GakuseiDon

Sure. If that is your focus, if the meaning of the passage is irrelevant to you, then good luck to you. I'm interested in the meaning of the passage, I'm afraid.

:notworthy: Let me introduce you to Toto...

Roger Pearse

The unstated premise here is that the values and ideas of our own time are some kind of standard against which other cultures can legitimately be judged; which seems little different for practical purposes from suggesting that this value-idea system is eternally valid. This has to be an appeal to some form of absolute morality.

If so, considering that people 50 years ago certainly did not share this system, and that people in 50 years time pretty certainly won't, the whole argument would appear flawed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Keith&Co.

WOW!

You get ALL THAT from someone basically saying: This story is fucked up?

I really don't know where an absolute morality comes in here. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone, somewhere, actually thinks that gang members deserve to be ripped up for taunting an elder. The Taliban comes immediately to mind. And the John Birchers.

But for me, right now, as i view the world, one doesn't just throw kids, no matter how naughty, to the bears. _I_ find the story offensive from many levels. Whatever the lesson the author may have wanted to teach in the Before Time, it has, to my mind, little positive guidance to offer. It has, as far as i can tell, no appeal to what i would consider to be civilized behavior or morally superior actions.
If you want to suggest that there is no absolute morality, i'll agree. And if this story is something meant for goat herders and sheep tenders, with little application to modern times, sure. But then, the whole book has to be judged by 'what does this say to us?' And the answer comes back, not a whole lot.
The bible god hates gays, but has no problem with slavery.
The bible god loves children, but sends miscarriages.
And the bible god only likes his Chosen, not the world in general.

So, if he's your god, i hope you two are happy together. Me, i see no reason to think he's real, and less reason to worship him if he is...

Casper

Why do some people insist on using this forum to stand on their own unrelated philosophical soap box?

The irony!

gDon, to your knowledge is there any later midrash of this story that may help? I can "see" multiple sunday school lessons being set up; respect for authority, respect for ritual, abuse of power, uncompromising justice, all sorts of things. I too find these things fascinating.

bacht

Right, this is the same Elisha who anointed Jehu, who proceeded to slaughter the ruling house of Ahab, and some Judeans along the way I think. Pretty hardcore, though to be fair the northerners seemed to have preferred regicide to dynastic stability.

GakuseiDon

Not midrash, but the Jewish Encyclopedia gives an interesting spin on Elisha, citing from the Talmud:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...&search=Elisha

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.

Also:

As in the case of Elijah, the critical school holds that the account of Elisha's life and activity is taken from an old cycle of Elisha stories current in various versions before incorporated into the Books of Samuel-Kings. The contents are characteristic not of a book of history, but of one of legends, miracles being the main preoccupation of the prophet. The purpose of some of the accounts is clearly that of exalting the authority of the prophetic order and of inculcating obedience to and respect for it.

Toto

You are just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

You and Jane H are trying to reinterpret the story so that it does not offend your modern sensibilities, while you accuse me of bias for reading the text for what it says?

Toto

Isn't this what it is all about? Show respect or terrible things will happen to you, little boy.

Why are you trying to impose some more refined meaning on this simple fable?

Clivedurdle

http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpr...d-sarah-palin/

We must seriously look at the meaning of 42 in this story, this thread seems to be prophetic of the proposed VP - who has seen her office with the bear killed by her father?

Jane H

Not in isolation; it’s meant as an illustration of how threatening young people can be, and how dangerous a 100+ crowd of them would be.

Qatan is used in Genesis 27:42, where it is translated by the word “younger”, and is applied to Jacob when he fled from Esau; he must have been in his twenties at the time. It comes again in Genesis 44.20, where it is used of Benjamin, who was in his thirties. It comes again in Judges 1:13, where it is translated by our English word, “younger”, and is used of Kenaz, who was probably over sixty. It is also used in 1 Chronicles 24:31of the younger priests and Levites who were grown men.

The two words are used in combination in 1 Samuel 16:11 of David, who in verse 18 was, “A man of valour, a warrior, prudent in speech”, and who beat up bears and lions as part of his role in looking after sheep.

And, yes, there are good Bible translations which say “little boys”, but there are also good translations which go “youths”. I’m sorry, if (at least) three different versions think it can be translated as ‘youths‘, that translation has to be a runner.

Now if the incident were real, the reality would be a mixed age crowd, but still a very nasty one to be on the wrong side of, and more than capable of disposing of one man.