Lamentations 1:15

ס (Samek)

1:15 He rounded up ¹  all my mighty ones; ² 

The Lord ³  did this ⁴  in ⁵  my midst.

He summoned an assembly ⁶  against me

to shatter my young men.

The Lord has stomped like grapes ⁷ 

the virgin daughter, Judah. ⁸ 

Lamentations 1:10

י (Yod)

1:10 An enemy grabbed ⁹ 

all her valuables. ¹⁰ 

Indeed she watched in horror ¹¹  as Gentiles ¹² 

invaded her holy temple ¹³  –

those whom you ¹⁴  had commanded:

“They must not enter ¹⁵  your assembly place.” ¹⁶ 

Lamentations 2:6

ו (Vav)

2:6 He destroyed his temple ¹⁷  as if it were a vineyard; ¹⁸ 

he destroyed his appointed meeting place.

The Lord has made those in Zion forget

both the festivals and the Sabbaths. ¹⁹ 

In his fierce anger ²⁰  he has spurned ²¹ 

both king and priest.

Lamentations 1:4

ד (Dalet)

1:4 The roads to Zion ²²  mourn ²³ 

because no one ²⁴  travels to the festivals. ²⁵ 

All her city gates ²⁶  are deserted; ²⁷ 

her priests groan. ²⁸ 

Her virgins grieve; ²⁹ 

she is in bitter anguish! ³⁰ 

Lamentations 2:22

ת (Tav)

2:22 As if it were a feast day, you call ³¹ 

enemies ³²  to terrify me ³³  on every side. ³⁴ 

On the day of the Lord’s anger

no one escaped or survived.

My enemy has finished off

those healthy infants whom I bore ³⁵  and raised. ³⁶ 

[1:15]  ¹ tn The verb סָלַה (salah) occurs only twice in OT; once in Qal (Ps 119:118) and once here in Piel. It is possibly a by-form of סָלַל (salal, “to heap up”). It may also be related to Aramaic סלא (sl’) meaning “to throw away” and Assyrian salu/shalu meaning “to hurl (away)” (AHw 1152) or “to kick up dust, shoot (arrows), reject, throw away?” (CAD 17:272). With people as its object shalu is used of people casting away their children, specifically meaning selling them on the market. The LXX translates סָלַה (salah) as ἐξῆρεν (exhren, “to remove, lead away”). Thus God is either (1) heaping them up (dead) in the city square, (2) putting them up for sale in the city square, or (3) leading them out of the city (into exile or to deprive it of defenders prior to attack). The English “round up” could accommodate any of these and is also a cattle term, which fits well with the use of the word “bulls” (see following note).

[1:15]  ² tn Heb “bulls.” Metaphorically, bulls may refer to mighty ones, leaders or warriors. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp (Lamentations [IBC], 69) insightfully suggests that the Samek stanza presents an overarching dissonance by using terms associated with a celebratory feast (bulls, assembly, and a winepress) in sentences where God is abusing the normally expected celebrants, i.e. the “leaders” are the sacrifice.

[1:15]  ³ tc The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’adonay, “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the Lord”); this occurs again a second time later in this verse. See the tc note at 1:14.

[1:15]  ⁴ tn The verb is elided and understood from the preceding colon. Naming “my Lord” as the subject of the verb late, as it were, emphasizes the irony of the action taken by a person in this position.

[1:15]  ⁵ tc The MT reads the preposition בּ (bet, “in”) prefixed to קִרְבִּי (qirbi, “my midst”): בְּקִרְבִּי (bÿkirbi, “in my midst”); however, the LXX reads ἐκ μέσου μου (ek mesou mou) which may reflect a Vorlage of the preposition מִן (min, “from”): מִקִּרְבִּי (miqqirbi, “from my midst”). The LXX may have chosen ἐκ to accommodate understanding סִלָּה (sillah) as ἐξῆρεν (exhren, “to remove, lead away”). The textual deviation may have been caused by an unusual orthographic confusion.

