"Kiss the Son"??? Is there A Real "Son" in Psalms 2?

 

 

I.            Introduction

 

The verse Psalms 2:12 is a significant item in the portfolio of Christian apologists and missionaries.  The rendition of the Hebrew phrase  (nashqu var), which means do homage in purity, as Kiss the Son by Christian translators is designed to line up this psalm by King David with Christian theology and messianic paradigm.

 

The analysis presented in this essay will demonstrate how this so-called "proof text" has been fashioned with a manipulation of Hebrew text from the Hebrew Bible that aims to "retrofit" Christianity into it.  When the Psalm is read in the Hebrew text, or in an accurate translation thereof, the true and entirely different perspective unfolds.

 

II.            Comparison of Jewish and Christian English Translations

 

Side-by-side renditions of Psalms 2 are displayed in Table II-1.  The King James Version (KJV) rendition also shows references to key passages in the New Testament, where the respective portions of this psalm are cross-referenced.  [The references are found in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), but the corresponding passages, quoted below the table, are taken from the KJV.]

 

Table II-1 – Psalms 2

 

1. Acts 4:25(KJV) – Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen

                                rage, and the people imagine vain things?

2. Acts 4:26(KJV) – The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together

                                against the Lord, and against his Christ.

3. Acts 13:33(KJV) - God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised

                                 up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my

                                 Son, this day have I begotten thee.

    Hebrews 1:5(KJV) - For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son,

                                    this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and

                                    he shall be to me a Son?

    Hebrews 5:5(KJV) - So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he

                                    that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

4. Revelation 2:26(KJV) – And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to

                                          him will I give power over the nations:

5. Revelation 2:27(KJV) – And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter

                                          shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

    Revelation 12:5(KJV) - And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with

                                         a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his

                                         throne.

    Revelation 19:15(KJV) - And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should

                                           smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he

                                           treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty

                                          God.

 

Excepting two revisions from the Hebrew, one obvious and the other subtle, the two translations are reasonably consistent.  The obvious revision occurs at Psalms 2:12, where the two translations disagree on the opening phrase, and where the Christian rendition imputes a heavy dose of Christology into the context of King David's words.  The subtle change is at Psalms 2:7, where the KJV translators have replaced the term "son" with "Son", an action that enhances the Christological appeal of this psalm ("Son" is also used as part of the revision in Psalms 2:12).  In addition, tenses of some verbs were changed, but these do not have a serious impact the context. 

 

III.            Overview of Christian and Jewish Interpretations

 

A.      The Christian Perspective

 

The Christian view of this psalm is based on the claim that David and his kingdom are "types" that foreshadow Jesus and his kingdom, and that the prophecies related to the "first coming" of Jesus refer to David as Jesus' ancestor.  The rendition, in most Christian Bibles, of the opening phrase at Psalms 2:12 establishes a link to the declaration in Psalms 2:6-8 regarding who this "Son" is.

 

Verses 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 of Psalms 2 are cross-referenced with passages in the New Testament as shown under Table II-1.  These passages in the New Testament identify Jesus as the subject in the corresponding verses being "quoted" from Psalms 2.  Curiously, the New Testament is silent on the opening phrase of Psalms 2:12.  This may very well be due to the fact that, in the form it was known to them, the authors of the New Testament did not consider this part of Psalms 2:12 to have any Christological value.  Yet, excepting the ancient translations, most Christian translations render the opening phrase of Psalms 2:12 as Kiss the Son, an overt attempt to link Jesus into this verse as well.

 

Standard Christian sources, such as the commentaries by Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, provide more detailed verse-by-verse Christian interpretations of Psalms 2, which are beyond the scope of this essay.

 

B.     The Jewish Perspective

 

King David, the author of Psalms 2, is saying here that, no matter how powerful the force, nothing can thwart G-d's will.  The Jewish Sages, both ancient and modern, do not agree on whether the subject of this psalm is the Messiah or a former king and, if a former king, they disagree on the identity of this king.  The great Sage RASHI (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Yitzchak [1040-1105 C.E.]) comments:

 

"Our Rabbis expound it as relating to king Messiah; but according to its plain meaning it is proper to interpret it in connection with David, in the light of the statement: 'And when the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the fortress.' (2 Sam 5:17)."

