Clarifying my View
on Psalm 2:12
I am writing this to clarify my position on Psalm
2:12 and the phrase נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר in the Hebrew
bible. There are some out there that just don’t quite get what I am saying and
I think I know why. It is simply the lack of listening to what I am presenting.
Over and over I have consistently stated that the
phrase itself is very difficult to determine a precise translation or even
obtain a sense of the meaning of the phrase נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר. There have been many thorough attempts to define and translate this phrase to
lay all doubts to rest, yet the more complex the explanations get, the less we
really understand the phrase and its true definition. I will attempt to mend
that misunderstanding of what I am trying to say when I state that “I feel the
Ibn Ezra is correct.”
The Ibn Ezra makes a point in his commentary that
he thinks that the “Kiss the son” translation is a possible translation of the
phrase to bolster the claim he is making on his definition. He cites Proverbs
31:2 for the definition of Var/Bar “מַה-בְּרִי
וּמַה-בַּר-בִּטְנִי
וּמֶה בַּר-נְדָרָי" and
relates it back to Psalm 2:7 for its usage of B’nei Atah בְּנִי אַתָּה.This
is not at all improbable since Proverbs 31:2, despite the erroneous claims of
some, is entirely Hebrew. I believe this is a genuine Northern Israelian
Dialect of Hebrew reflecting close proximity to the Aramaic speaking world.
more on this below!
We also have the support of RaDaK, in his commentary, which affirms in many ways Ibn Ezra's rationale for his interpretation of נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר.
Radak's adherence to the interpretation of Ibn Ezra on this phrase is
interesting despite the fact that he is going into a long polemic and
refutation of the Christian position that has arisen from the controversy of
this particular verse. I have placed Radak’s full commentary in Hebrew below
for reference.
I have decided to dedicate a whole section on the
subject of why I feel that Proverbs 31:2-3 is completely in Hebrew of the
Israelian dialect and not in Aramaic. In the case of Proverbs 31:2-3 consider
the following as we discuss the matter of Hebrew vs. Aramaic. In Proverbs
31:2-3 we have the setting in which the Proverb is
being given. It is being given by the mother of king Lemuel of Massa. Massa is
considered by scholars to have been somewhere in the Syrian Desert. This would explain the
number of Aramaisms being used here and the distinctively high number of
Aramaic usages in the entire book of Proverbs well.
In the text of Proverbs 31:2 we have the
usage ofמֶה
before
a nonlaryngeal consonant instead of the normativeמַה as it is used all
over the rest of the bible. Consider the rest of the usages in the Hebrew bible
of מֶה
before
a nonlaryngeal consonant in 1 Samuel 4:6, 4:14, 15:14; 2 Kings 1:7, 4:13, 4:14;
Isaiah 1:5; Jeremiah 8:9, 16:10; Haggai 1:9; Psalm 4:3, 10:13,; Job 7:21;
Proverbs 31:2. Looking into these further a vast majority, if not all, are set
outside the southern Judean tribe or being spoken by someone who is from one of the
Northern Tribes. Further evidence is shown by the case ending of the word מְלָכִין in the next verse
which exhibits an Aramaic masculine plural case ending indicative of a
Israelian dialectic feature. The appearance of this Aramaic case ending and the
fact that the normative Hebrew masculine plural case ending מלכים appears in the next
verse still being spoken by King Lemuel's mother only makes my case even
stronger from a grammatical point of view. The idea expressed here is
"style switching" in which, in grammatical terms, the style of Hebrew used in a particular
given text switches from one narrative style to another based on setting and
speaker. The setting and speaker can work independent of one another as in the Dumah Oracle of Isaiah 21:11-12 as an indication of Style switching. There
are many others but this isn't a post on style switching within the biblical
text.[1]
Another point that is brought to contention is
the idea that the word Var/Bar is missing the Definite article and/or the
Accusative and definite article to make it definite and say “the son.” The
problem with that view is that these two words, connected with a maqqep, does
not have to have either to be definite. For example look at Deuteronomy 1:40
and the usage of יַם-סוּף as
being definite and lacking a definite article, preposition, or accusative
especially when we find it in the phrase “to the sea of reeds” .דֶּרֶךְ יַם-סוּףTo
this point also see Proverbs 28:21 which literally reads “Recognize the face"
הַכֵּר-פָּנִים and so on. There
are numerous examples of words like this that are definite without the
accusative or the Definite article represented by אֵת and
the letter ה respectively.
As far as נַשְּׁקוּ is concerned Ibn
Ezra points out that this could mean kiss and signify a kind of homage due to a
king, in this case particularly the King Mashiach. He cites that it is a custom
among the nations of the world to kiss the hands of the king by taking their
hands and kissing them. This isn’t at all implausible. It is the idea coming
from Counter missionaries that says that the Ibn Ezra shouldn’t be listened to
or there are attempts by later commentators that seek to discredit him. I
accept the rest of his commentary that examines the problems of the wording of
this verse and lends credibility toward the idea that it could read as “do
homage with a pure heart” as Rashi would seem to suggest. The Ibn Ezra presents
all views and isn’t simply cut and dry with his explanation as Rashi tends to
be.
