Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by Stephan Huller »

As I already shows the idea must go back to the secondary meaning of βροντή - astonishment:
A.thunder, Διὸς μεγάλοιο κεραυνὸν δεινήν τε β. Il.21.199; “ὑπὸ βροντῆς πατρὸς Διός” 13.796; “Ζηνός τε βροντῇ” Od.20.121; ἀστραπὴ καὶ β. Hdt.3.86; “β. στεροπῇ τε” A.Supp.34 (anap.); “β. καὶ κεραυνίᾳ φλογί” Id.Pr.1017; βροντῆς μύκημα ib.1062 (anap.), cf. 1083 (anap.); “β. δ᾽ ἐρράγη δι᾽ ἀστραπῆς” S.Fr.578, etc.: in pl., Id.OC1514, X.HG1.6.28, Thphr. Sign.21, etc.; χθόνιαι β. Ar.Av.1745: metaph., “τούτου τὰς β. οἶδ᾽ ὅτι δείσεις” Lib.Ep.98.4.

II. the state of one struck with thunder, astonishment, ἐπεάν σφι θεὸς ἐμβάλῃ β. Hdt.7.10.έ. (βρομτα_, cf. βρέμω.)
The meaning of 'thunderstruck' or 'astonished' must be what connects the epithet 'sons of thunder' to rgš or 'perception,' 'sense.'
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by Ulan »

That was kind of the point of the "Busy Lowing" explanation for Boanerges, which leaves something like "windbags" for the alleged "sons of thunder". Lots of noise about nothing, as they don't understand anything.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by Stephan Huller »

But is it believable that when Mark references them IN GREEK as 'the sons of thunder' - Jesus consecrating or choosing them - that he was referencing the term disparagingly? Strange time to go negative. If the name comes up when they were acting like 'windbags' it would make more sense, no? The same applies to Simon being called petros and the rest.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by Stephan Huller »

And the ambiguity in Mark is curious too. How can the defining epithet of these guys be so (a) poorly explained and (b) so incomprehensible when an explanation is offered? The Old Syriac omits part of it. It is hard to explain.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by Ulan »

I'm not sure whether Mark shows much ambiguity. Does he have anything nice to say about the lot?
Last edited by Ulan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by Stephan Huller »

I mean, it's certainly possible that there was a negative association with the term. Perhaps that explains the ambiguity.
robert j
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Sons of Thunder --- James and John in gMark

Post by robert j »

Continued in a new thread --- "Sons of Thunder --- Conclusions" --- at this link ---

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425
Post Reply