TgLam 3:18, Solger MS

As I am working on my new book on Targum Ruth I am also editing my doctoral thesis to get it into eBook form (well, truth be told, an undergrad is doing the editing). One matter that I laid out in the thesis and my book that I think is still valuable is the need for us as scholars to be explicit in our methods. Or at least to be as conscious of them as we can be. In the following I lay out my argument for what I call “the Exegetical Method” for analyzing Targumic Literature. I was working on Targum Lamentations at the time so the examples all come from that text. For citations (there were far too many footnotes to sort out and, as I have suggested before, I hate endnotes) please see the PDF of my thesis available here.

The Exegetical Method

Although targumic literature has been studied extensively over the last several decades, there has yet to be a systematic presentation of a critical methodology for the reading and interpretation of targumic texts. There are critical studies of the targumim, but they have tended to focus upon textual and recensional issues and relied upon relatively self-evident methods of analysis. Several scholars have focused upon the literary and theological aspects of the targumim, but they tend to articulate the method with which they will approach the particular text at hand rather than argue for a more general method that would be usable in the study of other targumim. On the other hand, there is the invaluable work of Klein, who examines many different targumim in order to reveal patterns in the translational method of the targumist.

It would appear that the field of targumic studies is lacking what biblical studies has taken for granted for the last 100 years: an armory of articulated critical methodologies from which we might choose that which best applies to a given text and approach. In this section I will present a general critical methodology that can be applied to targumic texts in order to determine their exegetical, or theological, perspective. This proposed method for discerning the exegetical perspective of a targum, which I will refer to as the “Exegetical Method,” involves three main steps. 

Survey of MT 

The basic textual reading and theological message of MT must be determined so that it is possible to see where the targumist follows or departs from what we might hesitantly refer to as the “simple meaning” of MT. For example, the biblical text of 2.22 reads:

You invited my enemies from all around
as if for a day of festival;
and on the day of the anger of the Lord
no one escaped or survived;
those whom I bore and reared
my enemy has destroyed.

Clearly the Hebrew text is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem and the massacre of her people. The targum, however, transforms the verse so that it now reads:

May you declare freedom to your people, the House of Israel, by the King Messiah just as you did by Moses and Aaron on the day when you brought Israel up from Egypt. My children were gathered all around, from every place to which they had scattered in the day of your fierce anger, O Lord, and there was no escape for them nor any survivors of those whom I had wrapped in fine linen. And my enemies destroyed those whom I had raised in royal comfort.

In the targum the verse has been completely altered so that the verse has become a day of liberation for Israel, rather than a day of mourning. The nature of the targumic additions cannot be fully appreciated until they are compared with the base text of MT.

It is therefore important that we survey MT before we begin our study of the targum so that we will be able to perceive any changes which the targumist may have made to the text in the process of creating the targum to Lamentations. In so doing we will also summarize current biblical scholarship on the Book of Lamentations. This is necessary because modern scholarship has revealed much about Lamentations, particularly through linguistic analysis, which will provide us with a better understanding of the targumist’s source text. Our reliance upon this scholarship will, however, be limited because the concerns of the targumist were often very different than those of the modern biblical scholar. A general survey of the Book of Lamentations will follow this chapter, but each verse must be examined individually, therefore frequent references will be made to relevant scholarship throughout the Commentary (Chapter 3). Our next step in the methodology is the Exegetical Commentary which involves an examination of the individual verses of both MT and the targum.

Exegetical Commentary

The second step requires two phases:

Quantitative Analysis Before we begin to analyze how the targumist has come to a particular reading of the Hebrew text we must first determine the basis of the targumic text. Thus the first step is to decide which MS or edition of the targum will be used. The targum should then be translated into English (or another modern language). This translation will serve as an aid to the reader and an indication of our interpretation of the targum. Part of this translation process is determining which Aramaic terms correspond to the Hebrew found in the biblical text. Observing where the targum goes beyond a simple one-to-one correspondence with the Hebrew will help to reveal how the targumist has interpreted the biblical text.

Such a task would appear on the surface to be a simple one. Merely compare MT with the targum and italicize the portions in the Aramaic text which are “left over.” Often, however, it is not such a straight forward matter. While the targumist will frequently provide a verbatim rendering of the Hebrew, it is also common to find an element of the Hebrew represented by more than one word or phrase. So while it is easy to see in 1.1, for example, where the targumist has added a lengthy preface to the targum which identifies Jeremiah as the author of the Book of Lamentations, even in this first verse we encounter difficulties in determining exactly what portion of the Aramaic corresponds to the Hebrew text.

The first word of the Book of Lamentations, איכה, is represented in the targum not once, but three times. In the first instance איכה is translated in its operative sense by the Aramaic איכדין. “Jeremiah the Prophet and High Priest told how it was decreed that Jerusalem and her people should be punished with banishment.” In the other two instances the term is retained in its original form, איכה. By the rabbinic period איכה had come to mean “lamentations,” thus Jeremiah declared that Jerusalem “should be mourned with √ekah” just as God mourned over Adam and Eve “with √ekah.” So, which occurrence of איכדין/איכה should be identified as corresponding to MT’s איכה? Or, to phrase the question in more general terms, how do we determine if an Aramaic term corresponds to the Hebrew?

It is surprising to note that there are, to the best of my knowledge, no publications or comments written by modern targum scholars outlining the method of analysis used in order to determine which portions of the text are targumic expansions and therefore should be italicized. I shall therefore endeavor to set forth some general guidelines to indicate the method employed in this thesis. The principle followed in this thesis and translation is that if the Aramaic term in question occurs in the same order as the Hebrew and functions in the same manner as the Hebrew word it shall be considered as equivalent. In this work we will follow the convention found in The Aramaic Bible series which indicates  all other material in the translation by the use of italics. This definition of correspondence must remain broad since not all of the criteria listed will be determinative in every instance. Returning to our example, in 1.1 all three Aramaic terms which might correspond to איכה are in the proper order; that is, they occur before the targumist has translated the subsequent words of the biblical text. Thus, the criterion of word order is inconclusive. However, it is only the first instance which functions in the same manner as the original איכה of the biblical text. The other instances are nouns, but איכדין is an interrogative and therefore is considered the equivalent of MT’s איכה.

