Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: [b-hebrew] ur-textual possibilities between MT and LXX on Psa. 2:12

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ron Tavalin <rtav AT zionweb.org>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] ur-textual possibilities between MT and LXX on Psa. 2:12
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 07:50:32 -0500

Hello All

This is my first post to this mailing list, and admittedly a bit off topic from the thread I'm jumping into. Regarding Psalm 2:12, most versions (not including the Syriac, which follows the MT very closely) can be reconciled to the MT with some rationale. However, the LXX (to me) remains enigmatic ("trap instruction"? "accept instruction"?) It is very difficult and seems to point to a different Vorlage, but I hate to have to go that far in explaining the LXX here (an isolated lemma as evidence of a Vorlage is notoriously difficult to establish.) It is an interesting suggestion, though, to consider the possibility that drassomai might refer to "embracing," hence being a metaphor for "kiss." But this, while intriguing, is also difficult. It should be noted that the Vulgate (not Jerome's Iuxta Hebraeos) seems to follow the LXX with "adprehendite disciplinum."

The first Hebrew word of Psalm 2:12 MT is clear enough: "kiss," (piel impv mp) and if the following noun had been bn, as in verse 7, it is doubtful that any crux would have arisen here. Because br can have multiple meanings in Hebrew ("corn" or "grain" as in Gen 41:35, and the Talmud, see Sanh 91b-92a), it could mean "open field" (Job 39:4), or br (Arabic brr; Heb. br, "pure"), the verb n-sh-q seems to make little "literal" sense as a purely Hebrew collocation ("kiss the open field"? "kiss the pure"? "kiss the grain"?) Hence, translators and interpreters have often taken n-sh-q metaphorically: (LXX ?); Jerome (Iuxta hebraeos) "adorate pure," Symmachus "proskunsate katharws," etc. as a means to explicating br. Aquila reads, "kataphilasate eklektos," "kiss the chosen" (perhaps reading br as bkr.) Others have sought to emend the MT to n-sh-qw-brglw bar'dh ("kiss his feet with trembling", Bertholet, etc., see also BHS apparatus), n-sh-y qbr (lit. "men of the grave," Wm. Holladay, I believe), etc. Rashi considers n-sh-q to be from the noun for "weapon," not the verb "to kiss." He thus renders br as brzl, a phrase meaning "weapon of iron." however, lacking a verb, this hardly helps, and the MT's pointing is quite obviously a piel verb and all ancient versions take the word to be a verb, not a noun.

Not to get too far afield from the topic at hand, I believe that the word br in Psalm 2:12 should be understood not as a Hebrew word but as the Aramaic word for "son," in the context referring to the Davidic son of verse 7. This is because it makes good sense contextually and as a collocation with nashaq it fits a syntactical pairing with verse 11 of Psalm 2: 'bdw et-YHWH (qal impv mp + accusative + object: "Serve YHWH, Kiss the son"; of course, verse 12 lacks the accusative marker [and any other intervening particle like the L prep, but this is not syntactically difficult considering the maqqeph and the fact that mp imperatives frequently lack any intervening particle with their objects - see Ex 16:29; Lev 9:3, etc.) Such an interpretation also sets up the "pen" clause very well ("Do this, lest that"), and it keeps the subject as the Davidic son without interjecting some third party as the object of the verb. Grammatically, n-sh-qw br is a clear phrase, in a Psalm with several Aramaisms: r-g-sh, n-t-q, r-'-',y-samekh-r, etc.

Moreover, in the 9th century BCE Kilamuwa inscription, the words bn (lines 13/14 - Phoenician) and br (lines 1 and 9 - Aramaic) are both used in the same inscription to refer to "son." That there are biblical instances where the Aramaic br is used in an other Hebrew text to refer to "son" is not disputed (Prov. 31:2), but these occurrences probably reflect rather later (and more Aramaically influenced) biblical Hebrew. Kilamuwa, from the 9th century, is a very early occurence of both bn and br referring to "son." While not Hebrew, it is still an early example of the use of the VERY common Aramaic word br finding its way into (at least) one other Semitic language at an early juncture. Cross pollination the other way may also be seen in the Aramaic Panamuwa Inscription (Donner and Rollig, Kanaanaische Und Aramaische Inscriften [KAI] 214, lines 1 and 15, as well as KAI 217, lines 1 and 6), where both bn and br are used to describe "son(s)." P. Craigie (Word Biblical Commentary) gives an interesting reason as to why the biblical author chose the Aramaic br over the Hebrew bn: the Psalmist is addressing the nations, of whom to many Aramaic, not Hebrew, was the lingua franca.

I appreciate your time in reading this, and hope that some find this perspective stimulating.

Shalom

Ron Tavalin
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Moody Bible Institute




  • RE: [b-hebrew] ur-textual possibilities between MT and LXX on Psa. 2:12, Ron Tavalin, 05/29/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page