know that since they booth share the text of the Torah, they must have had a common origin, and at one time were a single nation, not two, so it is very probable there was indeed a united Kingdom of Israel at one time, but its existence for now must be based on deduction from relevant artifacts, since direct proof of the united Kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon has not yet been found. Again as I said though, why would it, since the united monarchy only existed during the lifetimes of those three previously mentioned men. In addition to this the archeological record of obelisks and steles and things becomes very thin before about 850 BCE in the Near East, making it even more difficult to find evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 August 2014‎

Newmancbn has been blocked for nonconstructive editing, but for the record, I'll answer. There being no disproof of Saul's kingdom/kingship/existence does not mean religious texts are suddenly reliable sources for historical events. The archaeological evidence pertaining to other events/persons is purely circumstantial. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To tell

"He was marvelously handsome; and the maidens who told him concerning Samuel (cf 1 Samuel 9:11-13) talked so long with him that they might observe his beauty the more (Ber. 48b)."

"To tell" is a transitive verb; it requires a direct object. In the sentence quoted, "maidens...told him", there's no thing that they told him. I'm not sure what meaning was intended; perhaps the sentence is out of context, and there was something said earlier indicating what Saul was told. Perhaps the maidens simply discussed Samuel with Saul. Funfree (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they did. "To tell" can take a prepositional phrase, as in "tell me about it". No direct object there. I'm not sure if "telling somewhere concerning something" is proper English, though. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Qur'an is not considered by secular scholars to be a credible source for the life of Saul

Saul was an Israelite king in his lifetime not a Muslim king, he was retroactively labeled a Muslim prophet in the 7th century CE, nearly 1700 years after he is thought to have lived. The historical data regarding his life is from the Tanakh, not the Qur'an. Islam did not exist at the time of Saul, and would not exist for another 1700 years, so how can its religious texts be an authentic source of information on his life? The article said the historical sources are to be found in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an. What an absurd statement. While there are certainly scholars who dispute the veracity of the account of Saul's life in the Hebrew Bible, there is not a single scholar in the world, at least not a single secular and non-Muslim scholar, who holds that the Qur'an is even in the slightest, most remote way, a credible source of history on the life of this Hebrew king from the 10th century BCE. I will remind you the Qur'an was written in the 7th century CE, nearly 17 centuries after Saul was thought to have lived. Many extra-biblical myths regarding Saul's life are to found in the Talmud, but the article does not say the historical sources for his life are the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. So why should it say the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an? If any other religious texts of late origin are to be mentioned, shouldn't it be the Talmud, since Saul was a Jewish king? Or what about the New Testament since Christianity is the world's largest religion? He is mentioned in the New Testament as well, should the article say the historical sources for his life are the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament? Of course not. Why? Because the New Testament and the Talmud are not authentic historical sources for the life of this Hebrew king from the Tanakh. Neither is the Qur'an, written a full 6 centuries after the New Testament, and 4 centuries after the Mishnah. What is this great 'historical source' for the life of Saul we are to find in the Qur'an anyway? He is briefly mentioned in Sura Al Baqara by name in a total of 2 verses, where an ultra-simplified version of the Hebrew text is retold, it says: "And their prophet said unto those elders: "Behold, now Allah has raised up Saul to be your king." They said: "How can he have dominion over us when we have a better claim to dominion than he, and he has not even been given great riches?" The prophet replied: "Behold, God has exalted him above you, and endowed him abundantly with knowledge and physical perfection. And God bestows His dominion upon whom He wills: for God is infinite, all-knowing." It then goes on to give a shortened, and slightly confused, retelling of the story of Gideon and the test of the 300 soldiers, but the Qur'an conflates Saul and the 12th century Hebrew ruler Gideon into the same person, applying the story of Gideon in the Hebrew Bible to Saul. Wow, how staggeringly revealing, Muhammad truly had some amazing extra-biblical information that completely illuminates the entire life of Saul in an all new way. Lets compare this to the single mention of Saul in the New Testament, in the book of Acts it says: “After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years. After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’" This is roughly equivalent to the few half-researched verses thrown Saul's way in the glorious Qur'an. We know the authors of the New Testament and Muhammad were quoting from the Hebrew Bible regarding the life of Saul, they had no authentic extra-biblical sources. Christians and Muslims may believe their texts are divinely revealed, this however is a ruthlessly objective encyclopedia, not an interfaith dialogue and reconciliation conference. Our duty is to provide information objectively, even if that may offended the religious beliefs of some. I find it most offensive indeed, that a secular, unbiased, and non-religious encyclopedia would favor a single religious text beyond the actual sources, the original texts from antiquity, in order apparently to placate to one religious group. The Qur'an is already given its own section on Saul under 'Saul in Islam' it does not need to be falsely claimed this religious text of late origin is seen by scholars as some kind of authentic source for the life of Saul. The Qur'an is no more of an authentic source used by archeologists and scholars examining Saul's life than the Talmud is, or the New Testament, or Bahai scripture, or the Book of Mormon, or Druze texts are, I'm sorry.--Newmancbn (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

