 In 2 Kings 2, 23 and 24, Elijah is mocked by some boys for being bald. He then curses them in the name of the Lord, and some bears come out and maul 42 of the boys. As you say, doctor, if it's weird, it's important. Why is this important? It actually is. It actually is important and it's complex. On the one hand, I think what we'll do here is I'm going to tell you what it's about, and then I'm going to take a shortcut, even though in terms of time it won't be a shortcut. But there's a really, really good article on this. And what I say to you is the answer to this is going to sound really strange, but I'm going to read you parts of the article, and I think you'll get the picture of what I'm talking about here. This is a complex issue that actually does have to do with cosmic geography, and even more so the denial of Elisha's status as the prophet of Yahweh, and as a solicitation to Elisha to play the role of an apostate priest. In other words, to join the apostate worship, to join the other gods, to be part of that system instead of part of Yahweh's system, to not be Yahweh's prophet. So this is a theologically significant passage that again, that answer might sound really strange to you, but it is tied up in this cosmic geographical thinking and cosmic geographical language. Now, the article I'm referring to, or I'll be reading from, is by Joel Burnett, and I can't post this, it's not the public domain. By the way, this is no relation to David Burnett. This is a different guy, he teaches at Baylor. Joel Burnett wrote an article in JBL Journal of Biblical Literature, I believe was the journal called Going Down to Bethel, Elisha and Elisha in the theological geography of the Deuteronomistic history. There's a lot in there that is going to be obtuse. Deuteronomistic history to Biblical scholars are the books of Deuteronomy through Second Kings. So the historical books, let's just think of it that way. Going down to Bethel, Elijah and Elisha in the theological geography of the Deuteronomistic history. Here's what Burnett says right from the beginning. This is the first sentence, and I'll just keep reading here. The statement in Second Kings 2-2 that Elijah and Elisha, quote, went down, the lemma is Yorad, from Gilgal to Bethel has long puzzled interpreters. Some have assumed the passage must refer to a Gilgal in the central hills, you know, other than the common Gilgal. Others recognizing the larger passages connections with the crossing of the Jordan in Joshua 3-5 accordingly understand this to be the Gilgal and the Jordan Valley. And that's the one you'd expect. And they are left simply to ignore the directional difficulty. You know, some would just say there's frankly an error here. Because in the phrase going, the directional phrase going down to Gilgal or from Gilgal to Bethel, in the actual geography that's not possible because Bethel is actually higher than Gilgal. It's actually reversed in terms of real geography. And scholars have known this. So it's like, well, why would you say went down from Gilgal to Bethel? Because you can't do that physically. You got to do it the other way around. Or not Bodin, Burnett continues. He says, while it might be tempting to write off the directional oddity as being the result of an editorial or traditional rough seem, the passage is extensive interest in geography as signaled by its attention to a number of specific locations. Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho, Jordan River, Carmel, Samaria, suggests anything but a random loose end. The enumeration of these points on Elijah and Elisha's itinerary indicates, at the very least, a decisive concern for geography in this passage. Not only do the place names mentioned in this text correspond, I'll catch this, correspond to known historical geography, but they also play significant roles elsewhere in the passage's larger literary context of Deuteronomy through Second Kings. The theological geography of these books, known collectively as the Deuteronomistic History, reserves a special place of scorn for Bethel, which stands in opposition to Jerusalem's unique status upon its founding as the one, quote, place where Yahweh will cause his name to dwell, unquote. The reference to Bethel in Second Kings 2 therefore invites consideration of any elusive dimensions of this text and the possibility that here as elsewhere in the Deuteronomistic History, geographic and theological interests are joined. Again, I'll stop there for a moment. There you get the cosmic geographical thing. There's something in terms of cosmic geography in opposition between Bethel and Jerusalem, and this is going to take us into the conquest narratives, especially with some of these other places named in Second Kings 2, because this is where the Baer's passage is founded. In