(18.) =I said, I= did, =in my heart= (repeating the formula of the preceding verse, and so lending emphasis to it), =upon the speech= (this phrase occurs three times, and only in this book, viz. here, and chapters vii. 14 and viii. 2. Notwithstanding that a similar phrase occurs Psalm cx. 4, with the meaning ‘after the order,’ LXX. κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, which is apparently sanctioned by New Testament exegesis, compare Hebrews v. 6, etc.; this is really not to the point, for that is על דברתי, the plural, while this is singular. According to strict grammar דברת is the construct of דברה, and should therefore mean ‘reasoning of,’ just as the LXX. render by περὶ λαλιᾶς, and this, moreover, will make good sense in every passage in which this phrase occurs) =of the sons of Adam= (_i.e._ the human race) =to the discriminating them= (hence the LXX. διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς, considering that the root is ברר, which has the meaning ‘to sift,’ ‘purify by sifting,’ this is the only instance of the infinitive kal. Now we must take this meaning, observing that the pronoun ‘them,’ which is involved in the termination of the verb, is not emphatic; it is the discrimination of God which is the point, the persons on which this is exercised are subordinate. The Jewish commentators for the most part explain ‎‏לברם as the third person singular preterite of ברה with the objective pronominal affix ם [the only instance, however, in which ברה has the meaning ‘to choose’ is 1 Samuel xvii. 8]; as, however, some copies read לבררם, we can have no difficulty in referring the word to the root ברר, which makes good sense. It is also to be remarked that though ברם does not exist as a root in Hebrew, it does so in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, and the meaning is that which is ‘twisted’ or ‘infolded’――compare Ezekiel xxvii. 24――a ‘garment’ worked in many colours; this would make good sense also in this place, and may possibly have been an intentional equivoke, which is not surely improbable in a sentence in which such manifest artificial alliteration occurs. The meaning then is, that) =the Deity= (discriminates men, or makes a distinction between them and the lower creatures; but in what respects? This is discussed at length) =and to see= (but rather might this form of the infinitive be rendered, for which there is sufficient authority, ‘_to the appearance_’) =that they= (contract relative, and hence the meaning is that this appearance belongs to them, and them only. In this may be found the key to the whole passage. In appearance there is no choice or discrimination, as subsequent argument proves, because they are) =a cattle= (singular, following a plural, and thus giving the meaning that each one is so) =they to them= (which Mendelssohn explains, following the LXX., ‘when left to themselves,’ or, as we should say, as ‘far as they can tell.’ With this Ewald and Ginsburg agree, who consider this latter clause an ironical ‘_ipsissimi_,’――‘they themselves, indeed!’ Thus, then, the meaning of