Lange Commentary - Lamentations

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Lamentations


(Show All Books)

Verse Commentaries:


THE

LAMENTATIONS

of

JEREMIAH

THEOLOGICALLY AND HOMILETICALLY EXPOUNDED

by

Dr. C. W. EDUARD NAEGELSBACH,

Pastor in Bayreuth Bavaria.

TRANSLATED, ENLARGED, AND EDITED

by

WM. H. HORNBLOWER, D. D.

Professor Of Sacred Rhetoric, Church Government, And Pastoral Theology In Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, PA.

THE

LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. Name, Place In Canon, Liturgical Use

1. In Hebrew MSS. and editions this book is called àֵéëָä , i. e., How! from the first word in it (as Proverbs and the Books of the Pentateuch are designated by their initial words), which word also begins chs. 2 and 4, and thus appears to be a characteristic of the Book. The Rabbins called it ÷ִéðåֹú , i. e., neniœ, dirges, elegiœ, elegies, lamentations. ÷ִéðָä is found in the Old Testament in 2Sa_1:17; Amo_5:1; Amo_8:10; Jer_7:29; Jer_9:19; Eze_2:10; Eze_19:1; Eze_19:14; Eze_26:17; Eze_27:2; Eze_27:32; Eze_28:12; Eze_32:2; Eze_32:16; 2Ch_35:25. In Eze_2:10; the plural form ÷ִéðִéí is used, and in 2Ch_35:25 ÷ִéðåֹú . The Septuagint always translates this word èñῆíïò , èñῆíïé , whence are derived the Latin names Threni, Lamentationes, Lamenta.

2. Since Josephus, con. Apion, I. 8, states the number of the books of Holy Scripture as twenty-two, and divides them into three classes, the first consisting of the Pentateuch, the second of thirteen prophetical books, and the third of four books which contained ὕìíïõò åἰò ôὸí èåὸí êáὶ ôïῖò ἀíèñþðïéò ὑðïèÞêáò ôïῦ âßïõ [“hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life”], it is evident that he included the Lamentations, not in the ëְּúåּáִéí [Hagiographa], but in the prophetical Scriptures, and hence that he appended it to the Prophecies of Jeremiah. The same classification and estimated number of these books are found in the canon of Melito (Euseb. Eccl. Hist., IV. 26), where the Lamentations are not expressly named, but are evidently reckoned with the Prophetical Books, as they are in the Treatise of Origen on the oldest canon (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VI. 25), where it is said Ἱåñåìßáò óὺí èñÞíïéò êáὶ ôῇ ἐðéóôïëῇ ἐí ἑíὶ Ἱåñåìßᾳ ,—so also Hilarius Pictav. (Prolog. to the Psalms), Rufinus (Expos. Symboli Apostol.), the Council of Laodicea, can. 60 (see Herz. R.- Enc., VIII., p. 199) Epiphan., De mens. et pond. cap. 22, 23 (Opp. II., 180, ed. Petav.), the canons of the African Synods of 393 (Can. 36, Mansi III. 924) and 397 (Can. 47, Mansi III. 891), Augustine (De doct. Christ., II. 8) and by Jerome in the Prolog. Galeat., where likewise the Lamentations are not mentioned, but are evidently appended to the Prophetical Book, for after the enumeration of the twenty-two books he says, “Some would include Ruth and Lamentations in the Hagiographa, and by adding these compute the whole number of books as twenty-four, etc.”—Another method of enumeration and classification was gradually adopted by the Jews, the first trace of which we find in Vol. 4 of Ben Ezra, 4, 44, where the ninety-four (this, without doubt, is the correct reading) sacred books are divided into two classes of seventy and twenty-four books. The twenty-four books, manifestly, are the canonical ones. The Talmud also, in the Treatise Baba Bathra Fol., 14 b. enumerates twenty four books, probably in accordance with the number of letters of the Greek alphabet, which was made to correspond with the Hebrew alphabet by adding to the latter the double yod, éé , that was used to express with reverence the name of Jehovah. The Talmud now reckons the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, which it arranges in the following order, Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra (with Nehemiah), Chronicles. The Masorites introduced a third modification, arranging the Hagiographa thus,—Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. But only the Spanish manuscripts preserve this order. The German give the order thus,—Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. This is the usual order in our Hebrew editions of the Bible.—In the Septuagint, the various recensions of which differ from each other, another principle of arrangement prevails. This depends generally on the distinction of the books into historical, poetical and prophetical, in which order they succeed each other. But Lamentations is added to the prophetical book of Jeremiah. The Latin versions follow the same order, both the Itala and Vulgate. The Council of Trent has sanctioned this arrangement, in Decr. I., Sessio IV., where the Lamentations, without being mentioned, are reckoned with the Prophetical Book of Jeremiah. Our Protestant Bibles assign the book to the same place.

