The Book of Lamentations and the Social World of Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Era 9781607241126, 2010039215, 1607241129

Citation preview

7KH%RRNRI/DPHQWDWLRQVDQG WKH6RFLDO:RUOGRI-XGDKLQWKH 1HR%DE\ORQLDQ(UD

%LEOLFDO,QWHUVHFWLRQV



,QFOXGLQJ WKH +HEUHZ %LEOH DQG 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW WKLV VHULHV SUHVHQWV VWXGLHV WKDW H[SORUH WKH ELEOLFDO OLWHUDWXUH DV D SURGXFW DV ZHOO DV D UHIOHFWLRQ RI WKH ZRUOG LQ ZKLFK LW ZDV SURGXFHG ,Q DGGLWLRQWRVWXGLHVWKDWWDNHDQKLVWRULFDODSSURDFKWKLVVHULHVDOVR H[DPLQHV WKH ELEOLFDO WH[W IURP DOWHUQDWLYH SHUVSHFWLYHV LQFOXGLQJ VRFLDOVFLHQWLILF WKHRORJLFDO OLWHUDU\ DQG FXOWXUDO VWXGLHV DSSURDFKHV

7KH%RRNRI/DPHQWDWLRQVDQG WKH6RFLDO:RUOGRI-XGDKLQWKH 1HR%DE\ORQLDQ(UD

/DXUHVV/:LONLQV

 

*RUJLDV3UHVV//&5LYHU5RDG3LVFDWDZD\1-86$ ZZZJRUJLDVSUHVVFRP &RS\ULJKW†E\*RUJLDV3UHVV//& 

$OO ULJKWV UHVHUYHG XQGHU ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG 3DQ$PHULFDQ &RS\ULJKW &RQYHQWLRQV1RSDUWRIWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQPD\EHUHSURGXFHGVWRUHGLQD UHWULHYDO V\VWHP RU WUDQVPLWWHG LQ DQ\ IRUP RU E\ DQ\ PHDQV HOHFWURQLF PHFKDQLFDO SKRWRFRS\LQJ UHFRUGLQJ VFDQQLQJ RU RWKHUZLVH ZLWKRXW WKH SULRUZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRI*RUJLDV3UHVV//& 

‰

,6%1

,661

/LEUDU\RI&RQJUHVV&DWDORJLQJLQ3XEOLFDWLRQ'DWD :LONLQV/DXUHVV 7KHERRNRI/DPHQWDWLRQVDQGWKHVRFLDOZRUOG RI-XGDKLQWKHQHR%DE\ORQLDQHUDE\/DXUHVV :LONLQV SFP%LEOLFDOLQWHUVHFWLRQV,661  ,QFOXGHVELEOLRJUDSKLFDOUHIHUHQFHVS DQGLQGH[HV %LEOH27/DPHQWDWLRQV6RFLRUKHWRULFDO FULWLFLVP3HDVDQWV-XGDHD5HJLRQ +LVWRU\ -HZV+LVWRU\%DE\ORQLDQFDSWLYLW\ %&,7LWOH %6:  GF 

3ULQWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface......................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................ix Abbreviations ...........................................................................................xi Introduction ..............................................................................................1 1

Lamentations One...........................................................................9 Lamentations 1:1–2.......................................................................10 Lamentations 1:3–6.......................................................................22 Lamentations 1:7–11.....................................................................34 Lamentations 1:12–16...................................................................42 Lamentations 1:17–22...................................................................51 Summary .........................................................................................57

2

Lamentations Two ........................................................................61 Lamentations 2:1–5.......................................................................63 Lamentations 2:6–10.....................................................................75 Lamentations 2:11–17...................................................................85 Lamentations 2:18–22...................................................................96 Summary .......................................................................................105

3

Lamentations Three ....................................................................107 Lamentations 3:1–20...................................................................110 Lamentations 3:21–42.................................................................118 Lamentations 3:43–66.................................................................130 Summary .......................................................................................137

4

Lamentations Four ......................................................................139 Lamentations 4:1–10...................................................................141 Lamentations 4:11–16.................................................................157 Lamentations 4:17–22.................................................................166 v

vi

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS Summary .......................................................................................178

5

Lamentations Five .......................................................................181 Lamentations 5:1–5.....................................................................183 Lamentations 5:6–10...................................................................192 Lamentations 5:11–14.................................................................197 Lamentations 5:15–18.................................................................202 Lamentations 5:19–22.................................................................206 Summary .......................................................................................213

Conclusion.............................................................................................217 The Rhetoric of Lamentations ..................................................218 Judah’s Social World in the Neo-Babylonian Era ..................224 Implications of this Study ..........................................................230 Bibliography ..........................................................................................233 Index of Biblical Citations ..................................................................255 Index of Extra-Biblical Ancient Texts ..............................................263

PREFACE My ancestors were slaves. The first time I saw the motion picture, Gone with the Wind, I remember thinking that, in a world where privilege for some depends on the servitude of others, there must be different perspectives and assessments of the meaning of life. That insight led me to wonder what my own ancestors felt and experienced when the Confederacy fell in 1865, when their term of bondage and inhumane treatment finally came to a close. What stories did my Nana hear from her parents, as a young girl in the decade after the Civil War? What was the interaction like between freed slaves and former slave-masters who survived the “War of Northern Aggression?” Surely my ancestors welcomed the military struggle that resulted in their own emancipation, even as it dismantled a way of life that had been so deeply cherished by many Americans in the South. Similar questions arose when I undertook the study of ancient Israelite history, especially the catastrophic events in Judah during the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE. Biblical narratives, prophetic texts, and poetry that describe the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE reflect enormous social turmoil and profound human suffering. Nowhere is that message more graphically conveyed than in the book of Lamentations, which mourns the destruction of “Daughter Zion” and “her precious people.” However, without denying the tragedy expressed in those five poems, I have wondered if there wasn’t more to the story—or rather, to the stories—of Judah’s inhabitants during those years. What were the experiences and views of “the poorest of the land” left behind when Nebuchadrezzar’s army took Jerusalem’s rulers into exile? Did Judah’s peasants join in the suffering and grief of Jerusalemites, as Lamentations claims? Or did they, like my emancipated ancestors, rejoice that God had finally answered their prayers and lifted the yoke of bondage from their shoulders? vii

viii

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

This book is a revised version of my dissertation research, which seeks to ascertain what life was like for Judah’s survivors— both those from Jerusalem and those from the countryside—who remained in the war-torn land during the neo-Babylonian era (605– 539 BCE). There is very little physical evidence of the experiences of survivors from Jerusalem, and even less of Judah’s peasants, from that time period. However, by considering the available texts (both biblical and extra-biblical), material evidence, and analogous sociological models from more recent contexts, the current study attempts to shed what light it can, on life in sixth-century BCE Judah, especially from the perspective of rural survivors whose voices are silenced in the biblical laments. Because of the nature of the sources, and especially the dearth of material remains, the reconstruction of Judah’s social world proposed in this book is necessarily speculative and imaginative. But hopefully it will raise questions that will invite further scholarly inquiry, so that the complex social dynamics of ancient Judean society may be better understood. Lauress L. Wilkins July 2010

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people and institutions have played a critical role in the process of my writing the dissertation and revising it for publication. In these brief acknowledgements, I cannot name them all, but I am no less grateful to those who are not named, and I am deeply humbled at how impossible this task would have been without their care and support. First, I am forever grateful to my dissertation advisor Simon B. Parker, my teacher, mentor and guide in graduate studies at Boston University. Simon taught me that multiculturalism was relevant in the biblical communities just as it is in our world today. His patient, gentle, and sage advice, along with his amazing good humor, sustained me through all the ups and downs of the doctoral program. I also wish to thank Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, a compassionate critic and dynamite rhetorician, whose careful reading of my dissertation was not only informative, but affirming and collegial. With gratitude I acknowledge my other professors, mentors, and friends at Boston University, especially: Hillel S. Levine, who inspired me to explore social worlds through the eyes of those who are often overlooked or misunderstood; J. Paul Sampley, who challenged me to become a biblical scholar long before I had any idea that I could; and Bernhard W. Anderson and Harrell F. Beck, whose appreciation for the power of biblical language transformed forever the way I would hear these ancient texts. To my friends, colleagues, and students at Regis College, I express my sincerest gratitude for their patience, affection, and encouragement, with special thanks to Virginia Pyne Kaneb, whose grant support enabled me to complete the writing of the dissertation. Thank you, too, to the library staffs of Regis College, Smith College, and Boston University for making myriad resources available for this endeavor. ix

x

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

The scholarly community of The Catholic Biblical Association has been a source of inspiration and strength to me in the process of developing this manuscript for publication. In a special way I acknowledge Ahida Pilarski and the other members of the Feminist Hermeneutics Task Force, whose friendly encouragement and collegial support has greatly enriched my academic journey. And to the staff of Gorgias Press for their interest in this manuscript and their patience as I prepared it, many, many thanks. On a personal note, I wish to express fond gratitude for my family and friends, especially Mom and Dad, who first taught me love of the scriptures; for Herb and Renée, who always welcome my visits, even when I am laden with books and drafts; for Mark, the first to read this book and provide insightful and encouraging feedback; and Sandra, a remarkable pastoral “cheerleader” who helped me keep my “eyes on the prize.” Finally, I offer very special thanks to my good friend Kyla McMahon, who suffered, not once but twice, through the ordeal of typing this manuscript! There are no words that can adequately express my gratitude for their support, their sacrifices, and their love.

ABBREVIATIONS ABD ANEP ANET Ant. BA BAR BASOR BDB BHS CA CANE EAEHL ESI HUCA IEJ JANES JAOS JBL JNES JSOT JTS LE LI LSUr LU LW LXX MT NRSV

The Anchor Bible Dictionary The Ancient Near East in Pictures Ancient Near Eastern Texts Antiquities of the Jews Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Genesius Hebrew and English Lexicon Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia “Curse of Agade” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies “The Eridu Lament” “Prayer of Lamentation to Ishtar” “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur” “Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur” “The Uruk Lament” Septuagint Masoretic Text New Revised Standard Version xi

xii PEQ SCL VT ZAW

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS Palestine Exploration Quarterly “Sumerian Congregational Lament” Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION The book of Lamentations is a small collection of poems that express the struggle of the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonia in 587/6 BCE. The five poems in this book bemoan the dismantling of Jerusalem’s fortifications, the ravaging of its Temple, slaughter of its army, and humiliation of its leaders taken captive into exile. Poignant and powerful rhetorical devices are woven throughout the book, inviting readers to sympathize with Jerusalem’s elite, who have plummeted from the social status of royalty to the depths of human depravity, cast into a world of unthinkable social and emotional chaos that demand desperate measures, as the poet laments, “just to stay alive.” However, as persuasively as Lamentations presents the plight of Jerusalem’s survivors, it is equally silent with regard to the experiences of and responses to the war by peasants who lived in rural Judah during the Babylonian conquest. Lamentations scholarship to date has focused mainly in two areas. First, many commentators have utilized textual, structural, and form critical approaches to mine the rich and complex literary features of this short biblical book.1 Included in this group are D. R. Hillers, Lamentations: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible 7A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972); D. R. Hillers, Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1992); C. Westermann, Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation, trans. C. Muenchow (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994); H. Gottlieb, A Study on the Text of Lamentations, trans. J. Sturdy (Århus, Denmark: Acta Jutlandica, 1978); B. Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Lund: Gleerup, 1963); F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, Interpretation Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox 1

1

2

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

scholars who compare the Lamentations poems to other biblical and extra-biblical laments.2 They note that the language, images, and motifs in the Lamentations poems include rhetorical Press, 2002); R. Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations, 3d ed. (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974); and J. Renkema, Lamentations (Leuven: Peeters, 1998). Other significant text-critical studies of Lamentations include: T. F. McDaniel, “Philological Studies in Lamentations, I–II,” Biblica 49 (1968): 27–53, 199–220; and M. Dahood, “New Readings in Lamentations,” Biblica 59 (1978): 174–197. In this study, citations of the Hillers commentary refer to the second revised edition (1992). 2 S. N. Kramer, Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940); Kramer, “Sumerian Literature and the Bible,” Analecta Biblica 12 (1959): 185–204; and Kramer “The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa,” BA 46 (1983), 69–83. Also see M. E. Cohen, balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second and First Millennium B. C. (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1974). Arguing against Kramer and Cohen, some scholars insist that similarities between Lamentations and other Mesopotamian laments are the result of common cultural stock imagery and beliefs, rather than direct literary borrowing. For example, see T. F. McDaniel, “The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations,” VT 18 (1968): 198–209; and P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, 2d ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989). Considerable work has been done since Kramer’s early contributions to the comparative analysis of ancient Near Eastern city-laments. For example, see W. C. Gwaltney, Jr., “The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays in Comparative Method, ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 191–211; J. H. Hayes, “The Songs of Israel (Psalms and Lamentations),” in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues, ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 153– 171; P. W. Ferris, Jr., The Genre of Communal Laments in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, SBL Dissertation Series 127 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); and F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993).

INTRODUCTION

3

conventions common not only to the city-lament genre, but to a variety of genres in the literature of the ancient Near East (e.g., conquest accounts, historical annals, prophetic oracles, and liturgical texts), as well as in the visual artwork and iconography of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The second focus of Lamentations research addresses theological concerns raised by the book, both regarding the grief of Jerusalem’s survivors in the sixth century BCE,3 and challenges such as feminist, liberationist, and postHolocaust readings of Lamentations examined by interpreters today.4 N. K. Gottwald, Studies in the Book of Lamentations. 2d rev. ed. (London: SCM Press, 1954; revised edition 1962), 51; H.-J. Kraus, Klagelieder (Threni), 2d ed. (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960); I. Provan, Lamentations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); B. Gosse, “Les ‘Confessions’ de Jérémie, la vengeance contre Jerusalem a l’image de celle contre Babylone et les nations, et Lamentations 1,” ZAW 111 (1999): 58–67; P. D. Miller, Jr., They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994); C. Westermann, “The Complaint Against God,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988), 233–241; Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. K. R. Crim and R. N. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981); and F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Tragedy, Tradition, and Theology in the Book of Lamentations,” JSOT 74 (1997): 29–60. 4 See N. K. Gottwald, “The Book of Lamentations Reconsidered,” in The Hebrew Bible in Its Social World and in Ours (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 165–173; K. M. O’Connor, Lamentations and the Tears of the World (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002); A. Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002); X. H. T. Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); N. C. Lee, The Singers of Lamentations: City Under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to Sarajevo (Boston: Brill, 2002); C. R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); T. Linafelt, “The Impossibility of Mourning: Lamentations After the Holocaust,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988), 279–289; Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Laments, and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 3

4

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Until the 1960s, most scholars assumed that the biblical account of Israelite history (at least regarding the monarchical and post-monarchical periods) was more or less reliable. Therefore, the notion that any significant population existed in Judah from 586– 539 BCE was usually dismissed, since the biblical writers claimed that the destruction of Jerusalem and deportation of its leaders resulted in the end of life for “all Judah” until the exiles returned from Babylonia under Cyrus of Persia.5 However, in the 1990s several scholars, most notably H. Barstad, seriously challenged the so-called “myth of the empty land,” insisting that Judah remained “a functioning society, with many of its … political institutions still intact,” throughout the neo-Babylonian era.6 Regardless of which position was taken in the “empty land” debate, scholars assumed, almost without exception, that the only Judeans who were historically significant were Jerusalem’s educated and professional elite.7 That assumption has been reinforced by biblical texts like the 2000); and D. Berrigan, Lamentations from New York to Kabul and Beyond (Lanham, Maryland: Sheed and Ward, 2002). 5 C. C. Torrey is credited with presenting the first substantial challenge to the historicity of the biblical account of the exile and post-exilic period, in his essay, “The Exile and the Restoration,” in Ezra Studies (New York: Ktav, 1910; reprint 1970), 285–350 (page citations are to the reprint edition). Torrey raised serious doubts about whether or not a return from exile and restoration of the Judean community ever took place. However, his controversial position was widely rejected until the late twentieth century. 6 H. M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the ‘Exilic’ Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996), 18–19. 7 The term “Jerusalemite elite” is used in this discussion to refer specifically to the rulers, officials, individuals in various leadership roles (e.g., priests, prophets, scribes) and others who were closely involved in and who benefitted from commercial and administrative activity related to the operation of Jerusalem’s monarchy. However, as noted in the chapters on Lamentations 1 and 2, the elite actually comprised a minority of those who were in Jerusalem when the siege began. The city’s manual laborers and service providers, as well as Judeans from nearby farms who sought

INTRODUCTION

5

book of Lamentations that emphasize the concerns of surviving members of Jerusalem’s rulers with little or no reference to Judah’s peasants—a population in whom neither the biblical writers nor modern historians have demonstrated much interest. This study tests the thesis that, although Judean peasants living closest to Babylonia’s military targets suffered devastation similar to that of the Jerusalemites, those who lived in the north and in remote parts of Judah experienced relatively little disruption after Judah’s urban centers collapsed. Specifically, this study asks, what was the impact of the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE on the people of Judah, particularly Judean peasants, who lived outside of the city? How might one reinterpret the book of Lamentations from the perspective of rural Judeans, whose experiences of and responses to Jerusalem’s destruction may have been very different from those of the Jerusalemite survivors featured in these biblical laments? Attempting to address these questions is complicated by two factors. First, there is no scholarly consensus regarding the historical value of literary texts like Lamentations, which are laden with metaphors, hyperbole, and other rhetorical conventions. In fact, some scholars, rejecting the notion that art imitates life, insist that no valid social or historical inferences can be made from allusions in a poetic text. However, the current study challenges that view and argues that artistic expressions like those in Lamentations can serve as a guideline for inquiry into the lived experiences of Judeans (urbanites and peasants) in the sixth century BCE. Rather than dismiss Lamentations as historically irrelevant because it uses symbolic language and rhetorical conventions shelter within the city walls as the Babylonian army approached, were also among the victims of the war. The book of Lamentations does not consciously consider the perspective of the “urban poor” any more than it expresses concern for Judah’s peasants. Instead, the laments emphasize the crisis of those whose power base and economic prosperity were destroyed when Jerusalem fell. (For example, see Lam. 1:6, 2:1, 4:5, and 5:8.) For a fuller treatment of the composition of an urban population in ancient Israel, see A. Faust, “Socioeconomic Stratification in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test Case,” Levant 31 (1999): 179–190.

