I insert the following exegesis of the hundred and tenth Psalm in this number from “The Asmonean,” a Jewish paper published in this City every week. The reader will scarcely need to be told that I do not approve the interpretation. I have no room for comment in this number. I must, therefore, defer it till a future opportunity. I insert it now only as a text upon which to discourse hereafter. In the meantime, he can see how the non-christian Israelitish mind reads this interesting and important document, which contains what a Christian Israelite (well instructed in the law of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets, and in Jewish tradition too from the lips of Gamaliel) styles “The Word of the Oath,” upon which is based the High Priesthood of Jesus to the exclusion of Aaron’s, over the Twelve Tribes of Israelite and the nations, when, as “the man whose name is THE BRANCH, he sits and rules upon his throne as a priest upon his throne,” in the Age to Come. With these words I leave the article in the hands of the reader till we meet again. —EDITOR.

PSALM 110.

“Looking into the authorised English version we are informed that David was the author of Psalm 110, and that he spoke about first, the kingdom; fourth, the priesthood; fifth, the conquest; and seventh, the passion of Christ—no word of which is mentioned in the original. The translators are not ashamed to make such a gross and wilful mistake as to render (verse 1) ‘to my Lord’ with a capital L, as if this term signified God, while every grammarian must know that Adonee signifies ‘my lord’ or ‘my master,’ meaning a man, and not God, when meaning God, it must be Adoni. The style, of the whole chapter has not the slightest similarity to the Davidian style, and the Hebrew in the title of the chapter can be translated “to David” better than “of David.” The whole chapter has the tone of an address, hence the ancient commentators, Rashi excepted, agree that this chapter was addressed to David by some other poet. They only differ as to the occasion that gave rise to the chapter, and, therefore, we are at liberty also to give our humble opinion on the subject. When David fled from Jerusalem from fear of Absalom, his son, he had a narrow escape, through the faithfulness of his friends in Jerusalem, so that he reached the other side of Jordan, where he collected an army. When his army was to have met the enemy, he also wished to leave his head quarters at Mahanaim, and go with the army. But the people insisted that he should not do so, and he was obliged to tarry at Mahanaim in a painful state of anxiety; this was most likely the occasion on which one of David’s poetical friends addressed to him the 110^th Psalm, which reads as follows:

TO DAVID A SONG.

The Poet refers to the large presents of provisions brought to David by Barzillai, Shubi, and Machir, demonstrating their loyal attachment to the person of the king; and to the numerous youthful warriors who flocked to the standard of the fugitive king.

The Poet refers to his election by the whole nation to the royal dignity, and to his faithful administration of the laws of God.

The Poet directs the attention of the king to former perils, and especially to the war with Moab and Ammon, the capitals of both countries were called Rabbah, where he was attacked by Syrians and Idumeans, being then in a perilous state—still God helped him, and crushed the heads of his enemies; he will also now help him. The idea of the wars with Ammon and Moab presents to the mind of the poet another powerful hope for the king, it is Joab, the king’s hero nephew, who was the principal hero in those wars, and referring to him, he continues:

The authorised version, in order to suit the chapter to the peculiar notions noticed before, contains the following grammatical mistakes, which a school boy might notice. In verse three Nedaboth is rendered: “The people shall be willing;” here it must be remarked that Amcha is masculine gender, singular number, and Nedaboth is feminine gender, plural number, consequently they cannot be joined together. Nedaboth nowhere else is rendered “shall be willing,” it means everywhere voluntary gifts. Verse 4, they had the peculiar notion to render al dibrathi, which literally signifies upon my word “after the order,” for which none can account; and although an Esnachta equal to a semicolon, separates the former part of the sentence from Al dibrathi, they made one sentence of the whole, to bring out the sense which they wanted. We have considered all that, and rendered it accordingly. Verse fifth, they make again one sentence, although divided by an Esnachta, and machats, which stands in the past tense, they render in the fifth and sixth verses, “he shall strike,” al rab erets of verse sixth, which is in the singular number, signifying “Land of Rabbah” they render “over many countries.” If thus the rules of grammar and the signification of terms are disregarded, then anything might be found in the bible.

It is indeed more than ridiculous to read at the head of the forty-fifth Psalm, 1st, “The majesty and grace of Christ’s kingdom. 10th, “the duty of the church, and the benefits thereof,” while the translators themselves call it a Song of love. It is almost self-evident that this song of love was addressed to king Solomon when he married the daughter of Pharaoh; with reference to the immense wealth of Solomon flatteringly of the splendour of his court, of preference before his brothers, his triumphs over rivals to the throne and their assistants, among whom was the heroic Joab; the reader, once having this idea, will find the whole Psalm a beautiful specimen of poetry, in which, as in all the other Psalms, no such thing as a prophecy is contained; but the authors of the authorised English version needed materials to build up a new house, and they tried every way to accomplish that object.

* * *