Advocating squeezing the trapezoid muscle? What, is he actually an M.D.?
Thanks, my friend.
The answer to your question depends on when. It is very likely that they were used as directed during the monarchy. In the Republic, however, it was illegal for a magistrate to summarily execute a Roman citizen, so you didn’t find lictors decapitating at whim. Its usage became more symbolic as Rome transitioned into the Republic. The fasces became more symbolic for imperial authority in general rather than the specific right to punish by beating or execution.
He must have done some research, though he’s not an M.D. Apparently if you squeeze that muscle, it could bring someone to their knees. The submission thing again, see?
What would be really amusing is to make up some letterhead stationary for “Madame Kitty’s House Of Pain” and send in an order for a dozen of these switches… 
I’d be willing to bet that’s where they make most of their money, and they’re either too dumb to realize it, or else they just don’t mention it.
Can Handle the Truth, welcome to SDMB…
Sounds good to me. I always took that as a directive with my grandchildren. I spared the rod and spoiled them silly. We have wonderful relationships!
My own mother beat me without mercy. Daddy tried to get her not to hit me when she was angry, but she couldn’t control herself. He had a business and wasn’t home for over 70 hours a week. I didn’t know that he didn’t know what she was doing. I just knew that he didn’t hit me and she did. It was “normal” for parents to use a belt on kids back then. I didn’t realize that she was going at it for abnormal periods of time with unusual viciousness and when I was at an age when she shouldn’t have been – until I went to college.
I think she may have been responsible for the 90% loss of vision in one eye. I’ve never said that aloud before this moment. Not in 61 years.
Please don’t hit your children. You might not know when to stop. You might hurt them accidentally. Be creative. Find other ways to discipline them. You can still be tough.
My father never raised a hand to me, but he had a voice like thunder. I would have done anything to avoid making him angry with me. Eventually, I would have done anything to avoid hurting him or losing his respect. He is the one who truly taught me.
The Hebrew is apparently “shebet,” and I’m aware of claims that this is used exclusively or primarily to describe a shepherd’s tool for guidance. I’d look to those more familiar with the language than I to confirm that. While I can’t pretend to know what Jerome intended, I would think that the people currently insisting that this is God’s word would not consider the original language irrelevant. I would certainly encourage any validity the gentle interpretation might have, myself.
That said, I find Proverbs 23:13, 14 to be pretty clear and ungentle.
That seems pretty horrific to me, though I have seen it argued that since a child might very well die from being beaten with a rod and that since beating does not deliver one from hell, it is obvious that the rod must be metaphorical. I can’t help but think that people who want to hit kids are (sadly) going to hit them and people who don’t want to hit kids, won’t, and they will each find their justification wherever they think they can.
Don’t you think it’s a mistake to impose a 21st century American zeitgeist onto an ancient culture? I mean, hand-wringers typically forgive and even defend every sort of third-world cultural weirdness in the name of tolerance. Why project a smug judgment of “horrific” onto a culture that did not equate suffering with missing an Apprentice episode? Besides, the word in the passage, nakah, can mean anything from subjugate to slay, just as the English word, beat, can mean anything from subdue to flog.
Do they? I don’t. What I think is a mistake is to impose a 10th century CE zeitgeist onto 21st century America.
“Smug?” Keep your projections to yourself.
As I say, I look to those with knowledge of the original languages which I do not have. I was speaking of my reaction to a plain English reading which is all that is available to me. I am glad you can provide linguistic support for the gentle interpretation, as it’s one I personally prefer to see encouraged.
Because a lot of people use the Bible as justification for very horrid things, like beating children.
If you are going to examine corporal punishment as a historical or sociological phenomenon, it is more important to analyze how the tradition was actually received. If people are taking their cues from, say, the Douay Bible (a translation of the Vulgate), then going back to the Hebrew would not be informative. Even translators who do go back to Hebrew have usually received the tradition before they make their translation, and this tradition itself informs their translations. Suppose the translator of the King James has been reared on virga during his childhood, his Latin education, and his religious education. Later he learns Hebrew. Don’t you think the received tradition informed his translation, as much as he may intend to capture God’s word exactly?
Unfortunately, translation is imprecise, and loaded with the values of the translator, because one cannot simply substitude words; one must convey meaning, which is impossible utilizing an overly literal approach. The intended implication is terribly important, but often completely unavailable. People then project onto the passage what they want to see, and there’s no way to argue for or against a meaning from first principles. To convince one of the impropriety of corporal punishment is tantamount, to some, of convincing them of the impropriety of the Bible itself, and it’s impossible to say that they are wrong, because the language lacks sufficient precision. Worse, external benchmarks of moraltiy or ethics are simply not recognized in the mind of the literalist (who also refuses to recognize the impossibility of precision in their own judgement), so one is left with no recourse but to condone their behavior, if only tacitly, or deny them the right to persist in it, which to you is moral and lawful, and to them is intolerant and oppressive.
One can, however, distinguish between the words of Jesus or God and the words of an ordinary human, in whatever languages one is operating. Yes, literal interpretations can eliminate some nuances and inadvertently create others, but the overall context is hard to miss if translated at all honestly.
That presumes, of course, you know the words came from Jesus, God, or an “ordinary human” in the first place. One person may have doubts, the other not. Again you’re simply locked in contradiction, with no option but to compel the person to cease and desist, or respect their complete right to act as they please.
What’s worse, if you were to show the literalist that corporal punishment is psychologically damaging, using the standard means of investigating such things and providing proof utilized in the discipline of psychology, the literalist will simply retort that your psychology is no good, since nothing can contradict scripture (or rather, their apprehension of it). You’re stuck again.
I meant that no halfway-honest translation could obscure so fundamental a point. But you’re right; a believer will believe what he wants to believe.
You. Would. Be. Surprised.
Wow, that explains a lot.