3. The Masoretic arrangement of the Hagiographa, in separating from the other books and placing together the five Megilloth [or festival rolls, which were appointed for rehearsal on certain feast and memorial days],—is purely conjectural. For not earlier than the Masorites do we find these five books placed together. The order of the German manuscripts is accommodated to the succession of holy-days. On this account the Song of Solomon comes first, because it was read at Easter; then follows Ruth (Whitsuntide); then the Lamentations. These were read on the ninth of Ab, on which day the Jews commemorated the destruction of both the first and second Temples. (See Herzog, R.-Enc., VII. p. 254).—As the Israelites have appointed the Lamentations for that great mourning festival, it is also a rule with them that an Israelite, when mourning a death, read no other book than Job and Lamentations. (Herz., R.-Enc., XVI. p. 364).—In the Romish Church, passages out of the Lamentations are read on the last three days of Holy-week. Three lessons are assigned to each one of the three days; the lessons are, on Maundy-Thursday, I. Lam_1:1-5, II. Lam_1:6-9, III. Lam_1:10-14; on Good Friday, I. Lam_2:8-11, II. Lam_2:12-15, III. Lam_3:1-9; on Saturday, I. Lam_3:22-30, II. Lam_4:1-6, III. Lam_5:1-11. Every lesson concludes, by way of response and versicle, with the words, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, convertere ad Dominum Deum tuum, turn to the Lord thy God. (See Officium hebdomadœ sanctœ, Separat-Abdruck aus Dr. Reischl’s Passionate. München, 1857. Die Charwoche in ihren Ceremonien und Gebeten, herausg. mit Gutheissung des bischöfl. Ordinariats, Speier, 1856. Neumann, Jeremias von Anatot. II., S. 486). With reference to the musical execution of the Lamentations in Holy-week at Rome, see Die Reisebriefe von Felix Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, Leipzig, 1861, S. 166 ff. (Brief an Zelter in Berlin). In the Evangelical Church Ludecus and Lossius have arranged passages of the Lamentations for Divine service during the solemnities of Holy-week, the former for the solemnities of the last three days, the latter only for the solemnity of the Sunday in Holy-week. And Nicolaus Selnecker has liturgically arranged the whole of the Lamentations in the German language (in his Kirchen-Gesänge, 1587), not for Holy-week, but for the festival of the Tenth Sunday after Trinity (the destruction of Jerusalem). Further on this subject, see Schöberlein, Schatz des liturg. Chor-und-Gemeindegesanges, II., S. 444 ff.

§
2. Contents And Structure

1. The general subject of the Lamentations is the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by the Chaldeans. That this book is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, as Tremellius and others have asserted (see Förster, Comm. in Thr., p. 5), is an utterly groundless opinion, which we mention only for curiosity’s sake. Similar Songs of lamentation, having for their subject the death of individual persons, or political catastrophes, occur in the Old Testament. See the citations in § 1, 1. But no lamentation of equal length and so artistically constructed is now extant. The peculiar structure which is common to all these songs shows that they all have one general subject. In Song I., the poet himself is the first speaker, Lam_1:1-11 b, whilst he introduces to us Zion [Jerusalem] as an ideal person. He pictures here the sad consequences of the destruction, whilst he indicates the causes of the same (Lam_1:8). In the second half of the chapter (Lam_1:11 c.—22) the personified Jerusalem herself speaks, portraying her misfortunes under manifold images, explaining their causes and praying for help and vengeance. In Song II., in the first part of it, the poet himself speaks, (a) ascribing the destruction to the agency of the Lord (Lam_2:1-9), (b) depicting the consequences of the destruction (Lam_2:10-12), (c) addressing the object of the destruction, namely, the personified Jerusalem, expressing his grief, his opinion as to the causes of the catastrophe, and exhorting her to prayer (Lam_2:13-19). To this exhortation Zion, here represented by the wall of Jerusalem [Zion], responds in a prayer breathing the deepest and acutest sorrow (Lam_2:20-22). In Song III., which evidently forms the climax of the whole, the poet introduces as speaking that man, who in those troublous times had suffered more than all others, and consequently had attained, as it were, to the very summit of the common calamity, for he had suffered not only from the enemy what was common to all, but also from his own people and associates, a thing unheard of save in this particular instance. This sufferer was the Prophet Jeremiah. He does not name him, it is true, and it is evident that he has in his eye, not the person of the prophet merely, but rather the servant of the Lord as a representative of the ( Ἰóñáὴë ðíåõìáôéêὸò ) spiritual Israel, yet all the particular features of this Lamentation are borrowed from the history of that prophet (Lam_3:1-18). This section ends with a cry of despair (Lam_3:18). But immediately the poet lets a morning twilight, as it were, succeed this night of despair, (Lam_3:19-21), which through the utterances of united believing Israel-soon expands into daylight, beaming with the most radiant consolation (Lam_3:22-38). In what follows successively, the evening twilight gathers, and then the poem sweeps back into such a night of grief and mourning, that Israel begins to confess his sins (Lam_3:39-42), but then gives vent to lamentations on account of those sins (Lam_3:43-47), until finally, in the last and third part, Jeremiah again takes up the word in order to weep out his grief over Zion’s misery and sins, (those sins which were likewise the source of his own misfortunes), and to implore the Lord, in beseeching prayer, for protection and for righteous avengement upon his enemies (Lam_3:48-66). In Song IV., the poem loses more and more of its ideal character. In the beginning indeed we find an ideal and well sustained description of Israel, as if it were the nobility of the nations, and then, further, of the princes of Israel, as the noblest among the noble, and then, appearing in sharper relief by standing out on such a back-ground, a delineation of the sufferings endured by those nobles (Lam_4:1-11); but in the second half of the chapter the poem becomes more prosaic: the chief guilt is imputed to the prophets and the priests, whose well-deserved punishment is then portrayed in the gloomiest colors (Lam_4:12-16). Then follows a description, graphic in the highest degree in spite of its brevity, of the events occurring from the extinction of the last gleams of the rays of hope kindled by the Egyptians, till the imprisonment of the king (Lam_4:17-20). The conclusion is a short address to Edom, which is ironically congratulated at the downfall of Jerusalem, while, at the same time, the punishment of its malicious joy is foretold (Lam_4:21-22). In Song V., the style is almost entirely prosaic. For, with the exception of Lam_5:16 a, no poetical expression is found in the whole chapter, rather only a concrete graphic picture of the naked reality. The alphabetical acrostic is entirely wanting in this chapter. The whole chapter is intended as a prayer; for it begins and ends with words of petition (Lam_5:1; Lam_5:19-22). What lies between is only a narration of the principal afflictions, which had befallen those who had been carried to Babylon and those who had fled to exile in Egypt (Lam_5:2-18). The concluding prayer expresses the hope that the Lord, who cannot Himself change, nor altogether reject His people, will bring them back again to Himself and to their ancient splendor (Lam_5:19-22).