6

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

common to ancient Near Eastern literature, the current study assumes that those very conventions, if interpreted metaphorically rather than literally, may offer useful insights into common experiences of ancient populations whose cities were attacked. In other words, the fact that a poetic text is not written specifically for historical purposes does not preclude its value for guiding our questions and enriching our insights into the kinds of experiences and worldviews alluded to in the poetry. A second challenge that complicates this study is that there is only meager literary or material evidence from the social world of sixth-century BCE Judah. Whatever archaeological evidence is available can be invaluable in helping to elucidate images that appear in the biblical text. Material evidence can help a reader to determine if a literary allusion should be interpreted as having an actual, historical referent, or as having merely a metaphorical function. To help supplement the scarce archaeological evidence, comparative material from other historical contexts can also shed light on the experiences of ancient Judeans, especially of peasants whose story is not well represented either in the archaeological record or in the biblical texts. The methodology used in this investigation is a form of socialrhetorical criticism that involves the triangulation of three elements: 1) the rhetorical features of Lamentations and comparative ancient Near Eastern literature; 2) archaeological evidence from sixth-century BCE Judah; and 3) social models and analogues from other agrarian societies. As a guide for this inquiry, I identify prominent rhetorical features (e.g., literary themes, motifs, images, and tone) in the Lamentations poems that might provide clues about Judah’s social world in the neo-Babylonian era. Consideration of textual and material sources is combined with sociological interpretive models to provide a clearer picture of what life might have been like for Judah’s survivors, peasants and urbanites alike, in the sixth century BCE. The five chapters that follow present a chapter-by-chapter analysis of Lamentations 1–5 that includes: 1) a descriptive overview of the poem; 2) an original translation of each rhetorical unit in the poem; 3) an examination of the rhetorical elements within those textual units from the perspective of Jerusalem’s elite; and 4) a Counter Reading in which material evidence from late Iron Age Judah is brought to bear upon the social roles, institutions, and

INTRODUCTION

7

daily activities mentioned in the text. M. Weber’s functionalistidealist approach8 and B. J. Malina’s conflict model9 are used in the Counter Reading to elucidate the activity of rural peasants in neoBabylonian Judah. Following Malina’s cautionary note, this study does not attempt an historical reconstruction. Rather it proposes a plausible description of the social world and daily lives of the ordinary people of Judah, whose histories may not have been documented, but whose stories, with the help of effective interpretive tools, can be surmised. The content of Lamentations 1–2 and 4–5 seems to evoke a sense of chronology. The first two laments reflect conditions during and immediately following the siege of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE, and the last two describe the aftermath of the war in the later years of the neo-Babylonian era. Lamentations 3 is distinctive in both form and content, and does not indicate a particular historical context. Rather it reflects a kind of theological reflection that might have been expressed in worship by Judean survivors years after the Babylonian conquest. The dissertation concludes that complex social dynamics existed between urban and rural Judeans who remained in Judah during the neo-Babylonian era, and that peasants played a significant role in the survival of those Judeans. In the northern territory of Benjamin, in areas to the south in the Negev, and in eastern border regions near the Jordan River, rural kinship-based communities, led by local elders, subsisted as farmers and pastoralists throughout most of the sixth century BCE. Some of those communities sheltered urban survivors, motivated by compassion or by a need to compensate for labor shortages caused M. Weber, The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations, trans. R. I. Frank (New York: Verso, 1988); and Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947; reprint, New York: Collier-MacMillan Publishing Company, 1964). 9 B. J. Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” Interpretation 36 (1982): 233–235. Malina’s conflict model was chosen for the current study in order to highlight both the negative and positive impacts that social crisis can have on communities of survivors. 8

8

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

by the war. Ambiguity characterized urban-rural relations: mutual resentment between former Jerusalemite leaders (who saw the peasants as taking over the land) and peasants (who saw their former Jerusalemite oppressors as getting what they deserved) was tempered by a need shared by all Judean survivors to work together to rebuild their lives in Judah during the neo-Babylonian era.

1

LAMENTATIONS ONE

The book of Lamentations opens with a poetic depiction of Jerusalem under siege. The city is portrayed as formerly a major urban center with significant political influence, religious activity, social status, and wealth. Lamentations 1:1 utilizes hyperbolic language to describe the city before its demise as boasting a sizeable population (rabbātî ʿām) and considerable regional prestige (rabbātî baggôyim and śārātî bamdînôt). Jerusalem had been hailed as both a military stronghold for its inhabitants (Lam. 2:2, 8) and as the dwelling place for its God (2:6–7); therefore, it was believed to be inviolable (1:10). However, under the crush of the Babylonian army, Jerusalem’s leaders have become fallen heroes; warriors, officials, elders, and priests have either been taken into exile (1:6), slain in the city streets (2:4), left to seek food in the midst of famine (1:19) and hope in the midst of despair (3:19–23), or to mourn without a comforter (1:2, 9, 16, 17, 21). The wealth of the city has been stripped away (4:1–2), and survivors once associated with Jerusalem’s glorified past are now at the mercy of former slaves (5:8). Lamentations 1 presents an overview of themes that appear throughout the book: grief over the loss of the city’s people and destruction of its property; triumph of the enemy and tragedy of the victims; and abandonment by God, by political allies, by anyone who might have offered comfort or assistance to Jerusalemites struggling “just to stay alive.” In addition to these general themes, this chapter personifies Jerusalem as a widow, a grieving mother, a rape victim and, most notably, as the maiden Daughter Zion

9

10

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

(vs.7ff)—portraits not unlike those of the Weeping Goddess in Mesopotamian city-laments.1 This chapter examines the text of Lamentations 1, one rhetorical unit at a time. Each unit is examined first from the perspective of Jerusalemite survivors, the implied audience of the text. Then a Counter Reading is presented that suggests how rural Judeans might have experienced or interpreted the phenomena mentioned in the text. Where available, ancient Near Eastern literary and iconographic parallels and material evidence are identified to elucidate the experiences of rural and urban Judeans as Jerusalem was under siege. Later chapters of this book focus on other key themes and images in greater detail: destruction of Judah’s fortifications and shrines, and upheaval of its social structures (Lamentations 2); theological dilemmas and a changing worldview (Lamentations 3); agonizing famine and the scorn of neighboring peoples (Lamentations 4); and a summary of the aftermath and long-term results of the events of 587/6 BCE (Lamentations 5). Because those themes are the focus of later chapters, they are treated only briefly with regard to Lamentations 1 to avoid redundancy.

Personification in Lamentations and other biblical texts has been explored at length. See especially F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion; E. R. Follis, “The Holy City as Daughter,” in Directions in Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. R. Follis, JSOT Supplement Series 40 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 173–184; N. Graetz, “Jerusalem the Widow,” in Shofar 17 (1999): 16–24; K. M. Heim, “The Personification of Jerusalem and the Drama of Her Bereavement in Lamentations,” in Zion, City of Our God, ed. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 129–169; B. B. Kaiser, “Poet as ‘Female Impersonator’: The Image of Daughter Zion as Speaker in Biblical Poems of Suffering,” Journal of Religion 67 (1987): 164–182. 1

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

11

LAMENTATIONS 1:1–2 1 How lonely sits the city once full of people! She has become like a widow, she who was greatest among the nations, Mistress among the provinces,2 reduced to forced labor. 2 She weeps and wails through the night, tears streaming down her cheeks. She has no comforter from among all her friends. All her companions have betrayed her; they are now her enemies.

The first two verses of Lamentations introduce three social concerns that are prominent throughout the entire book: shame from the loss of socioeconomic status; grief over the loss of loved ones; and loneliness and isolation from the loss of former allies who suddenly have become enemies. These themes and sentiments are similar to those evoked in laments written for ancient Mesopotamian cities as well. For example, laments over Uruk, Eridu, Sumer, and Ur, describe the cities’ destruction, destitution, and abandonment: The Hebrew terms śar (v. 6) and śārāh (v. 1) are frequently translated as terms of royal lineage; i.e., “prince” and “princess” respectively. However, consistently in Lamentations these terms seem to refer to administrative functions; i.e., “rulers” or “officials” who oversee commercial, military, and governmental operations in service to the monarchy. Therefore, in v. 1 śārāh is rendered “mistress,” connoting the social function of women in Israelite culture as managers of social and commercial affairs within the home (i.e., “mistress of the house”). To speak of Jerusalem as a śārāh is not merely to emphasize the city’s elite social status as the home of Judah’s royal family (and, of course, its God); but also “śārāh” indicates the city’s role as the “administrative manager” or capital of Judah’s sociopolitical and economic affairs. Likewise, “śar” is rendered “ruler” in v. 6 and elsewhere in Lamentations, to suggest the role of the “śārîm” as Jerusalem’s administrative overseers. 2

12

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS They destroyed it; they demolished it. Uruk, the good place, was … with dust. (LW 5:15–16)3 Its lady … Damgalnunna … uttering a bitter lament: ‘You, my city, whose woman does not dwell (there) … where is a lament uttered bitterly for you?’ (LE 5.1–7)4 The evening meals of the gods were suppressed, In their great dining-halls wine (and) honey came to an end … That house where commands were shouted like an ox— its silence is overwhelming. (LSUr 311–316)5

The use of such conventional language, both in Lamentations and in extra-biblical city-laments, has led some scholars to regard with skepticism the historical usefulness of these poems. However, the rhetoric of Lamentations can promote scholarly inquiry about Jerusalem, including its historical role in the ancient Near East, its population trends, and its diplomatic relations with other geopolitical entities. Lamentations 1:1–2 glorifies the city as a regional urban center, consistent with traditional views that Jerusalem had been established as early as the tenth century BCE as the major capital city of the Davidic Empire.6 Since the 1990s many M. W. Green, “The Uruk Lament,” American Oriental Society Journal 104 (1984): 274. 4 M. W. Green, “The Eridu Lament,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30 (1978): 137–139. 5 J. B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with Supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 616. Subsequent references to this volume are cited as ANET. 6 For support of an early date for Jerusalem’s establishment as an urban center, see Y. Shiloh, “Judah and Jerusalem in the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.E.,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology, ed. S. Gitin and W. G. Dever (Winona Lake: Eisenbraums, 1989), 97–105; and M. L. Steiner, Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. 3: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 3

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

13

scholars have challenged that view, insisting that Jerusalem was little more than a small regional trading post until after the fall of Samaria in the late eighth century, when Jerusalem took on a greater role as a regional administrative center (similar to a county seat).7 The historical truth probably lies somewhere between these two conflicting positions. Archaeological studies reveal the remains of public buildings and private dwellings, fortification walls, burial grounds and other constructions, which suggest that Jerusalem was fairly well developed by the late Iron Age, with a population of 25,000 or more.8 The city’s population probably hit its peak at that time, swelling with refugees from Samaria and other areas conquered by Assyria, who settled in Jerusalem’s Western Hill during the seventh century BCE.9 Although there is little material evidence of the city’s importance in the commercial and cultural life of the region, the few extra-biblical texts that refer to Jerusalem specifically suggest that the city did play an important strategic role in securing the Levant, making it an occasional target of military action by its imperial neighbors vying for regional hegemony. Furthermore, archaeological evidence supports the notion that Jerusalem

For example, T. L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People From the Written and Archaeological Sources (New York: E. J. Brill, 1992), especially 307ff; and P. R. Davies, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’, JSOT Supplement Series 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 8 For demographic studies relevant to Iron Age Palestine, see M. Broshi, “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem,” BAR 4 (1978): 12; M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II,” BASOR 287 (1992): 47–60; J. R. Zorn, “Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study,” BASOR 295 (1994): 31–48; Y. Shiloh, “Judah and Jerusalem,” 98; and Y. Shiloh, “The Population of Iron Age Palestine in Light of Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas and Population Density,” BASOR 239 (1980), 25–35. 9 M. Broshi, “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reign of Hezekiah and Manasseh,” IEJ 24 (1974): 21–26. 7

14

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

sustained heavy war-related damage in the late Iron Age, possibly resulting in as much as an eighty percent drop in its population.10 Such a sudden and sharp demographic decline might well have caused urban survivors like those alluded to in Lam. 1:1–2 to see the city, which had been “full of people” in the late seventh century BCE, as lonely and deserted in the sixth. From an urban perspective, Jerusalem had achieved the status of provincial capital (in effect, the sociological significance of the epithet, “Mistress among the provinces”) and had enjoyed a reputation of honor among neighboring nations (“greatest among the nations”); but in the early sixth century BCE Jerusalem was jolted by a “tragic reversal of fortune” (Lam. 1:1). Like a widow, the city had no spouse to protect her, since YHWH had caused her to suffer because of her own transgressions, and no children to provide for her, since they had gone off into captivity (1:5). The city, once honored and honorable, was left desolate and disgraced. Lamentations 1:2 alludes to social roles and expectations associated with mourning rituals. Jerusalem’s grief is compounded by her loneliness because there is no one to comfort her in her time of loss. Fulfilling the role of the comforter (menaḥēm) was one of the obligations expected both of personal friends and of political allies.11 References to the importance of the social role of the For example, see J. M. Cahill and D. Tarler, “Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–1985,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), especially 37–40; G. Barkay, “The Iron Age II and III,” in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor, trans. R. Greenberg (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 372–373. H. Barstad (Myth, 50, n. 11) cautions against the common assumption that the archaeological evidence of Jerusalem’s destruction can be dated unequivocally to 586 BCE; however, it is clear that some type of cataclysmic event occurred in Jerusalem towards the end of the Iron Age. 11 For extensive discussions of mourning rituals and the role of the e m naḥēm, both in the context of personal relationships and political diplomacy, see Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East; G. A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991); 10

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

15

menaḥēm are found in several Near Eastern documents, including a

thirteenth-century BCE letter from the Hittite King Hattušili III, upon the death of his ally Kadashman-Turgo, King of Kassite Babylonia. Hattušili wrote to the deceased’s son to assure him both of his sympathy and of his commitment to support and protect the new monarch, in fulfillment of the terms of their alliance.12 Failure to respond appropriately as a menaḥēm to one who was bereaved or in crisis constituted a treaty violation that humiliated the grieving party, severed the personal or political relationship and, in the case of political treaties, could even lead to military reprisal.13 Therefore, Lam. 1:2 implies that whatever “friends and companions” Jerusalem might have counted as allies before 587/6 BCE apparently were unable or unwilling to come to her aid.14 Not only and S. M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment,” JBL 115 (1996), 201–218. 12 P. Artzi, “Mourning in International Relations,” in Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 161– 170; Pham, Mourning, 22. A similar situation is described in 2 Sam. 10:1–6, when David sends his representatives to mourn the death of the Ammonite King Nashan. Other biblical texts that depict the social function of the menaḥēm include Jg. 11:34–40 and the book of Job. 13 Olyan, “Honor, Shame,” 204–205. Also, for a discussion of the rhetorical function of polemic against “The Enemy,” see K. L. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, JSOT Supplement Series 98 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 177–184. 14 Jeremiah 27:1–11 mentions an anti-Babylonian alliance involving Judah, Tyre, Sidon, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. If such a coalition did exist at the beginning of the sixth century BCE, then it is understandable why these allies did not support Jerusalem in 587/6. Several of these states had their own battles to fight with Babylonia: Sidon was besieged and destroyed shortly before Jerusalem was; Ammon and Moab slightly afterwards. Edom survived Nebuchadrezzar’s slaughter of the Levantine states although, as a Babylonian vassal, Edom was subjected to oppressive policies enforced by its imperial overlords until it, too, was destroyed in the mid-550s. See D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 31. Also, see discussion of Lam. 4:21–22.

16

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

did Jerusalemite survivors grieve over the loss of their slain and deported loved ones, but also they suffered abandonment by former allies who had become her enemies. Counter Reading The social concerns introduced in Lam. 1:1–2 reflect a strong urban bias and experiences not necessarily shared by rural Judeans. First, regarding demographic decline, there is ample archaeological evidence to support the claim that Jerusalem and its military and administrative centers (e.g., Lachish, Arad, En-Gedi, Ramat Raḥel, etc.) did sustain heavy damage and population loss during the close of the Iron Age.15 However, there is growing scholarly consensus that the “myth of the empty land”—the idea that “all Judah” was either slain or deported by Nebuchadrezzar’s army (Jer. 13:19)— was more an ideological construct than a historical reality, especially in the northern and more remote areas of Judah.16 Scholars are increasingly skeptical about the traditional view of “exilic-period” Judah as a place in which “the centre of gravity for cultural and spiritual life was moved away from the uninhabitable and ruined Jerusalem and Judah to Babylonia”17 (emphasis mine). In fact, most of Judah’s population never was exiled, but rather survived Babylonia’s military campaigns as well as incursions by Egypt and other enemies in the south. There is evidence of cultural continuity and growth during the neo-Babylonian era, especially in (but not limited to) areas to the north of Jerusalem; It is commonly recognized that areas in southern and western Judah, where Jerusalem had established several military outposts and administrative centers, sustained much more damage than towns in the north, where pro-Babylonian sentiment seemed to have prevailed in the early sixth century (according to Jeremian traditions). See J. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community, trans. D. L. Smith-Christopher, JSOT Supplement Series 151 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 37–38; Shiloh, “Judah and Jerusalem,” 103. 16 Barstad, Myth; B. Oded, “Judah and the Exile,” in Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, 435–488; Ahlström, History of Ancient Palestine, 798–799. 17 Barstad, Myth, 15. 15

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

17

e.g., the region traditionally known as “Benjamin,” including Tell el-Fûl (biblical Gibeah?), Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), and Bethel.18 Archaeological evidence includes burial caves in the north, in the west (near Beth Shemesh) and in Jerusalem’s Hinnom Valley, that continued in use through the sixth century and into the Persian period, as well as jewelry, pottery, seals, and even Greek coins that indicate some level of social and economic activity during the neoBabylonian era.19 As Dever points out, “while major cities may have been destroyed by the Babylonian invasion, dozens of smaller towns and perhaps hundreds of villages in the rural hinterland continued throughout the sixth century BCE and into the Persian period, with little interruption in occupation and only the usual, predictable changes in material culture.”20 Although the extent of population loss was not as great for rural Judeans as it was for Jerusalemites, the experience of grief over the loss of loved ones is universal and was shared by rural and urban Judeans alike in 587/6 BCE. When Jerusalem fell, not only was the city itself metaphorically like a widow (v. 1), but in fact Barstad, Myth, 48–50. Demographic estimates for both Jerusalem and Judah reflect influxes of immigrant groups and refugees, possibly from Samaria and Transjordan, in the latter part of the Iron Age. Although it is likely that Judeans who lived and/or worked in fields close to Jerusalem would have sought refuge inside the city walls as the Babylonian army approached, those who were able would have fled to smaller, more remote settlements for shelter. That strategy is suggested in the narrative of Lot’s escape to the small town of Zoar for protection from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:15ff), as well as in historical documents that refer to targeted urban populations fleeing their cities to avoid military attack. For example, see Nabopolassar’s record of his conquest of Harran (BM 21901, 61–62) in D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings 626–556 B. C. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), 63. 19 Barkay, “Iron Age II–III,” 372–373. 20 W. G. Dever, “Social Structures in Palestine in the Iron II Period on the Eve of Destruction,” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy (Washington: Leicester University Press, 1995; reprint, 1998), 431 (page references are to reprint edition). 18

18

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

many women in urban and rural households did actually become widows. In the mid-580s BCE, many rural Judean women were left widowed by husbands and sons who died not only from life’s daily demands, but also as conscripted members of Jerusalem’s ill-fated army, or as victims of Babylonian soldiers rampaging through the countryside.21 As noted in the primary reading, the reference to Jerusalem as a city-widow abandoned by her friends and companions and left to mourn without a comforter is an allusion to customary mourning rituals that undoubtedly were disrupted during Jerusalem’s war with Babylonia. There is no universal model for the social treatment of widows. Historically, in some cultures (e.g., Korea, Nigeria, and India), it was not uncommon for widows to be subjected to extreme social isolation, shunning, and even death. In other cultures (e.g., ancient Turkey and China), elaborate mourning rituals and other social customs were developed to facilitate the widow’s adjustment to her husband’s death and to her new relationships with members of her extended family and local community.22 In addition, it is often the responsibility of grieving widows to prepare the corpses of their deceased family members for burial,23 and they need strong social support from loved ones to carry out these tasks. The frequent references in Lamentations 1 to Jerusalem’s mourning without a comforter suggests that ancient In addition to losing spouses and grown males during the war, grieving the death of younger children was a common experience for women in rural Judah. The hardship of agrarian life resulted in a high child mortality rate, as high as fifty percent according to C. Meyers (“The Family in Early Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel, ed. L. G. Perdue et al [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997], 19). The average life expectancy in ancient Israel during the Iron Age may have been as low as twenty to forty years. See L. E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985), 21. 22 H. Z. Lopata, ed., Widows, Vol. 1, The Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific (Durham: Duke University Press, 1987); P. U. Okoye, Widow: A Natural or Cultural Tragedy (Enugu, Nigeria: Nucik Publishers, 1995). 23 P. Bird, Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 60. 21

