THE

LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

NAME, POSITION, AND STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

1. The name Lamentations is derived from that under which this Book appears in the Latin Vulgate (Threni, id est Lamentationes Jeremiae Prophetae), which is a translation of the Septuagint θρῆνοι, itself a rendering of the Heb. word Ḳînôth. This word, though not prefixed to the Book, is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew Scriptures: Jeremiah uses the word three times (Jeremiah 7:29, Jeremiah 9:10; Jeremiah 9:20 [Heb. 9, 19]; each time rendered “lamentation”). It is the title of David’s funeral song over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1:17, while the corresponding verb is used both there and in 2 Samuel 3:33. It is also used of the dirge composed by Jeremiah on the death of Josiah in battle at Megiddo (2 Chronicles 35:25). The title of the Book in the Heb. Canon is ’Ekhâh, i.e. How, the word which commences the first, second, and fourth of the five songs to which the five chapters correspond. It is in accordance with Jewish custom to name a Book of the Bible by a conspicuous word at or near its beginning.

2. This Book’s position in the E.VV., conforming to that in the Septuagint1[87] and Vulgate2[88], immediately after the Book of Jeremiah, arises from the traditional belief (for which see Introd. ch. 2) that he was its author. In the Heb. on the other hand it comes in the last division (Kĕthûbîm or Hagiographa = Psalms, etc.) according to the threefold classification of the Jewish Scriptures (see Luke 24:44). It is now placed for synagogue use as one of the five Megilloth (or Rolls, appointed to be read on special occasions3[89]), which stand thus, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther.

[87] In Cod. Sin., but in Cod. Vat. and Alex. the book of Baruch intervenes. See Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Greek, pp. 201 f.

[88] But in Cod. Amiat. (see Tischendorf’s edn.) the prefatory note (see ch. ii § 1) is absent, Lam. being thus appended to Jer., and not reckoned separately. We may add that the same is the case in Origen’s (Greek) catalogue of O.T. Books, for which see Swete, pp. 203–230.

[89] This Book was read upon the 9th day of Ab, the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple.

3. The date indicated by Josephus is highly improbable. That writer (Ant X. v. 1), speaking of Josiah’s death, and referring apparently to this Book, says that “Jeremiah the prophet composed an elegy to lament him, which is extant till this time.” He was apparently influenced by the statement in 2 Chronicles 35:25 (c. b.c. 250) (see § 1 above) that the dirges composed by Jeremiah and others on that occasion were “written in the lamentations.” St Jerome supported this view, and in particular ch. Lamentations 4:20 (see note there) was referred to this event and not to the capture of Zedekiah. Both the earliest external testimony, however, viz. that of the Septuagint (see ch. 2 § 1), and the contents of the Book itself, point to the events of which a brief sketch is given in Jeremiah 39, 52. Many O.T. scholars (e.g. Nöldeke, W. R. Smith, Löhr, Budde), however, consider the chronicler to be referring (though erroneously) to our Book on the ground that (a) it is hardly likely that there were extant lamentations by Jeremiah outside the Canon, (b) it was a natural mistake for the chronicler to refer such passages as Lamentations 2:6; Lamentations 4:20 to Josiah.

4. The five chs. of which this Book consists may be divided into as many parts (viz. twenty-two) as there are letters of the Heb. alphabet. All but the last form acrostics, and begin with the letters consecutively, except that in the second, third, and fourth chs. the order of two letters (‘Ayin and Pç) is reversed1[90]. More than one of the alphabetical Psalms 2[91] also shew breaks in the strict order of succession of the letters. The peculiar and hitherto unexplained feature, however, in the present Book is that it is the same pair of letters in each of the three cases which are thus transposed3[92]. Further, if we take the four alphabetical poems separately, we find that in the first three each of the twenty-two parts (or verses, but note that in ch. 3 each part = three Eng. verses) may itself as a rule be subdivided into three, in ch. 4 into two only, while in the third ch. each of these three subdivisions (or verses) begins with the same letter, and is itself divisible into two. In ch. 5, although the number of the verses is the same, the alphabetical order is dropped4[93]. The above mentioned artificial arrangement, by which a definite rule for the beginning of verses was attained, may be compared with modern rhymed endings, as well as with the more complicated Greek and Latin metres. In such a structure of the poems we may easily discern an additional advantage here, as aiding the memory of the captives to recall them in their distant exile.

[90] C. J. Ball (Enc. Brit. s.v. “Lamentations”) holds that Pç preceded ‘Ayin in ch. 1 also till some scribe altered it, and that he would have done the same in the other chs. but that the sense forbade.

