Duvduv

The expertise in the use of language in the Tanach is one source for some commentators. Others refer to the Zohar. Others refer to other midrashic literature, some of which are lost to us today. The sages and commentators provide the tools to know when something is taken literally or not.

For example we know that in the Book of Samuel Saul had two daughters, Merav and Michal. Originally Merav was to marry David but then married Adriel. So David married Michal who never had children. However, the BOok of Samuel refers to the children of Merav as the children born to Michal from Adriel.

Now this is the literal statement. However, the children were Merav's not Michal's. So the commentators explain from various sources that Michal RAISED the children of Merav and from this we learn that someone who raises someone else's children is as if they bore them. So one could ask why the text simply doesn't say "the children of Merav" raised by Michal. The answer would be that this would not teach the principle strongly enough, i.e. that the foster parent is considered the LITERAL parent, not just the person who RAISES the child.

So this is a case where the literal text is not to be taken literally but homiletically. But we wouldn't know this without the sources including the Talmud and brought in commentaries such as Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel, R. David Kimchi, Rabbi Chaim ben Attar (Or Hachaim), Ibn Ezra, etc. etc.

outhouse

and there in lies the problem and why i was vague.


generally it is "assumed" as young men [under 30] as children would have been granted a certain amount of tollerance.

were talking about a time after the fall of the temple when many early legends were compiled in this collection called kings.

This text can be tough to make calls on not just due to how it was put together around 600 BC, but redactions and interpolation of early legends compiled as well.


one thing is certain, a large group of people mocking elisha would not have all been the same age.

outhouse

I dont agree with everything here but there are some things that make great sense and put the event in context.

http://ronyan.org/aaronk1994/aaronsb...23-24-immoral/

what I dont agree on is that it almost makes excuses for the event


but a group of young people still worshipping El and not yahweh would be a reasonable excuse for the violence noted.

Endo

I wouldn't say it "almost" makes excuses. It pretty clearly concludes, "In light of the historical context, God’s judgment upon these young men was very fair." That's my problem with most of the apologetics I find. They start with the conclusion, then grab onto anything that supports that conclusion. He even makes the "roving band of brigands" argument, which makes far too many assumptions.

I found a fairer analysis of the passage here, from another Christian.

The only argument for "young/faithless men" seems to be to trust the expertise of the ancient Jewish commentators.

aeebee50

Well if the Christian apologetic sites said it is so, then I would believe them. Unless they are from the Westboro church.

outhouse

sometimes KISS is the best rule to follow.


the young men/kids would have been different ages

children would not be punished like that

those loyal to El lived in that place, this is known.