From: Jim West (jwest@highland.net)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 17:38:44 EST
At 09:25 AM 1/29/98 +1100, you wrote:
> BOANHRGHS simply reflects a Hebrew-Aramaic expression, _BeNEI ReGAZ_,
>meaning literally "sons of quaking" or "sons of thunder". The root RGZ
>from which the word _ReGAZ_ is derived has a number of similar meanings:
>to agitate, quiver, quake, excite, perturb, tremble, rumble, thunder,
>enrage, etc...
>
>This appellation reflects the characters of the 2 brothers, James and
>John, quite well with the picture of them painted in the gospels. It is
>not a statement about their father at all (of whom we know very little
>about). To use the word "son of X" is an idiomatic expression to
>describe a relationship between something and X, not something and their
>father.
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?
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!
>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!!!
>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).
>Best to all!
>George Athas
As well to you, and hope the rain isnt doing you ill there in Sydney as it
is elsewhere in Australia.
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT