b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
- To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: Re[2]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
- Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 00:39:41 +0100
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.
-
1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?,
peter_kirk, 12/30/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Ian Hutchesson, 12/30/1999
- Re: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Dave Washburn, 12/31/1999
- RE: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Niels Peter Lemche, 12/31/1999
- Re[2]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, peter_kirk, 12/31/1999
- RE: Re[2]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Niels Peter Lemche, 12/31/1999
- RE: Re[2]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Dave Washburn, 12/31/1999
- RE: Re[2]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Ian Hutchesson, 12/31/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.