Normally I would expect that ALL are copies except the one original. Why assume more than one original? How many would have had the ability to write it all down anyway? That was the work of those trained for it. So such a record wouldn't have been set to parchment by just anyone.
This is percisely why I'd assume that there was more than one original. We're talking about a time when parchment (if there even was any) was extremely rare.
Isn't that odd reasoning? Its being so rare should mean that one original would be quite enough, and copies would be made only as the original wore out. I haven't read up on all this enough but I think this work was kept among the prophets and priests, and wasn't for informing people but for keeping a record, which records got read to the people on some occasions. But there was no temple in the time of Samuel so I don't know how this all worked out.
News of the victory would have to spread all across the land. It would not be spread by people writing down messages and sending them, especially if so few people could read and write.
It would be spread by messangers who ride out and tell people what happened. Or by caravans travelling to remote places to trade good and bringing the news along with them.
That's how oral traditions spread.
Well in this case it probably just traveled by ordinary word of mouth rather than special messenger. But that wouldn't have been the basis for the written report in any case. The writing would have been done from eyewitness accounts.
6 feet makes no sense no matter what. Especially not if King Saul was 6 ft tall.
I assume you are getting this from 1 Samuel 9:2 - "His son Saul was the most handsome man in Israel--head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the land."
Probably from some memory of some commentator's having worked it all out.
Was Saul 6ft? Maybe. Was he the most handsome man in Israel? Maybe. Do people tend to exagerate the heroes and villans when they are telling stories absolutely.
In this case there is a lesson in Saul's height and good looks, about how people will choose such superficial qualities for their king instead of spiritual qualities, and Saul ends up being a complete failure from God's point of view. It's not your typical hero tale by any means, {abe: or a hero tale at all, but a teaching ABOUT hero tales, and ultimately an exposure of the clay feet of this "hero" and of the foolishness of hero worship itself.} How tall he was depends upon how tall the average man was, and none of this is known, but that he was taller from the shoulders up than all the people there is no reason to doubt.
Did they hold a beauty contest where they brought every man in Israel together and judged that Saul was the prettiest? I certainly don't think so.
Scripture says God Himself chose him, Nugg, {abe: by directing him into the hands of Samuel the prophet, whom God had prepared to recognize him as the king He had chosen} and this was to demonstrate ultimately that what the people value is not what He values, as Saul had no aptitude whatever for being a godly king, though he made a good warrior.
In oral traditions height = power. Look to Greek mythology as an example. All the heroes and monsters are taller than normal people.
That would figure. God knew what would please the taste of the people as to how their king should look.
Saul could have been 5'5", in legend he's still going to be "heads and shoulders" above the rest.
Uh huh. Well, if this were legend I'd agree with you, but this is reality and God knew what would make the people happy, a tall handsome king. That's the way people are, right? But it isn't what God wants, and that's the point of the whole thing.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-03-2006 04:39 PM
™ Version 4.2