if history is always written by the victors, can a more objective history be written?
if these stories are read as propaganda for David’s right to the throne, does Saul have any justification for pursuing David? might Saul have had other motivations than those presented in the text?
how successful was the author in presenting the history of David's rise from a pro-David perspective? how might a pro-Saul author have told the story?
what modern examples of history are written from a particular viewpoint? (almost all: Falklands/Malvinas war in 1982, U.S. Civil War (cf. Jefferson Davis’ The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government), history of Third Reich written by contemporary Germans vs. William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, history of the modern state of Israel and their interactions with the Palestinians) - discuss these and other examples you can think of
when reading historical descriptions, always think about the viewpoint of the author—Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent & other books, argues that modern media in the West almost always articulates the viewpoint of the capitalist elites of society, who own most media outlets—what do you think about his claim?