[1:15]  ⁶ tn Heb “an assembly.” The noun מוֹעֵד (mo’ed, “assembly”) is normally used in reference to the annual religious festive assemblies of Israel (Ezek 45:17; Hos 9:5; Zeph 3:18; Zech 8:19), though a number of English versions take this “assembly” to refer to the invading army which attacks the city (e.g., NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT).

[1:15]  ⁷ tn Heb “a winepress he has stomped.” The noun גַּת (gat, “winepress”) functions as an adverbial accusative of location: “in a winepress.” The translation reflects the synecdoche that is involved – one stomps the grapes that are in the winepress, not the winepress itself.

[1:15]  ⁸ sn The expression the virgin daughter, Judah is used as an epithet, i.e. Virgin Judah or Maiden Judah, further reinforcing the feminine anthrpomorphism.

[1:10]  ⁹ tn Heb “stretched out his hand.” The war imagery is of seizure of property; the anthropomorphic element pictures rape. This is an idiom that describes greedy actions (BDB 831 s.v. פָרַשׂ), meaning “to seize” (HALOT 976 s.v. 2).

[1:10]  ¹⁰ tc The Kethib is written מַחֲמוֹדֵּיהֶם (makhamodehem, “her desired things”); the Qere and many medieval Hebrew mss read מַחֲמַדֵּיהֶם (makhamaddehem, “her desirable things”). The Qere reading should be adopted.

[1:10]  ¹¹ tn Heb “she watched” or “she saw.” The verb רָאָה (ra’ah, “to see”) has a broad range of meanings, including “to see” a spectacle causing grief (Gen 21:16; 44:34; Num 11:15; 2 Kgs 22:20; 2 Chr 34:28; Esth 8:6) or abhorrence (Isa 66:24). The words “in horror” are added to “she watched” to bring out this nuance.

[1:10]  ¹² sn The syntax of the sentence is interrupted by the insertion of the following sentence, “they invaded…,” then continued with “whom…” The disruption of the syntax is a structural device intended to help convey the shock of the situation.

[1:10]  ¹³ tn Heb “her sanctuary.” The term מִקְדָּשָׁהּ (miqdashah, “her sanctuary”) refers to the temple. Anthropomorphically, translating as “her sacred place” would also allow for the rape imagery.

[1:10]  ¹⁴ sn Lam 1-2 has two speaking voices: a third person voice reporting the horrific reality of Jerusalem’s suffering and Jerusalem’s voice. See W. F. Lanahan, “The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations” JBL 93 (1974): 41-49. The reporting voice has been addressing the listener, referring to the Lord in the third person. Here he switches to a second person address to God, also changing the wording of the following command to second person. The revulsion of the Reporter is so great that he is moved to address God directly.

[1:10]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “enter.” The Hebrew term בּוֹא (bo’) is also a sexual metaphor.

[1:10]  ¹⁶ tn The noun קָהָל (qahal, “assembly”) does not refer here to the collective group of people assembled to worship the Lord, but to the place of their assembly: the temple. This is an example of a synecdoche of the people contained (= assembly) for the container (= temple). The intent is to make the violation feel more personal than someone walking into a building.

[2:6]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “His booth.” The noun שׂךְ (sokh, “booth,” BDB 968 s.v.) is a hapax legomenon (term that appears only once in the Hebrew OT), but it is probably an alternate spelling of the more common noun סֻכָּה (sukkah, “booth”) which is used frequently of temporary shelters and booths (e.g., Neh 8:15) (BDB 697 s.v. סֻכָּה). Related to the verb שָׂכַךְ (sakhakh, “to weave”), it refers to a temporary dwelling constructed of interwoven boughs. This is a figurative description of the temple, as the parallel term מוֹעֲדוֹ (mo’ado, “his tabernacle” or “his appointed meeting place”) makes clear. Jeremiah probably chose this term to emphasize the frailty of the temple, and its ease of destruction. Contrary to the expectation of Jerusalem, it was only a temporary dwelling of the Lord – its permanence cut short due to sin of the people.