Similarly, elsewhere in 1.1 we are confronted with two phrases which might be considered as corresponding to ישבה בדד.

ענת מדת דינא וכן אמרת על סגיאות חובהא אשתדר ומה דבגוהא בגין תהא‏ יתבא בלחודהא‏ כגבר דמכתש סגירו על בסריה‏ דבלחודוהי יתיב

The Attribute of Justice spoke and said, “Because of the greatness of her rebellious sin which was within her, thus she will dwell alone as a man plagued with leprosy upon his skin who sits alone.”

The first instance, יתבא בלחודהא, most closely represents the Hebrew text since Jerusalem is the subject (as in MT) and the word order matches MT. The subject of the second phrase, דבלחודוהי יתיב, is not Jerusalem and the word order is reversed, therefore it should not be considered as corresponding directly to the Hebrew text.

Finally, in 1.7c the Hebrew text reads “her people fell into the hand of the foe” (בנפל עמה ביד-צר). Our targum renders this phrase, “her people fell into the hands of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar” (נפלו עמהא בידוי דנבוכד נצר רשיעא). The basis for this translation is the occurrence of the letters צ and ר at the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s name and it is clear that נבוכד נצר does indeed represent the Hebrew צר since it occurs in the same order and functions in the same manner as the biblical text. Since the basis of this similarity is the ending צר of נבוכד נצר these letters are not italicized and the name therefore appears in this translation as “Nebuchadnezzar.”

As stated earlier, these guidelines are broadly defined and each verse must be dealt with individually. The use of italics is intended merely as a device to aid us in the study of the targumist’s reading of MT. There will, of course, be differences of opinion as to whether or not the Hebrew is represented in a given Aramaic rendering, but where TgLam offers multiple or less obvious readings of MT my decision to identify a given Aramaic term as corresponding to the Hebrew will be explained within the commentary. It should also be remembered, that while we are attempting at this phase of the analysis to identify which Aramaic term most closely corresponds to MT, when a Hebrew term is represented by more than one Aramaic term, each occurrence is (obviously) related to the original text. The relationship and function these multiple, or divergent readings, within the targum is the goal of the next stage of analysis.

Qualitative Analysis

In this phase the content of the targum is studied in detail. This will include not only the study of targumic additions, but also the examination of the targumist’s translation technique. It is commonplace to say that “all translation is interpretation” and it is no less true for the targumim. Thus even where there appears to be a word-for-word equivalence with MT or where there is little additional material added, the targumist’s word choice, syntax, and other subtle traits of the targum must be analyzed. For example, with few exceptions, TgLam represents the Hebrew בת, “daughter,” with כנשתא, “congregation.” The targumist has represented the Hebrew word with a single Aramaic word, but it is by no means a literal translation. We shall see that the use of this term has a dramatic effect on the meaning of the text and is used as a rhetorical device to increase the impact of Lamentations on the audience. Our analysis of the targum must therefore involve the careful study of the targumist’s translation as well as the additions to the biblical text.

The examination of targumic expansions will involve determining if the addition contradicts, supports, or transforms the aforementioned “simple meaning” of the biblical verse in question. (This can occur in a variety of ways including direct contradiction of MT and sustained argument bolstered by the placement of additions.) Furthermore, an attempt must be made to determine if the exegetical tradition represented in the addition is attested in other rabbinic texts. Considering the vast corpus of rabbinic material this represents a significant challenge, but it is vital that such an investigation be a part of this analysis. The primary texts examined in this study include the major midrashim, especially LamR, the targumim, the Mishnah, and the talmudim.

If the tradition is not found in other rabbinic sources, we may attribute the additions to the broader context of rabbinic tradition or the ingenuity of the targumist. Often the targum to a given verse does not have additional material, there may be a one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew and the Aramaic, but the way in which the targumist has translated the verse is equally important. In this case the targumist’s word choice must be considered in order to determine if he has chosen specific terms or phrases which might carry theological overtones.

Over the last twenty-five years great advances have been made in our understanding of the targumic method of translation. This is due largely, but not exclusively, to the work of Michael Klein and his analysis of the translation techniques of the targumim. Klein has isolated and described a variety of patterns by which the targumim transform the biblical text. These exegetical rules range from the direct and obvious addition of a negative particle to the more subtle translation of one passage in light of another. TgLam exhibits several of the more well known methods of exegesis as well as two less common interpretive techniques.

1) Converse translation. This method of translation entails direct contradiction of the biblical base text and Klein identifies three major ways in which the targumist accomplishes this. The targumist may add or delete a negative particle, “he may replace the original biblical verb with another verb of opposite meaning,” or he may resolve a rhetorical question with a declarative statement. TgLam 3.38 provides an excellent example of the last category. MT reads “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?” (מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות והטוב‏:).  The targum, however, renders the verse “From the mouth of God Most High there does not issue evil, rather by the hint of a whisper, because of the violence with which the land is filled. But when he desires to decree good in the world it issues from the holy mouth” (מפום אלהא עלאה לא תפוק בשתא אלהן על ברת קלא רמיזא בגין חטופין דאתמליאת ארעא ועדן דבעי למגזר טובא בעלמא מן פום קודשיה נפקא‏:). The rhetorical question of the biblical text has been replaced with the declaration that evil does not issue from the mouth of God. The targumist also goes on to add that, in fact, it is only good which is decreed “from the holy mouth.”

2) Associative and Complementary Translations. Most prevalent in TgPsJ, Klein identifies this technique as the result of the targumist “translating one passage while under the influence of another.” An example of this is found in TgLam 1.9c. The biblical text reads ראה יהוה את-עניי, but the targum translates it with חזי יי ותהא מסתכל ית עניי, apparently providing a double translation of the Hebrew ראה. The addition of the verb מסתכל is, in fact, due to the targumist bringing verse 9 into line with 1.11c which reads ראה יהוה והביטה. The targum renders this phrase with חזי יי ותהי מסתכל. The same Hebrew phrase and its Aramaic counterpart are also found in 2.20a. The Aramaic version of 1.9c is, therefore, the result of the targumist translating the phrase in light of 1.11 and 2.20.

3) Multiple readings. McNamara defines “multiple sense” in relation to the Palestinian targumim as a method of translation which occurs when the Hebrew words have more than one meaning. “Which of the meanings suits a given context can be a matter of opinion. The Pal. Tgs. often translate by retaining two or more senses for a Hebrew word.” We have already noted the example in 1.1 of the multiple rendering of the Hebrew איכה since the term had developed the meaning of both “how” and “lament.”

I refer here to “multiple readings” since our targumist will also provide more than one interpretation of a Hebrew term for purely exegetical reasons which are not necessarily based upon multiple meanings of the Hebrew. For example, the last stich of 1.1 reads שרתי במדינות היתה למס, “she that was a princess among the provinces has become a vassal.” The phrase היתה למס is represented in the targum by both והוון מסקין לה מסין and ולמתן לה כרגא.“She who was great among the nations and a ruler over provinces which brought her tribute has become lowly again and gives head tax to them from thereafter” (ושליטא באפרכיא והוון מסקין לה מסין הדרת למהוי מכיכא ולמתן לה כרגא בתר דנא). Although למס is an hapax legomenon the targumist’s double rendering is not an effort to “bring out the wealth of the Hebrew text.” Instead it is used as an exegetical device in order to heighten the contrast between Jerusalem’s condition before and after her destruction.

4) Prosaic Expansion. This method of translation is common to all targumim of poetic texts and is defined by the consistent rendering of poetic texts as prose. Passages which are translated in this manner are defined as non-literal translations that may contain minor additions that do not effect either the textual or theological message. Since this method is quite common in TgLam we will present only one example here. In 1.11 the Hebrew text reads, “All her people groan as they search for bread” ( כל-עמה נאנחים מבקשים לחם), while the targum renders this as “All the people of Jerusalem groan from hunger and search for bread to eat” (כל עמא דירושלם אניחן מכפנא ותבען לחמא למיכול). The meaning of the text has not been altered; the targumist has simply identified the pronominal suffix of עמה as “Jerusalem” and added the explanatory that they search for bread “to eat.” The terse language of the poetic text has been replaced with a fuller prose style.

The purpose of this method of translation may be understood in terms of the relationship between a targum and Scripture. The Mishnaic passages which prescribe how the meturgeman was to present the targum within the service are well known. The principle which guides these prescriptions is that the congregation should not be given the impression that the targum is Mikra. Therefore while the one who read Scripture had to read from the Torah scroll, the meturgeman was never allowed to read from a written text. Prosaic expansion may well have operated in a similar fashion. By rendering the laconic Hebrew into flowing Aramaic prose the targumist provided yet another indication that what was being presented was not Mikra.

5) Dramatic Heightening. Finally, TgLam presents us with a method of translation which appears to be unique among the targumim. It is not uncommon to find that the targumim (and rabbinic literature in general) alter the language of a biblical text where it appears to present views which were contrary to contemporary notions. These changes frequently occur through the use of converse translation. We find, therefore, in Gen. 4.14 when Cain declares, “today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face,” that the targumim reject the notion that someone can hide from God. TgOnk, TgNeof, and TgJon all alter the text so that they either state “it is impossible for me to hide from before you” (TgOnk and TgNeof) or ask rhetorically “is it possible for me to be hidden from before you?” (TgJon). Similarly, the targumim often distance God from the anthropomorphic statements of the Bible. Thus, the description in Gen. 11.5, “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built,” in TgNeof becomes “The Glory of the Shekinah of the Lord was revealed to see the city and the tower.” While this practice of “softening” the language of the biblical text is common in targumic literature, TgLam demonstrates that it is not without exception.

The Book of Lamentations is often extremely graphic in describing the horrors of a city under siege and frequently speaks of God as the author and agent of Jerusalem’s destruction. It would be reasonable to expect TgLam to interpret these passages in such a way that they would no longer be offensive or challenging to the commonly held rabbinic views. It is therefore quite surprising to find that not only does our targumist retain references to God “as an enemy,” but he even introduces vivid and graphic imagery to passages which were otherwise relatively banal. The most startling example of this is 1.15. The biblical text describes God as proclaiming a time when both the young men and women of Judah would be destroyed.

The LORD has rejected
all my warriors in the midst of me;
he proclaimed a time against me
to crush my young men;
the Lord has trodden as in a wine press
the virgin daughter Judah.

The language of this verse is quite strong, it is the Lord himself who has “trodden” the “virgin daughter Judah,’ but the language of the targum is much more dramatic.

The Lord has crushed all my mighty ones within me; he has established a time against me to shatter the strength of my young men. The nations entered by decree of the Memra of the Lord and defiled the virgins of the House of Judah until their blood of their virginity was caused to flow like wine from a wine press when a man is treading grapes and grape-wine flows.

While the biblical text describes the Lord as rejecting the warriors of Judah, the targumist intensifies the image by describing  the Lord as crushing them. God no longer treads on the virgin daughter Judah, but instead the targum tells us that it is “the nations” who act by “the decree of the Memra of the Lord.” The most startling change to this verse, however, is the nature of the calamity which befalls Judah. In the biblical verse Jerusalem is personified as “the virgin daughter Judah” and she has been laid low, “trodden,” by the Lord. In the targum,however, the metaphorical “virgin daughter Judah” becomes the “virgins of the House of Judah” who are raped by the invading nations so viciously that the “blood of their virginity” flows freely.