 

In the plain meaning, this psalm describes a plot against one of G-d's anointed kings, which could very well be King David, its author.  A simple outline of the Psalm clarifies this.

 

§         Verses 1-3 – Kings plan to revolt against G-d by an attack on his anointed

§         Verses 4-6 – G-d ridicules the plot, chastises and scares the schemers

§         Verses 7-9 – The king relates G-d's promise of his triumph over the schemers

§         Verses 10-12 – The king urges the schemers to embrace G-d's ways & choices

 

The author of Acts attempts to link Psalms 2:1-2 to Jesus in Acts 4:25-26.  Yet, as other psalms indicate, it is King David, who is this anointed king:

 

Psalm 89:21-22[20-21][1] – (21) I found David My servant; I anointed him with My holy oil. (22) With whom My hand will be established; even My arm will strengthen him.

 

And, as was already noted by RASHI, the Hebrew Bible records situations in which foreign kings and rulers took counsel (plotted) against King David:

 

2 Samuel 5:17 - And when the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David; and David heard [of it], and David went down to the fortress.

 

2 Samuel 8:3 - David defeated Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to extend his dominion to the Euphrates River.

 

Other verses in this psalm further illustrate that David was speaking on his own behalf:

 

Psalms 2:7 – I will tell of the decree; The L-rd said to me, "You are My son [ (b^eni)]; this day have I begotten you."

 

The New Testament "quotes" this verse as if G-d were speaking to Jesus (Acts 13:33), the likely motivation for the KJV translators to have changed "son" to "Son" at this verse.  King David is the "son" here, a figurative characterization similar to the way G-d referred to Solomon as his "son" in His promise to David concerning the establishment of his everlasting dynasty (2 Sam 7:12-16):

 

2 Samuel 7:14 - I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with afflictions of human beings.

 

And this figurative language is found elsewhere in the Book of Psalms:

 

Psalms 89:20-21,27-28[19-20,26-27] – (20) Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones, and said, "I placed help upon a hero; I have raised a chosen one from the people.  (21) I found David My servant; I anointed him with My holy oil."

(27) "He will call to Me, 'You are my Father, my G-d, and the Rock of my salvation.'  (28) Also I will make him a firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth."

 

Verse 8 further indicates that David spoke of himself:

 

Psalms 2:8 – "Ask of Me, and I shall make nations your inheritance; and the ends of the earth [I shall make] your possession."

 

The Hebrew Bible records that, after many wars, this promise to David was indeed fulfilled:

 

2 Samuel 7:1,9 – (1) And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the L-rd had given him rest from all his enemies around.

(9) And I was with you wherever you went, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I have made for you a great name, like the name of the great ones who are on the earth.

 

1 Chronicles 14:17 - And the fame of David went forth throughout all the lands; and the L-rd placed the fear of him upon all the nations.

 

The focus of this essay is verse 12:

 

Psalm 2:12 - Do homage in purity [ (nashqu var)], lest He become scornful and you perish in the way, for in a flash His anger will kindle; happy are all who take refuge in Him.

 

The outline provided above indicates this verse to be a continuation of the theme King David started in verse 11 where, in addressing the (Gentile) kings and judges of the earth, he exhorts them to follow the righteous path and rejoice, rather than continue to be wicked and suffer the consequences.

 

Another interpretation offered by the Jewish Sages has this verse pointing back to verse 7, where the "son" mentioned in verse 7 is a reference to King David, and its message is that acknowledging with sincerity of heart King David as G-d's anointed avoids incurring His wrath.

 

The Jewish messianic interpretation of Psalms 2 runs along parallel lines, since David's name is commonly used in the Hebrew Bible as a metaphoric reference to the promised King/Messiah (e.g., Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24-25; Hos 3:5).