view of the strong aversion to Bethel in the larger context of the passage, one might consider where the reference to, quote, going down, unquote, to Bethel might be understood not as topographically correct, but as theological and polemic in nature. As the following discussion will show, a complexity of narrative features in Second Kings 2 is the following. As the following discussion will show, a complexity of narrative features in Second Kings 2 works primarily to validate Elisha as Elijah's successor, but also serves the anti-Bethel polemic. Accordingly, the reference to going down to Bethel in Second Kings 2, too, is theological in nature. The recognition of the literary pattern operative in Second Kings 2 not only clarifies this ostensible topographical oddity, but also resolves other difficulties of interpretation in the passage, such as Elisha's cursing of the quote, little boys in verses 23 and 24. Now, again, the larger point here is that Second Kings 2 is a passage laced, riddled with cosmic geography and its implications. It's competing gods, competing worship systems, competing places of worship. I'll move ahead to a few pages in Burnett's article. He writes, Like Jerusalem, Bethel, which is second only to Jerusalem as the most frequently mentioned Israelite toponym in the Hebrew Bible, figures prominently as a sanctuary site in the central hills to which worshipers and other travelers are said to quote, go up. Thus the mention of going down to Bethel from Gilgal almost anywhere else calls for considering directional language in relation to the symbolic meaning at work in the passage and its broader literary context. It's going to refer to high places, going up or going down, going down to a place that's bad, going up to a place that's good, or vice versa. There's a lot that's in the going up and going down language in Second Kings 2 and the whole, as Burnett's saying, the whole Deuteronomistic history that transcends mere geography. There is theological baggage attached to the terms and the places. Now Moses and Joshua, I'm just going to summarize some of the things he says, scholars have long known that Elijah acts in imitation of Moses, the way Elijah's described mirrors Moses. Second Kings 2 models Elijah's succession by Elisha after Moses' succession by Joshua. I've noticed this for centuries. There's literary parallels between all of these things and these people and the places. In the conquest narrative of Joshua, Burnett writes, Bethel is mentioned repeatedly in connection with AI. Like the fall of Jericho, Ai's defeat serves as a paradigmatic role in Joshua, demonstrating the importance of obedience in the land. As related in the narrative of First Kings 13, soon after Jeroboam establishes Bethel, there's Bethel as a royal sanctuary. It's a place of apostate worship. In violation of Deuteronomic worship centralization in Jericho, an unnamed man of God, again a term used later for Elijah and more frequently for Elisha, calls out against the altar at Bethel, predicting Josiah's defilement and destruction of the altar centuries later. Bethel thus occupies a special place of scorn in the sacred geography of true worship. Burnett will go along and say, it's an archetype. Now let's go to the bear's thing, where the question actually rests. The term there for that gets translated, little boys, ne'alrim ketonim, literally does mean little boys. They come out of the city, they meet Elisha on the road, so on and so forth. Here's what Burnett writes, the significance of this gristly episode comes into focus with some attention to the expression, ne'alrim ketonim. The traditional interpretation that the males, thus denoted are children, derives from a literal translation of the phrase. On the other hand, Genesis 37.2 describes Joseph as a na'ar, same word just singular, at the age of 17. Solomon, at the beginning of his rule, calls himself a na'ar ketonim. Same two lemmas that are in the bear's passage, that's 1 Kings 3.7. Solomon was an adult, but he's called na'ar keton. Haddad, the Edomite, is a na'ar keton, when Yahweh raises him up as an adversary against Solomon. And he escapes to Egypt, where he marries the pharaoh's sister-in-law, 1 Kings 11. This language for young adult males derives from the social context of the house of the father, the bait of. The basic unit of ancient Israelite social organization. The term na'ar is applied to an unmarried male who has not yet become the head of a household. Okay, catch that. A na'ar is not a little child. It's an unmarried male who has not yet become the head of a household. Lawrence Steger, who was an archaeologist at Harvard for many years, provides a biblical example of this language explaining David, the last born of Jesse, was a na'ar keton. He wasn't the smallest of Jesse's