In this verse, the targumist does not distance God from actions against Judah, he intensifies the horrors described. God no longer rejects the warriors, he crushes them. Jerusalem is not razed, her virgins are brutally raped. What is the purpose of such changes to the text? As we shall see, the dramatic heightening of passages which describe Jerusalem’s punishment serve a rhetorical and theological purpose. By embellishing the (already graphic) references to Jerusalem’s suffering the targumist emphasizes the punishment meted out to those who sin. This, presumably, was intended to discourage the audience from any future disobedience. Such fiery rhetoric might have been best suited to the synagogal context.

Analysis

Finally, we must analyze the targum in order to determine how the targumist has modified the biblical text in order to convey or emphasize his message and address the questions of the date, provenance, and Sitz im Leben of our text. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 will attempt to determine the exegetical agenda of TgLam This analysis involves an examination of the methods employed by the targumist in translating the Book of Lamentations, including the targumist’s use of language (i.e., does the targumist use specific, theologically charged terms or phrases where other, simpler Aramaic terms would have sufficed), translation technique, and midrashic additions. In Chapter 5 we will attempt to determine the provenience and purpose of TgLam. We will begin with an examination of the language of the text, review rabbinic statements concerning the Book of Lamentations and its targum, and look for any references within the targum itself which might shed light on its origins and use within the community. This holistic analysis presupposes treating the targum as a single literary unit rather than as a mosaic of accreted traditions. This is not to ignore the evolutionary nature of targumic literature; rather it is a recognition that most of the texts which have been preserved took their form at the hands of a final redactor.

 

The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text.

A few limitations for biblical studies is obvious: (1) I am using English translations. In this case NRSV and my own of TgLam. (Wordle will do Hebrew, however, so I should try that too. (2) This is just an approximation. The size of a word is based upon its frequency, but the images are evocative and point to real data.

All of this is reminiscent of my very first paper and article (“Targum Lamentations 1:1-4: A Theological Prologue,”) in which I did a very simple word count to see how many words the targumist had added to the opening four verses of Lamentations relative to the other verses in TgLam. The results were indicative that something was going on there. The article (and later, my book) get at just what that is.

So let’s look at the word clouds and make a few observations.

“The LORD” stands out in both (all) word clouds and with good reason. The term occurs throughout the text. While Lamentations descries the horrible atrocities of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, the poet refuses to not engage God. The cry, lament, and accusation all are directed to the LORD. That does not change in the targum, in fact it gets even more insistent.

Now, notice that “daughter” (בת) is prominent in the biblical text. In the targum we find “congregation” (כנשתא). This is because the targumist has consistently (but not exclusively) translated the Hebrew בת with כנשתא. The effect, as I have written elsewhere is to remove the poetic “daughter Jerusalem” with the more prosaic yet profoundly person “congregation of Israel.”¹ What was an oblique reference to the citizens of the once great city is now an address to those seated in the synagogue, in the congregation, hearing these texts read on Tisha b’Av. Instead of a tedious recitation about something that happened long ago and far away, it is now about you and me, about us and our relationship with God.

Of course these observations came after quite a lot of actual reading of the texts. But it is interesting to see, quite literally, it present in the texts before us. (Be sure to click through to see the English word clouds as well.)

Lamentations - Accordance Module

Targum Lamentations - Accordance Module

Lamentations - NRSV

Targum Lamentations - trans. by CMM Brady

 

1. As with all biblical poetry, Lamentations is rendered as prose. This is something I termed “prosaic expansion,” but was first observed in publication by Moshe Bernstein with regards to TgPss.

You know I like wordle.net so here is the Book of Lamentations and below is Targum Lamentations.

Great Is Thy Faithfulness: Reading Lamentations as Sacred Scripture

Introduction—Robin A. Parry and Heath A. Thomas / xi

1 “Holy Scripture” and Hermeneutics: Lamentations in Critical and Theological Reflection—Heath A. Thomas / 1

2 Outrageous Demonstrations of Grace: The Theology of Lamentations —Paul R. House / 26

Soundings in Jewish Reception History

A Lamentations in Isaiah 40–55—Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer / 55

B The Character and Significance of LXX Lamentations —Kevin J. Youngblood / 64

C Targum Lamentations—Christian M. M. Brady / 70

D Lamentations Rabbati—Jacob Neusner / 77

E Introduction to Rashi’s Commentary on Lamentations —Mayer I. Gruber / 83

F Lamentations in Jewish Liturgy—Elsie R. Stern / 88

G Lamentations in Modern Jewish Thought—Zachary Braiterman / 92

Soundings in Messianic Jewish Reception History

H Holocaust Theology in the Light of Yeshua? Messianic Jewish

Reception of Eikah—Richard Harvey / 101

Soundings in Christian Reception History

I Lamentations in the Patristic Period—Heath A. Thomas / 113

J Christian Interpretation of Lamentations in the Middle Ages —David S. Hogg / 120

K John Calvin’s Interpretation of Lamentations—Pete Wilcox / 125

L Lamentations for the Lord: Great and Holy Friday in the Greek Orthodox Church—Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou / 131

M Lamentations and Christian Worship —Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ / 139

Soundings in Artistic and Contemporary Reception

N Musical Responses to Lamentations—F. Jane Schopf / 147

O Lamentations in Rembrandt van Rijn: “Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem”—Heath A. Thomas / 154

P Psychological Approaches to Lamentations—Paul M. Joyce / 161 Q Feminist Interpretation(s) of Lamentations—Heath A. Thomas / 166