2. As regards its external structure, the composition of this book, both as a whole and in its several parts, is so artistic, that anything like it can hardly be found in any other book of Holy Scripture. First of all it is significant, that there are five Songs. For the uneven number has this advantage, that the middle part of the whole Poem is represented by a whole number, and does not fall between two numbers, as it would in case there were an even number of songs [i. e., the middle part of the whole poem is represented by one Song, and is not composed of parts of two songs]. By this means the prominence of the middle Song and, in connection with that, an ascent and a descent, a crescendo and decrescendo movement, with a clearly marked climax, is made possible. Thus it is manifest that the third chapter constitutes the climax. And this is truly and really so in two respects, both as to matter and form. As to the first, we have already shown that the first two chapters bear an ideal and highly poetical character. They constitute only the front-steps to the third chapter, which, externally, as the middle of the five songs and by its internal character, conducts us into the very middle of the night into which Israel sank, and then of the day which rose over Israel. For are not the frightful sorrows which the Prophet Jeremiah, the servant of God and representative of the spiritual Israel, had endured, and which rose at last to that terrible exclamation—My strength and my hope is perished from Jehovah (Lam_3:18), the expressions of the highest outward and inward temptation which can befall a true servant of the Lord? Here it should be observed that in Lam_3:1-17, there is no reference to God except as the author of those sorrows which are represented, on that account, as Divine temptations; while the name of God is not even mentioned till at the end of Lam_3:18, where, as the last word, with startling vehemence, the name “Jehovah” is pronounced. Here then we see the servant of the Lord, in the deepest night of his misery, on the brink of despair. But where exigency is greatest, help is nearest. The poet could lay up in his heart everything that he had against God, but he could not shut God Himself out of his heart. On the contrary it was proved, that after he had given the fullest expression to what he had in his heart against God, God Himself was deeply rooted therein. The night is succeeded by the dawn of morning, as represented in Lam_3:19-21. With Lam_3:22, breaks the full day. This ushers in with full effulgence the light of Heavenly consolation. Suffering now is seen to be the proof of God’s love. In this love, that suffering finds its explanation, its limit, and its remedy. As the pyramid of Mont Blanc, seen at sunset from Chamouny, its summit gleaming with supernal splendors, whilst below, the mountain has already disappeared wrapped in deepest darkness (See Göthe’s Letters from Switzerland, Nov. 4, 1779; Aug. 12, 1840), so, out of the profound night of despair and misery, this middle part of the third song and of the whole book towers upward, radiant with light. From this culmination point, the poet again sets out upon his downward track. Evening twilight follows the bright day (Lam_3:40-42) and passes into a night dark with misery (Lam_3:43-47). From the beginning of the section, so full of hope and encouragement (Lam_3:22), the poet speaks in the plural number, as if he would make it most emphatically apparent, that this was common property. He continues to speak in the plural number till after the beginning of the third and last part of the Song, when the night has begun again. Then once more (Lam_3:48), the poet speaks in the singular number. But he no longer speaks of those highest temptations, which were the subject of Lam_3:1-18, but of those inferior ones, which men inflict upon us. He treats of them also much more briefly; and from Lam_3:55 to the end of the chapter, finds relief in a prayer for help and avengement.—It is evident that this chapter consists of three parts. The first part includes Lam_3:1-21; the second, Lam_3:22-42; the third, Lam_3:43-66. The second part represents the culmination point of the whole book. It constitutes the point of separation between the crescendo and decrescendo movement. The latter continues in chapter fourth, in which the ideal and poetical sensibly subside, until at last in chapter fifth the style changes into plain prose.—With this artistic arrangement of the matter, the external form or structure corresponds. Every one of the five Songs has 22 verses, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, only in the third Song every verse is divided into three members, hence it has 66 (masoretic) verses. The first four Songs are acrostics. In the first two Songs the verses consist of three distiches. It has been usual to recognize four distiches in Lam_1:7 and Lam_2:9, but improperly: for there is no fixed measure for the length of each member of the distich; and there are, therefore, in the places referred to, only three distiches, some lines of which are composed of a greater number of syllables than the others have. The third chapter shows by its external dress that it is the middle and climax of the whole. The three distiches of each verse (corresponding to three Masoretic verses successively) begin with the same alphabetical letter. The middle part, namely Lam_3:19-42, is still further distinguished, as the dome crowning the whole building, as follows: (1). Every verse-triad constitutes a finished whole with respect to sense [is one complete sentence]. (2). In Lam_3:25-39, each distich begins with the same word, or with a similar word (see Intr. to Lamentations 3). (3). While in Lam_3:1-18, the name of God is mentioned only once, and then with peculiar emphasis at the end of ver 18, in Lam_3:19-42 we read the names of God repeatedly, and so arranged that in Lam_3:22; Lam_3:24-26 we have éְäåָֹä , in Lam_3:31; Lam_3:36-37 àֲãֹðָé alternating with òֶìְéåֹï in Lam_3:35; Lam_3:38, in Lam_3:40 again éְäåָֹä and at last in Lam_3:41 àֵì áַּùָׁîַéִí . Observe here, particularly, that òֶìְéåֹï occurs in the Lamentations only in the two places named above, and àֲãֹðָé occurs only once, in the beginning of the decrescendo movement, Lam_3:58, whilst in chapter first it is used three times, Lam_3:14-15 (twice), and in chapter second seven times, Lam_3:1-2; Lam_3:5; Lam_3:7; Lam_3:18-20. Chapter fourth is indeed an acrostic, but the decline of the poetical afflatus is indicated externally by the verses being composed of only two distiches. The solemn names of God àֲãֹðָé and òֶìְéåֹï occur no more, on the other hand éְäּåָֹä occurs three times, Lam_3:11; Lam_3:16; Lam_3:20. The fifth chapter indicates its relation to the four preceding ones only by the number of verses (22). The acrostic dress entirely disappears. The style has become prose. Yet the name of God éְäåָֹä is found three times in the words of prayer, Lam_3:1; Lam_3:19; Lam_3:21.