[2:6]  ¹⁸ tc The MT reads כַּגַּן (kaggan, “like a garden”). The LXX reads ὡς ἄμπελον (Jw" ampelon) which reflects כְּגֶפֶן (kÿgefen, “like a vineyard”). Internal evidence favors כְּגֶפֶן (kÿgefen) because God’s judgment is often compared to the destruction of a vineyard (e.g., Job 15:33; Isa 34:4; Ezek 15:2, 6). The omission of פ (pe) is easily explained due to the similarity in spelling between כְּגֶפֶן (kÿgefen) and כַּגַּן (kaggan).

[2:6]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “The Lord has caused to be forgotten in Zion both appointed festival and Sabbath.” The verb שִׁכַּח (shikkakh, “to cause someone to forget”), Piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׁכַח (shakhakh, “to forget”) is used figuratively. When people forget “often the neglect of obligations is in view” (L. C. Allen, NIDOTTE 4:104). When people forget the things of God, they are in disobedience and often indicted for ignoring God or neglecting their duties to him (Deut 4:23, 31; 6:12; 8:11, 19; 26:13; 31:21; 32:18; Judg 3:7; 1 Sam 12:9; 2 Kgs 17:38; Is 49:14; 51:13; 65:11; Jer 18:15; Exek 23:35; Hos 4:6). The irony is that the one to whom worship is due has made it so that people must neglect it. Most English versions render this in a metonymical sense: “the Lord has brought to an end in Zion appointed festival and sabbath” (RSV), “[he] did away with festivals and Sabbaths” (CEV), “he has put an end to holy days and Sabbaths” (TEV), “the Lord has ended…festival and sabbath” (NJPS), “the Lord has abolished…festivals and sabbath” (NRSV). Few English versions employ the gloss “remember”: “the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten” (KJV) and “the Lord has made Zion forget her appointed feasts and her sabbaths”(NIV).

[2:6]  ²⁰ tn Heb “In the fury of his anger” (זַעַם־אפּוֹ, za’am-’appo). The genitive noun אפּוֹ (’appo, “his anger”) functions as an attributed genitive with the construct noun זַעַם (za’am, “fury, rage”): “his furious anger.”

[2:6]  ²¹ tn The verb נָאַץ (na’ats, “to spurn, show contempt”) functions as a metonymy of cause (= to spurn king and priests) for effect (= to reject them; cf. CEV). Since spurning is the cause, this may be understood as “to reject with a negative attitude.” However, retaining “spurn” in the translation keeps the term emotionally loaded. The most frequent term for נָאַץ (na’ats) in the LXX (παροξύνω, paroxunw) also conveys emotion beyond a decision to reject.

[1:4]  ²⁵ tn Heb “roads of Zion.” The noun צִיּוֹן (tsiyyon, Zion) is a genitive of direction (termination) following the construct noun, meaning “roads to Zion.”

[1:4]  ²⁶ tn The adjective אֲבֵּלּוֹת (’avelot, “mourning”) functions as a predicate of state.

[1:4]  ²⁷ tn Heb “from lack of.” The construction מִבְּלִי (mibbÿli) is composed of the preposition מִן (min) functioning in a causal sense (BDB 580 s.v. מִן 2.f) and the adverb of negation בְּלִי (bÿli) to denote the negative cause: “from want of” or “without” (HALOT 133 s.v. בְּלִי 4; BDB 115 s.v. בְּלִי 2.c) (Num 14:16; Deut 9:28; 28:55; Eccl 3:11; Isa 5:13; Jer 2:15; 9:11; Hos 4:6; Ezek 34:5).

[1:4]  ²⁸ tn Heb “those coming of feast.” The construct chain בָּאֵי מוֹעֵד (ba’e mo’ed) consists of (1) the substantival plural construct participle בָּאֵי (ba’e, “those who come”) and (2) the collective singular genitive of purpose מוֹעֵד (mo’ed, “for the feasts”).

