Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/1262

 we have the objective relation marked by Lamed in the expression בּנתּה לרעי, Thou understandest my thinking, as in Psa 116:16; Psa 129:3; Psa 135:11; Psa 136:19. The monostichic opening is after the Davidic style, e.g., Psa 23:1. Among the prophets, Isaiah in particular is fond of such thematic introductions as we have here in Psa 139:1. On ותּדע instead of ותּדעני vid., on Psa 107:20; the pronominal object stands once beside the first verb, or even beside the second (2Ki 9:25), instead of twice (Hitzig). The “me” is then expanded: sitting down, rising up, walking and lying, are the sum of human conditions or states. רעי is the totality or sum of the life of the spirit and soul of man, and דּרכי the sum of human action. The divine knowledge, as ותּדע says, is the result of the scrutiny of man. The poet, however, in Psa 139:2 and Psa 139:3 uses the perfect throughout as a mood of that which is practically existing, because that scrutiny is a scrutiny that is never unexecuted, and the knowledge is consequently an ever-present knowledge. מרחוק is meant to say that He sees into not merely the thought that is fully fashioned and matured, but even that which is being evolved. זרית from זרה is combined by Luther (with Azulai and others) with זר, a wreath (from זרר, constringere, cingere), inasmuch as he renders: whether I walk or lie down, Thou art round about me (Ich gehe  oder  lige,  so  bistu  umb  mich). זרה ought to have the same meaning here, if with Wetzstein one were to compare the Arabic, and more particularly Beduin, drrâ, dherrâ, to protect; the notion of affording protection does not accord with this train of thought, which has reference to God's omniscience: what ought therefore to be meant is a hedging round which secures its object to the knowledge, or even a protecting that places it in security against any exchanging, which will not suffer the object to escape it.