Re: BOANHRGHS

From: John M. Moe (John.M.Moe-1@tc.umn.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 06:58:07 EST


Jim,

Sorry, I did not intend to imply that BOANHRGHS was an insult. I only used SOB as
an illustration because although it refers to someone as a son it is not intended
to say anything about the parent but about the person. I think that that is even
more likely in the Hebrew mind with it's use of BEN. I see it as a not unfriendly
nickname intended to be descriptive of James and John, not of their father.
 Nor did I intend to imply that your post was not serious. I just thought the
rather colloquial phrase "these boys' daddy" was intended to inject a little
levity. It tickled me a little anyway :-)

Sorry for the confusion,

John M. Moe

Jim West wrote:

> At 11:18 AM 1/28/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >Jim,
> >
> >I'm not sure just how much of your response was jest, but I don't believe the
> >nickname is intended to describe the characteristics of "these boys' daddy"
> >any more than SOB in English is intended to describe a person's mother. As
> >SOB is a nasty way to call a person a dog, so, I believe, this nickname is
> >intended to say that "these boys" act as if they were the offspring of thunder
> >(whatever image that my have been intended to bring to mind).
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >John M. Moe
>
> I dont take it as an insult at all- and I dont think that the author of the
> Gospel intended it that way. Clearly, the term is simply a description of
> their dad.
> None of my response was in jest. If I jest, I make one of these smiley
> faces at the end of the joke. :)
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD
> Adjunct Professor of Bible
> Quartz Hill School of Theology
>
> jwest@highland.net





This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT