Your interpretation is being resisted because it’s a cop-out. No one’s going to figure out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. As an atheist, I tend to discount all questions of scriptural historicity. What the real question asks is “what does this story actually say?” That the deliberate slaughter of 42 obnoxious 5-year-olds is related as an event in the life of a great prophet says something about early Judaism; it says something different if the authors meant teenagers.
Aww, now you’ve gone and hurt my itty-bitty feelings…
BTW, what’s your interpretation?
ps - Assuming I’m an apologist might be a mistake.
PBear:
It is not a “projection” that these youths were, en masse, harassing a man for no apparent reason. It is also no “projection” that the Northern Kingdom, where the story took place, was hostile territory for worshippers, and especially prophets, of the traditional G-d of Israel. You can use whatever term you want for the youths - gang, hoodlums, boy scouts, Mormon Tabernacle Choir…they were clearly numerous and of hostile intent.
Well, then, I guess you can figure out what I am, can’t you?
Chaim Mattis Keller
In which case, we have nothing to talk about. I gave up inerrantist-bating years ago.
Sorry, typo. Of course, I meant inerrantist-baiting.
Interestingly, you have nothing to talk about on this subject in GQ anyway – this ain’t the place for it.
Does there remain a General Question on the table?
My question was answered.
[Elvis]Thank you. Thank you very much.[/Elvis]