infobox

I removed the infobox today in this dif wiht edit note: "remove infobox. Saul is a quasi-fictional character; there are not "facts" about him we can put in an infobox. starting a discussion on Talk". So here it is. We cannot present facts about Saul in exactly the same way we do about Elizabeth II or Charlemagne or even Ghengis Khan. The lead itself says " The historicity of his kingdom has been called into question by historians" If there were some series of infoboxes called something like "Kings in the bible" so that the context was clearly literary/religious and stated as actual history, that would be a different story. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of ancient kings have very little evidence to support their reign, but have infoboxes on Wikipedia (I'm not saying that this automatically means Saul gets one, rather I'm merely establishing precedent). The "literary/religious" distinction as opposed to "actual history" is a false one, as "history" as we consider the term was not around then (arguably the Roman Empire is when a discipline that resembles modern history begins). Many ancient texts combine king lists, history (including what we now call mythology), and more literary-type passages together. See Yarim-Lim of Alalakh, Enlil-nadin-ahi, Ea-mukin-zeri, and Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina for examples of kings who are poorly documented yet have infoboxes.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

hmmm I cannot disagree with you more with regard to "The "literary/religious" distinction as opposed to "actual history" is a false one". This basically says a) history is actually not a scholarly discipline and b) Wikipedia is not a scholarly effort but we just throw whatever crap we can find in the blender and hit "spin". That is so offensive that I have to stop writing now. Will come back later. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that often, ancient texts involve multiple genres. The modern discipline of history is based off the written record, which by definition excludes literature. Ancient histories have no such standard. What this means is that you will find documents with written records and literature intertwined. Furthermore, even purely "written records" might have references to deities and mythology. This doesn't mean we should discount everything recounted in the document. As for Saul, I don't know what you find in the infobox that is very speculative or unsupported. The history given in the Hebrew texts is mostly written record - if you want to argue that most of it is fabricated, then that's fine. But that's different then claiming that it's literary in genre. Even if you discount most of the story written about him in Hebrew texts, the infobox has very basic information about his lineage, time of rule, and the like. If you notice, the infobox itself lists "possibly Gibeah" as his birth place, as this info is unclear. Finally, that historians question the existence of his kingdom is different then them questioning his very existence. If you can find that the vast majority of historians doubt that he even existed, then taking out the infobox might be a good idea.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