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

19

Israelite society was more like these latter examples: a culture in which widows did not expect to grieve alone. It is quite likely that, especially in rural areas near the urban targets of Babylonia’s attack, widowed Judean peasants, just like widows in the city itself, suffered emotional devastation, loneliness and profound grief. Another social concern introduced in Lam. 1:1–2 is the city’s loss of socioeconomic status. The epithet, “Mistress among the provinces” reflects a Jerusalemite bias and belief that the “city of Judah” outranked neighboring urban centers in the Levant and beyond. There is virtually no extra-biblical support for this notion prior to the sixth century BCE. Although Jerusalem was certainly larger than peripheral towns like Lachish and Beersheba, and though it may have become comparable in size and status to secondary Levantine capitals such as Samaria, at no point during the Iron Age did Jerusalem reach a level of development and sociopolitical status similar to that of imperial capitals like Nineveh and Babylon.24 The author of Lamentations 1 glorified Jerusalem’s past as a way of enhancing the rhetorical impact of her tragic demise; but the city never actually gained the elevated geopolitical status alluded to in Lam. 1:1. Jerusalem did enjoy some degree of influence in its immediate vicinity, however. It exercised political and economic control over Judah, thereby functioning as the state’s administrative overseer (like a śārāh, v. 1) and, in some places, becoming a symbol of oppression for rural Judeans.25 From a rural perspective, reducing Barkay, “Iron Age II–III,” 329–330. Archaeological and extra-biblical epigraphic evidence for Jerusalem’s activity as regional capital is limited and, like all such material, subject to interpretation. Many scholars point to documents such as the Arad Ostraca, various seal impressions indicating the names and titles of Jerusalemite officials, and the so-called lmlk (“to the king”) jars and seals as evidence of a well developed administrative system based in Jerusalem. That system ensured adequate revenues (including taxes paid in the form of oil and wine, as well as grains and other food products) to support both the capital city and its administrative centers and military outposts (e.g., Arad, Lachish, etc.). Moreover, there are a few references to heavy tribute imposed on Judah by Mesopotamian rulers, including Sennacherib (The 24 25

20

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Jerusalem’s urban elite to a group of forced laborers (mas, v. 1) might have seemed like welcome vindication for the oppression that the city’s śārîm had inflicted on peasant farmers. Rural Judeans, from whom Judah’s officials previously had seized land or extracted excessive tribute, might have hoped that the deportation of the city’s leaders would enable peasants to regain control of their land and local communities. Most scholars associate the terms “ʾōhabêhā” and “rēʿêhā” in v. 2 with treaty roles, suggesting that Judah’s allies (i.e., neighboring nations, such as Edom) had failed to support Jerusalem against the Babylonian aggression.26 Rural Judeans, as subjects of Jerusalem’s monarchy, were expected to come to the aid of the besieged capital. However, it is likely that when the monarchic administration of the provincial towns collapsed, rural Judean communities pursued strategies that enabled them to survive, reverting to their own traditional family-based social structures and subsistence economies, instead of diverting limited resources to assist the urban centers. Under the leadership of family elders, Prism Inscription) and Nebuchadrezzar (BM 21946). Assuming a hierarchical imperial structure, those demands would have been presented to Jerusalem’s leadership, who would have ordered Jerusalemite śārîm to extract greater amounts of revenue from already oppressed peasants and farmers. See Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981); N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986); J. M. Cahill, “Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from Ancient Judah,” IEJ 45 (1995): 230–252; N. Naʾaman, “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps,” BASOR 261 (1986): 5–21; D. Ussishkin, “Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions,” BASOR 223 (1976): 1–13; and A. Faust and E. Weiss, “Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World: Reconstructing the Economic System of the Seventh Century B.C.E., BASOR 338 (2005): 71–92. 26 For example, see Olyan, “Honor, Shame,” 215; as well as various Lamentations commentators, including Hillers, Berlin and Renkema. However, Provan (Lamentations, 37) notes that “rēʿêhā” refers to friends who are of equal social status, unlike the relationship between Jerusalemite elite and poor rural Judean peasants.

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

21

small rural settlements would have had all they could do to survive, leaving the city to fend for itself as the Babylonians laid siege against it.27 The relatively few rural Judeans who might have had a sense of loyalty to the city would only have been able to make meager (if any) contributions to assist it. For example, any efforts to break through the siege wall to smuggle food to starving victims would have been made at great personal risk of Babylonian reprisals; in addition, such activity would have depleted scarce resources needed for the survival of poor rural families. Therefore, what may have seemed to Jerusalemites as a failure on the part of rural Judeans to provide material aid, military support, and emotional comfort for the city’s inhabitants, might simply have been a pragmatic reordering of priorities by rural Judean households trying to survive.28 To summarize, social conditions in Jerusalem that are alluded to in the opening verses of Lamentations were devastating for the city’s inhabitants, but not necessarily for rural Judeans. Although many families living near the city and its administrative centers probably did lose loved ones in the war with Babylonia, most of See I. M. Diakonoff, “The Rural Community in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18 (1975): 121– 133. 28 Alternatively, Banning proposes that, in times of crisis, poor farmers may have moved into regions like wadi beds and isolated hilly areas, and may have increased nomadic pastoralism to diversify their economic base. Such a proposal seems to be a reasonable risk-reduction strategy for rural Judeans in the neo-Babylonian period, and also helps to explain what may have happened to some of Judah’s rural population that seems to have disappeared in the sixth century BCE (especially in areas south of Jerusalem that were hit hard by Babylonian and Edomite attackers). However, this theory is difficult to verify, given the lack of material evidence of nomadic activity that could have survived. See E. B. Banning, “Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Frameworks for Rural Archaeology in the Near East,” BASOR 301 (1996): 25–45; I. Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 23–30. 27

22

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Judah’s rural population survived and remained in the land throughout the neo-Babylonian era. (See discussion of Lam. 1:3 below.) Many communities, especially to the north of the capital, continued and may even have benefitted from the Babylonian occupation if they succeeded in finding favor with their new regional rulers. Smaller, more remote settlements experienced little or no disruption of farming and pastoral activities, and may even have enjoyed increased autonomy once Jerusalem’s leaders were deported. Therefore, while Lam. 1:1–2 suggests widespread loss, devastation, and grief for the city “once great with people,” rural Judeans may have seen the events of 587/6 BCE as the welcome defeat of the urban elite who had been their oppressors.

LAMENTATIONS 1:3–6 3 Judah has gone into exile under oppression and great toil. She who dwells among the nations finds nowhere to rest. All of her pursuers have overtaken her and closed her in with no escape. 4 Zion’s roads are mourning, For no one comes to her festivals. All of her gates are broken down, her priests groan, Her maidens grieve, and she is bitterly sad! 5 Her enemies have become her overseers; her foes are carefree. For YHWH has made her suffer because of her many transgressions. Her children have gone, captive before the enemy. 6 From Daughter Zion has departed all her splendor. Her rulers are like stags unable to find pasture. They have gone, powerless, before the pursuer.

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

23

Following the general introduction of the lament in vv. 1–2, the text of Lamentations 1 begins to reveal elements of the harsh realities that have befallen the city. Three themes have particular relevance from a rural perspective: the close association of Jerusalem with the territory of Judah; the impact of the change in leadership as Jerusalemite śārîm are deported and pro-Babylonian officials are appointed in their place; and the effect of the destruction of the Temple on the cultic life of the region. From an urban perspective, these three themes work together to evoke a sympathetic response to the devastation inflicted on the city’s population, social life, and physical structures. For rural Judeans, however, the interpretation of these themes is more ambiguous. Ironically, the region of Judah, not the city of Jerusalem, is the first geographic entity named in the book of Lamentations. (“Judah” appears in 1:3, whereas “Jerusalem” is not mentioned by name until v. 7.) From a Jerusalemite perspective, the pairing of these two geographic entities increases the rhetorical impact of the references to the city’s suffering by including those who lived outside its walls within the scope of the disaster. Identifying “Judah” as the victim of the crisis means that Lamentations does not simply mourn the fall of a city and its inhabitants, but also the exile and oppression of an entire nation.29 The association of the region with its urban center is corroborated by ancient Near Eastern imperial documents. For example, Sennacherib’s account of his 701 BCE siege against Jerusalem refers to the city (Ur-sa-li-im-mu) as the residence of

Dobbs-Allsopp (Weep, 52–53) notes the “fluidity” with which the author of Lamentations interchanges geographic names, such as “Zion, Jerusalem, Judah, and even Jacob and Israel.” He sees this feature as a rhetorical device reflecting the poet’s “narrowing or enlarging of the focus” of images to increase the reader’s empathy for personified Jerusalem. I agree with his assessment from the perspective of the Jerusalemite authors of Lamentations; however, I also maintain that that “fluidity” obscures the perspective and experiences of rural Judeans, who may not have been so quick to identify themselves with Jerusalem’s elite. See Counter Reading of Lam. 1:3 below. 29

24

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Hezekiah the Judahite (Ha-za-qi-i-a-úamelIa-ú-da-ai),30 who was identified as king over the vast ˘ region of Judah (rap-šu na-gu-uamelIa-ú-di).31 According to the Assyrian document, Hezekiah had ruled over an area that included forty-six fortified cities and countless towns from which he had conscripted men to serve as soldiers in defense of Jerusalem under siege.32 Once Hezekiah had capitulated to Assyria, substantial booty was taken not only from the capital city, but also from the surrounding towns. The inscription boasts of the reduction of Hezekiah’s territory, parts of which were cut off (kirib) and handed over to the Philistine city-states of Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gaza.33 A second theme in Lam. 1:3–6 is the fall of Jerusalem’s leadership and its administrative power structure. This theme is presented poetically in the form of a “contrast motif,” a rhetorical convention common in ancient Near Eastern dirges and laments.34 The depiction of Jerusalem’s fallen leaders who are “like stags unable to find pasture” (v. 6) is similar to this excerpt from a Sumerian lament: In Ur, no one took charge of food, no one took charge of water, Its people like water poured from a well …

D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 70. 31 Ibid., 86. 32 Of course, hyperbolic language of this sort is typical of conquest accounts and not necessarily historically accurate. In the same document, similar claims are made using almost identical language regarding other peoples, including Kassites, Hittites, and Elamites as well. From the perspective of the conqueror, the more territory and booty taken, the greater was his achievement. 33 Luckenbill, Annals, 70. 34 For a broad discussion in kontrastmotiv, see H.-J. Kraus, Klagelieder, 10–11; K. Jahnow, Das hebräische Leichenleid im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung (Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1923), 98–99; Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 38–41. 30

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

25

They no longer had confidence in themselves, [gone] was their strength. (LSUr 294–296)35

The theme of Jerusalem’s fallen leadership (Lam.1:6) builds on the “tragic reversal of fortune” introduced in v. 1c. The śārîm, whose work enabled Jerusalem to wield power over the region of Judah like a great śārāh, were themselves rendered powerless (v. 6c). Some were taken in chains to Babylonia while others were left behind in Judah as forced labor teams (mas in v. 1c). In both cases, for Jerusalemite survivors, the image of the stumbling stag is a symbol evoking sympathy and shame, made all the more bitter by the fact that new imperial leaders were enjoying Judah’s resources (v. 5a). Lamentations 1:4 presents a third major social theme: the impact of the destruction of the Temple on Judah’s cultic life. The text reflects an urban view of the centralized cult of YHWH. It implies that the road to the Temple had once teemed with pilgrims (presumably from throughout the region of Judah), bringing bountiful offerings and praises to YHWH.36 However, as of 587/6 BCE, Zion’s roads themselves were mourning and her gates were lying desolate; the sanctuary was destroyed and Judean pilgrims had abandoned their efforts to come to the fallen city. In fact, the destruction of the central sanctuary and the curtailment of religious festivals are frequently mentioned in ancient Near Eastern literature related to the fall of cities,37 as noted in the following examples: That no one tread the highways, that no one seek out the roads; That its well founded cities (and) hamlets be counted as ruins…” (LSUr 39–40)38

ANET, 616. Similar references to joyful processions to Zion are found in the Psalms of Ascent, especially Psalm 122. 37 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 68, 74. 38 ANET, 612. 35 36

26

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS Who has ever seen such a misfortune as that of the shrine Abzu, your temple! No one goes up to his offering terrace. In the late afternoon, in his holy of holies, they do not call his name. (LE 7.2–4)39

A different perspective on the destruction of national shrines as a strategic feature of military conquest is seen in the Nabonidus Inscription.40 That text recounts a history of Assyrian and neoBabylonian relations as the context for Nabonidus’ accession to the throne. It describes the attack by Assyrian king Sennacherib on Babylon’s sanctuaries, and Nabopolassar’s retaliation (sanctioned by Marduk) when he destroyed the sanctuaries of Assyria, thereby legitimating the establishment of Babylonian hegemony.41 Not only does Lamentations 1 express grief over the decimation of YHWH’s sanctuary, but the poem also deplores the cessation of activities traditionally associated with the site. With the gates broken down and the roads deserted, the offerings that pilgrims ordinarily would have brought to the city (both normal festival offerings and wartime emergency relief) were cut off at the very moment when the city was most in need. Any food surplus that had been stored within the city was depleted during the eighteen-month siege. Furthermore, the destruction of the city’s physical structures is juxtaposed with the desolation of her inhabitants. Those priests who were not deported were themselves mourning the loss of brother clergy either taken in exile or killed defending the Temple. Young women (betûlôt), orphaned by the war, were left grieving at the Temple ruins. Zion, which had been a symbol of strength and divine blessing for Jerusalem’s elite, lay in ruins, bitterly grieving.42 Green, “Eridu,” 141. ANET, 309. 41 See P-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 104–106. 42 D. Jones argues that animal sacrifices ceased once the altar at the Temple was defiled in 586 BCE, and that sacrificial activity was not resumed in Jerusalem until the new altar was built in the Persian period. 39 40

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

27

Counter Reading The close association between Jerusalem and Judah, which is implied by the naming of Judah in Lam. 1:3, raises questions regarding the extent to which rural Judeans actually shared in Jerusalem’s suffering in 587/6 BCE; and whether or not those who lived in remote parts of Judah considered themselves “Judean” at all. The extra-biblical references to Judah cited above suggest that rural Judeans probably were familiar with the term “Judah” as a descriptive toponym for their land.43 Furthermore, Judean peasants certainly were accustomed to having to respond to demands for labor and produce imposed on them by the ruling elite from Jerusalem. However, in terms of the self-understanding of rural Judean communities, it is unlikely that peasant farmers identified themselves primarily as “Judeans” in a sociopolitical sense. Rather, they probably related more closely to their local kinship groups,44 with their daily affairs and central concerns focused on their relationships and responsibilities as members of extended families

Jones’ theory leaves open the possibility that other forms of worship may have taken place at that site during the neo-Babylonian era. See D. Jones, “The Cessation of Sacrifice After the Destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.,” JTS 14 (1963): 12–31. 43 Scholars differ on the etymology of “Judah.” For a comprehensive summary of scholarship on the question, see E. Lipiński, “Juda et ‘tout Israël,’: analogie et contrastes,” in The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipiński (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 93–112. Lipiński (99–100) favors an interpretation based on a related Arabic term (wahda), rendering “Judah” as the “land of ravines.” He suggests that the toponym reflected an outsider’s perspective; i.e., “Jehudah” would have been used by non-Judeans as a designation for the region, in the same way that “Eber nari” (“Beyond the River”) was coined by the Assyrians. See L. Elayi and J. Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene, trans. J. E. Crowley, JSOT Supplement Series 250 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 14. 44 A. Faust, “Rural Community in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 317 (2000): 17–39; I. M. Diakonoff, “The Rural Community,” especially 129; L. E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family,” 24.

28

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

and small village settlements, not on their relationship to the monarchy. However, even to Judah’s peasants who did identify themselves as “Judeans,” the statement that “Judah has gone into exile” (v. 3a) might have seemed strange, given that most rural Judeans remained in or near the Levant throughout the sixth century BCE. Judah’s borders were fluid, allowing Judeans in remote areas to flee into neighboring regions in the same way that Samarian, Ammonite, and Moabite refugees had escaped into Judah during the Assyrian attacks of the late eighth-century BCE.45 There were, of course, some Judeans who went to Egypt in voluntary exile as pressure from Babylonia grew stronger; but they probably saw their migration to Egypt as refuge rather than as an exile of “oppression and great toil.”46 Therefore, contrary to Lam. 1:3, it is clear that the majority of Judah’s survivors, especially peasants in rural areas, were not represented in significant numbers among the captives taken to Babylonia in 586 BCE. This is not to say that Babylonia’s campaign against Jerusalem had no impact on inhabitants of rural Judah. Several towns south of Jerusalem in the Judean Desert and in the Negev were destroyed, including En-Gedi, Arad, and Beit-Mirsim.47 Sites to the west of the capital city (e.g., Lachish, Beth Shemesh, Ramat Raḥel, and others) were also destroyed in Babylonia’s bid to secure military and trade routes across the Shephelah west to the coastal plain.48 Although some smaller villages and farms outside of those G. W. Ahlström, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982), 78–79. Also see T. Willi, Juda-JehudIsrael: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 172–173. 46 Dobbs-Allsopp (Lamentations, 75–77) sees Lam. 1:3c as one of a “dozen allusions to the Egyptian captivity found in Lamentations 1.” He identifies the rhetorical function of these allusions as demonstrating how “the present crisis surpasses that of the mythical paradigm” of the Exodus as Israel’s root experience. (77) 47 Finkelstein’s Living on the Fringe offers an extensive archaeological survey of the southern regions of Judah. 48 Barkay, “Iron Age II–III,” 372–373. 45

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

29

settlements may have been spared and may have provided safe haven for refugees fleeing from Judah’s administrative and urban centers, many others undoubtedly were raided and destroyed along with larger military targets. Judeans (both rural and urban) who survived those attacks probably fled further into the hills or deeper into the desert to hide until the invading army had passed. Furthermore, there is evidence that a few sites (e.g., Beth Shemesh, Beth Zur, and portions of Jerusalem itself) were reoccupied—at least partially—during the neo-Babylonian period once conditions in the region had stabilized.49 A second social concern raised in Lam. 1:3–6 is the collapse of Jerusalemite leadership and the imposition of Babylonian rule. Until the early sixth century BCE, the ruling elite in Jerusalem had maintained control over the region in part by appointing administrative officials (śārîm) both as district managers over local communities in rural Judah, and as overseers responsible for various projects and operations within the civil administrative system.50 As district chief, a śar had responsibility for collecting taxes, seizing property, and securing labor or military conscripts from the inhabitants of his region or village on behalf of the monarchy.51 As an operations overseer, he was supervisor of forced labor teams (mas) for major building initiatives, including the construction of public buildings and fortifications in administrative centers, and of agricultural terraces and wine and oil processing installations on state-owned land.52 Social prestige, economic Barkay, “Iron Age II–III,” 372–373. S. Yeivin, “The Divided Kingdom,” in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 4-I, ed. A. Malamat (Jerusalem: Masada Press, Ltd., 1979), 162– 163; R. North, “Postexilic Judean Officials,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, 87. 51 E. Neufeld, “The Emergence of a Royal-Urban Society in Ancient Israel,” HUCA 31 (1960), 50. 52 A number of archaeological studies have revealed facilities, especially for the production of oil and wine, built to satisfy urban demands rather than simply the needs of rural households in a subsistence economy. For example, see G. Edelstein and S. Gibson, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket,” in BAR 8 (1982); 46–54; D. Eitam, 49 50

30

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

favors, and political power were among the benefits enjoyed by Jerusalemite śārîm, who often took advantage of poor rural farmers to enhance their own personal gain.53 As Babylonia rose to power, it is reasonable to assume that many rural Judean households probably experienced increased stress, poverty and oppression (Lam. 1:3a). In the first decade of the sixth century BCE, Jerusalemite śārîm probably raised their demands on rural households both to secure food and supplies for the city preparing for war, and to conscript military support for the city’s defense.54 In the months leading up to the siege in 587, some rural families, especially south and west of Jerusalem, lost members to the army, causing a drop in the labor supply available to manage household farms and flocks. In some areas, farms had to be abandoned altogether as Judean peasants fled with family and livestock to safer land. In addition, during the siege Babylonian troops seized food from rural farms to support their own needs; and, especially as the siege wore on, they probably wreaked havoc in areas close to the city, anxious for the battle to ensue. Therefore, some rural Judeans who had struggled to satisfy the monarchy’s demands prior to 587 BCE, now had to contend with new Babylonian oppressors once Jerusalem was destroyed. On the other hand, precisely because rural Judeans were used to dealing with corrupt officials demanding support for themselves and/or for the monarchy, they probably did not experience the “Olive Oil Production during the Biblical Period,” in Olive Oil in Antiquity, ed. M. Heltzer and D. Eitam (Haifa: Haifa University, 1987), 16–43; I. Pommerantz, A. Roshwalb-Hurowitz, R. Kudish, eds., Excavations and Surveys in Israel, vol. 17 (Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998), especially 132–133; J. B. Pritchard, Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia, 1964), 25–26; A. F. Rainey, “Wine from the Royal Vineyards,” BASOR 245 (1983), 57–62. 53 Dever (“Social Structure in Palestine,” 418ff) interprets signs of economic diversification of Iron Age Israel and Judah as an indication of increased social stratification and a widening gap between the haves and have-nots. That gap was the subject of prophetic outcry both in the north (e.g., Amos 6:4) and in the south (e.g., Mic. 2:1ff). 54 See Luckenbill, Annals, 70 and 86, discussed above.