[91] Psalms 9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145 exhibit various forms of alphabetic structure; so Proverbs 31:10-31, and to a certain extent Nahum 1:2-10, and (in the original Heb.) Sir 51:13 ff.

[92] Lamentations 2:16 f., Lamentations 3:46-51, Lamentations 4:16 f.

[93] Although Ball considers that he sees there vestiges of an alphabetical arrangement.

5. The structure of the individual parts or members of the first four of these poems is that of the Ḳinah or elegiac measure, the rhythm of which differentiates it from ordinary Heb. poetry. Each verse is divided into two parts. The metre, as in Heb. poetry in general, depends upon accent rather than quantity, while in the Ḳinah we have the peculiarity that the first part stands to the second in the proportion of 3 to 2. C. Budde, to whom is due a thorough investigation of this metre, shews1[94] that it was the measure adopted for the songs of the mourning women at funerals2[95], “a peculiar limping rhythm, in which the second member as it were dies away and expires3[96].” The use of the Ḳinah measure was then extended by the prophets to other occasions than the above when they desired to make a deep impression on their hearers4[97]. We may add here that Condamin5[98] shews, as a further interesting feature in the structure of chs. 1 and 2, that certain Heb. words “are symmetrically repeated in such wise that they form a kind of concentric setting (inclusion) for the whole poem, the repetitions occurring in the first and last strophe, in the second and the second from the end, in the third and the third from the end, and so on.” Thus, “that was full (rabbâthi) of people” in Lamentations 1:1 corresponds to “for my sighs are many (rabbôth)” in Lamentations 1:22; “there is none to comfort her … her enemies” (‘çn lâh mĕnaḥçm … lĕ’ôyĕbîm) in v. 2 corresponds to “there is none to comfort me; … mine enemies” (‘çn měnaḥçm lî …’ôyĕbai) in v. 21; “the straits” (haẓẓârîm) in v. 3 corresponds to “distress” (ẓâr) in v. 206[99].

[94] See HDB. Art. Poetry, or, more fully, in ZATW. 1882, pp. 1–52.

[95] See Jeremiah 9:17.

[96] It should be noted that, at any rate as the Heb. text stands, there are a certain number of verses in this Book which cannot be brought under the above rule.

[97] See also Intr. to Jeremiah, p. xlix. Cp. C.B. (Davidson) Ezekiel 19:1-8 or (Driver) Amos 5:2.

[98] Symmetrical Repetitions in Lamentations 1, 2, J. Th. St. VII. (1907), pp. 137 ff.

[99] Recent works bearing on the question of metre as used by the prophets are Early Religious Poetry of the Hebrews, by E. G. King, 1911, and The Twelve Prophets, a Version in the Various Poetical Metres of the Original Writings, by Duhm (Eng. trn. by Duff, 1912).

CHAPTER II

AUTHORSHIP, DATE, AND PLACE OF WRITING OF THE BOOK

1. That the Book of the Lamentations is the work of Jeremiah the prophet has been the apparently universal belief first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church from the earliest times until comparatively recently. The Heb. indeed contains no direct assertion of the fact, but the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation, made one or two centuries b.c., ascribes it to him1[100] (as does also the Syriac Peshiṭṭa version) in a note prefixed to the first ch. to the following effect, “And it came to pass after Israel was taken captive and Jerusalem made desolate, Jeremiah sat weeping and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said,” and the Latin Vulgate (a.d. 405) repeats the assertion of the Septuagint, as given above, amplifying the last words into “and in bitterness of heart sighing and crying said.”

[100] The book is, however, translated by a different hand, and the LXX keeps much closer to the MT. than in Jeremiah.