am very very aware of ancient histories and their genre (did about half of a PhD in hebrew bible). so you don't have to explain that. point is, there is zero extrabibical evidence that saul existed. zero. (if you are aware of any extrabiblical evidence, please provide the source) historians of ancient isreal build assumption upon assumption to posit potential dates when biblical figures (if they existed) may have been active. historians of ancient israel keep the "subjunctiveness" of these dates and figures clear and don't slip over into speaking factually, in the indicative. the flat factual statements in the infobox have no place in any reasonably scholarly text. No place. I could live with the infobox if there were more of the "possibly Gibeah" type of subjunctiveness in it (including Saul's historicity), but again, making this infobox exactly parallel to the one for Elizabeth II is ridiculous and has no place in WP.Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the "basic facts" are established using the appropriate standards, which are those of modern historiography. Odysseus doesn't have an infobox that states he was king of Ithaca, succeeding Laertes. Besides, even if Saul's existence were verified (which it isn't, at least in the given sources) but his kingship were not, then he shouldn't have the monarch infobox. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Qwertyus, for that example. That's the type of thing I was looking for - precedents on how ancient kings for whom there is little historical evidence outside literature are treated on Wikipedia. Jytdog, I'm not an expert on Biblical history. The above section, Talk:Saul#Historicity, provides a reason for why he should be treated as an historical figure. Whether the infobox is kept or not, we should be consistent and remove it from all the Israeli kings for whom there is no extra-biblical evidence.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

i'm good with removing it from all, but this is the only one i am watching. so - we are all agreed to delete it here? (I don't want to be hasty) Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good for some other editors besides us three to make that judgement.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The question that I think should be answered before we agree to remove is, "is there any reason that, per current historical consensus, that the information conveyed in the infobox is historically inaccurate or not accepted as factual?"--¿3family6 _contribs 23:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

we have consensus enough of present discussers, which is good enough to move for now. one can fuss forever. deleted it. let's see what pops! Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

btw Newmancbn who provided the very long answer above was active here for about three days before he was topic banned from all things religious for being a completely out of control, disruptive editor. he did not understand anything about how WP works and what he wrote is entirely discountable. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hence the phrase"

The phrase "hence the phrase" appears twice in the text of the article. What is meant by it? The phrase "Saul among the prophets" originates from this bible verse? Or that one? What does the phrase mean today, anyway? --192.114.88.248 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Universally vs. generally accepted

Jytdog, I'm not sure if this revert does what you intended. The text said "not universally accepted", which is actually a weaker claim than "not generally accepted". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Source doesn't state "generally", I read page 171.--Averysoda (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, "universally" is better. sorry. most scholars accept that Saul probably existed and a few don't. i think many details are not "generally accepted" as historical and it would be good to add something about that. Finkelstein supports that at the top of 172. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The article should mention historicity, but "The historicity of Saul's kingdom is not universally accepted.[1][3] The notion of a United Monarchy of Israel and Judah is probably a later ideological construct; statehood in Judah is thought, on the basis of archaeological evidence, to have emerged no earlier than the 8th century BCE.[1]" don´t seem to be a summary of anything in the body. How about making it a section there, like in Solomon (but shorter, at least for now)? Saul is clearly stated to be a biblical figure, so it may not be necessary to have historicity in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, old discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I do think historicity deserves a separate section, to be summarized in the lede. I just never got round to writing a full section about this. Finkelstein discusses the matter at length, and his treatment of the subject can be used as a basis. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! If you have the sources and want to expand "historicity" I support that 100%. Summary in the lead is ok too, David has it (sort of), Solomon don´t. I get the feeling that there is more written in sources about historicity of David, maybe because of the Tel Dan Stele etc. For now, I´m boldly moving the lead text to "historicity", I think it´s an improvement until there is something expanded to summarize. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Readability

I'm only part way through the page, made a lot of changes for readability. Hope it meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Very good work, thank you! – Fayenatic London 07:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Readability

Went through the main body of the text and re-wrote it for readability. Hope it meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

King of Israel

Ref recent revert. Why don't we say that Sul was king of the historical Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), and according to the Hebre Bible the first king of Israel (direct to Land of Israel, which is a religious construct)?Maureendepresident (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just follow what a reliable source says - any commentary on 1-2 Samuel should be ok.PiCo (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Talut be merged into Saul. Since they are both talking about the same person using different names in different cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerberuS (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I did this edit [3] and asked for input here [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Suicide?