 

IV.            A Linguistic Analysis of Psalms 2:12

 

The phrase in question,  (nashqu var) consists of two component terms, the verb  (nashqu) and the noun  (var).  The verb  (nashqu) is conjugated in the 2^nd-person, plural, imperative of the root verb  (nashaq), which is applied on 35 occasions in the Hebrew Bible in several meanings, depending on the particular verb stem, and the context within the respective passage.  The most common contextual application of this verb is [to] kiss (e.g., Gen 27:27), from which the noun  (n^eshiqah), a kiss, is derived.  The other applications are: [to] unite or [to] desire (e.g., Ps 85:11[10]; correctly translated in the KJV), and to knock against or to touch (e.g., Ezek 3:13; correctly translated in the KJV).  In some cases, this verb is applied in the context of [to] arm oneself with a weapon (e.g., Ps 78:9; correctly translated in the KJV), from this context the noun  (nesheq), arms/weapons, is derived.  The rendition in the KJV, and in most other Christian translations, of the term  (nashqu) at Psalms 2:12 as the 2^nd-person, plural, imperative, kiss, becomes problematic when combined with the way in which the next term is translated in these Bibles. 

 

The root of  (var), the second component in the phrase  (nashqu var), is the noun  (bar), which is rendered here as  (var) for grammatical reasons[2].  The Hebrew noun  [also ] (bar) occurs in the Hebrew Bible 22 times with two distinct meanings.  Its most common application is as grain (15x; e.g., Gen 41:35,49), the other is as pure or clean or choice [as in select, superior, top quality] (7x; e.g., Job 11:4).  The correct translation of  (var) is pure or clean, or purity or cleanliness, and it is even possible that King David used it here as a metaphor for the Torah.  The KJV and most other Christian translations render this as the Son, claiming that  (var), as an alternate form of  (bar), is the Aramaic word for son.  However, the serious linguistic issues that plague this claim invalidate it:

 

§         No Aramaic words are used in the Book of Psalms.  The Aramaic language was not the spoken vernacular until the time of the Babylonian exile, i.e., in the sixth century B.C.E., long after the Psalms were composed and recorded by King David and others.

 

§         Even if  (bar) were an Aramaic term (which it could be, but not in the Book of Psalms), it is not the term for son, but for the possessive form, son of …, where the rest of this expression must be provided in the phrase itself.  For example, in the Aramaic portion of the Book of Daniel appears the expression  (k^evar enash), like a son of man (Dan 7:13).  In the very next chapter, after the language switches back to the Hebrew, appears the Hebrew equivalent [without the preposition  (k^e), like],  (ben-adam), son of man.  The Aramaic word for son is  (b^era), and not  (bar).  The Hebrew term for son is  (ben), used by King David at Psalms 2:7 in the conjugated form  (b^eni), my son.

 

§         Lastly, even if  (bar) were Aramaic, and even if it meant son (neither of which is the case here), the definite article  (ha), the, is absent from the phrase  (nashqu var).  This had to be added by the Christian translators in order to "harmonize" their rendition, i.e., in order to give their translation both proper (English) grammatical sense and the desired Christological message.

 

A word study on the Hebrew (not Aramaic!) term  (bar) helps illustrate the problem with the KJV rendition.  There are two instances of  (u'var), where  (u', pronounced as ooh) is a variant[3] of the preposition  (v^e), and, a grammatical requirement    The analysis is shown in Table IV-1, where the item of interest is located at the top of the list.

 

Table IV-1 – The Hebrew word / (bar) in the Hebrew Bible and its renditions in the KJV

 

 

Is it not odd that the KJV translators captured the proper context in 21 of the 22 cases, and only at Psalms 2:12 their rendition deviated from the correct meaning?

 

A variant of  / (bar/var), namely, / (bor/vor), purity or cleanliness, is also used in the Hebrew Bible, where it appears on seven occasions.  These cases are shown in Table IV-2.

 

Table IV-2 – The Hebrew word  (bor) in the Hebrew Bible and its renditions in the KJV

 

 

 

It is evident from Table IV-2 that the KJV translators were able to recognize this variant and translate it properly in each of the seven instances.

 

The question that begs for an answer is, "Is it just by coincidence that the only significant mistranslation by the KJV of  (bar) occurs in a passage that possesses imputed Christological relevance?"  The data presented in Tables IV-1&2 provide the answer this question. 

 

V.            From Where Came "Kiss the Son"?

 

It is interesting to research the possible sources for the common Christian translation of the opening passage in Psalms 2:12,  (nashqu var), as Kiss the Son.

