Unbeliever

Just a thought here on the phrase "go up":

It strikes me as a possibility that the phrase could be refering to the worship at the "high places" that is decried in so many biblical passages. Could the children, young men, or whatever, have been trying to induce Elishah to worship at one of these forbidden high places? That might very well merit, in the eyes of certain ancient Hebrews, a most drastic response by their wrathful deity.




[Edited because I misspelled "deity", and realized it only upon reading Doctor X's post, above]

Sauron

Which basically means don't question them or ask them to provide proof of their statements.

As long as you're willing to sit quietly like a potted plant and be witnessed to by their members, you can post on RaptureReady all day.

I only *wish* that 99% of atheists would make a routine of aggressively challenging fundies. Our country would be in much better shape.

DrJim

Unbeliever,

The verb "go up" is very common. It is hard to make any kind of special, techincal religious meaning for it if the context is not really there: I think you can find cases of someone "going up" to a hetrodox high place, but you can also find someone "going up" to Jerusalem: 2 sam. 19:34, 1 Kings 12:27; 2 Kgs 12:17; 2 Chron 36:23; Isa 2:3.
People can "go up" to war against someone. And then people just "go up" to all sorts of other places, even by walking, riding horses or whatever. Even in 2 Kings 2:23 (twice)!

"And he 'went up' from there to Bethel... and while he was 'going up' some boys... said 'Get up', Baldy! Get up Baldy!"

I think that, due to the two uses of 'LH to mean simply that the prophet was already going somewhere, the boys' taunt is best understood as simply an order that he leave: Elisha went, he was going, the boys said (Keep) moving! There may be a reflection in this story of the demand of Amaziah that the prophet Amos leave Bethel (Amos 7:10-17), but that might be pushing it a bit too.

What is neat, however, is that the Elisha episode ends with Elisha still on the move, but after all that "going up" Elisha "walks" HLK to Mount Carmel then Samaria. Of course, Carmel is where Elijah defeated the prophets of Baal and Asherah, and maybe you might defend your interpretation on that, but it still might be a little forced.

JRL.




=

Magus55

Oh wow, i mispelled one word from typing too fast in one post. Where as Doctor X mispells my name in EVERY post. You people really are anal about spelling.

Doctor X

Oh "injur'd merit!"

Oh the angst!

--J. "Slings and Arrows . . . Slings and Arrows" D.

DrJim

I'm annual about correct spelling once a year.

Unbeliever

Yeah, I know it was a stretch, DrJim; I was just hoping to interject a note of levity into the discussion, without being too outrageous. I don't know that there is any textual reason to think that "go up" was making any reference to "high places", But after several millenia, not only can we not know whether the tale actually took place, but we can't know who wrote about it, or why. Nor can we ever have any confidence in whatever interpretations we might come up with to try to pry meaning from it. Which makes the whole story completely meaningless to us. It's like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, just like everything else the Bible contains.

But I suppose, being who and what we are, that we will continue to beat this dead horse for at least several decades to come.

DrJim

Unbeliever,

I fully agree that the horse is badly beaten, but I don't think it is quite dead yet...

There is, as you imply, a great subjectivity to interrpeting a lot of the biblical episodes and expressions. I figure the biblical writers were a heck of a lot more clever writers than most people give them credit for: they are master punsters. Their audiences, for the most part, were other scribes and educated priests etc., and I suspect they really appreciated complex literature, moral dilemmas and deliberate ambiguity (although moreso in poetry than narratives). I do suspect, however, that at least some of the Bible is meant to raise questions and discussion, which would then be dealt with orally, teacher to student (e.g. Ecclesiastes, Job, some prophetic literature).

But how a modern reader is to know what the anceint writer wanted their readers to find and when what is the figment of one's own imagination is a tall order. On the other hand, I suspect that some of the medieval rabbis would have liked your proposal: drawing a moral lesson about idolatry from such an episode seems to me to be just the sort of thing they would do. If I get a free hour or two, I might try to see what the Talmud made of the episode!

Doctor X

Dr.Jim:

Incidentally, do you ever feel the need to proclaim, "He's dead, Bones!"

HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . HA . . . ha . . . heh?

Indeed. I have a translation of Aristophanes, The Birds in which the translator takes a page to explain a joke--in order to justify why he cannot render a "literal" translation. The references are lost. Today, if we see a manager-type walk on stage with a paunch, white hair, big nose, and a cigar--followed by a young intern in a blue dress and beret--we do not need anymore information. Similarly Drew Carey inmitating Dick Cheney with a "Mr. Burns"--"EEeeeexcellent!"--voice when discussing George the Younger--"Bring me the boy!" Even fifty years from now, few would get the reference.

I think understanding puns and symbols is the pinacle of language comprehension.

Part of the problem with understanding the texts is understanding their contexts. This has its benefits. The patriarchal narratives are filled with anachronisms that help date them to later than the period they intended to describe--much like a "King Arthur" depiction today with armor from the late middle ages.

Now, regarding the Talmud, a suggestion. "Problems" with contradictions were known and explained--Greeks "explained" things they did not like in Homer. Whether or not this has any relevance to the text may be the same as modern apology trying to explain biblical contradictions.

--J.D.