Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Ian, my point is very simple. If you don't get it in Hebrew, try it in 
English. If a narrative says: "X died. Y heard that X had died." then 
we know that (from the narrators point of view) X really had died. If 
the text merely says: "Y heard that X had died." that leave open the 
possibility in English that Y's information was correct. If the text 
says: "Y heard that X had died. Then Z came along and found X alive." 
then we know that (within the narrative) Y's information was incorrect 
- or just possibly that a there was a change of source in the middle! 
Now I know the situation we have is not quite like my last example, 
but it is not like the first one - but all your other examples are 
just like the first one.

And I gave you just what you asked for, examples (many of them) of the 
participle form M"T. I do not have examples of KIY M"T X definitely 
meaning "that X was dying" or "that X appeared to be dead". And that 
is why I have accepted NPL's and Dave's arguments. If you don't like 
their arguments, direct your objections at them not me. I have 
accepted that the "he wasn't really dead" hypothesis is dead, so stop 
trying to demand evidence that it is alive!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    01/01/2000 12:49


At 11.50 01/01/00 -0500, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>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.

Peter, you are manipulating your data. In each case the same form is used. 
The best you can do is to say that it doesn't mean the same thing here even 
though it looks the same and there is no contextual clue in the particular 
section of the narrative. All I asked for was one example of mwt used as 
you want it to be here and, because you need things to be spelt out so 
clearly, in the type of context you find it here (which is where it 
counts), ie someone perceives/hears/sees ky mt Y.

>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.

Yet the text itself gives no indication whatsoever that he was lying. In 
fact, David had him killed because it would seem he believed the 
Amalekite's story about having killed the king -- the magic words being: 
"your blood be on your head". The Amalekite has admitted to killing the 
king, so he has testified against himself.

So far the record is explanation 1, explanation 2, explanation 3, and back 
to explanation 1. I haven't seen you squirm this much before. (-:


Cheers,


Ian