They look great and are very nicely priced.

Robert said
The Sea Peoples
  

Since the arc of the thread is turning in this direction absolutely don't miss archeologist Eric Cline's fascinating books:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

&

** you do not have permission to see this link **

In the late Bronze Age you had a network of advanced interdependent civilizations around the Mediterranean.   And in slightly more than a century the whole thing was swept away.   Egypt survived, enfeebled. A Dark Age began in Greece that lasted dang near a thousand years.  The mysterious Sea Peoples were part of this.   You can't resist doing a "what if?"  if these civilizations had survived unmolested and been able to advance further might we have had some sort of "Classical Civilization" a thousand years earlier?

** you do not have permission to see this link **

I'll get that straightaway. 

I finished I and II Samuel probably about two weeks or so ago in Alter's translation, so all the characters are still kind of on my mind. 

I admit a certain sympathy for Saul even though I know my sympathies are supposed to lie with David.

By the way, I came across ** you do not have permission to see this link ** when looking about to see what I could find on the Philistines.

The author suggests that to his Hellenized, Greek speaking audience, Saul most clearly resembles the image of the classical Hero.  In his portrait of Saul, Josephus accentuates all those qualities of the Hero most relatable to his audience.  Saul has a noble birth and is physically beautiful. He possesses the four cardinal virtues of character - wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice.  Saul demonstrates piety towards God and towards his family.

But what about Saul's negative qualities? The Saul we meet in 1st Samuel is hardly uncompromised.  He is overcome with madness and jealousy; he is brutal and cowardly.  We have to remember that our image of a dispassionate, objective historian is a modern invention, millennia away from Josephus, who embellishes, edits and redacts 1st Samuel freely in service of his agenda.   One striking example is Josephus' almost clinical description of Saul's madness, explaining it like a medical disorder being treated by his physicians!  Josephus is not alone in his method, being found somewhere between the Talmudic Rabbis, who whitewash Saul, and Pseudo-Philo, who goes out of his way to vilify him.

Saul is a fascinating character.  It's always been easy to find the Saul you want to find. Arguments about his character go all the way back to the sources of 1st Samuel itself.  I have a certain portrayal I prefer and if it does not align in all its particulars with our surviving sources, weeelll, I can take inspiration from Josephus, who found the Saul he wanted to find and let his imagination do the rest.

Yes I thought I had said I did. I was already pretty familiar with Baden's work and I find it very compelling. My point is that starting out with the historical approach can prevent the reader from appreciating a work of literary art.  I have the same attitude towards the gospels. These are acts of literature. Let them work their magic and then analyze them historically.  Homer's Trojan War probably has a historical core but that's not the place to start. My prejudice is art first, history second.

A lot depends on who's doing the writing and who is doing the publishing.

Today, anyone with a keyboard and a computer can write and publish.

Not so in the ancient world and in most of history.

When the only texts that one has are written by the slanderers, does one save them and hang onto them, because they are the only texts that one has?

Getting down to who wrote the texts in the first place can be very interesting and quite revealing.

Stephen said

Robert said
The best way to avoid wobbly knees is to focus on the text that we have. Were you able to listen to Joel's video?

Yeah but if someone produces my hypothetical King Saul movie they're going to have to make some choices. I would depict King Saul as a tragic figure undone by the prophet Samuel, resentful of his loss of power when the people preferred a King over Samuel's cozy little theocracy, and by the ambitious, upstart, traitorous, popinjay David.  Fundamentalist heads will be exploding all over the land.   

I would like to see this movie!

But there are definitely sources in the narrative sympathetic to Saul.

Sounds like you're on the right track; now try and get past your squeamishness and wobbly knees and take the next step.

I found a cheap used copy of this very interesting book - Saul in Story and Tradition  - that does a good job of sussing out the strains of the text.   

Well, are you going to read it on or would you like me to read it for you?

I ask again: have you had a chance to listen to the Joe Baden Video? I'm looking forward to your impressions of his approach. 

Robert said
The best way to avoid wobbly knees is to focus on the text that we have. Were you able to listen to Joel's video?
  

Yeah but if someone produces my hypothetical King Saul movie they're going to have to make some choices. I would depict King Saul as a tragic figure undone by the prophet Samuel, resentful of his loss of power when the people preferred a King over Samuel's cozy little theocracy, and by the ambitious, upstart, traitorous, popinjay David.  Fundamentalist heads will be exploding all over the land.   But there are definitely sources in the narrative sympathetic to Saul.  I found a cheap used copy of this very interesting book - ** you do not have permission to see this link ** - that does a good job of sussing out the strains of the text.