Yes, a distinction has to be made between the poet-performer and the scribe. Just as we do in the case of prophecy (prophets and prophetesses, already at Mari). Just as we assume in the case of the song of Deborah. Song of Songs, idem.

Once that distinction is made, I would think the working hypothesis I propose becomes plausible.

I think that the “unargued” assumption is reasonable since everything we know about the culture and community tell us that women were not, as a rule, literate and thus capable of producing such literature. That does not mean that it is impossible, we can conceive of such circumstances and there was the wife of a rabbi (whose names escape me now) from the Tannaitic period, as I recall, who was noted for her learning, but it requires an exceptional demonstration.

We could, of course, problematize this by arguing that the women produced the oral tradition that was then written down by a scribe, that is certainly possible as well. But as with so many of our reconstructions we have no evidence, simply plausibility. So in the absence of any additional evidence, what is most plausible?

Thanks for picking up on this. It is interesting that the Targum reconstructs as it were the word Hillers and I (and others I imagine) think lies behind “my eye” in Lam 3:51, but as a supplement, not a substitution. Tg Lam 3:50 also supplements, in a way that agrees with NJPSV’s conjecture.

For the rest, exegetes have never had a problem assuming that a male author casts himself as a female persona, Zion, in the relevant passages in Lam 1-2. Why is it any more or less problematic to assume the reverse in Lam 3?

Furthermore, why assume that a male is the implied author of the speeches in Lam 1-2? Maybe it’s about time to question the unargued assumption.