Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Potoooooooo · 08-27-2008, 11:23 AM

on this site http://friendlyatheist.com/4246/illu...ible/#comments
I found these 2 quotes
My Hasidic nephew justified the 2 Kings story by quoting some rabbinic source, which said that it wasn’t children making fun of the prophet Elisha, but adolescent punks. He seemed to think that made it more justifiable!

and
I’ve heard that justification also. But, the added ingredient was that the young punks were teenage boys who were threatening Elisha with death by telling him “to go up” which means they were going to kill him.
I don’t know if the passage supports this. It all hinges on the definition of the Hebrew word describing the age of the children. I do find it curious that translations of the Bible are respected until they come under attack. Then it’s all revisionist linguistics.

So what is the deal? What age were the boys and what were they telling Elisha?:huh:

rfmwinnie · 08-27-2008, 11:30 AM

Here's a good page on both of your questions from the typical conservative Christian view. I especially found this part enlightening:

Quote:

The translation, “there came forth little children out of the city” (KJV) is an unfortunate rendition (cf. “young lads”—ASV, or “youths”—NIV, NKJV). The Hebrew word rendered “children” derives from na’ar—used 235 times in the Old Testament. Na’ar is a very broad root word, and can have reference to anyone from a newborn child to an adult. Furthermore, the Hebrew word rendered “little” comes from qatan,

However then they say that context suggests that they were teenagers (you know those young people noted for making good decisions?) Then at the end:

Quote:

4. The tragedy that befell these young men obviously was of divine design. Elisha, as a mere man, would have possessed no power to call forth wild animals out of the woods merely at his bidding. But the sovereignty of Jehovah over the animal kingdom frequently is affirmed in the Scriptures. God sent fiery serpents to bite the Israelites (Num. 21:6); the Lord slew a disobedient young prophet by means of a lion (1 Kgs. 13:24ff.). Jehovah shut the lions’ mouths to protect Daniel (Dan. 6:22). He prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah (Jon. 1:17), and guided one to Peter’s hook (Mt. 17:24ff). Clearly, therefore, it was the Lord God who brought those bears out of the forest.

And so, if, when the divine record says that the bears “tare” the lads, it means they were killed (and not all scholars are sure that death is indicated), then it was a divine punishment. As Alfred Edersheim has written: ”...it should be noticed that it was not Elisha who slew those forty-two youths, but the Lord in His Providence, just as it had been Jehovah, not the prophet, who had healed the waters of Jericho” (n.d., 6:107).

It is the general view of conservative Bible scholars that the young men of Bethel likely were idolaters, and that, as such, their reproaches upon Elisha were expressions of contempt for his prophetic office, thus, ultimately directed at the God whom he served. The were entirely responsible for their actions. Their punishment, therefore, was a divine judgment intended to serve as a dramatic example of rebellion in horribly wicked times. It affords no comfort to modern skepticism!

So really they worshiped the wrong god and was just another in a long line of events designed to make us realize not to be rebellious to this particular god.

This page is a good read and goes along with everything I was taught in Christianity about this particular story. I'll be curious to see what others say.

rfmwinnie · 08-27-2008, 11:35 AM

I'm adding this as a separate post because it shows traditional Jewish views of this story:

Quote:

The Rabbis take pains to account for his calling the bears to devour the children, by ascribing the coming of the bears and the appearance of the woods which had not been seen before to his miracle-working power (So�*ah 46b, 47a, Yalḳ. to II Kings ii. 21). The offenders were not children, but were called so ("ne'arim") because they lacked ("meno'arin") all religion (So�*ah 46b). The number (42) rent by the bears corresponds to the number of the sacrifices (42) offered by Balak. Had the Bethlehemites shown him due courtesy by sending him on his way attended in a manner befitting his dignity, this incident would not have occurred (So�*ah 46a). Yet Elisha was punished for this act as well as for his rude treatment of Gehazi (Sanh. 107b).

I don't know - in one case Christians say they were idoloters (although no text supports that) and Jews say they just didn't have enough respect and were simply childlike because they had no religion.

Both seem like unrealistic justifications for the story.

Toto · 08-27-2008, 12:32 PM

Haven't seen this in a while.

Elisha and the bears II

Elisha and the bears I

and other threads linked therein.

I have never seen even a halfway decent religious defense of this passage. It's purpose seems to be to make YHWH look like an irrational, vengeful, abusive force.

spamandham · 08-27-2008, 11:11 PM

The message to me seems to be "DO NOT OFFEND THE LORD THY GOD'S EARTHLY REPRESENTATIVES, OR ELSE!"

...also, the bear in this story is obviously the historical "Winnie the Poo". After all, is a trained bear really so far fetched?

WishboneDawn · 08-28-2008, 04:20 AM

I addressed this matter almost two years ago in a strip I drew. Here's the strip.. The thread, yet another Elisha and the Bear thread, is buried here at IIDB somewhere!

Joan of Bark · 08-28-2008, 04:44 AM

The apologists will never give up. Their God is just, dammit! and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that.

BTW Dawn, have you, er, changed somehow? In your profile you now say you think you are an agnostic.

Casper · 08-28-2008, 07:13 AM

LOL @ the buxom she-bear :rolling:

Nice. Way better than my drawing attempts.

Keith&Co. · 08-28-2008, 08:50 AM

Well you have to remember, defenders of this story also have to have come to terms with Noah's Flood.

