Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ron Tavalin <rtav AT zionweb.org>]

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