Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[6]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?

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[6]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
  • Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 15:07:59 -0500


Indeed. But my point was that Saul died after 31:5 and before 31:6. Or
to give more nuance: 31:6 is a summary statement of the result of the
whole day, which follows the end of the narrative of the specific
events. The narrative breaks off at the end of 31:5 with Saul actually
alive but dying. After that the Amalekite came and finished off Saul.
So 31:6 is an accurate summary.

But, while I maintain that the text does not rule out this
possibility, I now prefer the interpretation that the Amalekite was
lying.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
Author: <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date: 01/01/2000 10:57


> -----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
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page