3 Wrestling with Lamentations in Christian Worship—Robin A. Parry / 175

4 Confession and Complaint: Christian Pastoral Reflections on Lamentations—Ian Stackhouse / 198

Appendix 1: A Translation of LXX Lamentations—Kevin J. Youngblood / 211

Appendix 2: A Translation of Targum Lamentations —Christian M. M. Brady / 228

Appendix 3: Lamentations Rabbati on Lamentations 3:1–21 —Jacob Neusner / 248

Appendix 4: Rashi on Lamentations 3:1–21 / 264

Appendix 5: Calvin on Lamentations 3:1–23 / 267

 

Megillat Eicha, Alsace c. 18th century (image: Learn.jtsa.edu)

John has an intriguing post regarding Lam. 3:51: Lamentations 3:51: A New Proposal This is a notoriously problematic passage and John has an interesting proposal for a textual reconstruction. Of greater interest to me is his broader conclusions that I am not sure that I can agree with.

On this reading, in 3:1, at the onset of a larger whole, a female lamenter explicitly casts herself as a male persona, an “everyman” (Hillers’ characterization (1992:122) developed by Dobbs-Allsopp [2002:105-109]) who gives voice to a collective experience, only to allude to her particular identity in 3:51. In the poem’s conclusion, 3:52-66, the singular “I” continues to be used, but, as Dobbs-Allsopp notes (107), “it has become more inclusive.” As she did throughout Lam 3, the lamenter concludes by voicing the grief and hopes of an entire community.

The public articulation of grief by women is extremely well-attested cross-culturally. The details have become the subject of intense study by anthropologists. Those familiar with this research will formulate, almost as a matter of course, a working hypothesis: Lam 1 is a dialogue in which (a) a chorus of lamenting women provide a context for the voice of (b) a single lamenting woman speaking in the voice of Zion: (a): Lam 1:1-11 except for 1:9c and 1:11c; (b): Lam 1:9c.11c.12-22. Lam 2 is easily understood as a dialogue between two lamenting women, (a) a lamenter who speaks of and to Zion, and (b) a lamenter once again speaking in the voice of Zion: (a) 2:1-19; (b) 2:20-22. On this understanding, it is one of “the maidens of Jerusalem” spoken of as a lamenter in Lam 2:10 whose words we hear in 2:11-12 with its focus on children and mothers. Lam 3, with 3:51 construed as suggested above, is a monologue of a lamenting woman, a female citizen of her city, who gives voice to the grief and hopes of an entire community.

It seems to me that John makes a tremendous leap from his textual analysis to proposing a female author (even one that poses as a male persona). John is of course correct that women are often those most visible and vocal in the grieving process in many cultures and indeed it has been the subject of a great amount of study lately. At the risk of being labelled a misogynist, I would suggest caution when moving from that research to the reconstructions offered by John. I am sure that those familiar with such research would offer such a hypothesis but it seems overly cumbersome.

The most obvious hurdle is that the text itself takes the voice of a man. Would we not have to then argue that the original female author (which seems to be John’s argument) felt the need to present her laments as a male composition because, presumably, the culture would not accept a composition written by a woman. Yet if the culture is so affirming of women as lead lamenters then why would they not also accept such a composition? Certainly the identification of  Zion as woman and Daughter Zion introduce the feminine perspective (and see Dobbs-Allsopp and Linafelt for more on these themes), but does that necessitate a female author?

Finally, does the gender of the speaker or author matter? That is to say, do we read the text differently if we have a man or a woman in our consciousness as the author? It might provide us with slightly different nuances to our readings, but what do we gain exegetically? And that holds true even if arguing for a male author.

I can genuinely say that I do not feel a vested interest in whether it was a man or a woman (or, more likely, men or women) who wrote these laments. I just question whether or not such a thing is knowable and how it would change our readings. Then I wonder, should it? When we read an anonymous work we tend to take the words at their “face value” (a dubious concept, but you know what I mean), but once we know the author there can be a tendency to read that work through the filter of what we believe we know about the author and what we think their agenda might be.

Is it possible not to offer a gender neutral rendering of the text, but rather a gender neutral reading? Should that be our goal?

I also thought I would share with you all the targumist’s rendering and reading of the passage (Lam. 3:49-51). (You can find my translation of TgLam, my doctoral thesis, and other articles on this blog as well. See the tab above or go here.)

עיני זלגת דמעין ולא תשתיק מלמבכי מדלית פאיג עקתי וממלל תנחומין לי

עד כדו דסיתכי ויחזו עולבני יי מן שמיא

בכותא דעייני אסתקפת למרע נפשי על חורבן פילכי עמי וניוול בנתא דירושלם קרתי

49 My eye weeps tears and does not cease from crying. There is no respite from my anguish or anyone to comfort me;

50 Until the Lord looks out and sees my humiliation from heaven.

51 The weeping of my eyes is the cause of the affliction of my soul over the destruction of the districts of my people and the humiliation of the daughters of Jerusalem, my city.

 

Solger MS of TgLam 1:9b-1:16a

This is mostly a post to test the integration of my blog with twitter, but a separate post doesn’t hurt to emphasize that, at long last, I have updated/corrected my translation of TgLam. This translation is based upon Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Hebr. 1 (the images from the older but incomplete Solger MS can be found here as well). So you can find my updated translation on this site and on the NTCS site.

 

Between the beginning and ending of these broadcast laments, lambs were born. Lambs arriving during Holy Week have a Biblical poignance. The Old Testament is full of shepherds looking for new pastures. The Gospel for the Sunday after Easter begins ‘Jesus said, I am the good shepherd’. All week long, our pastures were transformed into windswept tundras, with howling winds and bitter rain, hail and snow. Each morning, I tried to scoot the newborns and their mamas into the shed. Without a sheepdog, this is a job that requires picking up the lambs and encouraging their mothers to follow. There are no sheepdogs in the Bible either, an oversight that Jesus may have lamented during the parable of the lost sheep. Once inside the shed, I settle down, a lamb tucked inside my jacket, and my radio tuned into Book of the Week. The choice for Holy Week was Julian Barnes’ Nothing To Be Afraid Of, a meditation on mortality and the fear of death. He begins: ‘I don’t believe in God, but I miss Him.’

By the time Easter Sunday arrived, the snow had descended like a veil over the countryside, a climatic version of the cloud in Lamentations, created so ‘that our prayers should not pass through’. Modern theologians claim that Lamentations is not a breast-beating, self-pitying lament, but an account of a disaster that, without offering easy grace or cheap hope, tells us how to handle grief. It’s a useful interpretation when there is much to grieve about. The cries of the bewildered ewes as we take away the lambs that didn’t survive the freezing night. The milestone of ‘4,000 American soldiers dead’ reached by Evensong on Easter Sunday. Tibetan monks dying for freedom. Houses repossessed. I could go on.

But I’m trying not to dwell on the ‘grandeur of sadness’, but to marvel at what has lived. Daffodils that survived the snow. Lambs that have begun their lamb games and the bereaved ewe that has adopted a hungry triplet. The hope that someday even this war will end. And here’s the Lamentation for the Day: you can believe in God and still miss Him.

 

John’s comment:

We studied Lamentations on five consecutive Wednesday nights a while back. A passage I find especially moving is 1.12 – ‘any sorrow like my sorrow.’ I have used it at funerals to comfort a grieving family who may feel that no one else can possibly understand their personal grief.

There are a number of such passages in Lamentations and I am glad to know that you are able to provide comfort through the words. This is part of the reason I still work on Lamentations, because I believe we have largely lost the ability and understanding of lamenting in western Christianity. It is important that people know that it is ok to grieve, to cry out, and even to be angry with God. He is a big God and he can take it. Most of all, I believe God wants us to be honest with him, to completely open up our hearts and minds, no holding back; open up the fire hose and let it flow, fierce and angry.

John’s reference to funerals reminds me of what I consider to be one of the most poignant passages in all of Scripture. Every time I teach 2 Samuel and I come to the Bathsheba episode I always pause and comment about David’s response to their son’s death. The scene is incredibly powerful. David has accepted his guilt and asked for God’s forgiveness for his sins of taking Bathsheba and killing Uriah. But Nathan declares that the son shall die. David mourned for the child, even as he was still alive, David lay by his bed and fasted. The child died.

2Sam. 12.20   Then David rose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes. He went into the house of the LORD, and worshiped; he then went to his own house; and when he asked, they set food before him and he ate.  21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when the child died, you rose and ate food.”  22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me, and the child may live.’  23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

As a parent, how can one read this and not be overcome with emotion? There are deep and penetrating truths in the episode. While we live, and while those around us live, we must pray to God to save. He is a gracious God who saves. Eventually, however, that time will arrive and in our grieving for our loss we may be assured that we will go to them. In this world we must break our fast, as hard as it may be, and it may be some time before we are able, but we must break our fast and continue to live and love in this world.

So far I have not officiated at a funeral. I have no idea what I would actually say in such a circumstance. I have of course been to several, but usually as a member of the grieving family. But I will keep these words and therefore I will have hope…

 

Lamentations

The book of Lamentations is one of the smallest works in the Bible and yet one of the most powerful and enigmatic. Written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 586 B.C.E. by the Babylonians, Lamentations expresses the grief and disbelief of those who lived through the horror and yet still looked to their God. Not just an outpouring of emotion, however, the book of Lamentations also contains a profound theological reflection and response to the problem of sin and suffering.

This incredibly thoughtful and thought-provoking work is often overlooked in Christian study and is rarely read in the lectionary cycles, either in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer or the Revised Common Lectionary. Perhaps the passage best known to Christians comes from Lamentations 3, which is an optional reading for Holy Saturday and is the basis of a famous hymn:

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases,
his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning;
great is your faithfulness. (3:22-23)

While this passage is a statement of the poet’s firm faith in God’s presence and mercy, it does not serve well as a summary of Lamentations. The book’s final two verses are perhaps a better encapsulation of the tone and temperament of Lamentations:

Restore us to yourself, O LORD, that we may be restored;
renew our days as of old—
unless you have utterly rejected us,
and are angry with us beyond measure. (5:21-22)

The five poems that make up the book of Lamentations move constantly between the cry of anguish at the condition of Jerusalem and her people to the fear that God may have finally rejected Israel forever, and to the affirmation that the LORD is the one who has allowed this to happen and yet God may still have mercy on them if only they repent. It is perhaps this challenging content with its powerful emotions and accusations against God that have caused this little book to be so often overlooked in Christian tradition.

The emotions expressed within these poems are raw and dramatic. Written most likely by those who witnessed the atrocities recounted, the book of Lamentations depicts the horrors of war and living in a city under siege. It dares to call out to God asking how—how could the LORD possibly allow such a thing to occur to God’s people? Wars, hardships, and strife continue to this day, and so the example of Lamentations and its nascent message of faith remain relevant to the contemporary community of faith.

Date and Authorship

Almost all scholars agree that the book of Lamentations was written in the years immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.. Certainly these five poems express the kind of shock and despair that we might expect from an eyewitness, yet their form and style demonstrate that they were created as an act of reflection on, and as a memorial of, their tragedy. Lamentations does not contain any glimpse of the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple that occurred after Cyrus the Great and the Persians defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Jews to return and rebuild their holy city in 538 B.C.E. Thus the time of composition is set within the years immediately following the destruction and prior to Jerusalem’s restoration. Moreover, it is likely that the poet was one of the many who were not exiled to Babylon, but remained in Judah and endured the daily reminders of the Babylonian conquest.