 

There are clues available that will help in this effort.  One clue was already mentioned before – none of the authors of the New Testament ever allude to or invoke this opening phrase at Psalms 2:12.  As stated above, this indicates that it had no particular Christological appeal in the form this verse was known to them. 

 

One source[4] quotes the following marginal note from the R.V. (1881 Revised Version [of the 1611 KJV Bible]), which uses the translation Kiss the Son:

 

'Some ancient versions render, "lay hold of (or, receive) instruction," others "worship in purity."'

 

The results of a search of several available ancient Biblical texts for additional clues are summarized below, listed in ascending chronological order of the source:

 

Y      The Targum Yonathan, an ancient interpretive translation into the Aramaic vernacular of the Hebrew Bible, has  (qabilu ulphana), Accept the Law.

 

U      The Greek LXX, an ancient Christian translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, has δραξασθε παιδειας (draxasthe paideias), which breaks down as follows: δραξασθε (draxasthe), grasp (in the 2^nd-person, plural, imperative); παιδειας (paideias), instructions.  Thus, the Greek LXX has Grasp instructions.

 

U      Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 C.E.) has adorate pure.  adorate is the 2^nd-person, plural, imperative conjugation of adoro, [to] call upon, or [to] entreat, or [to] worship; purus is the root verb [to] be clean/pure, from which comes the Latin term pure, meaning purity.  Therefore, this translates as Worship in purity.

 

§         The 1582 Rheims translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate renders adorate pure as Embrace discipline.

 

§         In 1907, Pope Pius X ordered a revision of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and the new version has Adprehendite disciplinam, which translates as Embrace discipline.

 

U      Martin Luther's 1545 German translation has Kόsset den Sohn, which translates as Kiss the Son.

 

U      The 1611 KJV [The Authorized Version (A. V.)] has Kiss the Son.

 

This information indicates that the revisionism took place somewhere between the fifth and 16^th centuries C.E.  It should be noted that this revision of the Hebrew text has not been universally accepted by all Christian translations, old and new.

 

Curiously, a likely source for this mistranslation may come as a surprise to many: the two great Jewish Sages, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra [1089-1164 C.E.], the Jewish-Spanish Bible exegete and philosopher, and Rabbi David Qimhi [1160-1235 C.E.], the Jewish-French/Spanish Bible exegete.  Rabbi Ibn Ezra and Rabbi Qimhi offered the translation Kiss the son, and they link the phrase  (nashqu var) to the anointed individual referred to as My son in Psalms 2:7.  They explain that the anointed one, who will be pure, i.e., he will be righteous by keeping Torah, is the Messiah.  Therefore, people should pay homage to him.  In the Hebrew Bible, a way of paying homage is at times expressed through the act of kissing someone or something:

 

1 Samuel 10:1 - And Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it on his [Saul's] head, and kissed him. And he [Samuel] said [to Saul], "Indeed, the L-rd has anointed you to be a ruler over His inheritance."

 

This interpretation caught the attention of the Church, which seized upon it and applied it as referring to Jesus.  Aware of this misapplication, Rabbi Qimhi issued a detailed refutation to this Christological retrofit of his interpretation of Rabbi Ibn Ezra's rendition[5].  Nevertheless, the fact that most Christian Bibles have retained Kiss the Son indicates that it is widely accepted as the proper translation, since it serves to enhance the Christological relevance of this entire Psalm.

 

VI.            An Excursion into the Aramaic Domain

 

As was noted in Sec. IV, the Aramaic word for son is   (b^era), and not  (bar).  Several applications of the Aramaic term  (bar) are found throughout the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 2:44-7:28, Ezra 4:8-6:19, 7:12-26, and these are shown in Table VI-1.

 

Table VI-1 – The Aramaic word  (bar) in the Hebrew Bible and its renditions in the KJV

 

* The fact this was an angel is confirmed just three verses later:

 

Daniel 3:28 - Nebuchadnezzar cried out and said, "Blessed be the G-d of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, Who sent His angel and rescued His servants, who trusted Him; and [who] deviated from the command of the king, and risked their lives in order not to worship or prostrate themselves to any god except to their G-d.