We have here only one other matter to remark upon, the question why in chapters 2, 3 and 4. ôּ is placed before ò . This is usually explained as a copyist’s mistake. In fact some Codd. in Kennicott and De Rossi have these verses in their usual places. The Peschito also gives these verses in their proper alphabetical order. The Septuagint places the letters in their proper order in the margin, but leaves the verses themselves to follow each other in the order of the original. But this supposition of an error of transcriber is refuted, (1) by the fact that it is repeated three times, (2) by the impossibility of supposing that in Lamentations 3 three verses could have been transposed by mistake, (3) by the interruption of the sense which would result in chapters 3 and 4 [if the present order were changed]. If some Codd. and Versions have the letters in their right order, this is evidence of revision and correction. Others (as Riegler) explain this irregularity as merely arbitrary, others again (Bertholdt) as the result of forgetfulness on the part of the author. Grotius holds the singular opinion that the order in chapters 2, 3, 4 may be that of the Chaldaic alphabet, and therefore that Jeremiah in Lamentations 1 “speaks as a Hebrew, in the following chapters as a subject of the Chaldeans.” Thenius would explain the alphabetical difference by a diversity of authors, but the unity of the plan, already proved above, and the unity of the language used, which will be proved in § 3 (to which also belongs the threefold àֵéëָä at the beginning of chaps, 2, 3, 4) contradict this most decidedly. Ewald is (even still in his Second Edition, p. 326) of the opinion that the ò in chapter 1 “might have been transferred to its own place by later hands.” But this would be a manifest interruption of the connection: for ver. 16 is directly connected in the closest manner with ver. 15 by òַì ëֵּï therefore, [ òַìÎàֵìֶּä , for these things?], whilst ver. 18 [17?] begins a new thought. The liberty which the older poets especially allowed themselves in pursuing the alphabetical order (see Psalms 9, 10, 25, 37, 145, and Keil in Haevernick’s Introduction to Old Testament, III., p. 50) are manifold [See Barnes’ Introduction to Job, pp. 44, 45]. Whether they were influenced in this by a then prevailing diversity of method in respect to the succession of the letters, is not yet by any means sufficiently ascertained, but is nevertheless the most likely explanation of that liberty. See Delitzsch on Psalms 145, p. 769.