Jeremiah has traditionally been ascribed as the author of Lamentations, largely based upon the reference in 2 Chronicles 35:25 to Jeremiah’s having composed laments for the death of Josiah, but also due to the similarities in message and vocabulary between portions of the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations. Since the book of Lamentations is composed of five separate poems, many scholars have posited several authors and that is a distinct possibility. The text of Lamentations itself is, in fact, anonymous and most scholars agree that it is unlikely that it is the work of the prophet Jeremiah. In many ways it is the anonymity of the work that provides it with such great power, especially for today’s reader. It is not a work by a named and distant prophet; rather, it is a work that could be penned by anyone who has gone through such tragedy, and readers are invited to identify themselves with the authors’ perspectives. This becomes most powerful with the so-called “everyman” of chapter 3, as we shall discuss below.

Form and Genre

Lamentations is a collection of five poems, each intimately related by both structure and content and yet each a separate work. The first four poems are acrostics, that is to say the first letter of each of their verses (or “stanza”) is a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus the first stanza of the collection begins with the Hebrew letter aleph, the second with beth, and so on. There is variation within this form. In chapters 1 and 2 each stanza contains three lines or “couplets” and each stanza is introduced by a successive Hebrew letter. (That is, a new Hebrew letter begins the first word of each verse of these chapters, introducing a new set of three lines of poetry). Chapter 4 has a similar pattern, but with only two couplets per stanza. Chapter 3 consists of three-lined stanzas like chapters 1 and 2, but the stanzas have greater intricacy. Every couplet within each stanza begins with that stanza’s unique Hebrew letter (so the first three verses of chapter 3 form a stanza of three lines that each begin with aleph, and so on). The final chapter does not have an alphabetic acrostic but echoes the acrostic form, since it has twenty-two lines paralleling the twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

Another key feature of Lamentations is the rhythm of the poetic lines. In biblical Hebrew poetry the fundamental unit is the two-part line, or “couplet,” with each half-line usually of similar length. In Lamentations, and in other lament poems in the Bible, many of the line segments are of unequal length, the first being longer than the second. This “limping” pattern is referred to as qinah meter and provides a solemn and mournful rhythm to the recitation of the poem.

The lament genre dominates Lamentations and has particularly strong parallels to the city-lament genre widely attested in Mesopotamian literature. Some of the key features of the city-lament genre that have been incorporated into Lamentations include the structure and form, the assigning of responsibility, the abandonment of the city by its patron deity, the weeping of the female figure (Lady Zion), lamentation, and the restoration of the city. But Lamentations also has strong parallels with biblical laments, both communal and individual. The result is a transformation and adaptation of the various forms and styles known from biblical and extra-biblical sources into a unique Judaean lament of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The most significant departure from the city-lament genre, and yet what places Lamentations firmly within the biblical tradition, is that the destruction of Jerusalem is not attributed to the action of a capricious god. While God is always the primary agent in that God allowed Jerusalem’s destruction (“the Lord has destroyed without mercy all the habitations of Jacob,” 2:2), the author of Lamentations makes it abundantly clear this has only come about because of Judah’s sin. “Jerusalem sinned grievously, therefore she became filthy” (1:8; see also 2:14, 17; and 3:25-33). As we shall see, the destruction of Jerusalem and the suffering caused was viewed as a result of Judah’s actions; God’s punishment was just. The question is, would God now have mercy and once again show favor on the people.

Summarizing the Poems

Each of the chapters of Lamentations takes a slightly different perspective on the crisis that precipitated their creation, each with their own emphasis, yet their presence together within the canon reveals the unity of their message. Chapter 1 opens with the mournful cry ‘Ekhah, “How lonely sits the city.” The tragedy seems to go beyond comprehension as the holy city that had been so great, so beautiful, so powerful, has been emptied of her glory and reduced to rubble. Throughout Lamentations, Jerusalem, or “daughter Zion,” is personified as a woman who has become a widow, been violated, and mourns alone and without friends. The authors contrast Zion’s former status as a great city and ruler with her current condition of abuse and abandonment (1:6; 2:15). She recalls “all the precious things that were hers in days of old” (1:7); while no friends came to help, “our eyes failed, ever watching vainly for help” (4:17).

Two facts are made clear from the outset. The first is that it is the LORD who has caused the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Zion’s enemies are only able to conquer her “because the LORD has made her suffer” (1:5). Furthermore, God is often described as being directly responsible, “I am one who has seen affliction under the rod of God’s wrath” (3:1) and “you have wrapped yourself with anger and pursued us, killing without pity” (3:43). The second is that the reason God has brought this upon the holy city is “for the multitude of her transgressions” (1:5). God would not have been moved to punish had the people not sinned. “The LORD is in the right for I have rebelled against his word” (1:18).

The fact that “daughter Zion” is given voice in Lamentations creates a dialogue with God and allows the reader to appropriate her suffering as our own (or to see our own suffering in Zion’s). While many prophetic texts speak of “daughter Zion” and her humiliation (especially Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah) it is only in Lamentations that she speaks for herself. The result is that her condition is both more poignant and more personal. The reader is drawn into her suffering as the text moves into the first person, “hear, all you peoples, and behold my suffering” (1:18). As the dialogue develops the city, the people, and the reader cry out together to God demanding a response, “Look, O LORD, and see how worthless I have become” (1:11).

Chapter 3 is set apart in several ways. It stands in the middle of this five chapter book and draws together the various themes already related. The first half of the chapter is in the first person and draws the reader in to identify themselves with the struggles and suffering of the poets. The voice here is not that of “daughter Zion”  since the chapter opens, “I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of God’s wrath” (3:1). (The New Revised Standard Version has “I am the one” but the Hebrew is “the man” hagever.) This so-called “everyman” is anyone and everyone who struggled and suffered, those men, women, and children who starved in Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege and those who go hungry today. The speaker directly confronts the horrors of

The latter portion of the chapter describes the attacks of the enemies and concludes with a plea to God to bring these foes to justice. “Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the LORD’s heavens” (3:66).

