Psalm 2:11-12 Again

Tyler Williams has an excellent post on an admittedly difficult text: Psalm 2:11-12. I concur that “translations that capitalize ‘Son’ (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) are clearly expressing a theological agenda, which arguably has no place in a translation.” It is unlikely that  בַּר means ‘son’ here in the first place. More plausibly, the meaning of נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר is ‘kiss purely.’ In this context, a kiss would be a gesture of homage, and might be insincere. Cf. Prov 27:6. On this understanding of the text, בַּר is an adjective meaning ‘pure.’ Like מַר ‘bitter’ in Isa 33:7, it is used adverbially. As Tyler notes, NJPSV ‘pay homage in good faith’ and NET ‘Give sincere homage’ so construe the text’s meaning. 

 

Here is the text, along with a poetic translation. For a scansion and translation of the entire psalm, go here.

 

וְעַתָּה מְלָכִים הַשְׂכִּילוּ

הִוָּסְרוּ שֹׁפְטֵי אָרֶץ

 

עִבְדוּ אֶת־יְהוָה בְּיִרְאָה

וְגִילוּ בִּרְעָדָה
 

נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר פֶּן־יֶאֱנַף

וְתֹאבְדוּ דֶרֶךְ
 

כִּי־יִבְעַר כִּמְעַט אַפּוֹ

אַשְׁרֵי כָּל־חוֹסֵי בוֹ

Now,  o kings, be wise,

be warned,  o rulers  of the land.
 

Serve  Yahweh  with awe,

tremble  with trepidation.

 

Kiss  sincerely  or he’ll anger,

and you’ll lose your way, 

 

for his anger  flares up quickly:

happy all  who take refuge  in him.

Comments

[fab]

It does refer to the son, but David is referring to the son mentioned earlier:
7 I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
David is scoffing at the enemy kings stating that he was appointed the anointed king and exhort them to kiss him or die.
In reality, it refers to a person under the influence and protection of the Spirit of G-d:
Psalm 127:3
Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.
One who does the will of the Father is of course the righteous representative of the Father, thus the son, by adoption:
Proverbs 17:2
A wise servant will rule over a disgraceful son, and will share the inheritance as one of the brothers.

[JohnFH]

Fab,

But "bar" does not mean "son" in Hebrew. In order to reach the conclusion you do, you have to assume that the psalm's author, without warning, makes use of the Aramaic equivalent, even though he had previously used "ben" = "son," in the verse you not.

Your thesis is unlikely on its face. You assert it without argument. If you have a case to make, you might want to argue it.