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

31

traumatic reversal of fortune that Jerusalemite survivors faced. Rather, Judean peasants, especially those living in areas not directly affected by the war, experienced the events of 587/6 BCE as little more than a changing of the guard. Although a certain degree of coercive and punitive action might have been inflicted upon vulnerable Judean peasants by some of the new leaders who flaunted their power, the Babylonian appointees must have offered positive incentives as well, to ensure that the rural population (who represented Judah’s majority after 586) would continue to work the land and cooperate with the new regime.55 Socioeconomic conditions probably stabilized, especially in the northern regions of rural Judah, where farmers and pastoralists continued their activities, affected by international politics only insofar as they were required to pay tribute to their new landlords and managers (i.e., the Babylon-appointed śārîm) instead of their former Jerusalemite rulers.56 The third theme to be addressed in this discussion is a rural perspective on the impact of the destruction of the Temple and curtailment of Jerusalem’s cultic life. On the one hand, the Temple did provide a place for inhabitants from throughout Judah to gather for public celebrations, holy days, and pilgrimages. It was the depository for material support (in the form of tithes and B. Hayden, “Village Approaches to Complex Societies,” in Archaeological Views from the Countryside, ed. G. Schwartz and S. Falconer, (Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), 204; B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Weisbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1979), 67ff. 56 It is possible that Babylonian śārîm increased the amount of tribute beyond what Jerusalem had demanded of poor rural Judeans. For example, Sennacherib claimed to have increased the tribute that Assyria demanded of Judah as part of his subjugation of Hezekiah (Luckenbill, Annals, 33). However, it is more likely that, because Babylonia did not demonstrate strong economic interest in Judah once the capital had been destroyed, minimal effort was made to develop the region’s resources. In that case, Judean peasants probably had little contact with imperial officials and enjoyed some relief from heavy tribute collections, especially after the last deportation in 582 BCE. 55

32

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

offerings) for the central administration, and it offered opportunities to participate in rituals for healing and blessing officiated by Jerusalemite priests.57 On the other hand, the offerings brought to the Temple were probably viewed by many rural Judeans more as forced tribute payments than as voluntary contributions. Furthermore, archaeological evidence indicates that a great deal of religious activity took place in local villages and households in the countryside, decreasing the likelihood that rural Judeans would have been terribly dependent on or attached to religious traditions associated with the Temple.58 Therefore, while devastating for pious Jerusalemites, the desolation of Zion’s roads and gates (v. 4) probably did not mean the curtailment of cultic life for most rural Judeans.

J. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995), 79; L. L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 64. 58 For a concise survey of archaeological evidence of religious cult objects found throughout Iron-Age Judah, see R. Kletter, The Judean PillarFigurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm, 1996), 74–81. Traditionally scholars believed that there was competition between local (family or clan-based) and national religion; and that competition eventually led to the so-called “popular religion” (which was practiced at local shrines and “high places” or bāmôt) being displaced by the “official, state religion” centralized at Jerusalem’s Temple. However, several scholars today favor a view that most rural Judeans were syncretistic, observing a variety of religious practices at once (institutional or “statewide,” local or village-based, family or household-based traditions, etc.). Another theory, proposed by Nakhai, is that the bāmôt may actually have been sanctioned or even established by the central shrine (e.g., the Jerusalem Temple or, in the case of the northern region, the sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel), to facilitate broad participation in (and support of) the national cult by rural Judeans (or Israelites) who lived at a distance. See B. A. Nakhai, Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001), especially 161–166. 57

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

33

One final note in this discussion is the reference in Lam. 1:4 to Jerusalemite priests and young women (betûlôt). While it is widely assumed that prominent members of the priesthood (e.g., Ezekiel) were deported early in the sixth century BCE with other members of Jerusalem’s elite, it is likely that some, including minor clergy and priests, successfully hid from the Babylonian captors and survived the siege.59 These, along with young women who may have previously served the Temple as liturgical singers or dancers, or in other supporting roles,60 are portrayed as grieving and groaning in the ruins of the sanctuary.61 It is possible that rural Judeans may have had some connections with the priests who survived in 586 BCE, especially if among them were figures like Jeremiah, who had family roots in the north. However, it is unlikely that young women with connections to rural households would have had occasion to be found grieving at the Temple ruins. Young women from rural Judean families probably remained in their local communities, taken in by extended family members if orphaned, and would have continued to observe the religious traditions of their families and villages. Although Lam. 1:3–6 poetically alludes to experiences that reflect Jerusalem’s decimated cultic institutions and customs, most of Judah’s rural inhabitants probably would not have identified with the experiences recounted in this text. In summary, the description of the tragic events described in Lam. 1:3–6 evokes sympathy for Jerusalemite survivors, but reflects little about the lived reality of rural Judeans. The fall of the Temple Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, and Prophet, 96. Blenkinsopp and Grabbe (Priests, Prophets, 58) present a theory, which is plausible but inconclusive, that the roles of the gatekeepers (šôʿarîm) and other minor clergy may have been filled by “Levites” and other priestly groups that fled to Judah from the north when Samaria fell, and were absorbed into Jerusalem’s cultic personnel. If that indeed was the case, it is reasonable to assume that the priests alluded to in Lam. 1:4 included minor clergy from rural areas of Judah. 60 Bird, Missing Persons, 94–95. 61 Groaning is a conventional expression of grief in ancient Near Eastern laments. See, for example, “the fifth song” of the “Lament over the Destruction of Ur,” in ANET, 458–459. 59

34

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

did not put an end to the cultic life of local family-based communities who lived at a distance from the region’s urban centers. The fall of Jerusalem’s leaders did not mean a dramatic change in the daily lives of most rural Judeans who were already used to meeting the demands of oppressive rulers. The fall of Jerusalem itself and the exile of “Judah” did not necessarily mean economic and social upheaval for many rural Judeans who remained in the land and eventually resumed normal lives there.

LAMENTATIONS 1:7–11 7 Jerusalem calls to mind, now that she is poor and destitute, All of her treasures that were hers long ago. When her people fell into enemy hands, there was no one to help her. Adversaries looked at her and jeered at her demise. 8 So grievously has Jerusalem sinned that she has become an object of scorn.62 All who once honored her belittle her, for they have seen her nakedness. The meaning of “nîdāh,” which is a hapax legomenon, is unclear. Some commentators (e.g., Hillers, Provan, Renkema) believe it is a word-play on niddāh (v. 17), implying that the personified city-woman is like a menstruant who is not only ritually unclean but also to be scorned. Alternatively, nydh could be related to the verb nûd, to shake (one’s head) or move back and forth, either as a mourning gesture (shaking the head to demonstrate sympathy for the bereaved (cf. Pham, Mourning, 45), or as a gesture of contempt, the sense best suited in the present context. Lee (Singers, 103) proposes a third interpretation; namely, that nydh might be related to nûd in the sense of “wandering,” building on the theme of homelessness in Lam. 1:3. The translation I have chosen, “an object of scorn,” implies an act of ridicule or mockery and thus, seems most consistent with the other references in vv. 8–11, which carry powerful overtones of shame and violation. (See discussion of Lam. 1:7–11 below.) 62

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

35

Even she herself groans and turns her back. 9 Her skirts are stained. She has no thought for her future. She is horribly degraded. There is no one to comfort her. “Consider, YHWH, my affliction, for the enemy has triumphed!” 10 The enemy stretched his hand over all of her treasures. She even saw nations invade her sanctuary, Those whom you forbade to enter into your congregation! 11 All of her people are groaning, pleading for bread. They trade their treasures for food just to stay alive. “Look, YHWH, and see what a nobody I have become!”

In Lam. 1:7–11 Jerusalem, personified as Daughter Zion, speaks for the first time, imploring YHWH to attend to her misery, through gestures similar to those of the “Weeping Goddess” described in Mesopotamian city-laments.63 Unto [Nanna] for the sake of his city approached— bitterly [Ningal] weeps; Unto the Lord for the sake of his house which had been attacked approached— bitterly she weeps. (LU 82–83)64 Mother Bau wept bitter tears in her house, Urukug, ‘Oh my destroyed city, destroyed house,’ bitterly she cried. (LSUr 164–165)65 63 64

S. N. Kramer, “Weeping Goddess” 69–83. ANET, 457.

36

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

In Lam. 1:8–10, the poet reports the violation of the Temple: foreigners have invaded the sacred space against God’s command (cf. Deut. 23:3ff), and they have handled and plundered its treasures. These references also have parallels in Mesopotamian city-laments.66 For example: They trampled all over the libation precincts of the Anunnagods; And even Kullab, which was a primeval city, They turned into a place of murder. (LW 4.30–31)67 the holy kettles that no one (was permitted) to look upon, the enemy looked upon. (LSUr 450)68 The storm which destroyed cities … Which stretched out (its) hand over the holy rites … placed a defiling hand on the weighty counsel. (LU 390–394)69

In addition, in Lam. 1:8–10 the invasion of the Temple by foreigners and the grasping and stripping away of its treasures (maḥamudêhā) are juxtaposed with the implied rape and exposure of Daughter Zion herself. The effect is similar to that of the Sumerian lament, in which the goddess decries the despoiling of her sacred image: That enemy entered my dwelling place wearing (his) shoes, That enemy laid his unwashed hands on me … He tore my garments off me, he dressed his wife in them That enemy cut off my lapis-lazuli, he placed it on his daughter. (balag 50:b)70

ANET, 614. Both Hillers (Lamentations, 52) and Dobbs-Allsopp (Weep, 68–69) offer lengthy lists of texts that demonstrate Mesopotamian parallels with Lamentations. 67 Green, “Uruk,” 273. 68 ANET, 618. 69 ANET, 463. 65 66

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

37

Rhetorically, the outcry against the violation and exposure of the sacred image, or of the personified city and its shrine, alludes to a common historical reality; namely, the abuse inflicted by an invading army on a city’s female population. Rape is common during a military assault, and undoubtedly was inflicted on Jerusalemites by their Babylonian attackers.71 Taking the victim’s sanctuary represented the supremacy of the god of the conqueror over that of the vanquished;72 taking the women of the ruling class represented the emasculation of the defeated army and conquest by the triumphant invaders.73 The two themes work together in vv. 8–10, not only as a rhetorical representation of the disaster that overcame Jerusalem, but also as allusions to what were undoubtedly very harsh realities confronting the city’s survivors in 587/6 BCE. In Lam. 1:9 the poet’s comment that “Her skirts are stained” (literally, “Her uncleanness is in her skirts”), is multivalent— evoking the image of both a violated woman and a polluted city. As Lee points out, the term for “her skirts” (šûleyhā) can be read metaphorically as a continuation of the depiction of Daughter Zion Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 48. (translation his) For further discussion of the literary and theological dimensions of rape imagery in Lam. 1:10, see F. W. Allsopp and T. Linafelt, “The Rape of Zion in Thr. 1, 10,” ZAW 113 (2001): 77–81; A. Mintz, “The Rhetoric of Lamentations and the Representation of Catastrophe,” Prooftexts 2 (1982); 1–17. 71 Lee, Singers, 106–107. 72 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 46. Lamentations 1, however, insists that Jerusalem’s fall was YHWH’s doing rather than YHWH’s undoing. See, for example, Lam. 1:5, 12, 17, 21–22. 73 N. Aschkenasy, Woman at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998), 57–58; A. A. Keefe, “Rapes of Women/Wars of Men,” in Women, War, and Metaphor: Language and Society in the Study of the Hebrew Bible, Semeia 6, ed., C. V. Camp and C. R. Fontaine (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 79–98. For a broad overview of rape as a military weapon, see R. Seifert, “War and Rape: A Preliminary Analysis,” in Mass Rape: The War Against Women in BosniaHerzegovina, ed. A. Stiglmayer (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 54–72. 70

38

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

as a rape victim (v. 8).74 However, reference to the “skirts” (or “outskirts”) of a personified, besieged city also could suggest the area of Jerusalem’s outer perimeter, just inside the city’s walls. Besides access to food supplies (v. 11), the siege also blocked access to the necropolis that surrounded the city. Daughter Zion’s “skirts,” therefore, became the temporary depository for corpses. Jerusalem literally was filled with and surrounded by death (v. 20c) and, therefore, was rendered ritually unclean (v. 9; cf. 4:14–15). Lamentations 1:11 closes this rhetorical unit with a reference to desperate Jerusalemites groaning (neʾ enāḥîm) from hunger and being driven to drastic measures in order to survive. Famine is a theme that appears in other Mesopotamian texts as well. For example: Enlil made Famine, who brings nothing but harm, dwell in the city … In his palace there was no bread to eat … In the granaries of Nanna there was no grain … (LSUr 297, 308, 310)75

Starvation was an important element of any successful siege operation, inflicting both psychological stress and physical debilitation on those trapped inside city walls.76 Although some food and livestock were kept within Jerusalem, surpluses would have been completely exhausted by the end of the eighteen-month siege.77 Therefore, the reference to the city’s desperately hungry Lee, Singers, 107. Lee points out that her interpretation is also consistent with a reference to “skirts” that appears in Jer. 13:22, which states that Jerusalem’s skirts are removed (i.e., she is exposed to shame) as punishment for her sins. 75 ANET, 616. 76 Y. Yadin, Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), 318–320. Also, see Sennacherib’s description of his use of fear and famine as weapons against Shuzubu the Chaldean in Luckenbill (Annals, 42). 77 Food for urban populations was stored both in public storehouses and in private dwellings. However, under normal circumstances, fresh food was constantly available from farmlands surrounding the city. See 74

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

39

survivors was not only a literary device evoking sympathy in the reader, but also a historical reality for the victims of siege warfare throughout the ancient Near East. While one could argue that these images in Lam. 1:7–11 are stock literary devices, they also allude to real experiences suffered by besieged cities. Their temples were plundered, their women were raped, and their people were starved as their food supply became depleted and access to relief aid was cut off. In this Lamentations text, therefore, one not only hears a voice like that of a Weeping Goddess in the form of a personified city, but also in the voices of devastated Jerusalemites groaning and pleading— “just to stay alive.” Counter Reading Lamentations 1 becomes increasingly graphic regarding the suffering endured by urbanites as the Babylonian army invaded Jerusalem; however, the text does not necessarily convey the experiences of some of the peasants in Judah’s rural areas. It is reasonable to assume that those on farms closest to the city caught the brunt of the Babylonian assault before the actual invasion of Jerusalem took place, and rape was undoubtedly a serious problem for women in those households. As has been well documented, rape is an act of aggression; and the army, encamped around Jerusalem for some eighteen months, would have sought ways to take out their aggression as they became increasingly impatient for the command to invade the city. Because of this threat, young women in rural households close to the city were particularly vulnerable; even within their own homes, their safety was hardly guaranteed. Reports of rape, especially in rural areas during wartime, are virtually non-existent in the records of the ancient Near East.78 Y. Shiloh, “The Population of Iron Age Palestine,” 25–26. Regarding livestock, several depictions of booty-taking include oxen being removed from the city along with human captives. See, for example, the mural of the siege against Lachish in Yadin (Art of Warfare, 436–437). 78 Yadin (Art of Warfare) presents numerous examples of ancient Near Eastern warfare depicted in iconography. Interestingly, the only women

40

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

However, there is some scholarship and anecdotal material from more recent events that may shed light on the problem that confronted women on Judean farms outside Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege. In the war in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, women in small villages and isolated areas (as well as in urban communities) were easy targets for enemy soldiers. Muslim women in particular were raped, sometimes intentionally impregnated, and forced back to their villages, where they were severely stigmatized, considered defiled, and shunned.79 Similar attacks were probably common during Babylonia’s war against Judah. Like the Muslim rape victims of Bosnia-Herzegovina, women who were raped in the countryside of ancient Judah may also have been shunned by their communities. Furthermore, although the plunder of the Temple described in Lam. 1:7–11 is a prominent concern from an urban perspective, most rural Judeans would have perceived it differently. Again, the proximity to the city was an important factor in this regard. Judeans who lived closest to or who had had the most contact with Jerusalem and its shrine, probably shared with Jerusalemites a sense of grief over the fallen Temple. However, those farther away, and certainly those who lived in remote rural areas, probably were affected very little by Zion’s demise. For them, local religious traditions would have had more significance than the centralized Jerusalem cult. While there was some destruction of small, local cultic sites, such damage was not as widespread or complete as in Jerusalem. Therefore, although the destruction of the Temple was devastating for Jerusalem’s population, cultic life probably depicted in these battle scenes are those taken subserviently with children and livestock (and occasionally with men in fetters as well) as plunder. (For example, see pages 88, 413, 430–431.) Although the destruction of the enemy’s sanctuary was frequently portrayed, rape of the enemy’s women was not. Perhaps such a portrayal would not demonstrate the strength of the conqueror as much as representing the women as plunder would. 79 See A. Stiglmayer, “The Rapes in Bosnia-Herzegovina,” in Mass Rape: The War Against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina, ed. A. Stiglmayer (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 82–169.

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

41

continued uninterrupted for many rural Judeans in the sixth century BCE. The references to hunger in Lam. 1:11 raise a question about the impact of the Babylonian siege on many rural Judeans as well as Jerusalemites. On the one hand, those who lived closest to the city would have had to provide food for the encamped army throughout the siege. Those farms were probably already accustomed to producing food surpluses to meet urban demands and, in fact, many had been owned and operated by the monarchy rather than by poor rural families prior to the war. On the other hand, once the Babylonians had subdued Jerusalem and were heading back home through the Judean countryside with their captives, they probably raided farms along the way to feed themselves and their fettered captives.80 What the conquerors did not take they may have destroyed as a final act of humiliation against the region, leaving poor Judean farmers struggling to restore crops and flocks as much as possible in the army’s wake. Finally, with regard to the statement in v. 11 that Jerusalemite survivors were forced to “trade their treasures for food,” some scholars interpret “their treasures” (maḥamudêhā) as a metaphorical reference to Jerusalemite children being sold, perhaps to Judean peasants, or to anyone who would offer to feed and care for them.81 Although a child too small to earn his or her keep might have been considered a financial liability (see Lam. 4:1–10), purchasing a child during a famine could prove to be a good investment in one’s labor supply, provided one had the means to feed the child over the long term.82 As Berlin notes, such arrangements were fairly common during the Holocaust when Jewish families would entrust their children to Gentiles in an effort For example, feeding Elamite captives is the subject of an Assyrian relief appearing in J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, 2d ed. with Supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 51, fig. 168. (Subsequent references to this source are cited as ANEP.) 81 See Hillers, Lamentations, 87–88; Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 67. 82 See A. L. Oppenheim, “‘Siege-Documents’ from Nippur,” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–89. 80

42

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

to ensure their survival. During Jerusalem’s crisis in the sixth century BCE, rural Judean families might have considered such “adoptions” as acts of compassion, or as a way to compensate for their own family members and laborers lost in the war.83

LAMENTATIONS 1:12–16 12 Do you not care, all you passersby? Look and see if there is any anguish like the anguish that has devastated me, with which YHWH afflicted me on the day of his wrath! 13 From heaven he sent fire and it raged in my bones. He spread a net for my feet; he thrust me back. He left me desolate, in endless misery. 14 The yoke of my transgressions has been bound. He tied them together with his hand. They raised (it) up onto my neck, causing my strength to fail. The Lord handed me over to those I cannot endure.84

Berlin, Lamentations, 56. An alternative interpretation suggests that “their treasures” refers to the Jerusalemites’ personal property bartered for food (Renkema, Lamentations, 142–143). This is less persuasive in the current context, since any personal property worth bartering probably had been seized already by the plundering invaders (v. 10). Furthermore, Lamentations 1 places more emphasis on the loss of human life through death and exile (vv. 3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 18, 19, 20) than on the loss of material goods. 84 In Lam. 1:14 and 15, the title Adonai is used instead of the Tetragrammaton. To distinguish between the two terms in this study, 83

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

43

15 The Lord heaped up all of my warriors within me. He proclaimed open season against me, for crushing my young men. The Lord trampled in a winepress the maiden Daughter Judah. 16 Because of these things I weep, My eyes, my eyes drown in tears. So far from me is any comforter, who could restore my life! My children have become desolate, for the enemy has triumphed.

Lamentations 1:12–16 describes the suffering inflicted upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem in haunting images of warfare, hunting and harvest. As though caught in a trap, the city is engulfed in flames (v. 13), and its warriors are slaughtered en masse, their bodies heaped up and their blood running like pressed grapes through the heart of the town (v. 15).85 Those survivors who have been taken captive are yoked together like beasts of burden (v. 14); the rest are Adonai is translated as “the Lord,” and the Tetragrammaton is rendered as YHWH. 85 For descriptions of Jerusalem’s burial sites and practices, see E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOT Supplement Series 123 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Many archaeological studies have revealed that, by the early sixth century BCE, most of the city’s burials took place in the great necropolis surrounding the city’s slopes. Although many of these tombs were destroyed in the late Iron Age, some were used through the sixth century and into the Byzantine era. See R. Reich, “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva, 111– 118 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994). However, the same siege wall that prevented food and assistance from entering the city, kept Jerusalemites from being able to take corpses out to the necropolis. This exacerbated the psychological devastation of the besieged community as the dead piled up in their midst (v. 15a), and hastened the deaths of urbanites unable to escape exposure to rotting and disease-ridden corpses.

44

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

abandoned in the ruins to agonize in loneliness and grief (vv. 12 and 16). Particularly poignant is the poet’s reference in v. 15 to the slaughter of those who had been expected to protect the city. The Hebrew term ʾabbîrîm (v. 15) is polyvalent. Often translated as “mighty ones” or “strong men,” reflecting the Hebrew term ʾabbîr,86 its secondary meaning is a poetic term for “bull,” a metaphorical reference to slain warriors (Isa. 34:7) and powerful monarchs (Isa. 10:13), as well as a literal reference to animals offered in sacrifice (Ps. 50:13).87 In Lam. 1:15, the image evoked is particularly tragic: the bodies of slain Jerusalemite soldiers are piled up in the midst of the city, like bulls offered in sacrifice at the Temple. Although no pilgrims are coming to Zion to participate in normal festivities (môʿēd in v. 4), a slaughter-fest (môʿēd in v. 15) has been proclaimed by YHWH the Divine Warrior against Jerusalem’s mighty ones. Elements of siege warfare described in Lam. 1:12–16 are frequently depicted in ancient Near Eastern iconography. For example, Assyrian reliefs portray invading armies setting fire to cities after weakening the integrity of their defensive walls.88 See Lamentations commentaries by Hillers, O’Connor, Provan and Renkema. 87 Similar references appear in ancient Near Eastern literature. Egyptian kings often bore the epithet “Mighty Bull” (cf. ANET 234 and 245); and Sennacherib describes himself as “like a bull” (kî-ma li-e) in his victory over Elam and Babylonia (Luckenbill, Annals, 47). With an image similar to Lam. 1:15, the Uruk Lament describes the fall of the city’s soldiers: “Like a great wild bull which has been wounded with an arrow … they let the blood of the people flow like that of a (sacrificial) cow … ” (LW 5:17, 22, in Green, “The Uruk Lament,” 274.) 88 In Yadin (Art of Warfare, 410–411 and 420–421), for example, two reliefs appear—one from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser and the other from Sargon—that clearly depict flames shooting like “fire from heaven” (Lam. 1:13a) over burning cities, while sappers pick at the foundational bricks of the cities’ defensive walls. This latter feature may be one way that the experience of siege warfare is reflected in the metaphorical reference to YHWH’s “spreading a net for my feet” in v. 13. 86

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

45

Soldiers’ corpses are brutally trampled, strewn aside, piled up, impaled, dismembered.89 Defeated rulers are driven out of their cities in fetters—occasionally yoked—humiliated and subjugated.90 Mesopotamian laments and conquest accounts narrate these vivid scenes, often utilizing language similar to that of Lamentations 1. Sennacherib’s account of the conquest of Babylon is typical of these texts. He boasts of filling the city squares with corpses, taking captive the royal family, and plundering the burning city.91 City-laments also describe the horrid reality of a town consumed by death: Sumer, caught in a trap … Its people were thrown into turmoil … The mighty heroes of Sumer … Like … they were crushed, every one of them. (LW 4.12–17)92 In its lofty gates, where they were wont to promenade, dead bodies were lying about; In its boulevards, where the feasts were celebrated, scattered they lay. In all its streets, where they were wont to promenade, dead bodies were lying about; In its places, where the festivities of the land took place, the people lay in heaps. (LU 213–216)93

Although many of these images, both literary and visual, were commonplace expressions in ancient Near Eastern culture, historical truth lay behind many of these artistic allusions. Since the Ibid, 399, 406–407, 424–425. An Egyptian relief depicts prisoners yoked together in procession (Ibid., 342). More frequently, however, deportees are bound at their hands and feet, with women and children pulled behind them in ox carts. See Yadin (Ibid., 436–437) and ANEP, 51, fig. 167. 91 Luckenbill, Annals, 83. 92 Green, “Uruk,” 272. 93 ANET, 459. Another more fragmentary text, taken from LSUr 94– 97, describes a similar scene: “The … were piled up in heaps, The … were spread in heaps, … in the Euphrates there were cadavers, … are massacred.” (ANET, 613) 89 90

46

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

1960s, archaeologists have uncovered charred ruins, Babylonianstyle arrowheads, and various other artifacts in burial grounds outside the old city walls, that supply a growing amount of material evidence of Jerusalem’s decimation late in the Iron Age.94 Nevertheless, a couple of the images in Lam. 1:12–16 probably functioned more as rhetorical symbols than as historical referents. The net (v. 13b) was a common metaphor for overwhelming catastrophe in ancient Near Eastern literature. Hunting scenes, frequently appearing in Egyptian art, demonstrate skilled fowlers trapping birds in a net.95 Texts of complaint and lament use the idea of being pursued and ensnared as a way of expressing overwhelming calamity.96 However, depictions of netted captives seized by or presented to victorious kings appear to be more propagandistic than literal representations of wartime events.97 Moreover, although the yoke (ʿōl) is a common symbol for military defeat and subjugation in ancient Near Eastern literature,98 there are very few examples in the iconography of the region of

See, for example, N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), 53–58; G. Barkay, “Iron Age II–III,” 363; G. Barkay, “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 85–106. 95 Examples include an Egyptian tomb relief in ANEP, 60, fig. 189; and a picture of a large fowling operation in O. Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. T. J. Hallet (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 92, fig. 115. 96 For example, LW 1.16 in Green, “Uruk,” 266; also Ps. 31:5 and 35:8. 97 Contra Berlin (Lamentations, 57), who interprets pictures in ANEP (p. 94, fig. 298 and p. 98, fig. 307) as depictions of the net as a weapon. 98 The yoke frequently appears in Assyrian texts; e.g., Sennacherib’s declaration of domination over the Medes (Luckenbill, Annals, 29): a-na niri be-lu-ti-ia ú-šak-ni-su-nu-ti (literally, “Beneath the yoke of my kingship I placed them”). The image of the yoke also appears often in biblical texts, such as 1 Kings 12 and numerous prophetic texts, as a symbol of the burdens borne by Israelites or Judeans under oppressive monarchs. 94

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

47

prisoners actually bearing a yoke.99 Fetters were more frequently used to restrain deportees who were bound at the feet and/or hands.100 Therefore, these two images, the net and the yoke, probably were not actual weapons used against Jerusalem’s survivors in 586 BCE, but poetic symbols of the psychological trauma inflicted upon the city’s inhabitants overcome by death, deportation, and despair. Counter Reading Lamentations 1:12–16 begins and ends with references to those outside the city—passersby (ʿōbrê derek) and the inaccessible comforter (menaḥēm)—who seem unaffected by Jerusalem’s anguish. For rural Judeans those references might have been particularly troubling. After the departure of the last deportees, and once the attacks and looting of the city had subsided, Judean peasants in the vicinity probably began approaching the city to investigate the damage, to check for survivors (especially if their own family members had been trapped inside during the siege), to offer assistance to those in need, and to recover for themselves what little remained of Jerusalem’s wealth. Those closest to the city would have had feelings of ambivalence. On the one hand, their former oppressors had become oppressed themselves; on the other hand, the extent of human misery was so great that at least some rural Judeans undoubtedly were moved to compassion. However, with their own crops and flocks raided, vineyards trampled, and triumphant Babylonians demanding tribute from the region, poor Judean farmers, despite their best efforts, would have had little to offer as aid for Jerusalem’s recovery. Judeans who lived in more remote areas probably heard reports of the damage done to Jerusalem, but were unable or Pritchard (ANEP, 25 fig. 85) offers one Egyptian relief depicting slaves actually bound by a yoke pulling a plow, though such scenes were probably quite rare in lived experience, since draft animals would have been far more efficient for working the land. 100 Yadin (Art of Warfare) displays several examples of fettered captives in ancient Near Eastern iconography, including murals from Sumerian (132–133), Egyptian (342–343) and Assyrian (462) art. 99

48

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

unwilling to do anything about it. Rural Judeans south and west of Jerusalem either had experienced serious damage to their own settlements, or had been forced to abandon their farms altogether, seeking refuge in the hills or the desert. In the aftermath of 586 BCE, they had an enormous task ahead of them, reestablishing farms, rebuilding terraces, trying to restore orchards and vineyards. Those who lived in northern Judah did not have as much rebuilding to do; but they did have significant challenges to meet as the new administrative center for the region, at least in the first few years following Jerusalem’s collapse. It is likely that the wine industry of the hill country in northern Judah was seen as an attractive asset to Babylonia, and that Judeans there were kept busy meeting imperial demands for high tribute payments.101 There is scant but revealing material and epigraphic evidence from the neoBabylonian era that suggests that the early years of Babylonia’s rule were a time of relative prosperity for at least some Judeans in the north.102 Wealthier northerners who benefitted from favored See Barstad, Myth, 73–74. However, D. S. Vanderhooft (The NeoBabylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], 109–110) argues that Babylonia maintained minimal economic interest in the Levant. Vanderhooft cites a dearth of administrative records of commercial transactions in the region among extant neoBabylonian documents. His argument from silence is plausible but inconclusive. 102 For material evidence, see Barkay, “Iron II–III,” 372; J. Zorn, J. Yellin, and J. Hayes, “The m(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the NeoBabylonian Period,” IEJ 44 (1994): 182–183. Textual support includes BM 21946 which, though it records no events after 594/3 BCE, does allude to the Babylonian king’s practice of annual campaigns to Hatti to collect tribute and to strengthen his defenses there against Egyptian incursion. See Wiseman, Chronicles, 23–37. Also, E. W. Moore’s publication of the Neo-Babylonian Documents at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1939), contains records of tax, tribute and real estate transactions during the reigns of Mesopotamian monarchs from Nebuchadrezzar to Seleucus, suggesting the type of agricultural and commercial activities that were sustained by the empire during the sixth century and beyond. 101

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

49

treatment by the Babylonians may have been reluctant to show sympathy for struggling Jerusalemites. However, prosperity may not have been shared by all; smaller landowners and rural peasants probably still struggled for survival even in the north, reflecting the kind of socio-economic disparity that was decried by prophets like Amos and Micah centuries earlier.103 The reference in Lam. 1:15 to the winepress of “maiden Daughter Judah” would have been emotionally evocative for some Judean peasants. On the one hand, the winepress (as well as the oil press) played a significant role in the life and livelihood of many households in rural Judah. There is archaeological evidence of Iron Age wine and oil processing installations in the hill country of Judah, both in the north (e.g., in the vicinity of Gibeon) and in the west (e.g., near Beth Shemesh). Smaller wine presses assumed to be for use by local communities have been found in and near dwellings throughout those areas.104 Larger facilities were either overseen by the monarchy to produce tribute demanded by the king, or were operated primarily to meet the consumer needs of Jerusalem and other urban centers.105 The Samaria Ostraca and the L. E. Stager, “The First-Fruits of Civilization,” in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, ed. J. N. Tubb (London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985), 177–179. This view is consistent with the description of Israelite peasants presented by W. R. Domeris in Touching the Heart of God: The Social Construction of Poverty Among Biblical Peasants (New York: T & T Clark, 2007). According to Domeris (43), there was “an unequal distribution of power and resources among the peasant communities” of ancient Israel. Domeris explains that “Villages in ancient Israel would have been composed of families and associations of families, … with some families seen as poorer or as less important than others” (43). Also see Chapter 5 of this book, where Domeris’ work plays a significant role in informing the discussion of the last poem in Lamentations. 104 I. Barash, “Survey of Wine Presses and Agricultural Installations,” in ESI, vol. 17, ed. I. Pommerantz, A. Roshwalb-Hurowitz, R. Kudish (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998), 132–133. 105 Pritchard, Winery, Defenses, 27; Rainey, “Wine from the Royal Vineyards,” 57–62; and G. Edelstein and S. Gibson, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket,” 46–54. 103

50

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

so-called lmlk (“to/for the king”) jars from Judah are frequently cited as material evidence of a thriving oil and wine industry involving both state-run facilities and state-imposed taxes, from the eighth through sixth centuries BCE. The Samaria Ostraca, which are dated to the eighth century, appear to be drafts of receipts or administrative records of payments to royal officials in the form of specified quantities of wine and oil.106 Jars with the seal impression lmlk and a city designation that might have served as a trademark indicating one of four distribution centers in regions surrounding Jerusalem,107 are believed to have been used to ship large quantities of oil and wine as taxes for the monarchy. Judean farmers had to produce enough wine, oil and other agricultural products to satisfy both urban and rural consumer needs, as well as the tribute demanded by the king. On the other hand, although Lam. 1:15 uses the image of the harvest as a symbol of open season for an urban massacre, for rural families, the grape harvest usually represented one of the most joyous celebrations of the year.108 Because vineyards required a great deal of care, and because the harvest season was fairly brief, harvesting required the cooperation of several families or households in a village.109 The occasion was usually a festive gathering, with music and dance to accompany the work of crushing grapes.110 Typically the clothes and bodies of all For example, see K. A. D. Smelik, Writings from Ancient Israel, trans. G. I. Davies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 58. 107 The four sites are Hebron in southern Judah, Socoh in the west, Ziph in the southeast, and an unknown site designated as mmsht, presumably in the north. See discussion of Lam. 1:17. 108 C. E. Walsh, Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 79–81. 109 D. C. Hopkins, The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985), 228–229. Walsh (Fruit of the Vine, 185–186) suggests that the grape harvest may have served as an occasion for arranging marriages and other family affairs. 110 Pritchard, Winery, Defenses, 27. Also see reliefs of wine processing in ANEP 48, figs. 155 and 156; and T. N. Feig, “New Discoveries in the Rephaim Valley, Jerusalem,” PEQ 128 (1996): 6. 106

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

51

participants were completely stained from the grape juice. The reference in v. 15 to blood-stained corpses is both an allusion to the grape-stained winepressers and a shocking reminder of the brutality inflicted on the city’s victims. Therefore, Lam. 1:15 would have had a significant rhetorical impact on a Judean peasant audience as the winepress, a traditional site of joyous communal celebration for rural Judeans, was transformed into a symbol of slaughter and bloodshed for Jerusalemites under siege.

LAMENTATIONS 1:17–22 17 Zion reaches out her arms. There is no one to comfort her. YHWH has issued a command concerning Jacob, that his enemies should surround him. Jerusalem has become a menstruant right before their eyes. 18 It is YHWH who is righteous, for I have rebelled against him. Hear, all you peoples, and witness my anguish! My young women and men have been taken captive. 19 I cried out to my lovers, but they deceived me. My priests and elders perish in the city while they beg for food just to stay alive. 20 See, YHWH, how distressed I am! My insides writhe, My heart churns within me, for I have been so rebellious! Outside the sword yields childlessness; inside, death. 21 They have heard that I am groaning, “There is no one to comfort me.”

52

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS All of my enemies rejoice to hear my distress, for it was you who caused it! May you bring about the day you have proclaimed! May they become as I am! 22 May all their evildoing come to your attention. May you deal harshly with them, As you have dealt with me because of my transgressions! For great is my grief and my heart is failing!

In the concluding section of Lamentations 1, several of the social themes introduced in earlier verses are reiterated: the severe suffering of the city’s inhabitants reflected in bloodshed (vv. 17c and 20c) and famine (v. 19b and c); the inability of the survivors and their leaders to do anything more than beg and groan (vv. 4, 11, and 19); social isolation as Jerusalem’s former allies turned against her (vv. 17b, 19a, 21a and b); and the horrible confession that Daughter Zion’s own God has caused this calamity as punishment for her rebelliousness (vv. 12–15 and 17). In addition to these social themes, specific literary images and expressions from earlier verses are repeated in the chapter’s conclusion. Zion reaches out her arms (pāraś yād in v. 17) for help after the enemy has stretched out his hand (pāraś yād in v. 10) over her treasures. She mourns the captivity (šebî) of the young men and women (betûlôtay ûbaḥûray in v. 18) who represent the greatest hope for her future (‘ôlāleyhā in v. 5). Her starving people take desperate measures “just to stay alive” (vv. 11 and 19); tragically Jerusalem has no comforter to ease her grief (vv. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21). Many commentators associate the reference to niddāh in v. 17, like nîdāh in v. 8, with the image of the menstruant, one of several female images used in Lamentations 1 to personify Jerusalem. There is a contrast, however, between the disparaging view of the nîdāh, translated here as “an object of scorn” (see previous discussion of Lam. 1:8), and the sympathy-evoking image of the menstruant in v. 17—the city-woman who is hemorrhaging, bleeding to death inside and outside (v. 20c). There is ambivalence about the niddāh in v. 17, who is at once an object of pity but also one to avoid, because blood flowing out of Jerusalem renders the land and its inhabitants ritually impure and therefore restricted

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

53

from social relations (v. 17b; cf. Lev. 15:19–24). Daughter Zion’s confessions of rebelliousness (vv. 18, 20, 22) exacerbate the ambivalence of the image, by suggesting that her suffering is the result of her own misdeeds. Not only does the concluding section of Lamentations 1 repeat material from previous verses, but it also reflects strong parallels with other ancient Near Eastern laments: To Enlil I in person verily made supplication … Verily Enlil … soothed not my heart. The utter destruction of my city verily they directed. (LU 156–162; cf. Lam. 1:17b, 19a)111 My daughters and sons verily … have been carried off— … With … the young men and young women have been fastened (LU 283–285; cf. Lam.1:18c)112 Ur—inside it is death, outside it is death, Inside it we die of famine, Outside it we are killed by the weapons of the Elamites … (LSUr 402–404; cf. Lam. 1:20c)113 That which you promised, you have accomplished, Whatever you promised, you have exceeded. (SCL 33–34; cf. Lam. 1:21c)114 My heart is filled with sorrow; I am so pale. (LW 3:30; cf. Lam. 1:22c)115

In addition to these themes that appeared previously in Lamentations 1, there is a new element of the lament introduced in the last two verses of the chapter: a call for vindication and judgment against the enemy, a feature found often in funeral dirges ANET, 458. Ibid., 460. 113 Ibid., 618. 114 R. Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea (a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha): The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 144. 115 Green, “Uruk,” 271. 111 112

54

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

and prophetic judgment texts.116 Although the city’s destruction is seen as punishment for her transgressions and rebelliousness, the enemy—YHWH’s instrument of judgment—has gone too far by causing wanton destruction and violating YHWH’s own commands (Lam. 1:10; cf. Deut. 23:3) in the process. The declaration of the enemy’s offense supports Daughter Zion’s appeal for restored justice and order (vv. 21–22), and seeks to motivate YHWH to avenge Jerusalem’s suffering.117 Even if the city itself is not restored, at least its belief in God’s justice will be. A final observation about the social world reflected in the closing verses of Lamentations 1 is the juxtaposition of “Jacob,” “Zion,” and “Jerusalem” in v. 17. Just as the references to Judah in vv. 3 and 15 rhetorically extend the scope of Jerusalem’s suffering to include the entire region and its population, so also the reference to Jacob in v. 17 has a similar effect. “Jacob” not only suggests all people who considered themselves Israelites, but specifically targets northerners (including rural Judeans in the territory of Benjamin) for whom Jacob traditions may have been particularly meaningful. The identification of Jacob with Zion/Jerusalem would have served two purposes. First, rhetorically, the reference challenged rural Judeans to cast their lot with the defeated city. YHWH had commanded a siege not only against Zion but against all of Jacob; therefore, implicitly the blood that flowed from Jerusalem (like a menstruant or niddāh) rendered all of Jacob impure. Second, if Judeans north of Jerusalem did have divided loyalties with respect to Jerusalem and Babylonia, and were not only spared but also shown favor in 586 BCE, then identifying Jacob with Zion may have been an attempt on the part of the author of Lamentations 1 to evoke sympathy for Jerusalemite survivors who found

Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 72–75. For similar expressions see 2 Sam. 3:39, Ps. 137:7–9, and Lam. 4:21–22. 117 Dobbs-Allsopp (Weep, 154) points out the similarities (previously noted in M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1938], 281) between the curse in Lam. 1:22 and some of the prophetic oracles against nations. See, for example, the oracle against Babylon in Jer. 51:12–14. 116

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

55

themselves at the mercy of northerners appointed as śārîm over the region by the Babylonian regime.118 Counter Reading For Judeans in the Benjaminite region, the challenge to associate Jacob with Zion (v. 17) posed a serious dilemma. On the one hand, the fallen city and its people were defeated, disgraced, and defiled. Bloodshed, disease, and death—resulting from the people’s own sin (vv. 14, 18, 20)—rendered the holy precincts of Zion ritually impure.119 According to the same theological principle, the relative good fortune of northern Judeans under Babylonian rule was probably interpreted by some as a sign of divine favor. Therefore, those most likely to identify themselves as “Jacob” had the most to lose in terms of social status if they demonstrated solidarity with the survivors of Zion, as Lam. 1:17 suggests that they should. On the other hand, the city’s survivors were starving. The very priests to whom Judean farmers had been compelled to deliver Temple offerings, and the very elders and leaders of the urban elite who had oppressed the poor by demanding high taxes, seizing land, and turning a blind eye to unfair commercial practices,120 now depended on rural neighbors for their own survival. Therefore, Judean farmers, especially in the north, who were themselves busy reorganizing their lives under Babylonia-appointed rulers, were See J. Zorn et al, “The m(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions,” 182–183; E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 209. Both studies suggest that the fourth site where lmlk seal impressions were found (see discussion above) was Mozah. They believe that those seal impressions reflect a sixth-century BCE wine industry that was overseen for tax purposes by Babylonian officials in Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh). 119 See Ezek. 36:17. As Dobbs-Allsopp (Weep, 52–55) points out, the insistence on the city’s guilt is particularly strong in Lamentations compared to other ancient Near Eastern city-laments that typically attribute the fall of a city to the (sometimes) capricious act of the gods. 120 I assume that these types of injustices happened with enough frequency to merit the considerable attention of and condemnation by prophets such as Amos (2:6–8) and Micah (2:1–2). 118

56

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

challenged to share what they could with Jerusalemite beggars.121 Although some may have been sincerely compassionate, others may have taunted the Jerusalemites, adding to their shame. That behavior might account for the references to deceitful (v. 19a) and rejoicing enemies (v. 21b) who added to Jerusalem’s distress.122 Still other northern Judeans, particularly those who were granted favored status by Babylonia, may have provided Jerusalemites with Although different in many respects, the aftermath of the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did bear some similarities to 586 BCE Judah. On the one hand, the city and its population were devastated. In addition to physical suffering (e.g., lack of food, and inability to heal the wounded or bury the dead), there was real danger for rescuers who were exposed to the disease-contaminated city (although the ancient world would have understood this problem in terms of ritual defilement rather than biological contamination). There was also the shame associated with military defeat that was inflicted on both the Jerusalemite and Japanese survivors. Yet, as soon as news of the Japanese bombings was reported, people from neighboring villages overlooked the risks to come to the aid of stricken victims. There are several accounts of relief efforts by compassionate individuals; for example, see Committee for the Compilation of Materials on Damage Caused by the Atomic Bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ed., Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, trans. E. Ishikawa and D. L. Swain (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), especially 335–384; and M. Hachiya, Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6–September 30, 1945, trans. W. Wells (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955). 122 Most commentators do not favor the notion that Jerusalemites saw northern Judeans as enemies, but at least in the context of v. 21, it makes sense, given the unlikelihood that nations that worshipped other gods would have taunted Jerusalem by rejoicing that it was YHWH who caused the city’s demise. Non-Israelites would have seen the defeat of YHWH’s people as a sign of the defeat of YHWH as well (Renkema, Lamentations, 195). However, if northern Judean Yahwists who had been Babylonian sympathizers interpreted the Babylonian conquest as YHWH’s punishment of Jerusalem’s sins, then not only does v. 21b make sense; but also the curse in v. 22 reinforces the Zion-Jacob-Jerusalem connection in v. 17. See Deut. 27:19, 28:20ff, and 28:63 for similar curses. 121

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

57

food and other necessities, but at a high price, a problem suggested by Lam. 5:4–9. The closing verses of Lamentations 1, therefore, reiterate what might have been disquieting messages for some rural Judeans. For those inside Jerusalem and outside in its immediate vicinity, suffering was overwhelming; but many rural Judeans did not share in that experience. Those who benefitted from the fall of the provincial capital may even have joined in the taunts by Jerusalem’s enemies, believing that the events of 586 BCE were YHWH’s punishment of Jerusalem for the oppression that she had imposed on Judah’s rural poor. It was true that Jerusalem was destroyed and distraught, with no comforter to restore vitality to the city or its people. However, the closing curse of Lam. 1:22 may have served as a reminder and a warning to Judah’s peasants, that God who is righteous (v. 18) would judge those who withheld compassion and rejoiced at the misfortune of others.

SUMMARY Many of the poetic images in Lamentations 1 are not only artistic expressions and rhetorical conventions, but also reflections of the lived experiences of besieged Jerusalemites in 587/6 BCE. As in any successful siege operation, the damage inflicted on the urban population was devastating, both physically (death by famine, disease, and the sword) and psychologically (humiliation of fettered leaders, grief and loneliness, abandonment by former allies, silence from God). The suffering borne by Jerusalemites did not end when the last of the elite left in chains for Babylon, or when the fires were extinguished and dust settled on Zion’s ruins. The surviving urbanites, who had been accustomed to ruling others to meet their needs, were now forced to beg and do whatever they could “just to stay alive.” They survived only to face enormous challenges— burying the dead, clearing the rubble, bearing ongoing shame and abuse by new imperial rulers and old regional rivals—without the benefit of their trusted leaders, who were either dead or deported or despairing to the point where their efforts to lead were futile. However, Judeans outside of Jerusalem probably had varied reactions and experiences during the Babylonian attack. The two clearest indicators of the likelihood of a given rural Judean community to survive were geography and relationship with the neo-Babylonian regime. Proximity to urban targets—especially

58

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

south and west of Jerusalem—meant that rural Judeans were more likely to suffer in ways similar to those described by the Jerusalemite author of Lamentations. Some rural Judeans died in Jerusalem, either as conscripts who fell in battle, or as refugees who had wrongly believed they would be safer inside the city walls than in the countryside as the threat of war became imminent. Those who remained on their farms were forced to provide for the needs of the Babylonian army during the eighteen-month siege, both in terms of food, wine and supplies, and regrettably, in terms of outlets for the soldiers’ aggression, resulting in the rapes of rural Judean women and random attacks on people and property. Like the wall of a hurricane’s eye, the army’s return to Babylonia with its captives and material loot in 586 BCE probably brought greater damage to nearby Judean farms than the actual war itself. On their way back to Babylon, enemy soldiers raided whatever they wanted for food and booty, and destroyed much of what remained, leaving some Judean peasants with enormous challenges to survive and rebuild. The notable exception to this scenario was rural communities in northern Judah, which sustained relatively little damage in the early sixth century and, by some accounts, even flourished. The reason for this seems to have been the apparent cooperation of pro-Babylonian supporters in the region who may have even hailed Jerusalem’s downfall as an opportunity for Mizpah (Tell en Nasbeh) and other northern towns to gain prestige and security under Babylonian rule. Archaeology supports the view that some parts of the north (e.g., Gideon) experienced relative continuity and prosperity as oil and wine production provided income for the region and for the empire. In addition, some sites in the west (e.g., Beth Shemesh) were destroyed, but then rebuilt, so that additional commercial benefit could be gained there as well. Farmers and pastoralists in more remote areas of Judah probably retreated to the hill country or desert until the crises of the 580s BCE had subsided. Because of the nature of nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyles, there is no archaeological record of their fate. However, sociological and anthropological models suggest that those communities, who already had been living as extended kinship groups under the leadership of family elders, returned to their previous strategies of subsistence and survived well into the neo-Babylonian era. In some areas (e.g., the southern desert

1 LAMENTATIONS ONE

59

region), there were probably skirmishes with Edomites and other groups who had long-standing rivalries with Judah.123 However, it is also possible that rural Judeans who lived in the most remote areas of Judah were culturally compatible with their non-Judean neighbors and developed amicable relations with them. The desecration and plunder of the Temple are prominent images in Lamentations 1, made all the more poignant by the fact that Daughter Zion herself recounts those tragic events in the last half of the chapter. However, as discussion of Lamentations 2 will indicate, many rural Judeans did not share the Jerusalemite perspective regarding the Temple’s destruction. Cultic life for many continued uninterrupted throughout the neo-Babylonian era. Therefore, while there is ample extra-biblical support for the devastation of Jerusalem as reflected in Lamentations, the “myth of the empty land” is dispelled by evidence of religious, economic, and social activity that apparently were the lived reality of Judah’s rural population in the sixth century BCE.

123

See discussion of Judah’s relations with Edom in Chapter 4.

2

LAMENTATIONS TWO

Lamentations 2 is a vivid expression of the theme of divine wrath and abandonment,1 resulting in the destruction of Judah’s defense system, the dissolution of Jerusalem’s social structures, and the emotional devastation of the “precious people” of Daughter Zion (v. 11). Many of the rhetorical devices used so effectively in Lamentations 1 are evident also in the second lament. For example, the personification of Jerusalem, affectionately called “Daughter Zion,” is expressed in several ways: depiction of the city as a woman and, in this chapter, specifically as a helpless mother unable to feed her children (vv. 11–13, 20); supplication by Daughter Zion to a unrelenting Deity (vv. 20–22), similar to the Weeping Goddess motif common in ancient Near Eastern city-laments; destruction of the city’s walls and gates described in human terms of death and mourning (vv. 8–9, 18); and the juxtaposition of references to Jerusalem’s physical structures with references to its human survivors (vv. 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 20). The agency of YHWH, the Divine Warrior, is expressed in an accusatory tone made all the more poignant because it is the proclamation of Daughter Zion herself (vv. 20–22): YHWH has abandoned Jerusalem (v. 3) and attacked the city with deliberate and unbridled violence (vv. 1–9) and with no compassion (vv. 2, 17, 21);2 he has cut down the might of Israel (v. 3) and raised up the might of her foes (v. 17). The wrath of YHWH is reflected in the frequent use of the term ʾap (twice in v. 1, and once each in vv. 6, 21 and 22) and its synonyms (ʿebrāh in v. 2 and ḥēmāh in v. 4). 2 The refrain that YHWH showed “no compassion” (lōʾ ḥāmal) appears several times in Lamentations 2 (vv. 2, 17, 21). The effect is to reinforce Daughter Zion’s helplessness and victimization, similar to the 1

61

62

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Contrasts abound in Lamentations 2, as they do in other citylaments, to express the tragic reversal of fortune that the city has suffered. Jerusalem’s former glory is set against its present devastation, because the Divine Warrior has hurled down “from heaven to earth” the one who was his footstool (v. 1). The ramparts and walls that once defended “the city they used to call, ‘Perfection of beauty,’ ‘Joy of all the earth’” (v. 15) are languishing and in ruins (vv. 8–9). Jerusalem’s former leaders are either exiled, killed, or overcome with grief (vv. 9–10, 20). The sympathy of the poem’s narrator (v. 13) and his summons to lament (vv. 18–19) appear in stark contrast to the heartless voices of taunting enemies (vv. 15–16). Feast and sabbath observances are forgotten (v. 6), and the assembly (môʿēd) has become the occasion for celebrating the enemy’s triumph (vv. 7 and 22). As in Lamentations 1, the suffering depicted in the present chapter is all-consuming: the poet claims that the entire population of Judah shares the same fate as the residents of the capital city. This is achieved in two ways. First, as is common in the city-lament genre, a series of word pairs (e.g., king and priest in v. 6, king and rulers in v. 9, and priest and prophets in v. 20) and merisms (e.g., elders and maidens in v. 10, mothers and infants in v. 12, young and old in v. 21, and maidens and youths in v. 21) suggests that everyone was involved, that no one escaped or survived (v. 22). Second, and most importantly for the current study, the juxtaposition of geographic references implies a close association between Daughter Zion and Israel (v. 1), Jacob and Daughter Judah (v. 2), Israel and Judah (v. 15), and Daughter Zion and Jerusalem (vv. 10 and 13). The Divine Warrior has attacked not only Jerusalem, but the “whole countryside of Jacob” as well (v. 2a).3 The fortresses (mibṣār) and strongholds (ʾarmôn) of Israel

function of the statement that she has no comforter (ʾên-lāh menaḥēm) in Lamentations 1. 3 As mentioned in the previous chapter, rural Judeans who might have identified themselves as “Jacob” were most likely those who lived in the Benjaminite region. Israelites further north in Samaria also might have associated themselves with the eponym “Jacob.” However, it is unlikely

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

63

and Judah have been destroyed (v. 2b and 5b), leaving “the kingdom and its rulers” in disarray (v. 2c). Israel has been consumed by divine wrath and Judah is overcome with mourning (v. 5). Clearly the poet of Lamentations 2 insists that the fate of rural Judeans is one and the same as that of the treasured ones of Zion (v. 4c) in the aftermath of the Babylonian siege. As the Counter Readings suggest, however, the connection between Jerusalemites and most rural Judeans in the sixth century BCE may have been more rhetorical than historical. While Jerusalem experienced total devastation, the experiences of rural communities throughout the region varied. As a final word of introduction to this chapter, the time frame which seems to fit most closely the images of Lamentations 2 is immediately after the end of the siege, when hunger had become an overwhelming challenge and survivors were unable to do anything but mourn. That period is assumed as the context for this discussion of the social world alluded to in this lament.

LAMENTATIONS 2:1–5 1 How the Lord in clouds of wrath smothered Daughter Zion! He hurled down from heaven to earth the splendor of Israel! He gave no thought for his footstool on the day of his wrath. 2 The Lord devoured without compassion the whole countryside of Jacob. He tore down in his fury the fortresses of Daughter Judah. He razed and disgraced its king and its rulers. 3 He whacked off with burning rage all the might of Israel. that either Benjaminites or Samarians were seriously affected by Babylon’s attack on Jerusalem.

64

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS He withdrew his right hand in the presence of the enemy. He stormed against Jacob like a flaming fire, consuming everything around. 4 He aimed his bow like an enemy.4 He held his right hand firm. Like a foe he slaughtered all those who were treasured in the tent of Daughter Zion.5 He poured out his anger like fire.

Verse 4a literally reads, “He walked his bow like an enemy.” Most commentators (e.g., Berlin, Hillers, Westermann, Albrektson, Gordis) render the verb dārak in v. 4 as “to bend,” implying that the action portrayed involves the archer bending his bow with his foot or knee in order to string it (Pham, Mourning, 103) or aim it (W. D. Reyburn, A Handbook on Lamentations [New York: United Bible Societies, 1992], 49). Pham cites Yadin (Art of Warfare, 6, 64 and 295) to support that view; however, Yadin (especially 201; also 159, 252, 296, 365, 388, 393, 407, 418–419, and 425) also presents numerous depictions of archers with their feet positioned carefully to ensure accurate aim. That is the sense I have chosen for this translation. 5 There are two syntactical difficulties in v. 4. First, there is uneven parallelism between keʾôyēb (“like an enemy,” ending the first bicolon of v. 4a in the MT) and keṣār (“like a foe,” which begins the first bicolon of the MT’s v. 4b, instead of ending the second bicolon of v. 4a). Some scholars have proposed eliminating the first bicolon of v. 4b altogether, placing keṣār at the end of the previous bicolon and wayyaharōg (“he slaughtered”) at the beginning of the next; thus, “he poised his right hand like a foe./And he killed all the treasured ones” (Berlin, Lamentations, 62). Although that solution makes the best sense in terms of meaning, it makes bad poetic structure by leaving v. 4c without a second bicolon. Second, there is gender disagreement in the second bicolon of v. 4a between the masculine verb form niṣṣāb (“he stood firmly”) and the feminine noun yemînô (“his right hand”). My translation reflects the solution chosen by many scholars; namely, that YHWH is the implied subject and yemînô the stated object of niṣṣāb, though usually this Niphal verb is intransitive. 4

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

65

5 The Lord has become like an enemy. He has devoured Israel, devoured all of its strongholds, demolished its fortresses; and he has multiplied in Daughter Judah mourning upon mourning.