[1:4]  ²⁹ tc The MT reads שְׁעָרֶיהָ (shÿ’areha, “her gates”). The BHS editors suggest revocalizing the text to the participle שֹׁעֲרֶיהָ (sho’areha, “her gate-keepers”) from שֹׁעֵר (sho’er, “porter”; BDB 1045 s.v. שֹׁעֵר). The revocalization creates tight parallelism: “her gate-keepers”//“her priests,” but ruins the chiasm: (A) her gate-keepers, (B) her priests, (B’) her virgins, (A’) the city itself.

[1:4]  ³⁰ tn The verb שָׁמֵם (shamem) normally means “to be desolated; to be appalled,” but when used in reference to land, it means “deserted” (Isa 49:8; Ezek 33:28; 35:12, 15; 36:4) (BDB 1030 s.v. 1).

[1:4]  ³¹ tn Heb “groan” or “sigh.” The verb אָנַח (’anakh) is an expression of grief (Prov 29:2; Isa 24:7; Lam 1:4, 8; Ezek 9:4; 21:11). BDB 58 s.v. 1 suggests that it means “sigh” but HALOT 70-71 s.v. prefers “groan” here.

[1:4]  ³² tc The MT reads נּוּגוֹת (nugot, “are grieved”), Niphal participle feminine plural from יָגָה (yagah, “to grieve”). The LXX ἀγόμεναι (agomenai) reflects נָהוּגוֹת (nahugot, “are led away”), Qal passive participle feminine plural from נָהַג (nahag, “to lead away into exile”), also reflected in Aquila and Symmachus. The MT reading is an unusual form (see translator’s note below) and best explains the origin of the LXX which is a more common root. It would be difficult to explain the origin of the MT reading if the LXX reflects the original. Therefore, the MT is probably the original reading.

[1:4]  ³³ tn Heb “and she is bitter to herself,” that is, “sick inside” (2 Kgs 4:27)

[2:22]  ³³ tn The syntax of the line is awkward. English versions vary considerably in how they render it: “Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about” (KJV), “Thou hast called, as in the day of a solemn assembly, my terrors on every side” (ASV), “You did call as in the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (NASB), “Thou didst invite as to the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (RSV), “As you summon to a feast day, so you summoned against me terrors on every side” (NIV), “You summoned, as on a festival, my neighbors from roundabout” (NJPS), “You invited my enemies to hold a carnival of terror all around me” (TEV), “You invited my enemies like guests for a party” (CEV).

[2:22]  ³⁴ tn The term “enemies” is supplied in the translation as a clarification.

[2:22]  ³⁵ tn Heb “my terrors” or “my enemies.” The expression מְגוּרַי (mÿguray, “my terrors”) is difficult and may refer to either enemies, the terror associated with facing enemies, or both.

[2:22]  ³⁶ tn Heb “surrounding me.”

[2:22]  ³⁷ tn The meaning of the verb טָפַח (tafakh) is debated: (1) BDB suggests that it is derived from טָפַה (tafah, “to extend, spread” the hands) and here means “to carry in the palm of one’s hands” (BDB 381 s.v. טָפַה 2). (2) HALOT 378 s.v. II טָפַח suggests that it is derived from the root II טָפַח (tafakh) and means “to give birth to healthy children.” The recent lexicons suggest that it is related to Arabic tafaha “to bring forth fully formed children” and to Akkadian tuppu “to raise children.” The use of this particular term highlights the tragic irony of what the army of Babylon has done: it has destroyed the lives of perfectly healthy children whom the women of Israel had raised.

[2:22]  ³⁸ tn This entire line is an accusative noun clause, functioning as the direct object of the following line: “my enemy has destroyed the perfectly healthy children….” Normal word order in Hebrew is: verb + subject + direct object. Here, the accusative direct object clause is moved forward for rhetorical emphasis: those whom the Babylonians killed had been children born perfectly healthy and well raised … what a tragic loss of perfectly good human life!