eight sons. He was just the youngest when he fought Goliath. Okay, but he's not a little boy. He's not a toddler, okay? He's not a grade schooler is the point. Burnett continues, the other term for this group harassing Elisha is Yeladim, in verse 24, which at first glance would also seem to indicate that these lads are children. On the other hand, Yeladim has also used twice in 1 Kings 12 as the sole designation, catch this, for Rehoboam's younger advisors, contemporaries who had grown up with him, verses 8 and 10. In the Deuteronomy mystic history and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, these terms are used to designate young adult males, usually with royal associations. Accordingly, the group of males who confront Elisha in 2 Kings 2, far from being little children, are young men of the royal and perhaps priestly establishment at Bethel. Against this group of young men, Elisha pronounces a fatal curse, quote, in the name of Yahweh. The number of them killed 42 is also the number of the young men of Judean royalty and with connections to the house of Omri, whom Jehu slaughters later in the narrative, 2 Kings 10. 42 figures regularly in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East as a symbolic number of potential blessing or curse, confirming that the disaster was the result, neither of natural coincidence nor the prophet's own caprice, but of divine intent. Specific reasons for Yahweh's assault against the young men of Bethel are reflected in their words to Elisha. In addressing the prophet, they call him Baldi, Kareah in Hebrew, verse 23. Among the various possibilities suggested for the name calling's precise nuance is that it involves a contrast to the description of Elijah as hairy, a contrast that suggests a challenge to Elisha's authority. In any case, the verb kalat, to mock or spurn or make fun of makes clear that the, quote, young men address the prophet with reproach. This statement stands in sharp contrast to Elisha's reception by the sons of the prophets from Jericho who declare before the prophet the spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha and they bow down to the ground before him. Again, there's a lot of things going on here. They say it twice, Baldi, Baldi. Here's what Burnett writes about that. The related dual agency of their destruction, two bears, come out, correspond to the two-fold nature of the speech and divine punishment against other groups of young men with royal associations elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Namely, two groups of 50 royal soldiers and their captains who gave Elijah the directive to come down earlier in the book. The first Kings, this links chapters one and two where we see a doubled command to Elijah to go up that creates an inverse correspondence to the two-fold demand of the quote unquote little boys that Elisha go up. As part of their approach for speech of the boys, we're almost at the end here of what I want to say. The word to Elisha to go up plays a mocking admonition against his legitimacy as Yahweh's prophet. Why? Because they're telling him to go up to Bethel, the apostate place. Those who find themselves cursed by Yahweh are those who call for the prophet to go up to Bethel, language that elsewhere refers to worship at the sanctuary site. The conquest that Elisha brings is aimed at the northern Israelite ruling house and its royal sanctuary at Bethel. In other words, when Elisha calls out these bears and they kill the 42, it's an attack against the royal household of the northern kingdom and its apostate priesthood. And all of that is tied, again, with terminology, with place-name geography and with directional words like go up and come down. Now, again, this is a really complex issue because it has a lot to do with literary analysis. But I think, again, in the portions that I read here, I'm hoping you got the gist of it, that this is not a random act of cruelty. This is not Elisha just gets torqued and I'm going to kill those kids. Who they are and what they do in the way they speak to him, not only dishonor him as a prophet of Yahweh, but they dishonor Yahweh and further, they link Elisha personally with the other gods, with the other gods who were being worshipped at Bethel. It's a smack in the face to Yahweh worship and Yahweh himself and Yahweh's prophet and, again, the geography is just part of this, what's going on. What Burnett does in the article is he links 2 Kings 2 to earlier episodes with Elijah and Elisha and back to Joshua's conquest of Jericho, which of course is tied back to his section of Moses and how Moses is tied to Elijah and Elisha. It's really complex. If you like literary analysis, I could send you this article in an email, but I can't post it. So it's weird and it is important, theologically.