This reads a lot like a convoluted apology that isn't self critical rather than a reasonable translation and approximation of what is written.
This is actually a very short passage:
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!"
24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
That's NIV.
Between various translations you have word usage from child,, to boy, to young men.
Quote:
The first problem is characterizing the antagonists as children. The word na'ar or na'arim (plural) doesnt have a strict tie to "children." In the Greek OT its translated as sixteen different Greek words all more or less corresponding to English "young men" with all of the range of meaning that involves (everything from a boy to a young adult male, or a pejorative use etc).
That seems true from strong we get:
a boy, lad, youth, retainer
NASB Translationattendants (1), boy (19), boy's (1), boys (1), child (12), children (4), lad (36), lad's (2), lads (3), servant (34), servant's (1), servants (23), young (12), young man (33), young men (38), young people (1), youth (14), youths (2).
It seems here this would often translate to modern parlance as teenager or adolescent but as all translations go not perfectly.
Quote:
A common use of na'ar is a royal court official. Consider 2 Sam 16:2, 9:10 where a na'ar had fifteen sons. Another na'ar fights and kills twenty enemies in combat in 1 Sam 14:1-14. In 2 Sam 2:12-16 a battle starts with a skirmish between two groups of 12 na'arim. Ahab is told by the prophet of Yahweh to send an army of 232 na'arim to face the king of Syria in 1 Kings 20:13-21. Abraham's 318 fighting men are called na'arim in Genesis 14:24. There are dozens of examples.
This is a stretch on two points. It's not used with the previous diminutive qatan, and if we were to entertain this translation the story makes no sense.
2 Kings 2 Interlinear Bible (biblehub.com)Quote:
If we look at the Elisha stories in particular before and after this story we see the chief handmaiden of Naaman's wife as being a na'arah (feminine), and Elisha's chief servant Gehazi and two other disciples are na'arim, along with the person he sends to anoint Jehu as a king in 2 Kings 9. None of these are children.
I'm not saying na'ar has to mean children, hell I could concede some sort of young teenager with the adjective qatan used. To stretch this to a military official of low rank unstated does not appear justified in ANY translations I can find, nor definitions, also it's silly.
Quote:
The "little" adjective in front of it is qatan, but this word doesn't mean small size but either youth or insignificance. So these are either young na'arim or low ranking na'arim. With all the evidence the way to characterize this encounter is that Elisha is confronted by a large group of young Israelite court officials or low-ranking military officers.
Here you seem to by trying way too hard. I don't see any evidence of these two words being used in conjunction to mean "low ranked military officers. Can you show me anywhere else where qatan and na'ar are used directly together to mean such a thing? It wasn't the case in any of your examples. You are more or less arguing that most translations are in varying degrees from horribly bad, to merely bad.
qatan: leastOriginal Word: Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: qatan
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-tawn')
Definition: small, young, unimportant
Brown-Driver-BriggsI.
adjective small, young, unimportant; absolute
Genesis 9:24 +; suffix (Köii.l,74)
Jeremiah 6:13 +; feminine singular
Genesis 29:16 +; masculine plural
2 Kings 18:24 +; construct
1 Samuel 9:21 (see Dr; We conjectures -, old construct, cf, HPS),
Proverbs 30:24; feminine plural
Ezekiel 16:61 +;
1 small; especially
a. of children, youth =
young,
Genesis 44:20 (J)
2 Samuel 9:12;
1 Kings 11:17;
2 Kings 2:23;
2 Kings 5:2, of sister
Songs 8:8; =
younger, of two children (often opposed to ),
Genesis 9:24;
Genesis 27:15,42 (all J),
Genesis 29:16,18 (E),
1 Samuel 14:49 (feminine; opposed to ); of
younger sister
Judges 15:2, so (figurative)
Ezekiel 16:46 and (+ compare)
Ezekiel 16:61; brother
1 Chronicles 24:31;
youngest son (of several)
1 Samuel 16:11;
1 Samuel 17:14; =
young and old (see
1)
Jeremiah 16:6 compare 2 Chronicles 31:15; 34:30.
This usage for children as you can see is very common and there is nothing in context leading one to believe it's low ranked military personnel.
Quote:
He meets this gaggle of utes at a high place of worship established by Jeroboam, for worshiping the golden calf. Elija, Elisha's mentor, spent his entire life in direct conflict with this state religion which was a combination of Ba'al worship and Yahweh calf worship. This is the context in which the group is taunting him. "Go on up" is not only to go to the city, but to the high place to make a sacrifice. Not doing this would lead directly to death, just as not participating in the state religion would in many ancient cultures - with history under Ahab (1 Kings 18:4 for the deaths of hundreds). Not complying with this group or mob's demands would have resulted in Elisha's death.
Where does it say that? He meets the youths on the road from Jericho to bethel. And again this is trying to imply a very great deal that doesn't appear implied in the text and certainly isn't stated.
Quote:
The "baldhead" insult is qarat. Baldness terms aren't super common, but this one seems to not refer to male-pattern baldness but baldness on the back of the head. In Lev 13:40, it is used to describe skin disease. So this is an accusation of uncleanness and a person who should be expelled from society.
I can't really find much supporting this as it doesn't appear much. As for Lev. This is not what I'm seeing at all, in fact quite the opposite. It's an instruction as to identifying skin disease with the particular purpose of noting that ordinary baldness is NOT a sign of the disease:
Hebrew Concordance: qra -- 3 Occurrences (biblehub.com)40 "A man who has lost his hair and is bald is clean.
41 If he has lost his hair from the front of his scalp and has a bald forehead, he is clean.
42 But if he has a reddish-white sore on his bald head or forehead, it is a defiling disease breaking out on his head or forehead.
43 The priest is to examine him, and if the swollen sore on his head or forehead is reddish-white like a defiling skin disease,
44 the man is diseased and is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.
Basically it's noting if you are bald that's fine but if you are bald and red or swollen it's bad, pretty straightforward stuff.
Quote:
The bears aren't there to slaughter children for being annoying or to protect Elisha because he got his feelings hurt. They're there to protect the prophet of God from what amounts to a street gang of over 42 young men who would likely have used Elisha's refusal to offer sacrifice as a pretense to kill him.
This really isn't well supported in the text in the least. In fact all you have done by making me look further into this is establish that the current translations of this text appear largely sensible and correct and this really appears as a convoluted excuse that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
One of the big problems I have with this sort of apologetic is how lacking in self criticality it often is. It takes assumption after assumption with perhaps the first few having some reasonable probability of being correct and stacks them leading to a wholly implausible and nonsensical final solution.
Think about the basic claim here. Two female bears killed a "street gang" of 42 "low rank military officers". Or whatever version of young fighting age men you want. That's simply not enough for the job. Even if god magicked two male polar bears it's simply not a match for 42 men with even sparse or modest armament of blunt objects or spears between them. Bears are absurdly powerful and most every story of individual or groups of two lead to death or grievous damage and I'm willing to give bonus points for god making the bears really pissed off, but even the strongest bears on the planet don't rip through 42 men with no survivors.
What we are talking about here when we hear "bear" in the bible is the syrian brown bear. A smaller subspecies of bear about 550lbs and probably less for females which is common for bears but I didn't look it up since it doesn't matter. More than fierce enough to rip apart 42 children before they could flee but simply not a creature you would send at 42 men to wipe them out.
