Want to know how historians vet claims, and how we tell the difference between true and false, probable and improbable? Have some challenges in this regard to pose to me? This is the course for you! Details on how to register and take the course are below. (I also offer nine other courses in any month, in philosophy and history.)
Get acquainted with all the critical thinking skills we should employ in examining all historical claims! Skeptics will benefit greatly from learning these practical insider skills. And you’ll get to ask all the questions you’d ever have of a bona fide expert, a published historian, with a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University and several peer reviewed articles and monographs in the subject.
Share this with anyone you know who might be keen. Or both! Anyone can also still register and take other courses I am offering (see below).
General Description: Learn how to question and investigate claims about history. Learn not only the logic of historical reasoning and argument, but also a lot of the practical tips and tricks real historians employ to test and check claims. And hone your skills of skeptical and critical thinking about history.
Primary topics: Best practices among historians; historical methods as modes of reasoning (both criteria-based and Bayesian); examples of flawed reasoning and bad arguments in peer reviewed history journals and monographs (and how to spot them as a layperson); and what to do to critically examine a claim using both immediate criteria and procedures for more labor-intensive inquiry.
What it’s like: The course is one month online. You study and participate at your own pace, as much or as little as you like, and you get to ask me any questions you want about the course topics all month long, as well as read and participate in online discussions with me and other students. I will direct and comment on readings throughout each week and offer weekly course assignments, for those who want to tackle them, which consist of doing a simple online investigation, or answering questions about what you’ve learned and what you think about it.
Required Course Text: The only course text you have to buy is Proving History (available in print and electronic editions). All other readings and media will be provided to students free of charge (all you have to provide is your access to the internet).
Note: This course is useful by itself, but also a good preparatory course for my class on the historicity of Jesus, and a good companion course to my class on New Testament Studies for Everyone and my course on Critical Thinking, all of which I will also offer again later this year.
New Method of Registering
I have moved all my online courses to a Google Groups platform. They are more affordable. And now any of my ten standard courses are available in any month, on many subjects in history and philosophy. Courses will always start the first of the month and end at the close of that month. (Check them all out!)
Registration for any single one-month course is only $49. Every course also requires you purchase a single course text, in either print or digital format, which you should give yourself plenty of time to receive before starting the course. For Historical Methods, the course text is my book Proving History, which you can procure by following that link.
Students will require a Google Account (creating one is free and easy and has many other uses) and must pay the registration fee using my PayPal portal (you don’t need a PayPal account; any suitable credit or bank card will do). After paying the $49, email me with a note that you’ve paid and what for (which month and course; you can choose to start in any future month, any course I am offering; remember to also get the course text, per above). In that email please provide me the same name you used with PayPal, and your Google Account email address, so I can invite you into the course forum. You will be sent that invite by email on or before the first of the month you chose.
Then participate as much or as little as you like! Read the assigned course materials each week, answer the forum challenge questions, and post any questions or challenges you have on the subject. I’ll provide serious and attentive answers and assessments and continue to engage with you as much as you need throughout the month.
I’m really curious to hear what you think of this interpretation of this particular passage from Jason A. Staple (who also has a Ph.D).
“And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them”. — 2 Kings 2:23-24
A Bald Man Two Bears and Forty Two Children – Misinterpreted Bible Passages #66
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/a-bald-man-two-bears-and-forty-two-children-misinterpreted-bible-passages-6/
Explanation:
It’s been awhile since the last installment of this series (lots more to come), but this one should be fairly straightforward. 2 Kings 2:23–24 tells of the prophet Elisha calling a curse down upon a group of “children” (KJV), “youths” (NIV), “boys,” (NRSV/ESV), or “lads” (NASB), resulting in two bears (she-bears, if you must) mauling forty two of them. Here’s the passage:
“And [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel. While he was on his way, young juveniles* came out from the city and mocked him, saying, ‘Go up, bald-head! Go up, bald-head!’ When he turned back and saw them, he cursed them in the name of YHWH. Then two female bears came out from the forest and mauled forty two of those juveniles.
Note: the Hebrew word underlying what I have translated “juveniles” is notoriously difficult to translate in this context. The word can mean “child,” “servant,” “young man,” or several other possibilities, depending on the context. For example, it is used of the “young man” Absalom (1 Sam 18:5) and a group of 400 Amalekite warriors 1 Sam 30:17. The generally agreed meaning is that it is used of a young male (& can include females in the plural) who is not yet betrothed, setting the range from a mere boy to a young warrior. This passage uses the additional adjective “little” or “young” in the first case, which may tilt the meaning more towards the “children” end of the spectrum, but it’s certainly not clear. I’ve chosen the somewhat clunky “juveniles” to reflect this range, though the translation is admittedly less than ideal.