 

    Even the KJV confirms this with a reasonably accurate translation:

 

Daniel 3:28(KJV) - Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

 

As may be seen from Table VI-1 above, all (undisputed) applications of the Aramaic term  (bar) demonstrate that the term is used in the possessive construct, son of…, not as son.

 

VII.            The Case  of  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2

 

Christian apologists and missionaries point to the use of  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2 as they attempt to support their claim that the expression  (nashqu var) uses the term  (bar) in the context of son.  Three applications of the term  (bar) occur in Proverbs 31:2.  These were not included in Table IV-1 nor in Table VI-1 due to the fact that their proper classification, as Hebrew or Aramaic terms, is ambiguous.  In the following analysis, these three applications of  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2 are analyzed to help determine their proper context and whatever relationship may exist, if any, with the usage of  (var) in Psalms 2:12.

 

Table VII-1 provides the Hebrew text of Proverbs 31:2, as well as side-by-side translations, the KJV rendition is on the left side, a common Jewish translation is on the right side, and an alternate Jewish translation is in the middle.

 

Table VII-1 – The applications of  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2

 

 

The three applications of  (bar) are highlighted in the Hebrew and in the respective English translations of the verse.  The first application is the term  (b^eri), rendered my son both in the KJV and in the common Jewish translation, and my choice one in the alternate Jewish translation.  The remaining two applications are identical and are simply the term  (bar), rendered the son of … in the KJV, son of … in the common Jewish translation, and [O] choice one of … in the alternate Jewish translation.  It is noteworthy that, regardless of the differences in the respective renditions of  (bar), all three applications agree on the possessive construct of this noun.  This fact alone is sufficient to invalidate the basis for comparing its application here with the term  (var) at Psams 2:12 by Christian apologists and missionaries.

 

The applications of  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2 may be understood in two distinct ways, either of which leads to a correct interpretation of the verse:

 

Y      It is the Aramaic term for son of …, which was introduced into the original text at some later time

 

Y      It is the Hebrew term described above as pure or clean or choice [as in select, superior, top quality], but it is cast in the possessive construct

 

These two approaches will now be explained and evaluated.

 

A.      The Case for the Aramaic  (b^era)

 

Why is it plausible that  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2 is the Aramaic possessive construct son of … from the root noun  (b^era), son?

 

According to the Jewish tradition, and this is also accepted among Christians, King Solomon authored the following:  Proverbs [ (mishlei)], Song of Songs [ (shir ha'shirim)], and Ecclesiastes [ (qohelet)].  The Hebrew Bible records the following regarding King Solomon's works:

 

1 Kings 5:12 - And he [Solomon] spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five.

 

1 Kings 11:41 - And the rest of the acts of Solomon and all that he did and his wisdom, they are assuredly written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon.

 

Though the Book of the Acts of Solomon appears to have been lost and is unknown to us today, the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles contains the above-mentioned three works of Solomon, and these may very well represent the surviving remnants of it.  However, when the data provided in 1 Kings 5:12 is contrasted with the contents of these writings – Proverbs (915 verses/31 chapters), Song of Songs (117 verses/8 chapters), and Ecclesiastes (222 verses/12 chapters) – the numbers fall significantly short of those reported in 1 Kings 5:12.  What happened to the rest of King Solomon's writings?

 

There are different speculations about what the answer to this question might be.  Among these, perhaps the most plausible paradigm is that the three Books being attributed to King Solomon – Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes – are, in fact, versions of his complete original works, which were edited or redacted by others at a later time.

 

The Hebrew Bible offers clues that lend support to this theory.  One such clue is provided in the opening verse of Proverbs 25:

 

Proverbs 25:1 – These too are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, maintained.

 

Why would it be necessary to make this statement in the first place?  Perhaps its purpose was to serve as a disclaimer, to indicate this is not King Solomon's original work but, rather, maintained by others who may have done some editing.  King Hezekiah had his scribes create and maintain copies of the proverbs of Solomon for distribution throughout the Kingdom of Judah.  It is well documented in the Hebrew Bible that, already at the time of Hezekiah's reign as King of Judah [ca. 728-699 B.C.E.], the officials of his court spoke the Aramaic language, although it was not yet the vernacular among the population:

 

2 Kings 18:26 - And Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and Shebnah and Joah said to Rabshakeh, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic for we understand it; do not speak with us in Judean within the hearing of the people who are on the wall."  [See also Isaiah 36:11.]

