spin

Given that heck of a lot to do with Jewish background, why overlook it in this case when there is clear thunder connection with the Jewish god?


spin

mountainman

One reason is that the Christian literature has been fabricated in the Greek language, using a highly codified nomina sacra format and many Greek motifs such as the Logos. The sons of thunder may thus just be seen as another stolen pagan motif. Explicit "data mining" from the Greek LXX is evident. If the texts were written in Hebrew the question would be appropriate, but there is no evidence that they ever were. The traditional gods of thunder for the Roman empire, as far as the Romans remembered, were present at the destruction of Masada, milling around with the victors.

spamandham

I don't think it's reasonable to view the gospel authors as oblivious of their surrounding culture. Mark must have known "sons of thunder" would be taken as a reference to the Dioscori, so the fact he included it in his story means it was not inadvertent.

Next, we have the 'sons of thunder' offering to bring down lightning. Again, unless you think Mark lived in an underground synagogue his whole life, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that he chose the 'sons of thunder' by coincidence for this scene.

Why is this not the simplest explanation? You might argue that this was a bit of playfulness on the part of Mark, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that it's just coincidence derived entirely from Jewish scripture.

A further note. Outside of the subfield of Biblical history, other historians seem to view 'sons of thunder' as unquestioningly referring to the Dioscori. For example, Américo Castro y Quesada, a Spanish cultural historian writes in his book "The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History", p 390,

And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder." Now "sons of thunder" corresponds in meaning to the Greek Dios-kuroi or "sons of Jupiter the Thunderer"

spin

Isn't that just what you are doing? I mean we are dealing with people who have a fairly close knowledge of Jewish stuff. Paul expects his readers to know about biblical characters, such as not only someone obvious like Abraham, but also Hagar. These were people in contact with Jews, if they, or some of them, weren't in fact Jews themselves. gMark dips from the Hebrew bible frequently. Why do you seem to give priority to traditions we don't know they were in contact with over traditions that we know they were in contact with?

On what grounds do you make this conjecture?

Did the Dioscuri "bring down lightning"? I haven't heard that one before. Could their sister, Helen (of Troy) also bring down lightning? What about other children of this deity?

You are merely guessing and assuming. You overlook what we know about for what you think might be. But I think that what is known is more likely than what is conjectured.

You seem to have a better grasp of who wrote the particular material than I do.

I'm impressed... "The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History". If we were talking about christian ritual meals, would you cite from an Italian cookery book? Very creative.


spin

Solo

I don't care what you think is 'valid analysis'. For one, it's not my analysis; it's Vork's. Take it up with him if you are offended by it. I was simply responding to Toto's asking about known alternative explanations of the name.

Jiri

spamandham

Is it your contention that Mark was unfamiliar with Greek / Roman culture?

If not, then I really don't understand your argument. His knowledge of / influence by Judaism in no way precludes knowledge and influence from the culture at large.

spin

I think you are again displaying you know more about the writing or the writer of the gospel than I do.

I'm saying that we know that there is a Jewish background to the gospel. You're saying let's ignore it for something more speculative.


spin

Solo

I believe the allusion of Boa, Michael's source sees as the plural of oxen (the reference is to John 2:14), while the second part of the name would be derived from the Greek for 'anger' (orgh). The reference to Elisha leaving his oxen to join Elijah (1 Ki 19:19-21) looks interesting though not convincing.

For my part I prefer the the view that the name derives either from Hebrew (b'nai regesh), or a Syriac/Aramaic equivalent which are read as sons of wrath. The nicknme, Robert H. Gundry and others, believe relates to the impetuous character of the brothers.

Jiri

spamandham

Someone writing in Greek in the first centuries CE, and including in that writing quite a bit about Roman authority, is plausibly nonetheless unfamiliar with Greek / Roman culture?

I am drawing an ordinary conclusion directly from the evidence at hand.

Isn't there a Roman background to the Gospel too? :huh:

spin

That there was a single writer of the text?

You were the one speculating to that effect!


spin