בר meaning “son” in Hebrew

[kwrandolph]

The word בר is traditionally translated as son in Ps 2:12 and Pr 31:2. This is the Aramaic meaning, but is this what was meant in Hebrew? Or did this use come from the root ברר indicating the one selected, chosen one, which fits the two contexts where it is found in Tanakh?

Any thoughts?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

The word בר is traditionally translated as son in Ps 2:12 and Pr 31:2. This is the Aramaic meaning, but is this what was meant in Hebrew? Or did this use come from the root ברר indicating the one selected, chosen one, which fits the two contexts where it is found in Tanakh?

Any thoughts?

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl, well I could not resist replying and would like to make a suggestion and an observation:
1. Did you notice how the King has a womb? Making this an interesting conjecture if you know what I mean.
2. I believe there are moments in scripture when to divide a word into an either/or translation is to miss the point. What I mean is this, ambiguity in scripture is sometimes the correct and only translation and to force a choice is to miss the point.
What do you think? Only three times written in scripture, its worthy of attention. Maybe the writers had both ideas in mind.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

1. Did you notice how the King has a womb? Making this an interesting conjecture if you know what I mean.

Everyone alive, male and female, has a בֶּ֫טֶן. It is the generic word for “belly.” The stomach specifically is called קֵבָה, and the womb is specifically called רֶ֫חֶם, even though בֶּ֫טֶן may refer less specifically to either the stomach or the womb, just as we say that “my belly hurts” even if we are referring to the stomach, or we might say that the woman has a child “in her belly.” This doesn’t mean that we have a reference here to a king who has a womb. That isn’t the case at all. (I don’t know if you were joking here, since there’s no smiley or whatever. Sorry if I took you seriously when you intended a joke, if that is the case.)

2. I believe there are moments in scripture when to divide a word into an either/or translation is to miss the point. What I mean is this, ambiguity in scripture is sometimes the correct and only translation and to force a choice is to miss the point.
What do you think? Only three times written in scripture, its worthy of attention. Maybe the writers had both ideas in mind.

There are some counter-missionaries who argue that בָּר in Psalm 2:12 either means “purity” (as in, “offer pure homage”) or something else, in order to argue that there is no “son” mentioned in this verse. It would seem to me that using בָּר just allows the author to avoid monotony, seeing that he had already declared that the Davidic king was God’s son in verse 7 (בְּנִי אַ֫תָּה). If the king is already declared God’s son, what’s the problem with the final verse using a different word for “son” while still referring to that king, whom they are ordered to “kiss,” as in reverence and honor?

It seems to me to refer more naturally to a son than to anything else, even if it is a loanword from Aramaic. After all, we have Aramaic terms creeping into Hebrew even within the text of the Pentateuch (see this paper for more information). I don’t see the problem of the authors of the Psalms pulling in words from other Semitic languages.

[kwrandolph]

The word בר is traditionally translated as son in Ps 2:12 and Pr 31:2. This is the Aramaic meaning, but is this what was meant in Hebrew? Or did this use come from the root ברר indicating the one selected, chosen one, which fits the two contexts where it is found in Tanakh?

Any thoughts?

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl, well I could not resist replying and would like to make a suggestion and an observation:
1. Did you notice how the King has a womb? Making this an interesting conjecture if you know what I mean.

Didn’t you notice in verse 1 that it is the mother speaking? That the king is quoting his mother?

2. I believe there are moments in scripture when to divide a word into an either/or translation is to miss the point. What I mean is this, ambiguity in scripture is sometimes the correct and only translation and to force a choice is to miss the point.
What do you think? Only three times written in scripture, its worthy of attention. Maybe the writers had both ideas in mind.

Chris watts

Both ideas are found in Numbers 6:26 where שלום can be derived from either שלה with the idea of peace, or שלם with the idea of being filled. We have the filled idea repeated in the New Testament with the idea of being filled with the spirit.

But with the word בר I don’t see that. which is why I raised the question.

Karl W. Randolph.