 

The official positions each of the above-named individuals held are identified in another passage:

 

2 Kings 18:18 - And they summoned the king, and Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was appointed over the palace, and Shebna the scribe and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came out to them.  [See also Isaiah 36:3.]

 

It is quite plausible that, while maintaining and transcribing the proverbs, some editing and redacting took place, which could have easily included the introduction of the Aramaic term  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2.  From a strictly poetic stylistic perspective, albeit subjective, replacing the Hebrew  (b^eni) and  (ben) with the Aramaic  (b^eri) and  (bar), respectively, makes the verse flow better.  So, while the original material is credited to King Solomon, the recorded material may be the product of King Hezekiah's scribes and perhaps others.

 

There is still stronger evidence, found within the Hebrew Bible, that supports this theory.  If King Solomon's writings were edited during a later era, as exemplified by Proverbs, then this should also be reflected in his other two Books, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.  Is this the case?  Yes, indeed it is! 

 

Various linguistic indicators attest to the fact that elements of the language used in the Hebrew text of King Solomon's writings are of a vintage that is later than his own era.  When those who are proficient and knowledgeable in the Hebrew language read through the Hebrew  (shir ha'shirim), Song of Songs, and  (qohelet), Ecclesiastes, they will encounter words that are not original to Hebrew, but which are rooted in languages of some Near-Eastern nations of later times, among which were the Aramaic and Persian languages.  One such example, the word  (pardes), orchard, is of Persian origin, and it appears in both Song of Songs (4:13) and Ecclesiastes (2:5; here in the plural form,  [pardesim]).  This particular term has a somewhat familiar "ring" to it; its Greek form, παραδεισος (paradeisos), is the origin of the English word paradise.  The only other occurrence of this word in the Hebrew Bible is at Nehemiah 2:8 (a product of the fifth century B.C.E.).

 

Another example is found in the Song of Songs, which contains the only three instances in the Hebrew Bible of the word  (s^emadar), an Aramaic word of undetermined origin that means early fruit (of a vine or berry still in its budding stage; 2:13,15, 7:13). 

 

A final example is the word  (pitgam), an Aramaic word of Persian origin that means judgment, sentence, or order, with one of its eight instances found in Ecclesiastes (8:11).  The other seven cases of this word are at Esther 1:20 (which is in the Hebrew portion of the Hebrew Bible), Daniel 3:16, 4:14, Ezra 4:17, 5:7,11, 6:11 (which are in Aramaic segments of the Hebrew Bible).

 

B.     The Case for the Hebrew  (bar)

 

Some will not accept, for one reason or another, the case presented above for the Aramaic  (bar).  Another plausible explanation of the applications of  (bar) in Proverbs 31:2 is now presented, in which the Hebrew word, as described in Sec. IV, is shown to be utilized in the possessive constructs as choice one of … from the root noun  (bar).

 

The alternate Jewish translation has the first two verses in Proverbs 31 as:

 

Proverbs 31:1-2 – (1) The words of Lemuel the king; a  prophecy that his mother disciplined him; (2) What, my choice one [ (b^eri)], and what, [O] choice one of [ (bar)] my womb; and what, [O] choice one of [ (bar)] my vows?

 

The conjugation of the noun  (bar) in the 1^st-person, singular, masculine or feminine gender is  (b^eri), choice one of mine, or pure one of mine, i.e., my choice one or my pure one, which puts the noun into the possessive form.  In the remaining two cases, the 1^st-person conjugation is applied to the second noun, which leaves the noun  (bar) unchanged, except possibly causing a vowel change from  (bar) to  (bar), i.e., from a longer ah-sound (qamatz) to a shorter ah-sound (patah), due to the placement of the accented syllable in the respective compound expressions.