Lamentations 2 opens with a gruesome depiction of YHWH as the Divine Warrior in relentless pursuit of Daughter Zion. The text presents the violent destruction of the city in terms of a sharp contrast between Jerusalem’s glorious past, when YHWH’s right hand had been Zion’s greatest defense,6 and her insufferable present, when God, like an enemy, has abandoned “his footstool” and obliterated Israel’s strength (vv. 1–3). Through a litany of terms that convey relentless violence, YHWH is portrayed as a warrior with fire (ʾēš lehābāh) and fury (ʾap, ḥārôn, ʿebrāh) that consumes (ʾokal) and devours (billaʿ) without compassion (lō ḥāmal). YHWH has carried out a series of violent actions: he has smothered (yāʿîb), hurled down (hišlîk), tore down (hāras), razed (higgîaʿ) and disgraced (ḥillēl), whacked off (gādaʿ), raged (bāʿar), slaughtered (hārag) and demolished (šiḥêt) his land and people. The withdrawal of God’s right hand leaves Zion defenseless against the enemy (v. 3b) and, subsequently, she is overcome with destruction and grief (v. 5). The opening scene of the second lament is dominated by YHWH’s ominous cloud of wrath. As Dobbs-Allsopp points out, the cloud often functions as a sign of YHWH’s presence and blessing (e.g., Ex. 19:9), it is also a fitting image for the storm god and the Divine Warrior (cf. 2 Sam. 22:11–12).7 Lamentations 2:1 describes the violent choking effect that the Divine Warrior’s storm cloud (created figuratively by the wheels of his chariot and physically by the flames that are destroying the city).8 The See, for example, Ps. 68:18 and Deut. 33:2. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 80. 8 Both of these cloud-related images are suggested iconographically in a picture of a Hittite storm god driving a chariot (Yadin, Art of Warfare 358–359) and a city choked in flames by an invading army (Ibid., 420– 421). 6 7

66

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

description in Lam. 2:1–5 of YHWH’s abandonment of and wrath toward Zion bears a striking resemblance to the image of the Sumerian deities’ destruction of Eridu and Uruk.9 Eridu was smothered with silence as by a sandstorm … Its lord stayed outside his city as (if it were) an alien city … (LE 1.10–11)10 The city’s patron god turned against it; its shepherd [abandoned] it … (LW 2.23)11

Terms used to describe YHWH as the Divine Warrior in Lam. 2:1–5 frequently appear in other ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography. Fire is both a divine attribute and a weapon used by deities in battle.12 The Divine Warrior, often identified as a storm god (e.g., Baʿal, Ninurta), has an arsenal containing not only bows and arrows, but also lightning bolts, storm clouds, rain and fire.13 The cloud of the Divine Warrior is sometimes interpreted as a symbol of the chariot, charging into battle.14 Like YHWH in Lamentations 2, the Divine Warrior relentlessly devours the targeted victim:15 Ninurta marching to battle … a very storm he went to war … The evil wind and the south storm were tethered to him, the flood storm strode at their flanks, Dobbs-Allsopp (Weep, 49–63) provides a comprehensive discussion of the divine abandonment motif in Lamentations and other Mesopotamian texts. 10 Green, “Eridu,” 133. 11 Green, “Uruk,” 268. 12 P. D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 31–32. 13 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 61–62. 14 Miller, Divine Warrior, 108–109. Iconographic depictions of similar scenes appear in ANEP, 53 (fig. 72) and Yadin, Art of Warfare, especially 187–186 and 240–241. 15 Miller, Divine Warrior, 108–109. For a biblical parallel to the image of YHWH’s wrath consuming the enemy, see Exod. 15:7. 9

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

67

and before the warrior went a huge irresistible tempest. (Ninurta Myth 76–83) 16 Holy Inanna forsook the shrine Agade, Like a warrior hastening to (his) weapon, she went forth against the city in battle (and) combat, she attacked as if it were a foe. (CA 62–65)17

As in Lamentations 1, the targets of YHWH’s wrath in Lam. 2:1–5 frequently include those who live beyond Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. Daughter Zion is named only twice in this pericope (vv. 1a and 4c); but Israel, Jacob and Daughter Judah are named several times throughout the text, reflecting a “geographical motif” not uncommon in ancient Near Eastern literature that rhetorically extends the scope of destruction beyond a single urban center.18 For example, the destruction of Uruk is said to have overtaken the region surrounding the city as well as the city itself: Enlil struck out with great ferocity. He proclaimed: ‘A devastating deluge shall be invoked― ... It shall make the Tigris and Euphrates quaver; it shall make the mountains rumble; ... Sumer and Akkad shall shiver; they shall be flooded like a harvest crop.’ (LW 3.2–3, 15, 17)19

In the Eridu Lament, the implication is made that rural areas suffered the same devastation as the city: In Eridu (everything) was reduced to ruin, was wrought with confusion.

T. Jacobsen, The Harps that Once…: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 240. 17 ANET, 648. 18 Dobbs-Allsopp (Weep, 105–109) cites a similar occurrence of the geographical motif in Jer. 48:1–10, 29–47. 19 Green, “Uruk,” 269–270. 16

68

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS The evil-bearing storm went out from the city. It sweeps across the countryside. (LE 1.18–19)20

Another example is found in the Ninurta Myth, which suggests that the suffering inflicted on inhabitants of the countryside was part of a divine strategy to overthrow the primary urban target: The warrior Ninurta had couriers slipping into the country, its (own) couriers he slew in the highland, and cut off (communication between) its cities. (Ninurta Myth 96–97)21

Similar references are found in other Mesopotamian city-laments, as well as in the Curse of Agade,22 supporting the notion (at least from an urban perspective) that residents of the countryside suffered the same fate as their urban neighbors during times of war. According to Lamentations 2, Zion became increasingly vulnerable as Judah’s fortresses (mibrê bat-yehûdāh) in v. 2b) and the farmlands (neʾôt yaʿ aqōb) in v. 2a) that supported them were annihilated. At least in some areas, archaeological evidence supports this view. Since the Babylonian military campaign affected not only the city of Jerusalem but also Judah’s military outposts, it is likely that many rural Judeans near those forts suffered in the war as well.

Green, “Eridu,” 133. Jacobsen, Harps, 241. 22 For example, in LW 2.27´–28´, poetic parallelism joins the fate of Uruk with that of the surrounding rural area: “In the city built upon peace, food and drink were overturned like a saman-vessel; In the pasture lands a tumultuous noise arose; the draft asses and sheep were driven away …” (Green, “Uruk,” 268). Another example of this urban-rural identification appears in the Curse of Agade, which notes that, “After the cities had been built, after they had been struck down, the large fields (and) acres produced no grain …” (CA 170–177 in ANET, 649). 20 21

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

69

Counter Reading The fate of rural Judah (and Israel) in Lam. 2:1–5 may be elucidated by Mesopotamian conquest accounts that suggest three military strategies that frequently extended warfare into rural areas. First, armies sometimes attacked fortified settlements surrounding a regional capital before attacking the capital itself. Such attacks served to cut off access to military aid as well as to demoralize the enemy and further weaken its defense.23 Second, after a victory an attacking army might conduct additional military actions outside of the defeated city or military outpost to ensure that the local rural population (or outsiders) did not loot or otherwise threaten the invading army’s stronghold on the area.24 Third, sometimes a military site was deliberately preserved so that garrisons could be stationed there to maintain control of the region.25 This type of military strategy is alluded to in Sennacherib’s account of his battle against the Babylonian king, in which he destroyed both fortified cities and rural communities throughout Babylonia (Luckenbill, Annals, 86–87). This may also reflect Sennacherib’s intention in his rampage against Lachish as a means of forcing Hezekiah to submission in 701 BCE (Ibid., 86). 24 In BM 21901 (Wiseman, Chronicles, 55), Nabonidus is reported to have imposed heavy tribute on the settlements of Suhu and Hindanu en route to a battle at the Assyrian stronghold Qablinu. The text˘ insinuates that the Assyrians’ willingness to avoid an attack by complying with the Babylonian demand for tribute was either short-lived or insufficient to prevent a Babylonian raid on Hindanu after Qablinu’s defeat. In BM ˘ 22047 (Ibid., 19–20), Nebuchadrezzar reports similar operations against rural Assyrian villages both to guard against local inhabitants of the hill country who might attempt to take back conquered land, and to strengthen Babylonia’s line of defense against the Egyptians. Similarly, the region of Philistia, western Judah, and Jerusalem was subdued by Sennacherib’s late eighth-century campaigns (Luckenbill, Annals, 69–70). 25 Wiseman, Chronicles, 32. Also see the Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382. 17–18) in S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen and Company, 1924), 116. D. Vanderhooft argues that in 586 BCE, Babylonia so decimated Jerusalem and its administrative centers that no garrisons were needed or 23

70

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Military actions such as these may well have served as historical referents for Lam. 2:1–5. Several “fortresses of Daughter Judah” (v. 2 and 5) and “strongholds of Israel” (v. 5), which represented the capital’s first line of military defense, were destroyed just prior to Jerusalem’s fall. Iron Age III destruction layers have been discovered in several fortified Judean settlements, including Lachish, Beersheba, Beth Zur, and Kadesh Barnea.26 As Nebuchadrezzar’s forces approached a fortified settlement, rural Judeans in areas closest to the fortress might have sought shelter inside the town’s defensive walls; and if the fortifications were destroyed, many of those peasant refugees undoubtedly died alongside the sites’ defenders. That was apparently the case at sites to the south and west of Jerusalem, such as Lachish, Beit Mirsim, and Tel Batash (Timna),27 as well as Kadesh Barnea,28 where destruction layers were found in late Iron Age strata.29 In addition to recent excavations at several relatively small sites near Jerusalem, surveys of larger fortified settlements support the view that farmers in some parts of Judah did indeed suffer greatly during the neo-Babylonian military campaigns. A number of small forts were built around the capital during the seventh century, both to provide military defense and to facilitate administrative left in the area; see “Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric,” in Judah and the Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 235–262. In contrast to Vanderhooft, Lipschits argues that Babylonia probably did maintain a system of oversight in the region of Benjamin during the sixth century BCE, until Persia established its own leadership structure in the province of Yehud. See O. Lipschits, “Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Hattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah,” Ugarit-Forschungen 30˘(1998): 483. 26 Barkay, “Iron Age II–III,” 356. 27 Ibid., 373. 28 D. Oredsson, Moats in Ancient Palestine (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2000), 116ff. 29 For example, see A. Mazar and G. L. Kelm, “Tel Batash (Timna)― 1984/1985/1986,” ESI 5 (1986): 7–9; W. F. Albright, “Beit Mirsim, Tell,” EAEHL I:178; and Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 37–38.

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

71

oversight of the region.30 Extensive agricultural development, reflected in the construction of terraces, storage facilities, and irrigation systems, was undertaken during that same time period to support the growing needs of the monarchy.31 Examples of such sites include Mevasseret Yerushalayim, an Iron Age fortress to the east of Jerusalem located near extensive agricultural terracing;32 Givʿat Shapira, just outside of the Judean capital to the north, a military and administrative center near which agricultural terraces, Judean pottery, and cisterns from the late Iron Age were found;33 and Deir Beghal, further north towards Samaria, where Iron Age remains of a lime kiln, two watch towers, and an irrigation system were built on nearby farmsteads.34 Evidence of destruction by conflagration at sites like those suggests that, for Judean farmers who lived close to Jerusalem and its surrounding forts, the picture of the devastation of the Judean countryside and of Zion’s strongholds as presented in Lamentations 2:1–5 may have indeed rung true. Although one would never deny the suffering inflicted upon the victims of war—both urban and rural—mentioned above, many Judean peasants did survive the Babylonian onslaught, particularly in northern Judah and more remote areas of the region. For example, a survey conducted in 1990–1992 of the el-Mughayir region of northern Judah near the fortified settlement of Maʿalé Mickmash reveals numerous grazing enclosures, natural springs, an oil press, and Judean pottery with no apparent evidence of military destruction, suggesting continuous occupation by pastoralists and G. Barkay, A. Fantalkin and O. Tal, “A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem,” BASOR 328 (2002): 67. 31 G. Edelstein and I. Milevski, “The Rural Settlement of Jerusalem Re-Evaluated: Surveys and Excavations in the Reph’aim Valley and Mevasseret Yerusalayim,” PEQ 126 (1994): 18. 32 Edelstein and Milevski, “Rural Settlement,” 10–11. See also G. Edelstein and S. Gibson, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket,” 46–54. 33 Barkay, Fantalkin and Tal, “Iron Age Fortress,” 49–71. 34 D. Amit, “Farmsteads in Northern Judea (Betar Area): Survey,” ESI 10 (1991): 147–148. 30

72

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

olive vintners, through the Iron Age into the Persian period and beyond.35 Late Iron Age ruins at Tell el-Fûl show that, although the town’s defensive tower was destroyed (probably by the Babylonians), the casemate walls and other structures, as well as surrounding agricultural installations, remained intact and supported ongoing occupation and agricultural activity (particularly wine production) until the late sixth century BCE.36 The fortifications of Ramat Raḥel did experience some destruction in the late Iron Age, but evidence of nearby agricultural terraces supporting vineyards indicates that occupation of the area surrounding the town continued into the Persian period.37 There are several reasons why northern Judah may have been spared in the sixth century BCE. Babylonia might not have considered inhabitants of the area to pose a serious enough threat to warrant military action. The farmers and pastoralists of elMughayir may have demonstrated cooperation with the Babylonians and support of the new regime.38 From Babylonia’s perspective, there was little to gain and more to lose by destroying large tracts of farmland in areas over which the empire had already gained control. It would have required a reckless waste of manpower and weaponry to mount a widespread campaign targeting undefended peasant communities, the destruction of which would have offered little to an imperial army in the way of wealth, power, or prestige. In addition, Babylonia needed to preserve at least enough farmland and laborers to supply food for the invading army in 587/6 BCE, and to support imperial activity in the area during subsequent years for two purposes: to extract tribute to stave off military threats from Egypt and other adversaries; and to increase

Y. Spanier, “Map of el-Mughayir: Survey,” ESI 14 (1994), 78–79. N. L. Lapp, “The 7th–6th Century Occupation: Period III,” in The Third Campaign at Tell el-Fûl: The Excavations of 1964 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: American School of Oriental Research, 1981), 54–55, 59. 37 Y. Aharoni, “Ramat Raḥel,” EAEHL, vol. IV (1975): 1000. 38 For a brief description of finds uncovered at a forrtified settlement in Judea see S. Riklin, “Maʿalé Mikhmash,” ESI 18 (1998): 48. 35 36

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

73

trade with Greece and other western markets.39 Epigraphic evidence indicates that at least parts of northern Judah remained intact to support these Babylonian efforts. As noted previously in regard to Lamentations 1, BM 21946 mentions annual tribute collection campaigns conducted by Nebuchadrezzar in SyriaPalestine following Babylonia’s attack on Jerusalem in 597 BCE. Although the chronicle is interrupted after 594, one might assume that Babylonia maintained control and extracted income from the land at least occasionally, if not annually, throughout the neoBabylonian era. Furthermore, where garrisons were stationed to maintain oversight of the region, nearby farms and pastured flocks (neʾōt yaʿ aqōb in v. 2a) would have been taxed or raided to support the occupying forces. Although evidence is lacking of a large Great divergence is noted among scholarly interpretations of the scant evidence available regarding Babylonian activity in Syria-Palestine. H. Barstad (“After the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah,” in Judah and the Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003], 3–20) argues that Mesopotamia’s military activity in Judah suggests that the empire did have some economic interest in the region. Based on studies of agricultural installations to the west and north of Jerusalem, Barstad (12–13) concludes that oil and wine became especially important in the economy of the neo-Babylonian Empire as import and luxury goods. Vanderhooft presents a contrasting view in the same volume (“Babylonian Strategies”), arguing that there was widespread disruption and, in fact, curtailment of economic and daily life in neoBabylonian Judah. Vanderhooft cites both Mesopotamian texts (e.g., a comparative discussion of Babylonian and Assyrian royal inscriptions, 249–250) and Levantine material remains (e.g., Stern’s surveys which note a significant “‘gap’ at a large majority of [Judean] sites until the Achaemenid era,” 253). Vanderhooft interprets this material as evidence that the land of Judah was devastated if not completely disrupted throughout most of the sixth century BCE. See also E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land, 197; I. Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, L. E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 180; and C. Walsh, Fruit of the Vine, 158–162. 39

74

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

military force stationed in Syria-Palestine, it seems reasonable that at least a minimal number of Babylonian troops remained in rural outposts, as they did when Babylonia was securing its power over Assyria’s hill country following the downfall of Haran.40 The only situation in which one might reasonably assume that Babylonia deliberately sought to destroy Judean farming communities that were not proximate to Jerusalem and its military and administrative centers, was if the empire anticipated that the local rural population might try to seize property claimed in battle by the empire. That strategy is reflected in BM 22047, which reports Nebuchadrezzar’s assault in 607 BCE on the mountainous region near the Assyrian town of Kimuhu. The Babylonian crown prince both destroyed the mountain fortresses (bi-ra-na-a-tú ) and despoiled all of the land (śadê),41 apparently to prevent rural Assyrians from having the resources to resist Babylonia in the future.42 A similar policy may have been practiced in rural areas in western Judah near the border of Philistia (particularly along the route that Babylonia’s army marched on its way to Jerusalem), and in the northern Negev, in order to ensure Babylonia’s stronghold on the region. Quite a different set of circumstances developed at settlements to the north of Jerusalem. As noted in the previous chapter, the Benjaminite region was spared, at least initially and at least for rural Judeans living in more remote portions of the hill country. Studies such as Pritchard’s and Dever’s support the notion that, from the perspective of a sixth-century BCE rural Judean BM 22047 (lines 9–10, 15) in Wiseman, Chronicles, 64–65. J. R. Zorn argues that there is archaeological evidence of continuous occupation of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) throughout the neo-Babylonian period, and even until the mid-fourth century. He cites the typical four-room houses and some larger buildings as an indication of the city’s role as the region’s administrative center once Jerusalem had been destroyed. Meagre findings that reflect Mesopotamian influence provide additional support for Zorn’s claim. See J. R. Zorn, “Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital,” BAR 23 (1997): especially 36–38, 66. 41 Wiseman, Chronicles, 64. 42 Ibid., 21. 40

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

75

farmer, the statement that “the whole countryside of Jacob” was destroyed was clearly hyperbole.43

LAMENTATIONS 2:6–10 6 He ravaged his booth like a garden. He demolished his place of assembly. In Zion, YHWH erased from memory feast and sabbath; and he held in fierce contempt both king and priest. 7 The Lord rejected his own altar; He spurned his sanctuary. He entrapped with enemy hands the walls of her strongholds. They shouted in YHWH’s house as though it were a feast day! 8 YHWH deliberated how to destroy the wall of Daughter Zion. He stretched out a line; he would not refrain from devouring. He caused rampart and wall to mourn; together they languish. 9 Her gates sunk into the earth. He blotted out and shattered her bars. Her king and her rulers are among the nations. There is no instruction; Her prophets no longer find a vision from YHWH. 10 Sitting on the ground, stunned, are the elders of Daughter Zion. They throw dust upon their heads; they put on sackcloth. J. B. Pritchard, Winery, Defenses; and W. G. Dever, “Social Structure in Palestine. 43

76

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS Bowed to the ground are the heads of the maidens of Jerusalem.

