Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: 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: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Re[6]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
  • Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 08:04:53 +0100


At 15.07 01/01/00 -0500, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>Indeed. But my point was that Saul died after 31:5 and before 31:6.

Indeed, we know. Yet, you have to go against the flow without precedent
regarding the phrase ky mt Y to claim that that which normally is
understood as Saul having died in v5 suddenly becomes, *for your
convenience*, Saul dying, so that you can accommodate the inconvenient
story about the Amalekite (into your theory that Samuel had a single
author). The writer of the passage admits no such unfinished state, having
previously shown Saul dying from arrow wounds and the armour-bearer unable
to kill him and unable to leave him. It is when Saul does himself in that
the armour-bearer follows suit.

>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.

It sure summarizes what has already happened, but there is no way for you
to think that the writer envisaged that Saul was still alive. It is more
likely that, just as the other people in the summary have already been
reported dead, Saul has already died (as the previous phrase means in all
its other contexts). If it is a summary, it states what has already
happened. If it is part of the narrative it states new information. So, if
you want to claim that Saul wasn't dead in v5, you are saying that v6 is
not simply a summary but introduces new information. You're having your
cake and eating it. As I have said a number of times there is nothing from
the writer's efforts for you to extract a different reading from v5 than
Saul having died.

>The narrative breaks off at the end of 31:5 with Saul actually
>alive but dying.

The writer gives no break. It is merely your convenient interpretation. In
the flow of the narrative there is nothing to make you think anything other
than Saul died in v5 as the same structure used in that verse indicates in
every other usage you can find in the OT/HB.

As the passage already indicates, Saul was badly wounded by an arrow before
he ran himself through. The consequence of this drives his armour-bearer to
follow suit. "He's dead, Jim."

Here's what you are postulating:

1) Saul is badly wounded by an arrow and can't avoid falling into the
Philistine hands
2) Taking the only alternative left to him, he runs himself through to
prevent the Philistines getting him
3) His armour-bearer, only now thinking Saul is dying, ie not sure
he is dead, decides to end his own life
4) Saul, while yet not dead, is found by a passing Amalekite, and he
has the life to ask the Amalekite to do what his own armour-bearer
couldn't do
5) The Amalekite thinks he kills Saul
6) A writer, aware of all this, doesn't straighten out the narrative in
order to save the reader/listener the confusion of the story that
7) only you, Peter, now understand.

This Saul of yours is a bit like Rasputin in the difficulty of being killed.

>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.

Yes, but it is totally unwarranted from the text. The Amalekite's admission
of having killed Saul is what condemns him: "your blood be on your head".
Not a hint of lying, just of reader distortion on your part for obvious
motives: to avoid the irreconcilable nature of the two texts.


Cheers,


Ian





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page