 

Considering the alternate translation, can this reading of Proverbs 31:2 be explained?  Possible later editing notwithstanding, according to Jewish tradition, this Proverb is the work of King Solomon.  And, although the actual identity of King Lemuel is not crucial for the explanation of this verse, several Jewish Sages propose that it is yet another pseudonym for King Solomon.  King Lemuel's mother, as she starts to give her son advice about ruling with dignity and justice, refers to him as the choice one.  Based on the opening verse and the three characterizations found in the second verse, it appears that he was the most favored of her sons[6]:

 

§         She devoted most of her instruction and education to him

 

§         He was born with unusual natural talents, the most gifted of her sons

 

§         She made great vows and offered up devout prayers to G-d, even before he was ever conceived, in her hopes for him

 

An example of a similar use of the noun  (bar) in the context of the choice one is found here:

 

Song of Songs 6:9 – My dove, my perfect one, is but one [of a kind]; she is one [of a kind] to her mother, the choice one [ (barah)] she is to the one who bore her; women saw her and acclaimed her, queens and concubines [saw her] and praised her;

 

The KJV agrees here, as do many other Christian translations:

 

Song of Songs 6:9(KJV) - My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

 

The Hebrew  (bar) could easily apply in this same context at Proverbs 31:2.

 

It is not important which of the above two interpretations one accepts, and they are not mutually exclusive, which means that both may be valid explanations.  The analysis presented here demonstrates the importance of an intimate and thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language in obtaining a correct understanding of the Hebrew Bible.  That is something Christian apologists and missionaries do not have, which causes their futile attempts at retrofitting Christian theology into the Hebrew Bible to be without merit and easily defeated.

 

VIII.            Summary

 

It has been demonstrated that the term  (bar) does not mean son in either Hebrew or Aramaic.  There is no compelling reason for King David, the author of this psalm, to have used an Aramaic word in Psalms 2:12 or elsewhere in his writings for the following reasons:

 

§         He lived several centuries before the Babylonian exile, in which the Jews began to formally use Aramaic as the vernacular.

 

§         He used the Hebrew noun  (ben), son, in the same Psalm.

 

§         He never used Aramaic words in any of his other Psalms.

 

The Book of Psalms, in the Masoretic Text,  contains 19,479 words.  Jews and Christians agree that 19,478 of these are Hebrew words.  Does it make more sense to say that  (bar) is a Hebrew word or an Aramaic word?

 

Perhaps the most compelling evidence that the common Christian rendition of  (nashqu var) as Kiss the Son is an attempted revision of the Hebrew text, can be found in the silence by the authors of the New Testament on this phrase; to them it clearly did not have this corrupted meaning.

 

In Judaism, son of G-d never takes on the Greek mythological meaning that the New Testament ascribes to it – a divine being who is a literal son of G-d.  The Greek concept of a son of G-d would never occur to a Jew.  Greek gods have literal sons, but the One G-d of Israel does not (Rabbi David Qimhi's refutation of the Christian revision in Psalms 2:12 addresses this issue).  To a Jewish person, the title son of G-d may have either of the following two meanings:

 

§         A king from the line of David and Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:14, Ps 89:28[27])

 

§         Any one of us, as we are all metaphoric children of G-d, the Children of Israel in particular (e.g., Exod 4:22, Jer 31:8[9], Hos 11:1)

 

Therefore, it should be clear that the only time the term son is used in Psalms 2, at Psalms 2:7 where the Hebrew word is  (b^eni), my son, it refers to one of G-d's anointed Jewish kings, likely to be King David or the awaited King/Messiah.

 

IX.            Supplementary Section

 

Reproduced here, with permission from the publishers, is the response by Rabbi David Qimhi (called Redak in the source) to the Christian claims concerning his and Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's rendition of  (nashqu var) as Kiss the son.

 

Before getting to the response by Redak, two comments are in order.  The first is about Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai (Chida), who is credited with the discovery of this material.  Chida [1724-1806 C.E.] was born in Jerusalem and became a well-known Jewish scholar who wrote several classic works in Halachah (Jewish Law).  He is regarded as one of the most fascinating and multi-faceted figures in Jewish history.  He traveled extensively, and wherever he visited, Chida made sure to inspect the important libraries.  He thereby became familiar with many thousands of manuscripts, and a portion from one of these is the text being reproduced below.  Out of these visits grew his remarkably compact and informative classic bibliographic and biographic work, Shem HaGedolim.  During his lifetime, Chida produced some one hundred volumes in every field of scholarship.  [This is an edited and condensed version of the biographical sketch found on the Orthodox Union (OU) website, under the title, "Great Leaders of our People"].

