Keith&Co.

Then why add bear cubs? There are no bear cubs in the story, so the motivation in the text remains punishing people, not any sort of defense.

Too late. YOU invented the bear cubs. Why did you do that?

Wait, is he rescued by god or are bears defending cubs? This is as bad as a Chick tract.
And, kicked to death? The thugs were unarmed? So it seems okay, to you, for 42 unarmed kids (teens, toddlers or fucking blastocysts, i don't find it any less horrible no matter the age of the kids) to be attacked and killed for a sin they were GOING to commit?

momotaro

I thought God was the worst super-hero partner, ever.

GakuseiDon

Like Jane, I also think of it as a story. And like Jane, I'm interested in the question about how the story is supposed to function. What did the original authors intend to convey with this story? Trying to square the story with modern sensibilities is one approach, just as being outraged by it is another. But I'm personally more interested in how the story would have been taken by the culture that originated it.

I think Jane's suggestion about cubs is an interesting thought. The passage refers to she bears emerging from the forest. Why would she bears attack? There are several passages in the Bible referring to how dangerous bears are when deprived of their young:

Hosea 13:8 I will meet them like a bear deprived of her cubs; I will tear open their rib cage,

2 Sam 17:8 ... they are mighty men, and they are enraged in their minds, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field

Pro 17:12 Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly.

I wonder if the story of Elisha is that the she bears are protecting Elisha, as if he is somehow considered the cub by the bears? The implication of the story would be that, even when alone, those loved by God are protected by nature.

That doesn't make much sense. And I think you are confusing trying to understand the passage with trying to defend it.

IF you want to assume the story to be true (and Jane has made it clear that she doesn't believe that, so I suspect she cares about defending it as little as I), then God knew what was in their hearts, and so was justified in his actions. Since I'm sure that you don't take the story as true, and I don't take the story as true, and Jane doesn't take the story as true, why treat it as something that needs to be defended?

For me, the interesting question is, why is that story there? What did it mean to the original story tellers? Perhaps when the posters on this thread get over their outrage, we can discuss that? If someone who believes the story is actually true comes along to defend it, let's be outraged then.

rfmwinnie

Really?

Perhaps you look at Jewish sources in that case. Which I posted in post #3. The Jews don't see it Jane's way at all!

haitu

jesus, when do you christians draw the line when deciding if a story is literal or metaphorical? i'm sorry but i cannot give you the ability to make the cake and eat it too.

Toto

But there is no protection here - just violence as punishment for disrespect. You talk about modern sensibilities, but it is only your modern sensibilities that induce you to reinterpret the story as an old man threated by a gang of hoodlums, as opposed to an old man mocked by young boys.

How does it help your case if the story is not true? The story is there for a moral purpose, and the moral seems to be that if you make fun of a holy man, you will get eaten by a bear. What kind of a moral is this? Do you really think that is a proper outcome, that children deserve to be eaten by bears for mocking a prophet?

Why is outrage not an appropriate reaction to the story, even if it is intended as fictional?

Jane H

A lot of ground to cover!

Firstly, I have given my reasoning for my reading of the story in post 27. Those who dismiss it as unreasonable need to engage with the points made there, as I am not keen on expanding on a long post without a rebuttal being attempted. If “42” killed means it wasn’t a massive mob to begin with, or whatever you feel I’ve misread, then make your case.

Where I certainly was too brief (to keep post 27 short!) was the cubs issue. I was speculating on the implication of “she-bear“, rather than just “bear“. As GakuseiDon pointed out in an excellent post, this has form in the OT as being God roused to anger, and an explanation of anger in a bear.

Literal vs. metaphorical- we all have different ideas on this. I can’t answer for others. The Jewish tradition is used to reading the OT at several levels. There are parts of the OT that I regard as almost certainly literal, and others as almost certainly metaphorical. There are stages in between. It doesn’t matter to me where this story falls on that spectrum. There may be an incident behind this story which was modified to the version we now have. The OT functions as the controlling story which the NT develops.

Next, how you read the morality of the story depends on what you think the author is trying to say. Do you think it is about God killing small boys for teasing a prophet? Or is it about God protecting a faithful man in the face of an angry mob? I’ve made my case in post 27. You can’t begin to discuss the morality of a story until you decide what the story is!

Finally, a further argument for my reading of the story is that it fits so well with the meta-narrative reading that is so fruitful when reading the Bible. This story is part of a narrative which says, “God will deal with evil, even if it seems overwhelming at the moment”. I’ve given six very different examples of this already. Across a wildly, crazily, completely varying range of genres, historical situations, centuries and writers; from Genesis to Revelation; certain narratives keep coming up again and again and again. Which suggests Someone is trying to make a point.

GakuseiDon

Who is saying the story isn't literal? :huh: Of course the story is literal.

haitu

you know what i meant but you can continue stretching and interpreting your bible however you want it. i admire you.

GakuseiDon

How am I interpreting it as a story of an old man threatened by a gang of hoodlums? 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.

No, I don't.

What! Do you truly get outraged by fictional stories??? Holy Ravioli, I hope I never sit next to you in a movie theatre.