Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

I have abandoned this "not really dead" suggestion and thus any 
further objections to it are both pointless and objectionable. End of 
discussion.

When in response to the "the Amalekite was lying" interpretation, I 
assume your words "just of reader distortion on your part" are 
directed at NPL and Dave Washburn, whose preferred interpretation this 
is, and so I will leave it to them to respond.

Peter


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[7]: 1 Sam 31:5: was Saul necessarily dead?
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    02/01/2000 08:04


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


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.