§
3. Author And Time Of Composition

1. That the Prophet Jeremiah was the author of this book, not only is an old tradition, but has been maintained by the majority of commentators up to the present time. Yet there is no canonical [Scriptural?] testimony for it. For neither in the later books of the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament, is Jeremiah ever named as the author of Lamentations. There is not in the above named parts of the Holy Scriptures a single quotation from the Lamentations. The passage in Jam_1:12, which is appealed to, has only a very general resemblance to Lam_3:26; and as regards Zec_1:6, the expression òָùָׂä éְäåָֹä ëַàֲùֶׁø æָîָí [Jehovah hath done like as He purposed] is not specific enough, and if it is a quotation could refer to Jer_51:12, as well as to Lam_2:17. But the Alexandrian translation has preceding Lam_1:1, these words, Êáὶ ἐãÝíåôï ìåôὰ ôὸ áἰ÷ìáëùôéóèῆíáé ôὸí Ἰóñáὴë êáὶ Ἱåñïõóáëὴì ἐñçìùèῆíáé , ἐêÜèéóåí Ἰåñåìßáò êëáßùí êáὶ ἐèñÞíçóå ôὸí èñῆíïí ôïῦôïí ἐðὶ Ἱåñïõóáëὴì êáὶ åἶðå . [“And it came to pass, after Israel had been carried away captive, and Jerusalem was become desolate, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said.”] The Vulgate also has these words, except that in place of the simple êáὶ åἶðå [and he said], it has the words, et amaro animo suspirans et ejulans dixit [“and with a sorrowful mind, sighing and moaning, he said” (Douay)]. The Arabic gives exactly the words of the Septuagint. The Targum Jonathan begins with the words, Dixit Jeremias propheta et sacerdos magnus [Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest (? åְëַäֲðָà øַáָּà ) said]. Josephus in the Antiq. Jud. L., X. c.5, § 1, after he has spoken of the death and burial of King Josiah, says, Ἱåñåìßáò ä ’ ὁ ðñïöÞôçò ἐðéêÞäåéïí áὐôïῦ óõíÝôáîå ìÝëïò èñçíçôßêὸí , ὅ êáὶ ìÝ÷ñé íῦí äéáìÝíåé [“and Jeremiah the prophet composed an elegy to lament him which is extant till this time also” (Whiston’s Josephus)]. Thenius is of the opinion that this asserts only the existence of the elegy on the death of Josiah composed by Jeremiah, and has no reference at all to the Lamentations. But I believe that Thenius here is in error. For the words of Josephus cannot be translated the (solenne) elegy on Josiah, because in that case it must have been called ôὸ ἐðéêÞäåéïí áὐôïõ [the elegy on him]. We can only translate thus,—Jeremiah composed as an elegy on him a lamentation song, which is still extant. To call it ôὸ ἐðéêÞäåéïí (the elegy) would imply that the poem then existing really belonged to the species “elegy,” that is to say, it possessed all the peculiarities of such a poem and was manifestly the solenne [elegy] on the deceased king Josiah that the customs of the times demanded. But the absence of the article marks the still extant ìÝëïò èñçíçôéêὸí [song of lamentation] as not necessarily belonging to the species “elegy,” but only as a ìÝëïò [song] which had served as an elegy. This admirably suits the Lamentations, which indeed contain not a single syllable referring to a dead king. Add to this, that Josephus in the same chapter, after he had related the death and burial of Josiah, seizes the opportunity to give a short notice of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and of their writings. For after the words quoted, he proceeds thus, “This prophet also predicted, and left [those predictions] in writing, the calamity that was coming upon the city, and truly as well that destruction which has in our days come upon us, as the Babylonish captivity. But not only he foretold such things, but the prophet Ezekiel, who first wrote and left behind him two books concerning these things.” However we understand the somewhat obscure words concerning the writings of Ezekiel, this much at least is evident, that Josephus intends to give here a brief notice of the writings of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And so he says, Jeremiah has left behind him two writings, a lamentation song and prophecies, Ezekiel has likewise left behind him prophecies, and truly in two books. Thenius says, if Josephus had meant our Lamentations by that ìÝëïò èñçíçôéêὸí [lamentation song], then he would have written ἐí ôïῖò èñÞíïéò [in the Lamentations]. But I maintain on the contrary, that if Josephus meant the èñÞíïé [Lamentations] by the ìÝë . èñÞí . [lamentation song], the addition ἐí ôïῖò èñÞíïéò [in the Lamentations] was not necessary [see note, p. 6.—W. H. H.], but if he intended to say what Thenius makes him say, then he would have written ïὐê ἐí ôïῖò èñÞíïéò [not in the Lamentations]. For since Josephus in this place speaks, not only of the elegy on Josiah’s death, but likewise of the writings of Jeremiah generally, and since in his times our Lamentations were already regarded as a writing of Jeremiah’s, as we know by the superscription of the Septuagint, he should, not to be entirely unintelligible, expressly declare that he did not mean by this ìÝëïò èñçíçôéêὸí [lamentation song] which Jeremiah had composed on the death of Josiah, the èñçíïé [Book of Lamentations]. Since he has not done this, every one who knows that there are two writings in the canon which are referred back to Jeremiah as their author, must understand the words of Josephus as intended to designate those two writings extant in the canon. According to this, therefore, Josesephus regarded Jeremiah as the author of the Lamentations, in which he, as Jerome did (Comment, Zec_7:11), recognized the elegy on Josiah mentioned in 2Ch_35:25. Among the moderns, Usher, J. D. Michaelis (on Lowth de sacr. poes. Hebr. Not. 97, pp. 445 sqq.), and Dathe (prophetœ maj., ed. 1) shared this opinion, but both the latter receded from it (see N. Or. Bibl. I., 106, and Dathe proph. maj., ed. 2). The Talmud also regards Jeremiah as the author of Lamentations (Baba batr., Fol. 15, Colossians 1), Jeremias scripsit libram suum et libram regum et threnos [Jeremiah wrote his own book and the book of Kings and the Lamentations]. This is the opinion also of the church fathers, all of them, (see Origen in Euseb. hist, eccl., iv. 25, Jerome in Prolog. galeat. and on Zec_12:11) and of later theologians. The learned and whimsical Herman von der Haardt, in a Programme in which he announced a commentary on Lamentations (Helmstädt, 1712), was the first to deny the authorship of Jeremiah ascribing the book to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and the king Joachin, assuming that each one of them had written one chapter. Later, the unknown author of an Essay in the Tübingen Theol. Quart., 1819, Part 1,—afterwards, though only in the way of conjecture, Augusti, in his Intr. to the Old Test. Scrip., p. 227,—and again Conz in Bengel’s Archiv, IV. pp. 161, 162, 422 sqq.,—express themselves as against the authorship of Jeremiah. Kalkar also in his commentary (Hafniæ, 1836) thinks it suspicious that the Book so long retained its place among the Hagiographa and that the Greek version of it differs so much from that of the prophetical book, although he will not allow that those circumstances are decisive, as in fact they are not. Ewald, who in the first edition of the Poetical Books of the Old Testament (1839, V. 1, pp. 139 ff.) in no way impugned the traditional opinion, has since (Gesch. Isr. IV. S. 22 ff.; see Jahrb. für bibl., Wissenschaft, VII. S. 151; Poet. Bücher, 2te. Aufl. I. Th. 2te. Hälfte., p. 321 ff.) expressed his opinion to this effect, that ‘Jeremiah’s authorship, with nothing to prove it, may be regarded as impossible on the ground of the language alone.’ He believes that the author was probably one of Jeremiah’s disciples, “Baruch or some other.” Bunsen also [before Ewald] ascribes the authorship to Baruch (Gott in der Geschichte, I. S. 426). Thenius announces the opinion in his commentary (10 te. Lief. des kurzgef. exeg. Hdb. z. A. T., 1855, § 3 der Vorbemm., S. 117,] that chapters 2 and 4 are indeed by Jeremiah, but the other parts proceeded from other authors. He combats the argument drawn from tradition, and whilst he infers from the difference between the prcëmium of the Septuagint and that of the Vulgate, that there was a Hebrew original, he also infers from the absence of the same in the Hebrew Codd. that the Jews doubted its genuineness, and thus he accounts for the transposition of the Lamentations to the Ketubim [or Hagiographa]. He contends further, that the traditional opinion is not confirmed by the subject-matter, spirit-tone and language, or by the character of unity in the Book itself. He finds it highly unlikely that Jeremiah should have treated of the same subject five times. He says further, “It requires only a very ordinary degree of æsthetical sensibility to distinguish the difference between Odes 2, 4, which are really fine, unconstrainedly animated, methodical and natural in arrangement and succession of ideas, and remarkable for their simplicity, and the dissimilar and weaker Song of Solomon , 1, 3, which, whatever excellence they have in other respects, are hampered with the external form, in many ways artificial, here and there heaping up images and confusing them together and losing themselves in reminiscences of the past.” To this he adds, that 1, 3, 5, among other things, record circumstances in which Jeremiah had no part. Finally the fact, that in 2, 4, the verses beginning with ô precede those beginning with ò is only explicable by assuming a diversity of authors. Agreeably to these sentiments, Thenius ascribed chapters 2, 4, to Jeremiah, as already remarked, but is of the opinion that chapter 1 was composed “sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem, by one who had remained in the land, and who at least was acquainted with Lamentations 2;” and that Lamentations 3 was composed, also by one remaining in the land, shortly before the last deportation. He regards Song V., finally, as “the entirely disconnected poetry of a man there [in the land] who was probably a leader of a crowd of nobles, who having refused to join the expedition to Egypt, wandered about everywhere seeking a safer place of refuge.” These arguments of Thenius have no matter-of-fact foundation, and cannot therefore be convincing.