2. Such comparatively late evidence for the traditional authorship would, however, need corroboration from other sources. It was obviously natural to attribute poems of this character having for their subject the sufferings consequent on the fall of the Jewish State to the prophet who had given frequent warnings of the impending calamity. But on the other hand internal evidence on the whole fails to support Jeremiah’s authorship. It is true that there are certain resemblances in detail between the prophecies and this Book as regards language and sentiment. In both we have pictured to us the “Virgin daughter of Zion” (or, “of Judah,” “of my people”) in her suffering and shame (Lamentations 1:15; Lamentations 2:13; Jeremiah 14:17). In both the writer’s eyes flow down with tears (Lamentations 1:16; Lamentations 2:11; Lamentations 3:48 f.; Jeremiah 9:1; Jeremiah 13:17; Jeremiah 14:17). In both we find a haunting feeling of terrors round him (Lamentations 2:22; Jeremiah 6:25; Jeremiah 46:5). In both the iniquities of the prophets and priests are the cause of those calamities (Lamentations 2:14; Lamentations 4:13; Jeremiah 5:30 f., Jeremiah 14:13 ff.), and so too is the sinfulness of the nation itself (Lamentations 1:5; Lamentations 1:8; Lamentations 1:14; Lamentations 1:18, Lamentations 3:42, Lamentations 4:6; Lamentations 4:22, Lamentations 5:7; Lamentations 5:16; Jeremiah 14:7; Jeremiah 16:10-12; Jeremiah 17:1-3, and elsewhere), and the people’s misplaced trust in allies powerless or unwilling to aid them (Lamentations 1:2; Lamentations 1:19; Lamentations 4:17; Jeremiah 2:18; Jeremiah 2:36; Jeremiah 30:14; Jeremiah 37:7-10). On the other hand arguments against Jeremiah’s authorship are the following: (i) The invocation or expectation of trouble as about to fall on the Chaldaeans (Lamentations 1:21 f., Lamentations 3:59-66) is hardly consistent with Jeremiah’s general attitude towards them as the Divinely appointed executors of vengeance on Judah; (ii) the last clause of Lamentations 2:9 has been thought to indicate that the writer was himself external to the prophetic order; (iii) in Lamentations 4:17 the writer speaks of himself as one who looked for aid from Egypt, a thing against which Jeremiah had protested (Jeremiah 37:5-10)1[101]; (iv) the laudatory notice of Zedekiah in Lamentations 4:20 is inconsistent with the view of that king expressed by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 24:8 ff.; (v) if Jeremiah had written this Book, it would have been included in the collection, so composite in character, of prophecies which bear his name, or at least have been mentioned in the chs. relating to his activities subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem; (vi) this Book contains, considering its small size, a large number of words not found in the prophecies of Jeremiah; and (vii) there is altogether absent from the Lamentations the sterner side of the prophet’s utterances, his vehement rebukes of his people’s sin, and indignation at their disloyalty to Jehovah. As regards (v) (vi) (vii) the following considerations on the other side should be noted: (a) arguments from silence are most precarious, (b) we may expect to find in poetry many words not used in prose, (c) after the capture of the city profound sorrow might be expected to take the place of stern rebuke. We may add that the LXX title (see above) might be taken as evidence that the Book was originally attached to Jeremiah, and that the present position of the Book in the MT. is probably purely liturgical. On the whole then the arguments against Jeremiah’s authorship, although they may well be held to justify a doubt, are not altogether convincing. See further in paragraph 4, and in note on Lamentations 4:10.

[101] Here, however, the writer may merely be identifying himself with the people whose sentiment he is expressing, so that the sense of solidarity, so to speak, for the moment overpowers the prophet’s individual reasoned view.

3. If then the traditional view fails, on the grounds above mentioned, to establish itself, the question follows, Does the Book itself shew unity of authorship, or is it formed by the combination of several poems? While Ewald and W. R. Smith maintained the former alternative, the tendency among modern scholars is decidedly in the other direction, and there is also a fair amount of agreement in details. Thenius, though we cannot follow him in ascribing chs. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah, is yet in agreement with Nöldeke, Cornill, Löhr and (in the main) Budde in making these to be from the same author. Chs. 1 and 5 are probably of separate origin, while it is now generally admitted that ch. 3 again is from a distinct source.

4. Date. The freshness of the pictures which set before us the miseries of the siege, capture, and subsequent condition of Jerusalem suggests that the disaster was still recent. The description is “like the low wailings with which the storm sinks to rest, reminding us how recently the thunder was rolling and the besom of destruction sweeping over the land.” Adeney, Canticles and Lam. p. 78. On the other hand it has been argued, but not with convincing force, that the acrostic arrangement of the first four poems belongs to post-exilic times. The Book has literary affinities with II. Isaiah (e.g. Isaiah 1:1 and Isaiah 47:8 f., Isaiah 54:4; Isa. 3:30 and Isaiah 53:6), with Ezekiel (specially in ch. 2, e.g. Ezekiel 2:4, “all that were pleasant to the eye,” cp. Ezekiel 24:16; Ezekiel 24:21; Ezekiel 24:25; cp. also Lamentations 4:11, “hath accomplished his fury” with Ezekiel 5:13; Ezekiel 6:12; Ezekiel 13:15), and with Psalms of apparently late date (cp. Lamentations 3:6 with Psalm 143:3; Ps. 3:24 with Psalm 119:57). But these affinities give us no trustworthy criterion to determine in each case which writer was influenced by the language of the other. V. 20 has been taken to imply that a considerable interval had elapsed since the commencement of the distress. But it does not appear (so Dr.) that we need place any of the poems later than b.c. 550. Driver considers (against Löhr and others) that chs. 1 and 3 “produce the impression of having been written as near to b.c. 586” as chs. 2 and 4. Löhr, with whom Budde is in general agreement, ventures to particularize as follows: chs. 2 and 4 c. b.c. 580, ch. 5 c. b.c. 550, ch. 1 c. b.c. 540, while he places ch. 3 as late as c. b.c. 325. We should add that Cheyne (Enc. Bibl.) and C. J. Ball (Enc. Brit., 11th edn.) assign a post-exilic date to the whole Book, a view towards which J. A. Selbie also (HDB.) inclines.

