Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

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