I am an Arab Christian, King Saul should not commit suicide, in fact, was King David murder! --Raif Badawi (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. According to the books of Samuel (2 Sam. 31:4) and Chronicles (2 Chron. 10:4), Saul did commit suicide. Whether he should have done so is a different issue. - Lindert (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I know the history of insider, King Saul is not committed suicide, but by King David murder! --Raif Badawi (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Were you there when it happened? What is your source for claiming that David 'murdered' Saul? - Lindert (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Shift of Islamic information

Since there are indications of Talut being Gideon, I propose shifting it to the article of Talut.

That is, the main information. Leo1pard (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the length of reign

Here is an example of why Wikipedia policy asks us to be wary about using primary sources.

Finkelstein says:"Most scholars agree that the accession formula with regard to Saul in 1 Sam 13:1 (stating that he ruled Israel for 2 years) is garbled. Reviewing the sequence of events in Saul’s reign, especially his military exploits, scholars have come to the conclusion that he must have ruled for a significant number of years. Taking into account the number that does appear in the text, they speculate that the original number must have been 20 or 22 years of reign (summary in Edelman 1992: 992–93)." He also says, citing others, that the 40 years for Solomon and David are symbolic and that "Moreover, the sequential ordering of the three early Israelite monarchs may have been the work of a later redactor. From the text itself we cannot know for sure whether David ruled after Saul or whether their reigns overlapped".

A Westminster John Knox Press book, A Biblical History of Israel by Iain Provan, V. Philips Long and Tremper Longman, cites three different translations, saying "NRSV also reflects the common assumption that 13:1 must have lost numerals in two places or that the numerals were never entered in the first place. Numerals arc not entirely lacking, however, as the Hebrew text includes the numeral “two” for the length of Sauls reign. While some have argued that Saul’s reign may have lasted only two years26 (a view reflected in the JPS rendering above), this seems highly unlikely for a number of reasons.27 NIV follows certain manuscripts of the LXX in making Saul “thirty” years old at his accession. But taken simply as it stands, the Hebrew text reads, “Saul was a year old [lit. son of a year] when he became king, and he reigned over Israel two years.” This yields an impossible sense, of course, unless we assume that the narrator is not speaking of Saul’s actual age at accession and actual length of reign, but of something else—for example, perhaps a year passed between Saul’s anointing, when he was “turned into a different person” (1 Sam. 10:6), and his confirmation as king (11:15-13:1); and perhaps two years passed from the time of Saul’s confirmation to his definitive rejection by God in chapter 15. As we shall see when we come to Saul’s reign, after chapter 15 Saul is no longer rightful king in God’s eyes, though he clings to the throne for some years.29 As to the actual length of Saul’s reign, the only biblical statement comes in Acts 13:21 (“Then they asked for a king; and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for forty years”). However, the phrase “who reigned” is not present in the Greek text of Acts 13:21, and it may well be that “forty years” refers to the administrations of both Samuel and Saul (just as the “450 years” in Acts 13:20 seems to refer to the time in Egypt, the wilderness wandering, and at least the start of the conquest of Canaan (w. 17-19] or, according to the Byzantine textual tradition, to the period of judges up to, but not including, Samuel).30 On the basis of logic and what indirect biblical evidence is available, a reign of about twenty years would seem to make sense for Saul."[5] Doug Weller talk 14:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get what the problem is the verse clearly says he reigned for 2 years just because someone doesn't like that length so he makes up a random number with no proof just his opinion and you can't bring a proof from the so called new testament as its made up and was written about 1000 years after Saul died.AmYisroelChai (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clearly say he reigned for two years. Various translations say various things.[6] In any case, we stick with what the secondary reliable sources say, that's the way Wikipedia works. No one made up a random number, that's pretty insulting and if you actually read the sources you'll see that they didn't. You can complain at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Im showing yiu the original hebrew וּשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, מָלַךְ עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל which means and two years he reigned over Israel and you see the parrallel by Rehoboam וּשְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִַם which means and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem

there is no other source other than the Torah itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmYisroelChai (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Torah is WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia is heavily based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. So, secondary sources (contemporary Bible scholarship) trump original research performed upon primary religious sources. To put it briefly, Torah is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That is idiotic because that would mean that I can't bring prove anything about Shakespeare's works from the works themselves. AmYisroelChai (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not idiotic, it is WP:PAG. Your choices are: (i) comply with our rules or (ii) be blocked and eventually banned from Wikipedia. Remember: the choice is yours. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Are accounts of Saul's death conflicting?