As for me, formerly I was so convinced that Jeremiah was the author, as to declare this conviction in the article “Lamentations of Jeremiah,” in Herzog’s Real Encyclopædia, and even in various places in my exposition of Jeremiah. But my conviction has been shaken on more accurate examination by the following matters of fact. 1. The tradition originates from the testimony of the Alexandrian translation. But on what does this testimony itself rest? We are compelled to ask this question, for the authority of that translation is by itself an entirely insufficient foundation. It is possible that the Alexandrian translator had predecessors in his opinion. But no evidence of that nature has come to us. It is further possible that he, or his predecessors, or both, derived that opinion from the book itself. For it is easy to suppose that the prophet, who had himself lived to see Jerusalem’s fall, should write upon it an appropriate dirge. This was more likely to be supposed since this prophet had formerly been acknowledged as a composer of dirges (2Ch_35:25). Moreover, how could a tearful song over Jerusalem’s downfall fail to be expected from that prophet who had said, “Oh, that my head were waters, and mine eye a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (Jer_9:1). Add to this, that in chapter 3 the poet seems to identify himself with the prophet, and that the undeniably obvious and sympathetic harmony with the prophetical writings of Jeremiah seems to confirm that identity. The probability, therefore, that Jeremiah may have written a book of this description, cannot be denied. But how stands it with the evidence which the book itself, in Lamentations 3, seems to give in regard to its author, and how with the harmony in the way of thought and language? As for the internal evidence of Lamentations 3, in the first and third parts of that chapter the prophet Jeremiah certainly speaks. But the question occurs, whether he speaks as the author, or whether the author makes him speak? Either is in itself possible. For since the author in Lam_1:11 makes the personified Zion speak, he may likewise in Lamentations 3 make the prophet Jeremiah, as the representative of the Ἰóñáåë ðíåõìáôéêïò [the spiritual Israel], speak. But, on the other hand, since in Lamentations 2 the author is the speaker and there speaks of himself in vers. 11, 13, so in Lam_3:1-28; Lam_3:48-66, the author may be the speaker, and according to the purport of the contents, he is speaking of himself. But here two things are to be taken into account. The first is this, that Lamentations 3 (see the exposition) constitutes the middle and climax of the whole book. Here the artistic construction reaches its highest pinnacle, and the prophet speaking in the first and last of the three parts, forms with his mournful lamentations the background for the bright and consolatory section contained in vers. 22–42. Is it now likely that Jeremiah would thus have made his own person the middle-point of the poem and would have done this with so much art? To me this seems not likely, even though it is assumed that the prophet speaks here in the name of the whole Jehovah-faithful Israel. Jeremiah, who was so modest and humble, would at the most have let his personal sufferings appear, if at all, only as an element or constituent part of the suffering which the faithful Israel had to suffer in common. But it does not seem like him thus to place his own person in the foreground as he does in that section which begins with “I am the man,” Lam_3:1. In regard to the artistic construction, I have already in the Introduction to his Prophecies (§ 3), confessed that Jeremiah’s style is not deficient in art. See for example his second discourse, chs. 3–6. But this refinement of art, this acrostic, this adroit periodic versification, these ingenious transitions in Lam_3:19-21; Lam_3:39-42, this crescendo and decrescendo movement resting upon the five-fold division of the whole poem—truly all this seems not like Jeremiah. In his writings nothing similar to this is found. Would any one ascribe the most perfect product, in regard to the external artistic structure, of the Old Testament Scriptures, to that same prophet whose style is elsewhere characterized as sermo incultus et pæne subrusticus, if indeed one pauses to recognize his style at all, and does not rather direct his attention to those rerum cœlestium mysteria which are concealed under the sacramentis literarum? Nevertheless, I freely grant that neither the psychological, nor the rhetorical argument can, by itself alone, claim to be decisive.