A Difficult Passage
This passage has disturbed many a reader, bringing up the question of how a prophet of YHWH could call a deadly curse down upon a group of kids for taunting him about something as insignificant as baldness. The following video is an outstanding (and, frankly, hilarious) example of this sort of misgiving:
The video certainly depicts the “youths” at the older end of the spectrum, but the basic sentiment is still there: as one of the video characters declares, “this seems like a disproportionate response” to insulting Elisha’s lack of hair.
Are Bald People Just Temperamental?
The first thing to dismiss is that this was an older man who reacted badly to taunts about his male pattern balding. According to 2 Kings, this event immediately followed Elisha taking over for Elijah; Elisha was still quite a young man at this point in the story, living about 60 years after this event (through the reigns of four more kings and into a fifth’s reign: Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, & Jehoash/Joash). He wasn’t exactly an old monk as portrayed in the video, probably coming closer to the age of the older “children” in the group taunting him than to their parents. As an aside, given Elisha’s young age (and the possibility that his head would have been covered anyway), it isn’t clear the reference is to male-pattern baldness. It is just as likely that (were he actually bald) that his baldness was the result of the fulfillment of a vow before YHWH (which would make sense in the time immediately following Elijah’s departure). Some have also suggested that “baldy” was a reference to lepers or other outcasts who had to shave their heads. Either way, the baldness referenced in the passage is neither clear nor is it especially important.
Secondly, the emphasis in the passage isn’t Elisha’s baldness or that the juveniles bring it up—it’s that the youth of Bethel reject and scorn YHWH’s prophet (signaling a rejection of God himself). The problem is that, rather than receiving the prophet, they tell him to “go up”—the exact word (עלה) used to describe Elijah’s departure to heaven twelve verses earlier. That is, they tell him to stay away, that they wanted nothing to do with him or his God, that he should go join Elijah in heaven if he was really such a powerful prophet. That they call him “baldy,” though perhaps disrespectful, was not the cause of the cursing.
On that front, it is not insignificant that this event happens just outside Bethel, one of the two state-sponsored centers of idolatry (Dan being the other), complete with a golden calf set up by Jeroboam after the kingdoms divided. Bethel had been the center of another prophetic confrontation before—in 1 Kings 13, an unnamed young prophet cursed the altar of Bethel and its priests, with a sign performed when Jeroboam’s arm withered when he ordered the prophet siezed. A generation after Elisha, Bethel would again be the center of prophetic controversy, when Amos declared his prophecy against Israel (which we have in the book of Amos) in Bethel, cursing Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, declaring, “Thus says YHWH, ‘Your wife will become a whore in the city, your sons and daughters will fall by the sword, your land will be divided up by a measuring line, and you yourself will die upon unclean soil’” (Amos 7:10–17).
In addition, if forty two of these young comedians were mauled by the bears, exactly how many are we to assume were actually present for this scene of mockery? When a pair of large wild bears run out of the woods and begin wreaking havoc, people tend to scatter rather quickly. In my experience, such large groups of people rarely form accidentally; from the numbers involved, the implication is that this is an organized public demonstration against Elisha and his God. Bethel’s rejection of YHWH—reflected in these youngsters’ hostile behavior towards the prophet—is what leads Elisha to curse these youthful hooligans “in the name of the Lord.”
The Key Point for Understanding the Passage
In fact, like Amos after him, Elisha’s curse appears to be a repetition of (part of) the curse for rejecting YHWH in the covenant from Sinai:
“If then you act with hostility and are unwilling to hear/obey me … I will send the wild beasts among you and bereave you of your children” (Lev 26:22–23).
This is of course exactly what happens in this case, suggesting that the knowledgeable reader should immediately know what curse Elisha invoked—a curse directly from the Israelite covenant. Much is made about the blessings contained in the covenant and the many blessings promised by God, but many interpreters seem to forget the other side of the equation—disobedience calls forth awful curses. That Elisha’s curse brings about swift comeuppance is no less a sign of his authority as a prophet and representative of the covenant (and thus the truth of his protests against idolatry) than Elijah’s victorious confrontation on Carmel had been.
Recall that in his first act as Elijah’s successor, Elisha had just miraculously purified the accursed, polluted water of Jericho, bringing blessing to those who received YHWH; this second act serves as a sign of God’s continued judgment upon covenant-breakers. Such a visible sign of judgment serves—just as Elijah’s drought and victory on Carmel (complete with the slaughter of 450 false prophets)—as a sign of YHWH’s reality and his covenantal claim upon Israel. In addition, given the fact that Elijah had been sought by the king and threatened with death by the queen, this kind of mockery and aggressive behavior serves as a threat—and as with Elijah before him, it becomes immediately clear that YHWH himself will look after the safety of his prophet(s), much to the disadvantage of their opponents.