I made an edit to the section on Saul's death, removing the claim that the Bible gives conflicting accounts. This change was reverted by @Achar Sva:.

The Bible describes Saul's Death in Samuel 1, and then describes an Amelekite's claims about Saul's death in Samuel 2. Since Samuel two makes no claim about the veracity of the Amelekite's account, I removed the unsourced, OR statement that the Bible gives conflicting accounts. This leaves a well-structured paragraph, imho, that describes Samuel 1 as a direct claim of how it happenned, and Samuel 2 as a recounting of a report. The reader can decide for themselves if this is a true conflict.

Biblical scholars I have read believe that the Amelekite was lying. If we want to say the Amelekite is lying, I will add sources, but claiming that the accounts are contradictory would also need sources. -- Charles

I had already provided a WP:RS before you published the above on the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to tell you that the following are junk sources:

• How Did King Saul Die, accessed 28 May 2020
• HWhy are there contradictory accounts regarding the death of Saul in 1 and 2 Samuel?, accessed 28 May 2020
• How Did King Saul Die? Two Accounts Reconciled, accessed 28 May 2020

Those aren't WP:RS by any meaningful standard.

Meier, Samuel A. (2006). "The Sword. From Saul to David". In Ehrlich, Carl S.; White, Marsha C. (eds.). Saul in Story and Tradition. Mohr Siebeck. p. 160. ISBN 978-3-16-148569-5. 17. Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, ... This is a verbatim quote from the WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

But look at the context of the quote. Note that it is immediately followed by "The account told in 2 Samuel 3-10 is naturally suspect" --Bertrc (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bertrc: So, what's your point? It's verifiable that those are two conflicting accounts. One way or another, the biblical stories are conflicting, why they are conflicting is a different matter. Added two extra WP:RS:

• Nicholson, Ernest (February 2014). Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora. OUP Oxford. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-19-870273-3. What thematic purpose is served, however, and how is the 'unity' of the narrative advanced, by two conflicting accounts of Saul's death: what has a twofold account of this incident to do with the legitimizing of David and how does it place Saul in an 'unfavourable light'?
• Bregman, Lucy (2010). Religion, Death, and Dying. Vol. 3. ABC-CLIO. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-313-35180-8. The Bible is clear that King Saul died by suicide; however, it contains conflicting accounts of the particulars.

Those are verbatim quotes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As are mine. I can't access the actual pages you cited (I reached my limit on google, apparently) so I cannot see the context, but I trust you. I've tried to combine the two views. --Bertrc (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bertrc: We have a problem: we don't do WP:GEVAL between Energion Publications on one hand and Mohr Siebeck, Oxford University Press and ABC-CLIO on the other hand. I suggest to self-revert. Hushbeck is an engineer, all others I have cited are full professors in a relevant field. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: (and anybody else who has an opinion, here), while awaiting mediation, I've tried another compromise. --Bertrc (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Achar Sva: (and @Tgeorgescu: and anybody else who is interested), I totally get the change which removed the word "supposedly". However, do you actually have a problem with using "The report of Saul's death by an Amelekite in 2 Samuel conflicts with the narrated account in 1 Samuel" instead of "The Books of Samuel give conflicting accounts of Saul's death"? My issue with the latter phrasing is that (imho) it is not specific enough. The two conflicting accounts are not both narrated. As an analogy, imagine a fictional crime drama saying:

"Johnny picked up the boss' wife and dropped her off at work. The next day Oscar came to the boss and said Jeremey picked up the boss' wife."

