Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Ian, you have missed the point again. All of the verses you quote here 
are different in that the narrative has already stated explicitly that 
Y died. There is no such statement in 1 Samuel 31:4-5.

But I now find myself agreeing with NPL and Dave that the most likely 
interpretation is my original one, that the Amalekite was lying in the 
hope of gain from David.

Happy New Year!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    31/12/1999 18:36


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.


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.