Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

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
>