Psalm 2:12, once again
A few of us in the biblioblogosphere recently had a blogabout regarding the translation of Psalm 2:12. Jim Getz kicked it off, I offered some analysis, Tyler Williams joined in, and Jim responded to it all. Meanwhile, Bob McDonald reminded us of his translation available online, and John Hobbins chimed in with some comments and scansion of Psalm 2.
While updating iTanakh this morning, I ran across an entry for a very short note on Psalm 2:12 in Biblica 87.1 (2006), “Ps 2,12: ‘Küsst den Sohn!’?” (PDF) by Liudger Sabottka. The article is only 1/2 page long, in German. Here’s the English abstract:
The long-standing difficulty in Ps 2,12 נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר is tentatively resolved by deriving נַשְּׁקוּ from נשק II – “to be armed”, and interpreting the verbal form according
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, § 52h, as ‘privative Piel’: “to be/get disarmed”,
whereas בַר takes its normal meaning “pure, sincere”.
The argument works like this:
- There exists in biblical Hebrew a נשק II, “to be armed.” You can find it in the hiphil in Ezekiel 3:13, and in the qal in Psalm 78:9; 1 Chronicles 2:12; 2 Chronicles 17:17.
- There exists—according to Gesenius—in Hebrew a construction in which the pi‘el form can be used to indicate privation.
- Putting these two things together, Sabottka suggests the translation “Rüstet ehrlich ab!” or “Really/truly/honestly disarm [yourselves]!”
It’s an interesting argument, which really hinges on the “privative pi‘el.” I don’t have a copy of Gesenius’s grammar nearby, so I really can’t look for myself to evaluate his evidence. In any event, Sabottka’s suggestion is thought-provoking, and I invite assessment here from any of the Hebraists among my readers.
6 comments Christopher Heard | Bible (specific texts), Bible translation
[...] our attention back to the actual text critical problem with this passage, Chris Heard has posted on the difficulty of translating נשקו־בר (“kiss the son” or the like) in Psalm 2:12. [...]
as in israeli i can only translate
נשקו – בר
as 2 things:
1- “his weapon is natural \ from the wild”
as in “wild flower” = פרח בר
2- kissed him – but in this translation the word בר doesnt really add up.
maybe the whole quote would be helpful
stav, might I respectfully suggest that “as [a]n israeli,” you might be approaching the problem from the standpoint of modern Hebrew rather than ancient Hebrew?
This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything – and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”
If we were to follow your suggestion that “There exists in biblical Hebrew a נשק II, “to be armed.”” couldn’t we rather come to “Arm yourself with the Son”? It’s obvious to any Christian that the word “Son” is correct there, regardless of whether the text says to kiss the Son or to equip ourselves with the Son. To deny that the passage says Son is to altogether deny the faith.
jk: No. Even if we do read בר as an Aramaism, “son,” נשקו־־בר would not mean “arm yourself with the son,” and could not, without bending Hebrew grammar to the breaking point. What’s more, it’s not a matter of “faith” at all. It’s a matter of linguistics. The text says what it says—which in this case is ambiguous—regardless of Christian faith. Christians don’t get to rewrite the Bible to make it fit what we want it to say!