b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

RE: Re[4]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?

From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
To: "'peter_kirk AT sil.org'" <peter_kirk AT sil.org>
Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 10:57:27 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 01 January, 2000 17:50
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re[4]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
>
> 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
>
>
[Niels Peter Lemche] But there certainly is in 31:6!

NPL
>

Re[4]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, peter_kirk, 01/01/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: Re[4]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Niels Peter Lemche, 01/01/2000
- Re: Re[4]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Ian Hutchesson, 01/01/2000
- Re[6]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, peter_kirk, 01/01/2000
- Re[6]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, peter_kirk, 01/01/2000
- Re: Re[6]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Ian Hutchesson, 01/02/2000
- Re[8]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, peter_kirk, 01/02/2000
- Re: Re[8]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?, Dave Washburn, 01/02/2000