Duvduv

Check Rashi, Rabbi David Kimchi, Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel, the commentary known as Mutsudat Zion.
Check also the anthology known as Me'am Loez.

sotto voce

How strange. There seems to be a heavy preference for Catholics to be considered Christians, and they actually struck a medal to celebrate massacre.

Another mere allegation.

What a waste of space.

Endo

So why don't any biblical translations, even the Jewish ones, reflect this? I found Rashi's commentary here, but it's still translated as "little boys", and it seems that the same phrase was used in other parts of the Hebrew Bible to refer to children.

Endo

None of the Catholics I know would be so cavalier about wishing violent bear-death upon disrespectful children, but I admit I haven't polled the Vatican on the matter.
You're pleasant. :rolleyesa:

Would you care to actually comment on the question in the OP? This thread isn't about your justification for violent bear-death. I'm asking for an accurate translation.

Toto

This story is only a real problem for Biblical literalists. If you see the Bible as mythical, this is just a warning about what happens to little boys who don't show the proper respect to their elders. It has a fairy tale quality about it - Little Red Riding Hood was eaten by a wolf! Watch out, young lady!

I think most Jews are not literalists with respect to their own scriptures, but modern fundamentalists have to twist and turn to make sense of this - turn the little boys into a gang of threatening juvenile delinquents or worse. It misses the point.

sotto voce

Would you have the common civility to address responses to your statements? Making allegations about motive is a sure way to get totally ignored by scholarship. You will be ignored here, if you carry on like that.

Even if these mockers were small children (and the arguments against that are technical, even commonsense, rather than due to bias), it makes no difference.

If you don't agree with that, ask, or make no comment. Don't troll.

If there were 42 small children mocking an adult, let alone a prophet of God, their parents had no right to breathe, let alone breed, in Israel. That comment, as strongly implied, is nothing to do with the attitude of this poster (and your comment, without subsequent apology, would get you barred permanently from a real debate). It is what the state of Israel was established for— setting high behavioural standards, and the event mentioned here is fully consistent with the constitution of Israel. We are not discussing just any nation, are we.

You have now wasted more of my time.

Endo

The irony...

Perhaps not, but this does: "What a damn shame. Western societies could do with a few of those bears." This isn't a debate. It's a forum where I asked a question about a translation, to which you essentially responded, "It doesn't matter," followed by apologetic bullshit.
You have wasted your time. I do not desire your input if it's going to be more of this. Just leave.

Duvduv

Yes, that's because the literal translation is "little boys." However their behavior made them no better than children. I don't see the problem.

Endo

So what evidence supports the claim that the writer meant "immature/faithless men" instead of literal "little boys"? Is it just an opinion asserted by the commentators or was the phrase commonly used this way? It's literal use in other parts of the bible would seem cast doubt on the "faithless men" interpretation, without other evidence.

sotto voce

Definitely not, or there would be far better response than this.

True. It was all over with my second post.

Not the first, don't be embarrassed.