spamandham

This thread is dedicated to unraveling the mythology behind James and John, sons of Zebedee, also known as the "Sons of Thunder" - a clear reference to prodigy of Jupiter.

Luke 9:54
When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them ?"

Luke confirms what we should have guessed anyway, which is that these two characters are mythical sons of Jupiter, specifically the moniker Jupiter Tonens.

Any other thoughts/input?

Ferryman to the Dead

All falls back to Astrotheology, that the writers of the Bible used the stars and planets to establish their ancient religion.

aa5874

Luke 9.54 does NOT confirm that Luke's James and John were the mythical sons of Jupiter.

In fact, in the NT Canon it was the author of gMark, not Luke, who wrote that James and John were called the "sons of thunder" and the fairy tale in gLuke 9.54 is not even found in any other gospel.

spamandham

From this perspective, James and John are ....Mercury and Mars? I don't find the astrotheological idea at all implausible, but I'd like to see support for it, specifically in regard to the sons of thunder.

Elijah

Calling down fire is within the expectations of people with faith as seen with Elijah in the OT. With that in mind it could be a reference to the last prophecy in Malachi and their being destruction for not receiving the message of Elijah who is played by John the Baptist in the story.

spamandham

Maybe, but it also within the expectations for mythical sons of thunder - with the moniker exactly matching this proposed deed.

I can't recall any other instance of a disciple performing a miracle - or even thinking he could - until after Pentacost. The closest we get is the failed attempt to walk on water per Jesus' command. Don't you agree this is very unusual to say the least?

stephan huller

The gloss in the Greek “sons of thunder” is highly dubious, since neither regesh nor regez can have this meaning in either Hebrew or Aramaic. The Old Syriac (not the same as the Peshitta, but earlier!) leaves it out, probably because an Aramaic-speaker could not believe it. If the root is RESH-GIMEL-SHIN, then it means “perception”, either sense-perception or coming to know something in the mind by being informed or by working it out (close to English “realising”). If the root is RESH-GIMEL-ZAYIN, then it means “wrath” or in the right context “noisy commotion”. The Greek spelling is RGES, not RGEZ, so the first explanation fits better. But then, what is it that is perceived? And why “sons of perception”, an expression that sounds decidedly odd?

I should have realised this much earlier. When was there direct perception (regesh) of the meaning carried in thunder? At the giving of the Torah. All Israel directly perceive the first two of the Ten Utterances, i.e. “ I am the Lord thy God” and “ Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. This is not only the traditional understanding of the passage, it is actually stated by the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy if the terminology is understood. (I will explain such details another time). Moses directly perceived the meaning of the whole message. See Jastrow on the Hebrew noun regesh (RESH-GIMEL-SHIN). The midrash on Exodus XX: 18 “ they SAW the sounds (or peals of thunder)” cited by him is only preserved in a quotation in the Yalkut Shim’oni. It is very old, I would guess belonging to the time of composition of the extant Tannaitic midrashim. We see that James and John and no others had direct perception of the New Torah when others only heard the surface meaning of what Jesus said.

spamandham

If we presume a Greek origin, does that solve the problem?

spin

Sadly, you need to consider that a zayin at the end of a word will often become sigma, when transliterated into Greek: Ru 2:1, Boaz, Βοος, Gen 28:19, Luz, Λους, 2 Kgs 21:19, Haruz, Αρους, 1 Chr 24:10, Hakkoz, Κως, etc. The spelling doesn't help make any preference. "Sons of wrath" makes good sense and is unproblematically derivable from a Semitic source.


spin

judge

Then later...

Written like a troo fundamentalist.
Step one: decide wht the text means.
Step two: go in search of support. :devil1: