rogez

BDB defines the verb רָגַז verbatim as "be agitated, quiver, quake, be excited, perturbed" and orders the material with the concrete senses first: the earth quaking (1 Samuel 14:15; Amos 8:8), then trembling of persons in fear or awe, then being excited or perturbed, and only last "in rage." For the noun רֹגֶז it gives "agitation, excitement, raging," leading with turmoil and disquiet (Isaiah 14:3; Job 3:26; 14:1), then the rumbling of the divine voice (Job 37:2) and the excitement of the war-horse (Job 39:24), and treating wrath as a contextual sub-sense (Habakkuk 3:2, and its placement of Job 3:17). Klein's etymological dictionary agrees, glossing the verb "was agitated, was excited, quaked." The comparative evidence is asymmetrical. In Biblical, Targumic and Rabbinic Aramaic, and in Syriac, the root is the ordinary lexeme for anger (Daniel 2:12; 3:13; Ezra 5:12), the Zinjirli inscription uses רגז for wrath, and BDB cites a Phoenician causative "disquiet, disturb"; Arabic rajaza, by contrast, attaches to trembling and convulsive movement and to the rumble of thunder, supporting the physical-agitation core. Ugaritic and Akkadian evidence for an rgz verb of trembling or rage is weak or absent in the accessible literature and should not be asserted. The ancient versions divide on the same word in the same verse at Job 3:17: the Old Greek reads thymon orges ("fury of wrath") while Jerome reads a tumultu ("from tumult, from commotion"), which is itself evidence that the noun sat astride agitation and anger in antiquity. Among modern interpreters Clines reads the noun in Job 3 as turmoil or agitation, the restless striving of life that ceases in Sheol, a reading carried into the NET Bible notes, which contrast the noun with the verb for resting; Greenstein's translation and Hernandez in the Greenstein Festschrift press the agitation reading further, Hernandez arguing that the paired subject at Job 3:17 should itself be rendered "the restless" rather than "the wicked" and citing Ibn Ezra's reading of the subjects as those who shake. On the anger-vocabulary field, Baloian counts this root among roughly eleven Hebrew anger roots while concentrating on divine wrath as controlled, purposeful judgment; Grant maps the distinct profiles of the main anger words; and the cognitive-metaphor work of Kruger and Kotze shows Hebrew anger conceptualized as heat, fire, a container under pressure, and physical agitation, which is exactly the bodily route by which a shaking root can generate an anger sense. On Habakkuk 3:2 the wrath rendering is the majority among the commentators (Andersen, Roberts, Sweeney, Floyd), while the tension with the root's core keeps a turmoil or upheaval reading alive as a minority option. One further reception-historical thread explains much of the pressure toward anger: at Psalm 4:4 the verb was rendered orgizesthe in Greek and quoted in that form at Ephesians 4:26, so a New Testament author canonized the anger end of the range; that debate belongs to the verb rather than to this noun. The entries in HALOT, DCH volume 7, TDOT and NIDOTTE remain to be collated and their gloss ordering was not verified here, so the lexical argument above rests on BDB and Klein.