But another argument must be added to these, namely, Secondly, The prevailing character of the language in the Lamentations. This differs very considerably from that of the prophetical book. Although the author of Lamentations has much in common with that prophet, not only in general, as a Hebrew writer, but also in particular by a designed reference to the writings of Jeremiah, yet on the other hand, he has so much that is peculiar to himself, and so much that Jeremiah has not at all, or has only in a different form, that it is difficult to believe in the identity of the two. I have spared myself no trouble to compare every word of the Lamentations (with the exception of such as are constantly recurring, as àִéù , äָéָä , etc., without which Hebrew cannot be written) with the writings of Jeremiah. I have availed myself for this purpose of the Concordance of Fuerst, and have found the same correct and to be depended upon, with the exception of what is given in respect to the word àֲãֹðָé . The following is the result of this painfully laborious comparison, wherein I refer in every instance for authentication to the exposition of the passages in which the words occur.

[Note.—The bearing of the argument to be derived from the verbal differences, between the Prophecies of Jeremiah and the Book of Lamentations, is critically examined in the Appendix to this Introduction. The writer of this note, unwilling to insert his dissent from the very learned and conscientious author of this Introduction in the text of these pages, and unable to condense the reasons for his dissent in notes at the bottom of the pages, would here refer the reader to the Appendix, for a general summary of arguments in confirmation of the opinion that Jeremiah was the author of the Lamentations.—W. H. H.]

1. Lam_1:1. The phrases øַáָּúִé òָí and ø× áַâåéִí occur only here. The singular ùָׂøָä as an appellative, only here. îְãִéðָä is not foreign to Jeremiah’s times, but is never used by him. äָֽéְúָä ìָîַí , never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:2. ìְçִé never in Jeremiah. àֵéï îְðַçֵí , only in this chapter, vers. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21, and in Ecc_4:1 (although the Piel of the verb ðָçַí occurs in Jer_16:7; Jer_31:13).

