which by the usus loquendi of the living language, signified perhaps the very thing that the apostles understood it as meaning. It is better, therefore, for thee to follow these unerring guides. In the very first verses of the Psalm, yea, in the title itself, occur many dark words; perhaps in these very words, a more perfect knowledge of the language would find an easy solution of all doubts." Michaelis pursues the subject still farther; but I have quoted enough for my present purpose. I cannot refrain, however, from adding what he says of Le Clerc, and of his interpetation. "I believe I could show the advantage of such an exegetical modesty, (a duty which I prescribe to myself,) to as good advantage here, as in almost any part of the Scriptures. Le Clerc... has not practised it, but set his own exegesis in array against that of the apostles. He had no good reason to do so. His knowledge of the Hebrew is so slight, and of the other oriental languages, necessary to illustrate the Hebrew, such a mere nothing (so gar nichts), that he must in truth have been inspired, if he could discover the true sense of half the passages which the apostles quote out of the Old Testament." After mentioning that various readings are to be found of the text in Ps. XVI. and saying that Le Clerc ought at least to have had some reference to these, before he decided against the interpretation of the apostles, he proceeds: "Since however the unlearned Le Clerc for so I hold him to be in matters of oriental philology-supposes nothing of all this, but understands the Psalm better than the unerring interpreters of it, who, particularly Paul, must have understood the original of the Psalm (if we consider the thing merely more humano) much better than himself; he seems to me like a pupil of Gesner's, who should express his astonishment, that a passage in Cicero should be explained by his master in a different way from that in which he himself had explained it. . . . . I hold Le Clerc, compared with Paul, whether in a natural or supernatural way, as not quite a match for Gesner's pupil, and that this comparison is honourable and flattering to this commentator." Collegium p. 7 seq. I am the more willing to introduce this passage from Michaelis, because it may serve to correct, or at least modify, in some good measure, the extravagant opinion that has spread far and wide, about the attainments of Le Clerc as a biblical scholar. His classical learning was indeed fine. His Ars Critica exhib its also, what fine taste and powers of mind he possessed. But as to a deep and radical knowledge of Hebrew idiom, and of the kindred languages, Michaelis, it must be owned, is nearly if not altogether in the right. Indeed, Michaelis is not apt to condemn with severity; never, when extensive erudition is manifested. But the severity in the case now presented, consists mainly in the fact that what is said has its basis in the truth. Men who do not understand Hebrew well, may contradict this; will be the last to call it in question. men who do, I will add only, that if Michaelis himself had always exhibited the modesty' which he here so justly commends, as to going beyond Peter and Paul, or counter to them, it had been happy for the church, and for his own reputation. But strength of imagination, and the love of paradox, have sometimes carried him into regions, where, if a disciple of Le Clerc were to meet him, he might express his astonishment, and apply his reproof, in language as strong as Michaelis has used in respect to the Dutch critic. But to return. My second reason for applying the Psalm under consideration to the Messiah is, that I find the exegesis more easy and natural throughout, when interpreted in this way, than in any other. I have already made a remark of the same tenor, in regard to vs. 9-11. What I now would say, is, that the same thing is true of the tout ensemble of the Psalm, which is one consistent whole, and applies only to one person. How Dr Steudel could find, (as he does in Progr. Disquis. in Ps. 16: 8-11,) that the writer, in v. 8, exchanges his own person for that of the Messiah, I do not well see. What is this, but to give a double sense in one of its most objectionable forms? It is, indeed, very convenient to apply one part of a Psalm literally, and another spiritually, to different persons, where a different interpretation would cost trouble; but the expediency of doing so, is a matter of very serious question. There is most evidently but one person throughout the Psalm. It either relates to David only, or to the Messiah only. It is joined indissolubly together; and what God has thus joined, man ought not to put asunder. I can never doubt, that from beginning to end, one and the same person speaks; and this person I believe to be the Messiah. With this view of the subject, I proceed to the particular verbal exegesis of the Psalm under consideration; a portion of Scripture truly replete, at least the first part of it, with verbal difficulties, as all well informed interpreters of every class fully acknowledge. As my design is to give in some good measure a complete, and not a mere cursory, exhibition of the philology of the Psalm, I would hope that the reader, who desires to be more fully informed and satisfied, than he can be by mere short hints, will not be impatient with the minuteness and particularity of my investigation. What is worth doing, is worth doing well, provided one has the power to do so. I do not vindicate to myself this power; but I fully acknowledge the obligation to make what efforts I can, to accomplish the end in view. General notes and general hints impart general knowledge only; and this is not sufficient for any one who desires to be either a solid interpreter or theologian. My plan for the remainder of the present dissertation is, first to exhibit a translation of the Psalm; next to explain the Hebrew words and phrases of it, and vindicate the rendering given to them; and lastly, to examine the principal objections made in modern times, against the interpretation which applies the whole to the Messiah. PSALM XVI. Michtam. A Psalm of David. 