1. In my reading today of The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David, Randall Short says the following (on page 88):
Whatever hermeneutical approach one might prefer, we must recognize the simple fact that, unlike in the Apology of [Hattusili], in no place does [the History of David's Rise] or the biblical text give any explicit indication that its purpose is to justify David’s replacement (whether by usurpation or some other means) of Saul as Israel’s king. This recognition (re)opens the possibility that intents and purposes other than personal self-justification or apology might drive the reconstructed biblical source and present text, whichever one considers. Perhaps it may be appreciated as a story with theological significance and aims that transcend the mundane, personal function(s) assembled in the two approaches described above.
So far, I’m not entirely convinced that there’s no apologetic for David in I Samuel 16-II Samuel 5. I think there is a push in these chapters to convince the Saul-supporters in David’s kingdom that David did not usurp the kingdom by force from King Saul. In my opinion, there are embarrassing details about David in the History of David’s Rise (such as David fleeing to the Philistines) because a lot of people knew about them, and so David saw a need to address them, in some manner. Saul may not get a terrible rap in the History of David’s Rise because this document was addressed in part to Saul-supporters: Saul was portrayed, not as an evil person, but as one who lost his way. The not-so-negative portrayals of Saul and some of the embarrassing portrayals of David may be consistent with the History of David’s Rise being some sort of an apologetic for David, albeit different from the Apology of Hattusili.
But I agree with Randall that the “court apologetic” model has its weaknesses. Why present David as a person who is growing—as one who relies on himself at first, and comes to the point where he consults God more? Why not portray David as perfect at the outset? David’s growth in I Samuel 16-II Samuel 5 seems to be something we’d encounter in a document that aims to present a theological message, which is what Randall appears to be portraying the History of David’s Rise as. But couldn’t an apologetic portray David as human, so that its audience would identify with him? Or do people want their leaders to be more than human?
2. In my reading today of Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, Neusner says that the Mishnah “presents the Judaism which the Tannaim offered to the Jewish nation of the Land of Israel of their day—and which, in their day, in its wars against Rome, the Jewish nation rejected” (24).
3. I’m getting a little bored with Economics in One Lesson, but I’ll see it through to completion, I guess. In my reading today, Hazlitt explained supply and demand, and said it’s good for the market to be driven by what consumers want, rather than by what the government dictates.