God Will Not Be Mocked, So Don’t Taunt a Prophet of YHWH (Even if he is bald)
So, Elisha’s curse is not simply a case of a temperamental guy getting bit touchy about his appearance and calling down curses upon a group of kids for drawing attention to his baldness. Rather, it is a prophetic sign—at the very beginning of his service as God’s spokesperson—of YHWH’s displeasure at Israel’s covenantal disobedience, a warning that, without repentance, the other curses stipulated in the covenant were soon to come.
Granted, modern sensibilities tend to be at odds with any sort of divine retribution—”How dare God kill anyone!” (Then again, a rather high percentage of people tend to die at the end of their lives anyway, suggesting it’s just a matter of when God chooses to “kill.”) This tends to be even more the case when involving children. But such a complaint involves more of a problem with the essential worldview reflected in the Bible at large; this is by no means a problematic passage if one is willing to take the worldview reflected in the text and accept God’s authority as judge.
It is also important to note that God is the one who defends himself/his prophet here—no human being is taking into his/her own hands to defend God or himself against others in a violent manner. Elisha’s curse simply marks yet another occasion in which Israel’s rejection of God results in receiving the curses of the covenant, yet another milestone on the downward path towards the final, most serious of covenantal curses promised for disobedience—being scattered among the nations in exile.
I don’t have time to read such an arduously long comment. Can you summarize what your question is in much fewer words please?
I was just curious if you have a problem with anything that this person had said in defense of this particular passage. But here are a few things that stood our for me to at least question.
That the passage actually translates into “juveniles”, and could easily and perhaps more likely mean young adult instead of little children.
These juvenilles being cursed (attacked by wild bears) had actually nothing to do with the balding insult, but actually because they were mocking a prophet of God (effectively mocking God).
That when the juvenilles yelled for him to “go up” it was not a statment to simply move on (up the hill) but to die and join Elijah in heaven.
And then there is his statement in response to the outrage that God would kill a young person.
”How dare God kill anyone!” (Then again, a rather high percentage of people tend to die at the end of their lives anyway, suggesting it’s just a matter of when God chooses to “kill.”)
Finally what do you think are the chances that 2 bears could actually manage to catch and kill 42 people (on average 21 per bear). That seems unlikely for me as when a lion catches the slowest zebra in the pack it gives enough time opportunity for the others to get away.
I mean, obviously it was because they were merely mocking a prophet. By shaming his baldness. That’s what makes the story so monstrous. This isn’t a reinterpretation. It’s the interpretation everyone accepts.
But “little lads” is so additionally explicit, it is against all linguistic sense to mistranslate it as adults. The adjective is there specifically to prevent that connotation from being implied. The author went out of his way to make clear he meant kids.
And the “move up” thing is nonsense. Elijah never died. So if they meant “ascend to heaven,” they weren’t asking him to die, but be exalted. Which of course would make little sense of the story. Not that even asking him to “die” would matter. Anyone who thinks kids who merely mockingly tell someone to “go die in a fire” deserve to be mauled to death, is evil. Plain and simple. This is a mass honor killing; of children; horrific.
As for the plausibility, it’s the Bible. The event is a miracle, not a natural event. It’s also made up, obviously; this never happened. But the author wants you to think it happened. And yes, I think ancient readers believed if God sent a bear to maul dozens of people, it would succeed. Jesus, after all, murdered 2000 pigs.
Is ther a date by which the library at Herculaneum will be un-asht u reckun?
And wud u ixpect cristian/jewish ritings ther?
Don’t undrstand why powrs that be ar dragging their feet.
There has been some recent renewed interest in digging that library back up. But I imagine “when” will be a function of when a billionaire is willing to invest the hundreds of millions it will cost. Italy is broke. So there is no other way it will happen. Sadly.
What are your thoughts on applying these methods to claims about current events or events in the recent past?
They are much the same, with only one difference: we have access to our own ability to witness things. Otherwise, recent history is just “contemporary history,” a subfield of history generally.
I thus cover that more under the umbrella of critical thinking (on which I also have a course; and for which I also have a category in the drop-down menu here, top right or bottom depending on what device you are viewing this on).
But the skills are essentially identical.
The only thing history adds is the ability to specifically determine what really happened in the past, which aids answering the same question about the present (what is going on now, and what should we do to set a future course).
Although sometimes historians have hindsight advantage (e.g. more data becomes accessible about current events after a few years or decades have passed, and thus we can often know more about what happened ten years ago than we can about what is happening right now).