A Study of Psalm 16 (superscript, Miktam)

The psalm begins with a descriptor, “a miktam authored by David” (מִכְתָּ֥ם לְדָוִ֑ד).[1] David is the author of this psalm, this musical poem. But what is a miktam? The answer to that question is hard to come by. Several answers have been proposed:

1. A deep, rich introspection (a contemplative psalm)[2] [but so are many psalms without this descriptor]
2. An inscription, engraving (deserving of permanence)[3] [but so are many psalms without this descriptor]
3. From katam, a thing that covers, like whitewashing[4]
4. The Septuagint translates stelographia, inscribed monument or gravestone, again an engraving worthy of permanence[5] [but so are many psalms without this descriptor]
5. A musical instrument (percussive or flute)[6]
6. A mistaken scribal error,[7] the word rather being miktab, a writing, like in Isaiah 38:9 (“A writing of Hezekiah king of Judah after his illness and recovery:”) [But did every instance of miktam psalms, the others being Psalms 56-60, have this same scribal error? Plus, every psalm is a writing, a miktab, and thus the title would have little meaning.]
7. Golden psalm (In Isaiah 13:12 the word miketem [מִכֶּ֥תֶם], meaning “than gold” is used) [But what would this mean as a descriptor for psalms 16,56-60 that makes them distinct from other psalms?]
8. A guide for the psalm’s singer, perhaps the tune [but some of these miktam psalms have tunes mentioned, 56:1; 60:1] or variations in the music.[8]
9. A reflection on the need for God’s protection, His covenant faithfulness, and the ultimate Messiah[9] [but so are other psalms without this descriptor]
10. An epigrammatic poem, a short, pithy poem [but so are other psalms without this descriptor]

This plethora of possible meanings indicates that there is no consensus on what miktam means. And even if there were a consensus on one meaning, none of the suggested meanings gives us any clue as to how to interpret the psalm. For us, unfortunately, the term miktam has no value in understanding the psalm.

This is not to say that it had no meaning or interpretive value when David wrote it. He obviously knew what miktam meant, and so did his readers. Here we must acknowledge that the inerrancy of Scripture, to which I subscribe, does not extend to inerrancy of interpretation or of copying. Inerrancy of Scripture only speaks to the original writing being exactly what God wanted written. Even though there are variants of wording in our copies of Scripture (the original documents), we find by comparing them that we have a very close facsimile of the original documents, close enough that we are able to know the Word of God to a very high percentage. The places where there is a question are relatively minuscule.[10]

[1] See https://thimblefulloftheology.com/psalm-110-a-direct-messianic-prophecy-or-indirect/#which_king_heading for the evidence that the lamedh on David is a lamedh of authorship.

[2] https://godsbless.ing/definitions/concepts-and-abstract-ideas/meaning-of-miktam-in-the-bible/

[3] https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Miktam.html

[4] https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Miktam.html

[5] https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Miktam.html

[6] https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Miktam.html

[7] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/psalms/16.htm (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)

[8] https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16237/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-16.htm

[9] https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_’michtam’_mean_in_psalms.htm

[10] See https://thimblefulloftheology.com/the-ending-of-marks-gospel/ for an example of one of the disputed variations in the end of Mark’s Gospel.