Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[14]: Methods in biblical scholarship (Peter)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[14]: Methods in biblical scholarship (Peter)
  • Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 12:29:08 -0500


Dear Ian,

You are confusing me by discussing the same matter in two different
threads. I have said enough on most of these points in another posting
with the verse reference in the subject line. Just a few more comments
below.

Happy New Year,

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[13]: Methods in biblical scholarship (Peter)
Author: <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date: 31/12/1999 19:47


Dear Peter,

This is getting worse. You go from sad to sadder with your third attempt to
explain away the conflict in accounts of Saul's death. This time you say
forget about the writer's understanding of the situation totally, forget
the cohesion in verses 6 & 7 totally as they were not part of the assumed
"eye witness account" (you wanna justify that enormous assumption?)...

PK: With pleasure. The author or narrator (or plural if you prefer) of 1
Samuel 31 is presenting an account of the battle on mount Gilboa, of
certain events which took place and could only have been known by an eye
witness (him/herself or another). S/he is thus presenting this as an eye
witness account. Either this is an eye witness account or it is a work of
fiction written as if it were an eye witness account. That is all that I
meant.

<snip>

This is not actually stated in 1 Samuel 31:4-5 - especially
if M"T may be a participle not a QATAL form, as Dave has
pointed out.

It might be interesting to see a few examples of this hypothesized
participle from elsewhere in the OT/HB. (-:

PK: GEN 20:3; 48:21; 50:5,24; EXO 12:30; 14:30; 21:34,35,36; LEV
21:11; NUM 6:6,9; 12:12; 19:11,13,16,18; DEU 4:22; 14:1; 17:6; 25:5,6;
26:14; JDG 3:25; 4:22; RUT 4:5,5,10,10; 1SA 24:15; 2SA 9:8; 14:2;
16:9; 1KI 3:20,22,22,23,23; 14:11,11; 16:4,4; 21:24,24; 2KI 4:32; 8:5;
20:1; 23:30; PSA 31:13; ECC 9:4; ISA 38:1; JER 16:7; 22:10; 28:16; EZK
18:18,32; 44:25. Enough?

Isn't it time, Peter, to face the fact that we have two *written*
sources that an editor of Samuel has used?

PK: Well, even NPL and I agree that that is not a necessary
conclusion. NPL wrote: "[The Amalekite] is in the eyes of the narrator
a foreigner and lies, of course, and is punished because of his
stupidity. There is not even an inner narrative problem." NPL and I
are now agreed that the simplest solution is that the Amalekite was
lying. Isn't it time to face the fact that he just might have been?

Cheers,


Ian





  • Re[14]: Methods in biblical scholarship (Peter), peter_kirk, 01/01/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page