An Alternate View of the Psalm:
As I was reading this alternative view I found it
quite profound, thought provoking, and a rather wonderful alternative. If you
are one of the “do homage” interpreters of the phrase then you will love this.
The proposal espoused by Staffan Olofsson in his article “The Crux Interpretum
in Psalm 2:12” is to take the view thatבַר
in
this phrase means “field/ground.” It was pointed out, quite correctly if I may
add, that the Hebrew word Var/Bar בַר takes this meaning
in Job 39:4 as well as in Aramaic in Daniel 2:38 and throughout Daniel 4.
Olofsson proposes that we should translate the phrase as “Kiss the
ground/field” in order to avoid the issues of explaining an Aramaic word used
among an otherwise completely Hebrew passage and to avoid grammatical
gymnastics trying to explain any emendations to the text. Oloffson explains
that “kissing the ground” was a type of homage to a king or worship of a god in
the ancient near east. [i]
I don’t necessarily adhere to this view but,
Oloffson does make a good argument for this particular reading. The most
attractive feature for me is the fact that it avoids the grammatical
difficulties that the rabbinic interpretations put forth in order to explain
how they arrived at this meaning or that meaning with their subsequent
justifications.
My Conclusion:
I feel that we can go either way with the
translation and be fine with it. I am perfectly fine as seeing this as “kiss
the son” referring back to Psalm 2:7 and having the meaning of simply doing
homage to the king by way of a kiss. That is the sense I am gathering from the
verse. On another note “Arm yourselves [with] purity” is also possible based on
the Hebrew because the verbלנשק actually has that
meaning with the translation of Rav Saadiah Gaon into Arabic supporting this
translation. So I am perfectly fine with that as well. The alternative view
listed above by Oloffson is soundly based and avoids grammatical and practical
problems with the text. The problem with his view is that it takes a very slim,
minority, meaning of the word and places it in this spot. Bottom line, we all
translate according to our biases in many cases, both Jewish and Christian
sides do it. In the cases of something controversial, such as this, when
several translations are possible both sides line up according to his/her
biases. If I have to translate it I would say “pick one!” Either can be right!
Sources used to formulate my opinion:
Targum to Proverbs 31:2-3
ב וַי בְּרִי וּוַי בַּר כְּרֵסִי וּוַי בַּר נִדְרַי:
לָא
תִתֵּן לִנְשֵׁי חֵילָךְ וְאָרְחָתָךְ לִבְנַת מַלְכִין
ג
Rav Saadiah Gaon’s Arabic translation of the
phrase נשקו בר :
תסלחו נקאא = “Arm
yourselves with Purity”
Targum Tehillim of the phrase נשקו בר :
קַבִּילוּ אוּלְפָנָא = Receive
Instruction
Ibn Ezra to Psalm 2:12
נשקו בר. הנה עבדו את ה' כנגד על ה' ונשקו
בר כנגד על משיחו והנה פירוש בר כמו מה ברי ומה בר בטני וכן כתוב בני אתה ומנהג
גוים בעולם לשום ידיהם תחת יד המלך כאחי שלמה או העבד תחת ירך אדוניו או לנשק את
המלך וזה המנהג עד היום בארץ הודו ופן יאנף שב אל השם הנזכר בפסוק הראשון ואם הוא
רחוק כמו תבלעמו ארץ איננו שב אל מלת מי כמוכה באלים רק אל אמר אויב וככה והקימו
את המשכן עד בואם ויש אומרים כי נשקו מגזרת נשק והטעם נשקו כלי בר והנה בר כמו ברי
לבב והיה ראוי להיותו בור או יהיה תקנו הבר או כלי הבר:
Rashi to Psalm 2:12
נשקו בר. זרזו עצמכם בבר לב (נ"א) נשקו בר גר נישמנ"ט בלע"ז, ומנחם פתראותו ל' תאוה כמו (בראשית ג) ואל אישך תשוקתך:
Radak to Psalm 2:12:
נשקו
בר: כמו ינשקו לכל אחיו (בראשית מת טו) ובר
כמו בן; וכן מה ברי ומה בר בטני (משלי לא ב) או פרושו מן לברי לבב (מזמור עג
א) ואם יהיה ענינו בן יהיה פרושו: נשקו זה הבן שקראו האל בן כמו שאמר: בני
אתה. וטעם נשקו כמו שהוא מנהג העבד
לנשק יד האדון; ואם יהיה ענינו נקי פרושו: מה לכם ולי, כי אני בר לבב
ואין בי עון שתבאו ותלחמו בי, אבל עליכם לנשק לי ולהודות שאני מלך במצות האל.
ויתכן לפרש בר מן ברו לכם איש (שמואל א יז ח) על דרך: שאול במיר יי' (שם ב
כא ו)
Staffan Olofsson
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
Vol. 9, Iss. 2, 1995
[1] Rendsburg, Gary A. "The Strata of Biblical Hebrew." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages XVII 1991: 81-99. Print.
Bodine, Walter R., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Print.