Lam_1:3. òֳðִé five times in Lamentations. Jeremiah uses neither it nor the root òָðָä . See Lam_3:33; Lam_5:11. For îֵøֹá Jeremiah says òַì øֹá or îָðåֹçַ , òֲáֹøָä . áְּøֹá (Jeremiah says îְðåּçָä ), îְòָøִéí , never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:4. àָáֵì never in Jeremiah. îåֹòֵã , which occurs in Lamentations six times, and always in the sense of a time or place of a festival, is found twice in Jeremiah, but both times in the general sense of tempus fixum. The expressions ùׁå ̇ îֵí , áָּàֵé ô×ּ (see vers. 13, 16; Lam_3:11), the termination Îִéï , the verbs àָðַç (see vers. 8, 11) and éָâָä (four times in Lamentations) never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:5. äָìַêְ ùְׁáִå is peculiar to this place. The sing. öַø , which occurs five times in Lamentations, is never in Jeremiah. He uses only the plural.

Lam_1:6. éָöָà îִï for forsaken only here. àַéָּì , äָãָø (masc.), îִøְòֶä (Jeremiah always îַøְòִéú ) never with Jeremiah. øֹãֵó Jeremiah uses only with suffixes.

Lam_1:7. îְøåּãִéí , only here, Lam_3:19, and Isa_58:7. îַֽçֲîֹã (see vers. 10, 11; Lam_2:4) never in Jeremiah. He uses only çֶîְãָּä . îִùְׁáָּú ἅð . ëåã .

Lam_1:8. çֵèְà (see Lam_3:39) never in Jeremiah. He uses only çַèָּàú , äִæִּéì , îְëַáֵּã , ðִéãָä (only here), òֶøְåָä never in Jeremiah. àָçåֹø (see Lam_1:13) occurs in Jeremiah only with äָìַêְ . or ðָñåֹâ

Lam_1:9. ôְּìָàִéí , èֻîְàָä never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:10. îַçְîָã never in Jeremiah (see Lam_1:7).

Lam_1:11. àָðַç (see Lam_1:4), îַֽçֲîִֹã (see Lam_1:7), ðָáַè , äָùִׁåá ðֶôֶùׁ , àֹëֵì (see Lam_1:12; Lam_3:63; Lam_4:16; Lam_5:1), never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:12. òֹáְøֵé ãֶøֶêְ (see Lam_2:15), éåֹí çֲøåֹï àַôåֹ (Isa_13:13) never in Jeremiah. See Lam_2:1. òåֹìֵì (see Lam_1:22; Lam_2:20; Lam_3:51) Jeremiah uses only once in the sense of racemari. Once also in Hithp. Jer_38:19.

Lam_1:13. ãָּåָä , øֶùֶׁú (see Lam_5:17) never in Jer.

Lam_1:14. ùָׂ÷ַã ἅð . ëåã . äִùְׂúָּøַâ Hithp. only here. àֲãֹðָé in Jeremiah never alone, but always joined with éְäåָֹä ; in Lamentations fourteen times, and always alone.

Lam_1:15. âַּú , ÷ָøָà îåֹòֵã , ñָìָä never in Jeremiah. ãָּøַêְ âַּú ìִôְ֥ only here.

Lam_1:16. áֹëִéָä only here. îְðַçֵí see Lam_1:2. îֵùִׁéá ðַôְùִׁé , see Lam_1:11. ùׁåֹîֵîִéí , see Lam_1:4.

Lam_1:17. àֵéï îְðֵçֵí , see Lam_1:2. ðִãָּä (see Lam_1:8) never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:18. îָøָä ôֶּä never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:19. øִîָּä , Piel, âָּåַò never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:20. òַø , see Lam_1:5. çֲîַåְîַø (see Lam_2:11), ðֶäְôַּêְ ìִáִּé never in Jeremiah.

Lam_1:21. ðֶàֱðַç , see Lam_1:4. îְðַçֵí , see Lam_1:2.

Lam_1:22. àֲðָçָä , áָּàָä øָòָä ìִôְðֵé ôּ֥ never in Jeremiah.

2. Lam_2:1. éָòִéá ἅð . ëåã , éåí àַó , äָãåֹí (see Lam_1:12; Lam_2:21-22) never in Jeremiah.

Lam_2:2. áִּìַּò , Piel, never in Jeremiah, in this chapter five times. Instead of ìàֹ çָîַì (see Lam_2:17) Jeremiah says ìֹà ðִçַí . ðְàåֹú éַֽòֲ÷ֹá only here.

Lam_2:3. Jeremiah uses only the Niphal of ðָãַò . çֳøִé àַó never in Jeremiah. äֵùִׁéá àָçåֹø , see Lam_1:8. éָîִּéï , Jeremiah uses only once, and then not in a figurative sense. Jeremiah never says àָëַì ñָáִéá , he uses in this connection always ñְáִéáִéí . or ñְáִéáåֹú .

Lam_2:4. ðִöַá Niph. never in Jeremiah. îַçְîָã , see Lam_1:7; Lam_1:10-11. àֹçֶì