Jane H

Since Elisha knew that the Lord had taken Elijah away from him (2:5), Elisha’s reaction was still going to be, “ 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! This is an ex-prophet!“. More importantly, since it’s a story, the writer has worked hard to establish Elisha’s being very upset (2:1-12 esp v12), and thus ritual mourning would be expected by a reader here.

Even if there's symbolism involved, we are still being told it's a big crowd.


Jeering about his recently departed friend, and telling Elisha to go and join him. It’s hostility.

The cult at Bethel wasn’t destroyed until Josiah in 2 Kings 23. A succession of kings before, during and after the bear incident were standard OT evildoers who very much encouraged the worship of other cults at the expense of YHWH worship. There would have been plenty of tension between the two, and the writer is probably using this as background. Bethel was an important place to Judaism in the OT, but also got used as a centre for the Golden Calf cult. Think tensions around modern day Jerusalem here.

That’s what I’m saying. Elisha has already ‘gone up’ to Bethel in the story, and the only way to ‘go up’ further is to ascend to the sky- as Elijah had done.


Once again the context and thrust of the narrative are key indicators here. This is a story illustrating a principle that gets illustrated many times on the OT and NT. Even if the enemy are threatening, keep the faith. God will deal with evil.

bacht

The mockery of children is evil? Or is Elisha the evil one?

GakuseiDon

What hole? :huh:

Why on earth do you think that I care if the Bible offends modern sensibilities or not? How long have I been posting on this board? :banghead:

I'm accusing you of bias because you don't appear to be able to view the Elisha passage except through a biased prism. What does Jesus sending people to hell have to do with trying to understand the Elisha passage, Toto?

spamandham

The focus of the story is Elijah flying off into the sky and his authority being handed to Elisha. Elisha's momentary show of grief is an afterthought. I don't see it even remotely reasonable to claim that the purpose of the story was to lead up to Elisha's grief.

...not true. If there's symbolism involved, then the symbolism has to be understood before we can make inferences about the size of the crowd.

They did not tell Elisha to go join his friend. You made that up based on nothing at all. The story clearly states that Bethel is "up" in regard to where Elisha starts off, even before the legion of 60 year old youths tell him to 'go on up'.

Sure, but there are degrees of hostility. Not all hostility is life threatening. In particular, jeering usually is not.

...uhm, I'm guessing you missed the whole sequence?

A) Elijah and Elisha go to Bethel together and have friendly conversations with the prophets of Bethel
B) Elijah and Elisha fo to Jerecho
C) Elijah gets bumped to premier platinum on his frequent flyer account

...notice at this point, that Elisha is not still at Bethel

D) Elisha is on his way *back* to Bethel when he bears all to the wild mob of young geriatrics attacking him with wheelchairs.

Elisha already knew he had Elijah's magic cape - and a double portion of Elijah's powers. It's silly to think he would be afraid of a bunch of boys taunting him.

Toto

Don't hurt your head there. If you don't care about the Bible offending modern sensibilites, why on earth are you trying to read something into the story that is not there? It's about young kids mocking a prophet, and he curses them, and then they are eaten by bears.

Please explain to me why this straightforward reading of the text, which many Christians join in, indicates some sort of atheistic bias against the Bible. Why imagine that the young kids were actually a modern urban street gang of thugs who posed some danger to the prophet, unless you need to rewrite the story for modern sensibilities?

GakuseiDon

Here is why I'm banging my head: What am I reading into the story that isn't there? AFAICS I haven't even tried to defend it. About the only thing I can see is my suggestion that the she-bears were defending Elisha as though he were a cub, based on passages that describe bears' fury when deprived of their cubs. But is that defending the morality of the passage in your eyes? If you honestly believe that defends it as a moral story (or even if proposing that the victims were rowdy youths rather than children defends it as a moral story), then you are as removed from rationality as any fundy on this subject. Turn that sensitivity meter down, for heaven's sake! As I said back on page 2:

"I'm saying that we should try to see it as the original authors saw it. If they saw it as an old man mocked by young boys, then so be it."

And trying to see it as the original authors did has been my intention throughout this thread. I've offered thoughts on trying to understand the passage in its context. Heck, you even agreed with a passage from the Jewish Encyclopedia that I MYSELF put up for consideration! But it appears that attempt to analyse is as difficult to do on this board as it is on the most rabid fundamentalist board. Any analysis quickly becomes "attacking" or "defending" the Bible. Sheesh! Talk about sucking the fun out of things. Anyway, you can have the last word on this, Toto.

Toto

So what are we disagreeing about? You explicitly linked yourself to Jane H. who has done nothing but try to insert extra facts to make the moral of the story more palatable to any sensibilities. Are you now dissociating yourself from her?

Then you tripped out and accused me of bias because I indicated that being eaten by a bear was not an appropriate punishment for mere mockery, and threw the dreaded "fundy" accusation around with abandon, as if anyone who disagrees with your so-called liberal Christianity has to be the equivalent or else the mirror image of a fundamentalist. I wish you would learn what that word means and use it correctly.

Is there any interpretation of this, or understanding by the culture that wrote it, that should not provoke outrage? I haven't heard it - just a few lame attempts to save the Bible from its critics.

Toto

OK - explain what the bias is? A bias against seeing children being eaten by bears? A bias in favor of humanity?

Both Jesus and Elijah seem to be condemning their critics to a terrible fate. And in both cases, the defenders of the Bible read the words and can't understand why nonbelievers get upset.

bacht

So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his great men, and his familiar friends, and his priests, until he left him none remaining.

Then he set out and went to Sama'ria. On the way, when he was at Beth-eked of the Shepherds,

Jehu met the kinsmen of Ahazi'ah king of Judah, and he said, "Who are you?" And they answered, "We are the kinsmen of Ahazi'ah, and we came down to visit the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother."

He said, "Take them alive." And they took them alive, and slew them at the pit of Beth-eked, forty-two persons, and he spared none of them. 2 Kings 10


Is the earlier story foreshadowing this event? [Jehu was chosen by Elisha]

Jane H

Elijah has been his inspiration for a long time. He’s refused to leave Elijah’s side, despite being told. He knows Elijah’s going to be taken away from him. Anyone who mentions this is told to shut up. He’s aware he’s never going to see Elijah again (2:16-18). When Elijah has gone, he rips his clothes up. Now unless Gok Wan was one of the prophets, it sounds to me like the writer is trying to make him sound upset. The fact that Elijah had an unconventional departure from this mortal life wouldn’t have made the parting any easier; he was gone. In v12 the writer has made his intention on this explicit.



Apart from being the answer to life, the universe and everything, 42 doesn’t seem to have any relevant symbolism. So unless we see this as God making a Douglas Adams related point, we would seem to be forced back onto the more mundane suggestion that the writer just meant us to think of a large crowd. Forty two would seem to be the lower limit, in any case.


Well, I’ve made the case more extensively earlier, but I would say a crowd of >41 young people telling you to go and join your recently departed best friend is pretty scary.

What’s not to agree on the sequence? The young boys “came out of the city” is meant to suggest all this took place within easy walking distance of Bethel. Now the youths were jeering, which meant they were hardly saying, “Go on up to Bethel by walking up the incline”, but “Go away from Bethel by joining your best friend”. It’s hard to see “Go on up to Bethel by walking up the incline” as anything other than an invitation to pop in to their home town. Interestingly, the NRSV breaks ranks of the translations by using, “Go away”.

Exactly. I’m saying the story has that sort of a message for us.