 

The second comment concerns the translation of the Hebrew phrase  (nashqu-var), shown below as Arm yourselves with purity.  This is the rendition by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg in the Judaica Press publication.  It is one of several acceptable translations of the phrase.

 

 

Appendix: Redak[7]

 

 

      R' Chaim Joseph David Azulai, known by the acronym Chida, writes in the diary of his travels that when he was in Paris, he visited a library of manuscripts, where he saw "many hundreds of our books in manuscript, and there was a Redak on Psalms, in which there was more than [in] the printed edition, and we saw on the verse (2:12) a column larger than half a folio."

 

2:12 – Arm yourselves with purity – Heb.  [sic[8]; actual is ].  The Christians [rendering: Kiss the son] explain this as referring to Jesus, but the verse they bring as evidence and which they make a support to their error is itself their stumbling block.  This is (verse 1[sic; should be verse 7]): "The Lord said to me, 'You are my son.'"  If they tell you that he was G-d's son, tell them that we cannot say that a human being is G-d's son, because the son is of the species of the father.  Since it is impossible to say, for example, that this horse is Reuben's son, the one to whom G-d said, "You are my son," must be of His kind and be a G-d like Him.  Moreover, He said, "this day I have begotten you." and the one begotten is of the same species as the one who begot him.  Tell them also that in divinity there cannot be a father and a son, because divinity cannot be divided.  It is not a body that can be divided, but G-d is one in all kinds of oneness; He will neither increase, decrease, nor be divided.  Tell them further that the father precedes the son in time and that the son is a product of the father.  Although neither can have his name without the other – for one cannot be called a father until he has a son and one cannot be called a son unless he has a father – nevertheless, the one called father undoubtedly had existed before he had a son.  Consequently, the G-d in Whom you believe, Whom you call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – the part that you call the Father preceded the part you call Son, for if they had always existed together, they would be called twin brothers; you could not call them Father and Son, and not begotten and begetter, for the begetter must undoubtedly precede the begotten.  Now if they say to you that the one who is not divine cannot be called the son of G-d, tell them that we can speak of G-d only figuratively, as it is said about Him: the mouth of the Lord, the eyes of the Lord, the ears of the Lord, and the like, which are figurative.  Likewise, it is figurative when Scripture says: the son of G-d, the sons of G-d, for whoever performs His commandments and His mission is called a son, as the son performs the orders of the father.  Therefore, the stars are called the sons of G-d, as (Job 38:7): "And all the sons of G-d shouted."  Similarly, when man – because of the heavenly spirit within him and prompted by the intelligent soul which guides him – performs the commandments of G-d, he is called His son.  Therefore, He says, "You are My son; today I begot you."  And He says (Exod. 4:22): "Israel is my firstborn son."  And He says (Deut. 14:1): "You are children of the Lord your G-d."  And He says (ibid. 32:6): "Is he not your father, who possessed you," and He says (II Samuel 7:14): "I shall be to him as a father, and he will be to Me as a son."

      Tell them further: This G-d of Whom you speak – the Father said to the Son, "Request of Me and I shall make nations your inheritance."  How is it that the Son requests of the Father?  Is he not a G-d like Him, and does he not have power over the nations and the ends of the earth like Him?  Moreover, before the request, nations were not his inheritance; if so, was the strength of this god lacking in the beginning, and did he later gain strength?  That cannot be said of a god.  Now if they tell you that that is said only concerning the flesh, [that] after the god took on a physical body, he said to the flesh that he should ask of him and he would give him nations as his inheritance, that was not so, for the flesh never had dominion or any ruling power over any nation.  If they answer you that he said that the [Christian] faith would be accepted, [that too is not true,] because the majority of the nations, both Jews and Ishmaelites, did not accept his faith.

      Behold, I have instructed you what to answer them concerning the psalm.  If they ask you its meaning, explain it according to either one of the two interpretations that you wish to choose: either concerning David or the King Messiah, as I have explained to you.