Yes, those are two conflicting accounts of who picked up the boss' wife, but the novel is not giving the two conflicting accounts. Rather, the novel is giving one account about who picked up the boss' wife, and a separate account of a report about who picked up the boss' wife. Essentially, the second account is a story within the main story; it is at a different level than the first account. --Bertrc (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bertrc: The problem is that Wikipedians do not make the call; WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars make the call, see WP:CHOPSY. We kowtow to CHOPSY, not to our own original research. E.g. Meier does not take the text at face value, but approaches it skeptically, i.e. critically. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The basic rule (Wiki-rule) is that every controversial statement we make has to be directly supported by a reliable source. The paragraph in question is very light on sourcing - there are three (which is overkill) at the end of the first sentence, and thereafter none. The three sources all call the two versions of Saul's death "accounts", so that should be the word we use. On the wider question you raise here, you are assuming here that the 3rd person narrative must represent history, but it clearly isn't - history doesn't include large slabs of dialogue, and how was the omniscient author able to know how Saul died, given that nobody except Saul's enemies were present? Of course, the second version, the report of the Amalekite, answers that question - the Amalekite (who was fighting on Saul's side in the battle) was there and told David. Anyway, we have to rely on sources, and the sources say "accounts". Achar Sva (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your sentiment, though not your interpretation or application of it in this instance. Still, nobody else seems to care, so I will take two against one to be consensus (and, honestly, I am already too exhausted by the what we are going through in the U.S. to be drawn into another ridiculous argument) --Bertrc (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Death (survival?) of Mephibosheth

The final paragraph of the section (1.1) House of King Saul states "The only male descendant of Saul to survive was Mephibosheth, Jonathan's lame son (2 Samuel 4:4), who was five years old at the time of his father's and grandfather's deaths. In time, he came under the protection of David (2 Samuel 9:7–13)." This contradicts the previous paragraph, which states "The Gibeonites told King David that only the death of seven of Saul's sons would compensate them for losing their livelihood after the priests at Nob were killed by Saul (2 Samuel 21:1-6).[5] David accordingly handed them Armoni, Mephibosheth, and five of Saul's grandsons (the sons of Merab and Adriel son of Barzelli)[6] to the Gibeonites, who killed them (2 Samuel 21:8–9). The Gibeonites killed all seven, and hung up their bodies at the sanctuary at Gibeah (2 Samuel 21:8-9)."

From the limited research I have done (reading verses from 2 Samuel), it seems that originally David had protected Mephibosheth, but later handed him (with six others) to the Gibeonites, who executed all seven (and the chronology of verses supports this). But the way the material is presented, the final paragraph contradicts the previous one.

EDIT: Somehow, I missed the fact that there were two Mephibosheths! One being Saul's son, the other being Saul's grandson (son of Jonathan). I was wondering how nobody caught this "error" before! That's what happens when you try to make "corrections" in the wee hours of the morning!

73.59.111.130 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Unclear attribution

I found this quote in the "Classical Rabbinic views" section: In Sheol, Samuel reveals to Saul that in the next world, Saul would dwell with Samuel, which is a proof that all has been forgiven him by God (Er. 53ba).

I don't know what "Er. 53ba" means. There's no reason to abbreviate the names of books or references to such an extreme degree. This makes it difficult for people who don't know the name of every single piece of Rabbinic literature, and the References and Bibliography sections aren't really helping. It would be wonderful if somebody more knowledgeable could spell out the names of all referenced books so that it's easier to find the references. It should not be challenging to follow a reference. --Señorsnazzypants talk 05:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dating Saul's death to the 10th century Shoshenq invasion?

The first reference given is to a (as always very interesting) article from Israël Finklestein, where he is suggesting that the death of Saul could have happened at the time of the invasion of Pharao Shoshenq around 925 BCE. I wonder how this article has been received in the archaeological community. Anyone has anything on that?

Personally I think it is reaching a bit to far, given the fact the invasion by Shoshenq was clearly an major event that lived on in memories. It was used by the writers of the Deutorological history as a means to explain how al the wonderful wealth of Solomo had disappeared (clearly not historical, if true it would have been the major prize of this campaign and in the Egyptian report of the expedition Jeruzalem is not even mentioned as a place of interest). Also the difference between being killed by Phillistines or by Egyptians seems a bit unlikely.