In the middle of this chapter that is in the middle of this book resides a poignant confession of faith and hope. God remains judge and that judgment is just, but in spite of all the suffering the poet declares that “the steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end” (3:22). Verses 22-42 call the reader to repent and return to God so that God may bless the people. “The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD” (3:25-26).

The book of Lamentations concludes, however, with a much more mixed and poignant declaration of faith and fear. “But you, O LORD, reign forever; your throne endures to all generations. Why have you forgotten us completely?” (5:19-20). The LORD remains God, the supreme ruler over all, yet the poet cannot help but wonder at God’s absence. “Why have you forsaken us these many days?” (5:20). As noted in the opening to this brief study, the final two verses call upon God to restore the faithful and renew their glory in God, if it is not too late. “Restore us to yourself, O LORD…unless you have utterly rejected us.”

Interpretation

The practice of lamenting, expressing our feelings of grief and confusion, is something that we have all but lost in western Christianity. As a result we have tended to interpret Lamentations by focusing upon those moments of confession and contrition, preferring passages such as those in chapter 3 that speak of the poet’s faith in God and the LORD’s justice. But Lamentations was written as an expression of grief and while it certainly contains the language of confession (e.g., 1:8; 2:14, 17; 3:25-33) these poems are raw and poignant replies to the atrocities that the poet had just survived. They cry out in their lament, describing the horrors of an eighteen-month long siege that led some mothers to cannibalism (4:10) and the young men and women to be crushed by their enemies (1:15).

How does one respond to such horrors? Lamentations demonstrates that at least part of our response is to continue the conversation with God. We may be suffering and angry and full of doubt, but we must continue to express honestly our feelings to God, crying out “See, O Lord, how distressed I am!” (1:20). It is only in such openness and honesty with God that we can fully understand and know our own condition and God’s sovereign role in our lives. Like daughter Zion, we must acknowledge our sins (“her uncleanness was in her skirts; she took no thought of her future,” 1:9) even while demanding that God look upon our situation and have mercy (“O LORD, look at my affliction, for the enemy has triumphed,” 1:9). All too often in modern western Christianity we focus upon our need to acknowledge our sins and call upon God’s mercy that we fail to also acknowledge that the judgment comes from God as well. Our poet states “who can command and have it done, if the Lord has not ordained it?” before calling the audience to confession and obedience.

Let us test and examine our ways,
and return to the LORD.
Let us lift up our hearts as well as our hands
to God in heaven.
We have transgressed and rebelled,
and you have not forgiven. (3:40-42)

Even as the author leads us into continuing the dialogue with God we confront the most theologically challenging aspect of Lamentations. Where was God during this tragedy? Where is God now, as we seek to make sense of our own tragedies? The book of Lamentations brings this question home with dramatic power through silence. Although the poet repeatedly appeals to God, God never responds; the divine voice is not heard. “Look Lord!” is a refrain that is repeated throughout Lamentations (e.g., 1:9, 11; 2:20; 5:1). Yet even as the personified Zion begs God to see her plight, she has already been ravaged. Zion’s cry for God’s help and mercy echoes hollowly and there is no reply. The destruction and horrors visited upon Jerusalem and her people seem completely disproportionate to their sins. “The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children” (4:10) and yet God does not speak. What could be said? The divine silence is awful.

Into this silence the poet confronts Israel’s responsibility and confesses “the LORD is in the right for I have transgressed his word” (1:18). Rather than assume that God must not exist or that God no longer cares about his people, the poet leads us to reflect upon our role in the covenantal relationship with God. In so doing, we see that God’s role in destroying Jerusalem is not proof that God does not exist, rather it is evidence that the LORD remains the God of Israel who continues to care about God’s people by punishing them as a parent might punish their child.

This seeming paradox is the same that we find in the cross. It is inexplicable to many that God would require the sacrifice of the Son for the sins of the world. It seems cruel and excessive and yet it is in reality the full depth of mercy and compassion since it is through Jesus’ sacrifice that salvation came to all the world. So it is that God continues to love Israel enough that rather the simply ignore or abandon them God continues to maintain his Covenant with them. In their obedience God promised to bless them, “but if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish” (Deut. 30:17-18). God’s punishment is a sign that the Covenant remains in force and the LORD remains the God of Israel.

Thus the insistence of Lamentations that it is the LORD who sent fire from on high that “went deep into my bones” (1:13), while it may sound offensive to us, is a powerful statement of faith. In spite of all the famine, torture, and killing the poet continues to believe that his God, the LORD alone, is ruler of the universe and is thus capable of bringing about such utter destruction of the people. Furthermore, God has done so because God loves Israel enough to punish them and will ultimately restore the people to himself “for the Lord will not reject forever” (3:31). The LORD’s Covenant with Israel remains in force and the relationship will endure.

And yet as the poets cry out to God and ask for mercy, God is silent. How often have we also suffered grief, pain, disappointment, and poured out our hearts to God, waiting for a reply? Lamentations contains the complaints, prayers, and petitions that any of us might address to God in our grief. It is true that God’s response is not found in the text, but it is found in history. While the poet recognizes the sins of Israel and declares God just in punishing them, the book ends with the question, “or have you utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure?” Outside the book, within the text of life, God responded by fulfilling God’s word given through Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:10) and God restored the people to Judah by the hand of Cyrus.

At its heart Lamentations is about the relationship between God and Israel, a relationship that only continues because the people refuse to let go, refuse to assume that God has cast them aside, and choose to repent and return to God asking and waiting for God’s mercy. We too, no matter how great our distress and our sorrow, must be honest with God and not be disappointed when a voice does not crack the sky. God will reply through the text of our lives, we must simply be willing to read it.