"before any king ruled israel" and other anachronisms

I've been following this debate throughout the various threads and I understand anachronism argument you are trying to make. However, I believe in this case it does not prove that it was written after first king.Here's my reasoning.1) At the supposed time of writing, the authors would know that kingdoms did exist and that they (by definition) had kings.2) The authors expected that Israel would become a powerful nation/entity.3) Powerful nations typically had kings, so it falls that Israel would have kings at some time in the future.I don't think that this reading is out of the realm of possibility. If they were referring to something more obscure then the anachronism argument would have a lot more weight, but I would expect that it would have been pretty common knowledge at the time that powerful nations had kings. If you are suitably devout and 'know' that Israel will become a powerful nation, you would also expect that it would have kings.I know it's a bit weak, but it's not out of the realm of possiblity.