1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Fri Dec 31 18:39:41 EST 1999


At 15.19 31/12/99 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
>Grammatically, the verse taken in isolation could go either way 
>since there is no visual difference between the qatal and the 
>participle.  

OK, Dave, while it makes sense, how about just one example from the OT/HB
*with that verb* for the participle reading. Wouldn't you say that it is
more likely that we have a formula for an announced demise,

      when X saw that Y was dead       Num 20:29, Jgs 9:55  etc
      when X heard that Y was dead     1Sam 25:39, 2Sam4:1  etc

a formula well represented in Samuel.

>All things considered, though, I think it's safe to say 
>that Saul was dead at least by the time the Amalekite came upon 
>him (an event that is not actually reported by the narrator).

I'll wait for an example with the particular verb!


Cheers,


Ian

It has already passed midnight here, so to all the Americans on the list
(who as usual are behind the times): buon anno.




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list