Littlejohn

I believe the 'Dioscuri' have not anything to do in this matter .....

I think it got to this point I can add a detail that I would have wished remained unpublished, as an advantage for my 'legendary' book that I'm laboriously composing (because it require me a heavy work of research and study).

The reason to the basis of the attribute 'SONS OF THUNDER' (Boanerges, according to the gospels), is that Zebedee had nicknamed his own wife by "the 'THUNDER'" nickname!... That's why Jesus called the two apostles 'Sons of Thunder'!!...

I given an indication, but it has not been collected, namely that among the writings found at Qumran, there is a treaty (the 'Brontologium') from which you can guess that at the time of Jesus (but certainly even before) there was a sort of 'specialization ' among the Jews, consisting in the ability to collect premonitory signs from the characteristics of Thunder (power, propagation velocity, direction, etc.).

It is therefore likely that the wife of Zebedee was one of those Jews able to do that, and for this reason nicknamed 'the Thunder'....


Greetings


Littlejohn


NOTE: from that above said, therefore, it is clear that is to collapse all those myriads of assumptions, according to which the attribute 'Sons of Thunder' had to do with the world of the Zealot rebellion, by which Jesus has had really to do about, but only in the last part of his life (between the years 66-72 approximately)

.

andrewcriddle

Mark clearly interpreted Boanerges as Sons of Thunder, the issue, as Stephan Huller pointed out, is that it is difficult to suggest an Aramaic phrase meaning Sons of Thunder of which Boanerges is an accurate transliteration.

Mark's interpretation is not necessarily correct.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Dioskouroi has an etymology youths (kouroi) of Zeus (Dios). Although Zeus is a thunder-god (among other roles) there is no explicit mention of thunder here.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

How is this speculation, when the writer includes characters from Roman history, Roman customs and traditions, knowledge of Roman laws, etc. ? Did he just guess at all those things and happen to get it right?

spamandham

Mark's interpretation might not be correct. But nonetheless, Mark is the author of Mark, unless we take the position that he was merely translating a prior Aramaic work.

spamandham

In the introduction to the classic book Toto linked, "Boanerges" , p.xxii, Rendel Harris, states that the Dioskouroi were commonly attributed with control of weather as a result of their affiliation with the sky-god. I don't know what primary references back that up.

spin

Nice shift. You can happily make the difference between principal content and secondary content when dealing with historicity, deciding that you can't depend on characters from Roman history, Roman customs and traditions, knowledge of Roman laws to say that a text is "historical" in content, but when it comes to overtly cultural issues, you easily put such distinctions aside. In fact, you prefer the less direct to the more overt.

If you weighed up the content percentage wise, would you calculate the Roman references to be 5% and the Judean references for most of the rest??


spin

spamandham

The 5% could not be written without knowledge of the Greco-Roman culture in which the writer lived, nor could the writer reasonably have written in Greek without a Greek education.

spin

I'll wait for you to stop the fudging and admit that you have no justifiable reason to insinuate Jupiter or the Dioscuri into Mark.


spin

spamandham

You'll be waiting quite a while I'm afraid. Nothing you've stated in any way persuades me that this is not a reasonable and ordinary inference.