But at a somewhat earlier point in time, say right in the middle of the 10th century, the plot might work out very well, with Phillistines still going strong and probably opposing Saul's expansion to the north, putting pressure on their trading routes from Megiddo via Bet Shean to the east. David and Saul would then have been contemporary 10th century tribal leaders of proto-kingdoms, with the early Israelite kingdom of the north somewhat later taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the Egyptian retrait after Shoshenq expedition (having destroyed many Phillistine settlements). A power struggle in this area (disrupting the important old trade route between Egypt and Mesopotamia) might even have triggered the Egyptians to move in to restore the peace. So a Phillistine intervention to end the expansion of Saul's proto-kingdom could all in all be historical, which would make the parts on Saul's war in the north and David's raids in the south maybe the only historical relicts between the highly fictional stories of the united kingdom of David and Solomo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"many Phillistine settlements" While the Philistines have been connected to other areas, the main narrative about them limits their presence to "the five city-states of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath". I am not certain whether there is record of their material culture in a wider area.

As for David, the Biblical narrative depicts him for a while as a mercenary serving the Philistines, specifically serving Achish, the King of Gath. His mercenary army supposedly consisted of 600 warriors. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

David and Jonathon's relationship?

The page when I found it claimed under the subsection 'Saul and David' that:

Saul's son Jonathan and David become close friends. Jonathan recognizes David as the rightful king, and "made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul."

I wanted to provide some more information by changing the line too:

Saul's son Jonathan and David form an immediate bond, a connection held by the Church to be completely platonic. Progressive analysts, however, point to the story of David and Jonathan as one of homosexual lovers. Jonathan recognizes David as the rightful king, and "made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul."

My edit was undone on the grounds that, "this section is for the literal meaning of the biblical narrative, not modern interpretations."

Isn't close friends an interpretation as well, just older? Is there a way to rephrase this? I think the existence of the separate Wiki page on the relationship between the two justifies the extra information given

Taurterus (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Dating of Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) vs dating of Saul

I'm trying to keep the Kingdom of Israel infobox consistent with the text, but am reverted because of the dating of Saul, which in any case shouldn't have an exact date yet also say ". His reign, traditionally placed in the late 11th century BCE,". Doug Weller talk 12:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Greetings, There have been 1,302 editors and 306 watchers on what I am sure is a very visited page. If someone could take the time to visit the last five paragraphs of the "Saul and David" subsection and the first paragraph of the "Battle of Gilboa and the death of King Saul" subsection. There are unsourced sentences, paragraphs, and content added after a citation which is unsourced.

The beginning of the "Biblical criticism" section states, "There are several textual or narrative issues in the text, including the aforementioned conflicting accounts of Saul's rise to kingship and his death, as well as plays on words, that biblical scholars have discussed." This is unsourced and begs "which" biblical scholars.

The "Name" subsection contains "In explanation of the name, exegetes such as Tha'labi hold that at this time, the future King of Israel was to be recognised by his height; Samuel set up a measure, but no one in Israel reached its height except Ṭālūt (Saul)", that is unsourced.

These issues directly affect the B-class criteria #1. Thank, -- Otr500 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Finkelstein on the Historicity of Saul

"The historicity of Saul's kingdom is not universally accepted" [Ref: Finkelstein, Israel (2006). "The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity". In Amit, Yairah; Ben Zvi, Ehud; Finkelstein, Israel; et al. (eds.). Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman. Eisenbrauns. pp. 171 ff. ISBN 9781575061283. Retrieved 2016-03-02.] - But Finkelstein supports his historicity: "I believe that the evidence resulting from these four considerations proves the Saulide regime to be historical in its main framework, though not necessarily in details" (Finkelstein 172) - Eroica (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Eroica (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why the infobox

If Saul isn't known for sure to be historical, why the infobox with the exact dates, etc? Yo bailaba (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Solid point. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow clear guidelines

We should be on the clear on this issue by now, and significant article such as this should be edited by following WP:LEADIMAGE as explained in WP:PORTRAIT. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus to include an image in the infobox in this article. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)