Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[12]: 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[12]: Methods in biblical scholarship (Peter)
  • Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:28:40 -0500


Ian wrote:

Perhaps a third time you'll be lucky, or perhaps you might decide
that these are two irreconcilable accounts involving the death of
Saul that, taken together, indicate different sources.

Yes, indeed there were two sources for this story, two eye-witness
accounts of the death of Saul. One was from an Amalekite, the other
from the unknown source of 1 Samuel 31. There is some lack of perfect
agreement between them, as would be expected in eye-witness accounts
from a confused battle-field, and when the Amalekite was as capable as
later historians of putting his own twist on history. Now surely when
you speak of different sources for a book, you mean more than that the
words of third parties have been incorporated into a narrative by one
narrator?

Now you may have an argument that the narrator must have invented
verses 4-5 as no eye-witnesses (except those far away on the other
side of the valley) to these events survived, or are recorded as
having survived. But then if one Amalekite was nearby, there may have
been others. But you have no argument for multiple sources.

Your references to verses 6 and 7 are quite irrelevant as the
narrative does not locate the time of the coming of the Amalekite to
Saul within the time sequence of 1 Samuel 31. So the Amalekite could
well have come and killed Saul between verses 5 and 6.

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page