From: George Athas (gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 18:14:07 EST
Jim West wrote:
> Several folks have pointed out the semitic use of "son of...." as an example
> of a description of these boys. What they fail to recognize is that these
> boys are called "sons of thunder" BECAUSE they are like their father in
> respect of their loudness, or rumbling, or whatever. If the father was not
> loud, it makes no sense to say that the boys were like their father!
> Thus, the description applies PRIMARILY to the father and only secondarily
> to the boys. To suggest that it does not say anything about the father is
> patently absurd- who else can it refer to?
No, Jim, it is not absurd at all. Where in the text do you find that Jesus calls
them Boanerges because they are like their father? If you are suggesting that it
is from the use of the name Boanerges itself, this is a circular argument. The
Semitic idiom has nothing to do with the father!
> When Jesus says "be ye children of your father" is he describing how they
> should be without any reference to the primary focus- God? Not likely. The
> "son of..." construction is meaningful only because its prior antecedent is
> the father!
> >
> >For example, a "son of a bow" is an arrow. The expression is not
> >suggesting that a man is the son of either an experienced archer or an
> >actual bow! The expression "son of X" is actually saying that the "son"
> >is a derivative of, or goes hand in hand with "X".
> >
>
> Yes, a derivative! Just the point- the description of the boys here is
> DERIVED from the behavior of their father!
No, it's not the point. If you think about it, an arrow is not DERIVED from a
bow at all. It just goes hand in hand with a bow! By considering it derivative,
you are actually suggesting the interpretation that "son of a bow" means "son of
an experienced archer." Not even "son of a gun" means this.
> >Another example is a "son of the prophets". This does not mean that
> >someone was the physical son of a prophet. It means that the "prophets"
> >give the "son" its significance. In this case, it simply means 'another
> >prophet', or 'someone who has been trained by prophets'.
> >
> Yes- because they are LIKE the prophets who have preceded them!!!
Exactly!!! So, the "sons of thunder" are not like their father but like the
"thunder" that preceded them!
> >In our example of BOANHRGHS (_BeNEI ReGAZ), the literal translation may
> >be "sons of thunder," but the meaning of the appellation is probably
> >something like "thunderbolts". It purely reflects Hebrew-Aramaic idiom
> >which has lost a bit of its sheen in translation.
> >
>
> Or, more appropriately, "sons of the Loud Guy" (and thus loud yourselves).
Not quite. If Zebedee himself had been a loud mouth, then he would be the one
called "Son of Thunder", not his two sons.Another interpretation is to view the
Semitic idiom as adjectival. That is, in the same way as "son of perdition"
means "perditious person", so "sons of thunder" may simply mean "thunderous
persons". However, I think the "thunderbolt" interpretation makes much better
sense, especially in the light of Luke 9:54.
> hope the rain isnt doing you ill there in Sydney as it
> is elsewhere in Australia.
Sydney weather of late has been superb! I can confidently say, "Weather's here!
Wishing you were fine!"
> Jim
Best regards as always, Jim! It's always fun to spar with you.
-- George Athas < gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au > Ph: 0414 839 964 (ICQ #5866591) (PhD Candidate, University of Sydney) (Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College) (Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at) (http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT