Is this really Rashi's 'demonic deception?' In the Septuagint, it is δράξασθε παιδείας, "accept correction."
. . . I was using the editorial Rashi since any good exegete who signs off on bad exegesis becomes a poster-boy for that bad exegesis. . . And here, nothing is so clear, as the fact that Psalm 2 is speaking about a unique son of God (verse 7), adopted as the son of God because of verse 6, such that throughout the chapter claims are being made about this "son." ----- So that when we get to verse 12, where we read about "kissing" this son of God, the Jewish sages get extremely nervous and for reasons casual readers might not be familiar with.
Ibn Ezra, who tends toward exegeting the literal meaning of the text, and who, not withstanding his strong bias toward tradition, can often be counted on to set interpretation straight, implies that the usage in 2:12:
. . . is similar to the meaning of beri (my son) in What, my son? and what, O son of my womb (Prov. 31:2). Scripture similarly reads, Thou art My son (v. 7).
He goes on to point out that it's been customary for a long time for servants to place their hands under the thigh of their master or to kiss the king. He notes that the practice was still around in his day such that we could ask why there would be a problem with interpreting Psalms 2:12, "kiss the son," the prince, or the newly throned king, when that's by far the most literal and legitimate reading?
One of the primary problems for a Jewish exegete is the next phrase: "Lest he be angry." Ibn Ezra points out that although the statement flows perfectly with "kiss the son" the reference to "lest he be angry" simply has to be speaking of God who was mentioned only in the previous verse, though in good conscience he passively notes the problem as he brushes it aside, "
This is so even though the name of God is some distance from this clause."
Although it appears to be saying pretty plainly and clearly, "kiss the son lest he be angry," what follows would make this godly son inherit a tad too much of the Father's power and authority than a good Jew is prepared to swallow or get his lips anywhere near praising.
Ergo the plain meaning causes an exegetical scramble to remove one more piece from the plain and literal interpretation of an entire chapter that seem to lend itself too seamlessly, and in an unseemly manner, to the Christian idea that God adopts the Prince of Peace as His Son (v. 7), when he's poured out on the altar (v. 6), such that the phrase "kiss the son lest he become angry" is simply an exegetical bridge too far when it seemingly too seamlessly bridges the divide between verse 12, and the Christian reading of verses 7 and 6.
Ibn Ezra next points out Rashi's peculiar, almost demonically unlikely rendition: "Arm yourselves with purity of heart." He (Ibn Ezra) says for Rashi's reading to be correct the verse should have read:
nasheku bor, and not
nasheku bar. . . And although having to falsely translate
bar as though it were
bor probably won't bar Rashi's exegetical shenanigans, it's likely our pointing out those shenanigans will bore Rashi's readers to tears irregardless of whether they're tears of joy or pain.
Rashi knows better than others the domino affect a literal translation here would have on the entire chapter, if not the entire Tanakh, since this verse is undeniably and symbiotically related to verses 6 and 7, which are seminal to the entire Jewish concept of Messiah throughout the Tanakh.
Even a half-serious exegete willing to fact-check a great exegete like Rashi would be scratching his head till it bleeds when he sees that the great Rashi chooses the one interpretation of the word
nesheku נשקו, out of thirty-five times its used and translated "kiss," where it allegedly means "arm" or "armor" (1 Kings 10:25); but which in truth is merely a hint toward the relationship between
nesheku, or
neshak נשק, and the word in verse 6 for "pouring out" which is
nesak נסך o
r nesakti.
The phonetics of the two words are nearly identical thereby lending this important connection to those exegetes who are willing to connect verses 6 and 7 with verse 12. I.e., those pure-hearted exegetes willing to realize that the "sound" or phonetics of words (as they would be spoken orally, or perhaps sung in a Psalm, or even a hymn) connect them in the
soundest exegesis, so to say. Which is to say that the phonetic relationship between these two words lends itself to the relationships in the cross hairs in this examination; the cross hairs which produce the truest meaning, the most faithful Oral understanding, of the holy tongue the author of Psalms 2:12 was hearing when he sung.
Rabbi Hirsch's
Etymological Dictionary points out this exegetical nuance and uses it throughout the
Dictionary: words that sound alike often kiss the same masterly reading. Unfortunately Rabbi Hirsch forgets to use the principle here in a text that was originally sacerdotal-song, oral through and through.
1 Kings 10:25 speaks of "armor" as the metallic protection that's "poured out,"
nesheku, or
nesekti, from molten-metal
nesek, in order to form a barrier against what one fears most: the death of a body or a traditional body of thought; so that it's demonically ironic that what Rashi fears more than death itself is the "pouring out" of a son of God, verse 6, that allows the Father to adopt him as His very Son, verse 7, and give him a unique inheritance, verse 8, and 12, that allows him to rule over every nation of the world (save one), as the very Son of God made King of kings, and Lord of lords, from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth;
establishing his mastery over all exegesis and over every exegete who doesn't have a shield shielding their pure hearts from his having been lifted out of the grave to the very throne of Zion (9:13-14; 16:10), which is to speak singularly of all those who slavishly place their hearts and hands on Rashi's "thigh" and kiss Rashi's backside since it allows them to betray Psalms 2:12 with a kiss.
John