1. Preserve me, O God! For in thee do I seek a refuge. 2. (My soul,) thou hast said to Jehovah, Thou art the Lord; Source of my happiness! There is none beside thee. 3. In respect to the saints who are on the earth, The excellent, all my delight is in them. 4. They shall multiply their sorrows, I will not pour out their libations of blood, Yea, (my) inheritance is well-pleasing to me. 7. I will bless Jehovah who careth for me, Yea, by night my reins admonish me (to bless him). Because he is at my right hand, I am not moved. 10. For thou wilt not leave me to the grave, 11. Thou wilt shew me the path of life, In thy presence is fulness of joy, At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Verse 1. In the title of this Psalm a word occurs (2), which has given occasion to almost boundless speculation, etymology, and conjecture. It is not my design, here or elsewhere in my notes on the Hebrew text, to give a particular history of what has been said respecting each word and phrase, by commentators of all ages and nations, and to refute the manifest errors into which some of them may have fallen. I shall, in general, mention such opinions only as have a claim to be examined, and which are entitled at least to our consideration, if not to our approbation. In tracing the etymology of 2, we look of course either to the verb n, or the noun n. Unfortunately, neither of these give us any good satisfaction. The verb occurs but once; and this is in Niphal Jer. 2:22, where it evidently means to be spotted, i. e. to have a mark or spot on one's self; as we say in English, he has a black mark. The same verb has the same meaning in Chaldee and Syriac; where also the noun ne means spot, mark, macula. In Arabic, we fare no better as to etymology. The verb means to hide or conceal. This helps us, indeed, to explain the poetic an, rendered gold, choice gold; because it points to that treasure which was carefully hidden or concealed, viz. gold; as it still is in the East, unto this very day, in pits, in unsuspected places, etc. But how does this explain ? Not satisfactorily, we may answer. Still Aben Ezra (by a bint), Kimchi, Solomon Ben Melek, Luther, Geier, Le Clerc, and others have rendered, golden, golden jewel, gold, etc. after the analogy of ; and this sense of has been compared to the xovoa enn, the golden verses, of Pythagoras, or to the yovaal yvauai of Democritus. But why the six Psalms (XVI. LVI.-LX.) having the title in question, should be golden rather than many others in the book of Psalms, one would find it difficult to say. Most evidently they are not superior to others in the excellence of their composition, or in the nature of their subjects. Some of them, indeed, (as Ps. xvI.) have a most exalted theme, the triumph of Christ over death and hell; but some other Psalms also have kindred themes; and many of them are more attractive, considered merely in a rhetorical point of view, than Psalms LVI.-LX. Inviting therefore as the version golden is, at first view, and especially so because of its analogy to be, we cannot see any good reason why this title should have been given, with designed significancy, to all the Psalms which bear it. As to the opinion of some ancient Rabbins, and of Aquila and Symmachus, who divided into two words, and made of it and b, humble and upright, or humble and blameless; it does not deserve refutation. If we may first make the text into what we please, and then transpose its order, it is true enough that any critical difficulties whatever can be managed without much trouble. These critics have done both; for 772 and are not ; and if they were adjectives (as they make them to be), they must of course stand after 1, which these writers make them qualify, and not before it, as they now do; see Heb. Grammar § 452. There remains, however, three other suppositions in respect to be, which must be briefly examined. Among the ancients, there is a remarkable union in respect to the sense of it. The Seventy and Theodotion translate it ornloyoagia, inscription on a monument, epitaph, Grabschrift, as Michaelis renders it, without being, however, entirely authorised to do so by the word ornloyoagia. The Vulgate and Jeστηλογραφία. rome (Jerome did not translate anew the book of Psalms), render it titulus, or inscriptio tituli, which mean the same as the Greek ornloyoaqia. Jerome has commented on this meaning: "Tres sunt tituli, qui scribuntur: Unus super tumulos mortuorum; alius, in liminibus civitatum, vel domorum; tertius, in victoria regis." In respect to this last, which was an inscription on some durable monument, celebrating the victory of a king, Jerome adds: "Hic ergo (in titulo Ps. xvI.) de titulo victoriae |