5. Place of writing. On this point we cannot get beyond conjecture. The Book is assigned to Judaea, Egypt, Babylon, by Stade, Ewald, and de Wette respectively. Löhr holds that the probabilities are on the whole in favour of the last-named place, as having produced II. Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as on account of its connexion with those who brought the historical and legal element of the O.T. canon into its present shape. On the other hand the vivid presentation of the scene of distress suggests the actual presence of the writer in the place which witnessed these miseries.

The tradition which ascribes the Book to Jeremiah makes the elegies to have been written in the grotto called by his name. It is a dark recess in the low hill of grey rock (identified by some with the Golgotha of the N.T.) just outside the Damascus gate N. of Jerusalem, and, itself a solitary spot, commands a view of the whole city.

CHAPTER III

SUBJECT-MATTER AND PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

1. The subject, as we have seen already, is undoubtedly the capture of the city under Nebuchadnezzar, and the sorrow and suffering which were thereby entailed. Herewith is united both the confession that this has come upon the people on account of their sins, and entreaties for deliverance.

2. Taking the poems severally, we find that

Ch. 1 dwells upon the solitary condition and grief of the city.

Ch. 2 sets forth the destruction that has come upon her, and acknowledges that it is because of the nation’s sin that Jehovah is angry. It bids the people cry unto Him on behalf of their suffering little ones, and puts words of entreaty into their mouths.

Ch. 3 complains of the bitter cup which God’s people have to drink, and yet acknowledges that the trials which are come upon them are inflicted by a Father’s hand who has a gracious purpose through all. The writer bids his compatriots to repent and acknowledge their sin. The concluding verses appeal confidently for vengeance upon the enemy. See further in introd. note to the ch.

Ch. 4 describes the reverses in fortune that have been brought about by recent events, and again acknowledges sin. Here also the poem closes with an exultant hope that the enemy shall suffer requital.

Ch. 5 recapitulates the pitiful details of their condition, and ends by an earnest prayer for deliverance, resting upon the thought that the dominion of Jehovah is an abiding one.

3. The Book, besides being annually read among the Jews to commemorate the burning of the Temple, is read also each week at the “Wailing Place of the Jews” at Jerusalem just outside the Temple area. “There the Jews assemble every Friday afternoon and on festivals to bewail the downfall of the holy city. I saw on Good Friday a large number, old and young, male and female, venerable rabbis with patriarchal beards and young men kissing the stone wall and watering it with their tears. They repeat from their well-worn Hebrew Bibles and Prayer-books the Lamentations of Jeremiah and suitable Psalms.… This elegy, written with sighs and tears, has done its work most effectually in great public calamities, and is doing it every year on the ninth of the month Ab (July), when it is read with loud weeping in all the synagogues of the Jews and especially at Jerusalem. It keeps alive the memory of their deepest humiliation and guilt and the hope of final deliverance. The scene of the Wailing Place was to me touching and pregnant with meaning1[102].”

[102] Schaff, Through Bible Lands, pp. 250–252.

LITERATURE

Of foreign commentaries the most useful is perhaps that of Max Löhr (2nd edn. 1907), taken together with his articles in Stade’s Zeitschrift d. A. T. Wiss., which deal more fully with individual points. From his work the views of Budde and others can be gathered. In English the articles by C. J. Ball (Encyclopaedia Britannica), J. A. Selbie (Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible), and Cheyne (Encyclopaedia Biblica) may be consulted, as well as the last-named writer’s Jeremiah (Men of the Bible Series), and his Founders of O.T. Criticism, pp. 356 f., so also Driver’s Introd. to the Lit. of the O.T., and Adeney, Canticles and Lam. (Expositor’s Bible). We may also mention Plumptre in Ellicott’s Comm. on the O.T., and Payne Smith (in the Speaker’s Comm.). Vol. II. of Peake’s Commentary on Jeremiah (Century Bible) is very valuable. To these we may add A. W. Greenup, Comm. on Lam. ch. 1. He has also brought out a translation (privately printed) of the Targum on the whole Book.