Every single living person ('cept 8) was so wicked that they all deserved to drown. If they'd only chosen to live by God's commandments, which were due to be published in another 1000 years, they'd probably have deserved life. Their choice, the wicked fools.

Making 42 kids laughing at an adult's baldness into a street gang of idolators threatening an elder seems to satisfy the Faithful that it was a good thing to have their guts spread around by bear claws. Obviously it was their choice to worship either the wrong god, or the right god by the wrong means, and disrespect on one of God's prophets so he could call upon God to punish the silly bastards to death.

Surely the example and message of Jesus, that of redemption, second chances, forgiveness and mercy, informs the themes that run through both stories, almost like a software dialogue window.

Quote:

Continuing in this action will be wickedness. It could lead to the early termination of your time on Earth and an eternal separation from the God you may or may not believe in. Do you wish to continue taunting the bald prophet?

[]Yes
[]No

rfmwinnie · 08-28-2008, 09:01 AM

Do you think this story also plays into the argument that all people are sinful? Even little children are capable of doing some great evil according to this (admittedly poor) example. Kind of story that makes parents want to be sure THEIR child isn't the one acting in that manner. You know parents then make sure they are raising them in the ways of Lord. This story shows if you piss God off you die in a horrific way so best be sure to toe that line. Reminds me of stories of the bogeyman.

The same thing with the flood. When I was young my mom justified the flood in 2 ways. 1) God could read the hearts of even 1 day old infants and see that they were going to grow up to be just like their evil parents so he was justified in killing them. 2) Taking infants from their parents would cause untold pain to their parents and maybe even leading Noah to be attacked. And how could Noah and his spawn care for that many infants? (We were only talking about babies under 2 or so.)

I guess the parents would have felt so much better when their child died. Spared them that pain of separation because we all know watching your baby drown is so much easier.

The other thing I was thinking about was how "men of God" are so much more disrespected today. Hasidic men can get attacked, Christian preachers are openly derided, imans (sp?) get arrested for praying at airports. So whichever version of monotheism you like the religious leaders are getting stomped on so much worse than Elisha and his sensitive bald head. Why aren't there any bears running around mauling us?

Maybe God has evolved and doesn't need senseless violence anymore?

08-27-2008, 11:23 AM	#1
Potoooooooo Contributor Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 13,541	Elisha and the bears on this site http://friendlyatheist.com/4246/illu...ible/#comments I found these 2 quotes My Hasidic nephew justified the 2 Kings story by quoting some rabbinic source, which said that it wasn’t children making fun of the prophet Elisha, but adolescent punks. He seemed to think that made it more justifiable! and I’ve heard that justification also. But, the added ingredient was that the young punks were teenage boys who were threatening Elisha with death by telling him “to go up” which means they were going to kill him. I don’t know if the passage supports this. It all hinges on the definition of the Hebrew word describing the age of the children. I do find it curious that translations of the Bible are respected until they come under attack. Then it’s all revisionist linguistics. So what is the deal? What age were the boys and what were they telling Elisha?:huh:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2008, 12:32 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Haven't seen this in a while. Elisha and the bears II Elisha and the bears I and other threads linked therein. I have never seen even a halfway decent religious defense of this passage. It's purpose seems to be to make YHWH look like an irrational, vengeful, abusive force.

08-27-2008, 11:11 PM	#5
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	The message to me seems to be "DO NOT OFFEND THE LORD THY GOD'S EARTHLY REPRESENTATIVES, OR ELSE!" ...also, the bear in this story is obviously the historical "Winnie the Poo". After all, is a trained bear really so far fetched?

08-28-2008, 04:20 AM	#6
WishboneDawn Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 4,287	I addressed this matter almost two years ago in a strip I drew. Here's the strip.. The thread, yet another Elisha and the Bear thread, is buried here at IIDB somewhere!

08-28-2008, 04:44 AM	#7
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	The apologists will never give up. Their God is just, dammit! and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that. BTW Dawn, have you, er, changed somehow? In your profile you now say you think you are an agnostic.

08-28-2008, 07:13 AM	#8
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	LOL @ the buxom she-bear :rolling: Nice. Way better than my drawing attempts.

08-28-2008, 09:01 AM	#10
rfmwinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix Posts: 1,494	Do you think this story also plays into the argument that all people are sinful? Even little children are capable of doing some great evil according to this (admittedly poor) example. Kind of story that makes parents want to be sure THEIR child isn't the one acting in that manner. You know parents then make sure they are raising them in the ways of Lord. This story shows if you piss God off you die in a horrific way so best be sure to toe that line. Reminds me of stories of the bogeyman. The same thing with the flood. When I was young my mom justified the flood in 2 ways. 1) God could read the hearts of even 1 day old infants and see that they were going to grow up to be just like their evil parents so he was justified in killing them. 2) Taking infants from their parents would cause untold pain to their parents and maybe even leading Noah to be attacked. And how could Noah and his spawn care for that many infants? (We were only talking about babies under 2 or so.) I guess the parents would have felt so much better when their child died. Spared them that pain of separation because we all know watching your baby drown is so much easier. The other thing I was thinking about was how "men of God" are so much more disrespected today. Hasidic men can get attacked, Christian preachers are openly derided, imans (sp?) get arrested for praying at airports. So whichever version of monotheism you like the religious leaders are getting stomped on so much worse than Elisha and his sensitive bald head. Why aren't there any bears running around mauling us? Maybe God has evolved and doesn't need senseless violence anymore?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.