In the second rhetorical unit of Lamentations 2, the focus shifts from the widespread destruction of the Judean countryside and military outposts to the utter devastation of the city, its sanctuary, and its leadership. The Divine Warrior’s obliteration of fortresses, strongholds and other physical structures continues from the chapter’s first verse through v. 9a, after which the poet reports the human impact that has resulted from YHWH’s activity: by sending the leaders of the nation into exile, and rendering the prophets blind and the elders mute, YHWH has withdrawn all instruction and support from Jerusalem’s survivors. Images of the fallen city, with its languishing walls (v. 8) and the sunken gates (v. 9), and its people (mourning elders and despondent young women in v. 10) convey an overwhelming sense of physical turmoil and emotional despair. Two features prominent in Lamentations 1 emerge again in Lam. 2:6–10. First, the fate of the Temple is a key concern, especially in 2:6–10. In Lamentations 1, the poet deplores the violation of the sanctuary and its treasures, and hopes to motivate YHWH to intervene on Daughter Zion’s behalf. However, Lamentations 2 makes it clear that there is no possibility of intervention, because it is YHWH’s own intention (v. 8a) to abandon the Temple (vv. 6a and b, and 7a) and its priests (v. 6c) into enemy hands (v. 7b). Second, personification of the city, a literary device which is central to the rhetoric of Lamentations 1, appears in Lam. 2:6–10 in the juxtaposition of the destruction of Jerusalem’s physical structures (vv. 6–9a) and social structures (vv. 9b–10). The use of personification in these verses sets the stage for the returning voice of Daughter Zion, who bellows her own lament at the end of the chapter. Many of the images and themes in Lam. 2:6–10 appear in Mesopotamian city-laments as well. The destruction of the sanctuary and cessation of the cult (vv. 6–7) are described in similar terms, including metaphorical references to the central shrine as a garden hut, in the Lament over Ur: As for the house which used to be the place where was soothed the spirit of the black-headed people, Instead of feasts wrath (and) distress verily multiply …

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

77

My house founded by the righteous, Like a garden hut, verily on its side has caved in. (LU 116–117, 122–123)44

Parallels to Lam. 2:7–9 appear in the laments over Eridu and Uruk, especially with regard to the encircling or entrapment of the walls of the city and destruction of its sanctuary: … The storm destroyed the city … It cut the lock from the main gate … … It circled its walls … Its ziggurat, the shrine which reaches up to heaven, it tossed into a heap of debris. (LE 2.1, 4, 12, 14)45 Battering rams and shields were set up; they rent its walls; they breached its buttresses; they hewed the city with axes. (LW 5.12–13)46

Personification of the fallen city through the juxtaposition of references to its languishing physical structures and its human survivors appears in the Lament over Ur as well: Its walls were breached; the people groan. In its lofty gates, … dead bodies were lying about … … In its places, where the festivities of the land took place, the people lay in heaps. (LU 213–216)47

Lamentations 2:9 reports that the defeat of the city’s leaders has resulted in chaos for its people. With Jerusalem’s elite deported and the prophets dysfunctional,48 no one remains to guide the people effectively through the worst disaster in their history.

ANET, 457. Green, “Eridu,” 133–135. 46 Green, “Uruk,” 274. 47 ANET, 459. 48 See discussion of the role of the prophets in sixth-century BCE Judah, in relation to Lam. 2:11–17 below. 44 45

78

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

A similar situation is depicted in several Mesopotamian citylaments; for example: Ur was granted kingship, it was not granted an eternal reign … Its kingship, its reign had been cut off, he is aggrieved! (LSUr 368–371)49 The king gasped for breath in his splendid palace, Its people … hurled the weapons to the ground, Raised their hands to their necks, wept … (LSUr 396–398)50 The judgment of the land perished; the people groan. The counsel of the land was dissipated; the people groan. (LU 231–232)51

Like the first rhetorical unit of Lamentations 2, the second unit concludes with the image of inconsolable grief experienced by old men and young women—a merism suggesting the entirety of the remnant of Jerusalemite survivors.52 Daughter Zion’s elders, who bear responsibility for guiding survivors through the tragedy, sit on the ground in sackcloth and ashes; Jerusalem’s young women hopelessly mourn, their heads bowed to the ground.53 A similar scene is depicted in the Curse of Agade: The old women ceased not (crying), ‘Oh, my city,’ The old men ceased not (crying), ‘Oh, its men,’ The gala’s ceased not (crying), ‘Oh, the Ekur,’ Its maidens ceased not tearing (their) hair . . . (CA 201–204)54 ANET, 617. Ibid., 618. 51 Ibid., 459. 52 Pham (Mourning, 129) identifies the elders mentioned in v. 10 as Jerusalem’s new leaders, “whom the Babylonians did not think it worth their while to bring to Babylon as slaves.” 53 The image of Daughter Zion’s mourners on the ground in v. 10 forms an inclusio with the reference to Israel’s splendor being hurled from heaven to earth in v. 1. For a fuller discussion of the mourning rituals suggested by these texts, see Pham, Mourning, 130. 54 ANET, 650. 49 50

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

79

The scene described in these city-laments is visually portrayed in ancient Near Eastern iconography as well. Enemy hands tearing down defense walls appear in several Assyrian reliefs.55 In the reliefs of attacks on Parga and Dabigu, the battering-ram actually appears to be “devouring” the wall (v. 8).56 City gates as well as sanctuaries are frequent targets of these urban attacks.57 In addition to the destruction of the city’s physical structures, members of the aristocracy are depicted as humiliated captives, accentuating the power of the victorious king.58 Such military actions are further corroborated by conquest accounts. For example, Sennacherib boasts of his conquest of Babylon, in which he captured the royal family and its officials (mŠúzu-bu šar Bâbiliki ga-du kim-ti-šu), along with other plunder (makkûr ali), and then destroyed the city’s defensive structures and temple precincts: dûru ù sal-hu-u bitâtipl ilántpl zik.-k.ur-rat libitti u epiricol ma-la ba-šú-ú ˘ as-suh-ma.59 In similar fashion, Nabopolassar reports his conquest of ˘ Nineveh, including his defeat of the city’s leaders (nišé rabūte) and taking of plunder from the city and its sanctuary before the final attack: šil-lat āli u ekurri kabittu(tú) is-tal-lu āla ana tili u ka[r-me utirru …]60 A third excerpt from a conquest text illustrates how victorious sovereigns used the rhetoric of divine abandonment to accentuate See, for example, Yadin, Art of Warfare, 392–393 and 420–421. Sappers sent in to weaken the foundation of the city wall probably came from lower socio-economic classes, and may even have been conscripted from the conquered people themselves. See P. B. Kern, Ancient Siege Warfare (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), 57. 56 Yadin, 400–401. 57 Ibid., 424–425 and Keel, Symbolism, 106–107. Keel also notes a biblical parallel to Lam. 2:7 in Ps. 74:3–6. 58 Yadin (Art of Warfare, 462) portrays Ashurbanipal’s conquest of Thebes in 663 BCE, including both devastation of the city’s fortifications and the deportation of “‘the great men’ of Egypt.” 59 “The Bavarian Inscriptions,” lines 51–52, in Luckenbill, Annals, 83– 84. 60 BM 21901.45 in Wiseman, Chronicles, 60–61. A similar statement is made regarding Nebuchadrezzar’s attack on Ashkelon in 604 BCE (BM 21946.18–20 in Wiseman, Chronicles, 68). 55

80

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

the powerlessness and dejection of the defeated army. Sennacherib makes a statement regarding the conquest of towns near Nippur. He claims that not only were they overcome by fear when assaulted by the Assyrian army, but also that they were abandoned by their patron deities and left vulnerable to attack: ilanipl–šu-un i-zi-bu-šu-nu-tima ú-šab-šu-u ri-ku-ut-su-un.61 This statement closely correlates with Lam. 2:7–8, in which YHWH is said not only to abandon Daughter Zion, but also to plan her destruction with great intention. Clearly the divine abandonment motif was common in Mesopotamian citylaments as well as in ancient Near Eastern military texts, reflecting a widespread view that divine abandonment was a contributing factor in military defeat.62 In summary, literary and iconographic evidence of ancient Near Eastern military campaigns suggests that, both from the perspective of the victor and of the vanquished, attacks on fortified cities typically involved not only dismantling their physical structures, but their social structures as well. Breaching a city’s ramparts, walls and gates was accompanied by subjugating its civic leaders; destruction of a city’s sanctuary was juxtaposed with displacement of its cultic personnel.63 Although material evidence See “Rock Inscriptions on the Judi Dagh,” lines 22–24, in Luckenbill, Annals, 64. 62 R. Albertz suggests that the Temple functioned, in part, as a guarantee for Jerusalem’s elite of the inviolability of Zion. He sees Nebuchadrezzar’s resolve to destroy the Temple as the logical consequence of Zedekiah’s failure to assure him that Judean nationalists would not mount a revolt against the new empire. By flaunting their confidence in the Temple (and, of course, in its patron deity), the Jerusalemite elite, according to Albertz, brought on the wrath of the Babylonians and hastened their own demise. See Albertz, “Die Zerstörung des Jerusalemer Tempels 587 v. Chr.: Historische Einordnung und religionspolitische Bedeutung,” in Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), especially 37–38. 63 There is, of course, more material evidence of the Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In both cases, the destruction of the central Jewish shrine was strategically significant, since the Temple functioned as a symbol of strength and divine blessing around which Jews 61

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

81

of Jerusalem’s first temple has not been discovered, plenty of charred ruins of its defense system and acropolis attest to the kind of events reported in Lam. 2:6–10. From the perspective of Jerusalemite survivors, the devastation of Daughter Zion was complete. The city was at the mercy of its wrathful God who had rejected the central shrine and plotted the city’s defeat. As indicated in the opening verses of Lamentations 2, nothing remained after 586 BCE except the sorrow of stunned mourners languishing in the rubble. Counter Reading News of Jerusalem’s destruction must have been shocking for rural Judeans who lived far away from the city. The opening statement of this pericope would have been especially striking to them, because it likens the Temple to a garden hut (sukkāh) rendered defenseless by YHWH’s rampage (Lam. 2:6). The sukkāh was a temporary shelter which Judean farmers made from perishable materials to provide shade for workers and/or for jars of freshly pressed wine during the harvest season.64 Guards could also stay in the huts to oversee crops and defend them from minor raids or destruction by wild animals. However, the sukkāh was flimsy and vulnerable, not built to withstand a strong storm or attack. Since major armed raids were common practice during siege warfare,65 one can assume that the fields, pastures, and vineyards in parts of rural Judah were ravaged (ḥāmas) by the Babylonian army en route both to and from the siege of Jerusalem. A sukkāh offered no protection against such assaults. Likewise, Jerusalem’s Temple and massive defensive walls were no match for Babylonian battering rams empowered by YHWH’s wrath.

would rally against their attackers. See L. D. Sporty, “The Location of the Holy House of Herod’s Temple: Evidence from the Post-Destruction Period,” BA 54 (1991): 29. 64 Walsh, Fruit of the Vine, 136–140. 65 Walsh cites several studies of contemporary agrarian communities in the northern Sinai (140) and in modern Israel (133) that utilize huts similar to those described in Lam. 2:6.

82

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

However, as great a tragedy as the loss of the Temple was from an urban perspective, it is doubtful that most rural Judeans in the sixth century BCE shared the feelings expressed in Lam. 2:6–7. The plethora of shrines, altars, pillars, and figurines found in some parts of rural Syria-Palestine suggests that local festivals and cultic activity took place throughout the Iron Age and into the Persian period.66 Hence, it is possible that the destruction of the Temple, vividly and tragically portrayed in Lam. 2:6–10, did not interrupt religious life at all for many rural Judeans. This seems to be particularly true of sites in southern and northern Judah. Several sites in the northern Negev, including Ḥorvat Qitmit, Tel Malḥata, and ʿEn Ḥaṣeva, apparently functioned as cultic centers well into the sixth century BCE. Edomite pottery has been found alongside Judean artifacts at those sites. Beit-Arieh, who has done extensive research in that area, supports the hypothesis of an Edomite invasion into southern Judah in the early neo-Babylonian era, thus accounting for the distinctively Edomite character of some shrines found in that area that are oriented southward (toward Edom) rather than westward, as most Israelite shrines are.67 A significant number of Edomite figurines were found at two Judean sites, Ḥorvat Qitmit and Tel Malḥata, suggesting the possibility of “a common ethnic link” between those two Judean towns.68 Since these southern sites are somewhat isolated from Jerusalem, yet easily accessible to Judah’s trade routes, it is possible that these cultic centers served not as regular worship sites for local inhabitants, but rather as roadside shrines for travelers of both Edomite and Judean backgrounds.69

K. Van der Toorn, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” in CANE, vol. 3, ed. J. M. Sasson (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1995), 2050. 67 I. Beit-Arieh, Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1995), 307. 68 Ibid., 315. 69 I. Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe, 149; P. Bienkowski and E. Van der Steen, “Tribes, Trade, and Towns: A New Framework for the Late Iron Age in Southern Jordan and the Negev,” BASOR 323 (2001), 28. 66

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

83

Second, especially in northern Judah, it is likely that some rural Judeans actually saw the Temple as competitive with, and oppressive of, their own local shrines, and so welcomed its collapse. For example, Bethel was a thriving cultic center in northern Judah throughout the late Iron Age until the late sixth century BCE.70 Although there are no corroborating texts from the Babylonian archives, one can reasonably surmise that Bethel served as the religious center, and Tell en-Nasbeh as the administrative center, of the Benjaminite region for at least the first few years of the neo-Babylonian era. Upon the desecration and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (Lam. 2:6–8), Bethel’s importance as a cultic center probably increased. Some rural Judeans living in the vicinity of Bethel may have supported the shrine not only as loyal supporters of their own local cult center, but also as proBabylonian sympathizers and hopeful beneficiaries of special favors from the new regime.71 However, it is also possible that some rural Judeans living in more remote areas of Benjamin, as well as those who may have fled from the south during Babylonia’s attacks, may have been reticent to support the Bethel shrine and indifferent to the political vicissitudes that embroiled the region. While the Bethel shrine apparently functioned as a religious center until its destruction in the fifth century BCE, some Judeans living in remote areas may have been as uninvolved with its operations as they were Blenkinsopp, J. (“Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipshchits and J. Blenkinsopp [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003], 94–95) points out that the archaeological record of Bethel (modern Beitin) is consistent with other Benjaminite sites, in that no destruction layer is apparent that corresponds to the Babylonian campaigns of the early sixth century BCE. The destruction layers at Bethel are consistent with those discovered at other sites in southern Samaria, Benjamin, the Negev and Shephelah that were destroyed in the first century of Persian rule. See McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 185–186. 71 Blenkinsopp (Ibid., 101–105) suggests that the prominent role of the Bethel cult helps to explain the power struggle that ensued in the Persian period, according to Ezra 4, between the non-exiled “people of the land” and the Persian-sponsored leadership of the Second Temple community. 70

84

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

geographically and ideologically marginalized from the Jerusalem cult during the Assyrian era. In larger rural communities, especially those near shrines like Bethel, local priests conducted special prayer services during the Babylonian war for various purposes: to give thanks for having been spared; to offer supplication on behalf of lost loved ones; to ask a blessing on their rebuilding efforts, and, perhaps, a word of sympathy for the defeated Jerusalemites.72 In more remote areas, family-based worship practices continued to address householdrelated concerns involving agriculture, pastoralism, and domestic affairs. Those practices, suggested by cultic objects and small shrines found within the remains of domestic structures, did not require religious specialists and probably included participation by household members—from elders to young women (Lam. 2:10). Regarding the dismantling of Judah’s social structures (Lam. 2:9–10), the damage to rural communities was far less than the devastation experienced by the Jerusalemite population. As discussed in the previous chapter, the loss of Judah’s king and rulers (including the officials, the priests and the prophets in vv. 6 and 9) actually may have been a welcome turn of events for those Judean peasants who considered the nation’s leaders to be oppressive. Furthermore, it is unlikely that rural Judean farmers perceived a loss of instruction with the collapse of the monarchy and its advisors (v. 9); in fact, some probably hoped for greater autonomy under the Babylonians than they had experienced under Jerusalemite leadership.73 The elders of rural Judean families were probably less focused on mourning rituals (v. 10) than they were on survival, relocation (if needed), and rebuilding of family farms and

Some cultic sites may have been in use well into the sixth century. However, reconstructing the religious practices and beliefs of sixthcentury BCE Judeans based on the interpretation of the archaeological remains of shrines is frustratingly speculative. 73 As suggested by Sennacherib’s reference to the conquest of Ekron and Jerusalem, the survivors of Nebuchadrezzar’s attack in 586 BCE could reasonably hope for some level of leniency, and perhaps even reward, in return for their cooperation with the Babylonians. 72

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

85

domestic structures.74 Only Judean peasants who lived in settlements proximate to the cities hardest hit by Babylonia’s attacks (e.g., Jerusalem, Lachish, Beit Mirsim, etc.) may have identified personally with the scene depicted in Lam. 2:10: namely, elders mourning together with the unmarried women of the land, all left without a future as casualties of war.

LAMENTATIONS 2:11–17 11 My eyes are consumed with tears, my insides writhe. I heave on the ground, over the destruction of my precious people.75 as infants faint at the breast in the open streets of the town. 12 To their mothers they plead, “Where are grain and wine?”― as they faint away like one mortally wounded in the open streets of the city; as their life spills out at their mothers’ breast. 13 What shall I testify about you? To what shall I compare you, O Daughter Jerusalem? To what shall I liken you, to comfort you, O maiden Daughter Zion?

McNutt, Reconstructing, 188. While translating the Hebrew construction “bat-X” as “Daughter X” fits in most occurrences in Lamentations, it would be awkward in 2:11 as “Daughter My People” or “the daughter of my people.” (A similar expression of Daughter X occurs in 2:18 as well.) Berlin consistently renders bat as “Dear” in her translation of Lamentations; some scholars simply omit bat from their translations of v. 11. Like Berlin, I have chosen to render “bat” as an adjective—“precious”—but only in Lam. 2:11 and 18, to convey the affection expressed in the text while avoiding the awkwardness of the “Daughter X” construction preserved in other verses. 74 75

86

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS For wide as the sea is your destruction. Who can heal you? 14 Your prophets have seen visions for you, false and deceptive. They did not reveal your sins in order to prevent your captivity. Rather they saw visions for you false and enticing. 15 All the passersby clap their hands at you. They hiss and shake their heads at Daughter Jerusalem: “Is this the city they used to call, ‘Perfection of beauty? Joy of all the earth?’” 16 All of your enemies speak out against you. They hiss and gnash their teeth and say, “We have devoured you! Ah, this is the day we’ve been waiting for! Finally, we see it!” 17 YHWH has done what he intended; He has fulfilled his decree which he commanded long ago. He has torn down with no compassion and has caused the enemy to rejoice over you. He has exalted the might of your foes.

The third rhetorical unit of Lamentations 2 brings the reader’s attention to the plight of the personified city and its inhabitants. With language similar to that of the Lament to Ishtar, the narrator is overcome with emotion over “the destruction of my precious people” (šeber bat ʿammî) in v. 11b): I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant … Pity! For my wretched body which is full of confusion and trouble. Pity! For my sickened heart which is full of tears and suffering.

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

87

Pity! For my wretched intentions (which are full of) confusion and trouble. Pity! For my afflicted house which mourns bitterly. Pity! For my feelings which are satiated with tears and suffering. (LI 42–50)76

To reinforce the rhetorical impact of personification in Lamentations 2, Daughter Zion is identified with the helpless (presumably widowed) mothers unable to feed their starving infants (vv. 11–12). The poet recounts how infants plead with their mothers to give them “grain and wine” (v. 12), indicating the severity of the famine and the desperation of besieged Jerusalemites in the later stages of the war. Even products that had been stored in surplus for a long time had been consumed;77 with Daughter Zion’s reserves exhausted, her people’s hunger was agonizing. The common wartime practice of victimizing noncombatant civilians, resulting in the dissolution of family and societal structures, is described in other ancient Near Eastern texts, such as the following: The young lying on their mothers’ laps, like fish were carried off by the waters … (LU 239)78 That the day be overturned, that ‘law and order’ cease to exist … That the mother care not for her children, That the father says not, ‘Oh, my wife,’ … That the young child grow not sturdy on (their knee). (LSUr 1, 12–15)79

Not surprisingly, there is a sharp contrast between the sympathetic depiction of the anguished city-mother in these laments and the images of women and children that appear in ANET, 384. Another close parallel appears in the Lament over Ur (LU 145–149) in ANET, 458. 77 Berlin, Lamentations, 72. 78 Ibid., 459. 79 Ibid., 612. 76

88

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

conquest accounts and victory murals in the ancient Near East. For example, the account of Thutmose III’s fifteenth-century BCE conquest of Syria-Palestine reports that women and children surrendered because of hunger. The rhetoric of the victor is void of compassion and, in fact, noncombatants are boasted of as part of the spoil.80 Several murals of conquest scenes depict women and children being taken in exile;81 no emotion is reflected in those portraits, and very little reference is made by the victors to victims left behind in the aftermath of war.82 A second group of Jerusalemites featured in Lam. 2:11–17 is prophets. The prophets mentioned in Lam. 2:9 and 14 were probably key figures in the monarchy’s leadership, part of the inner circle of the ruling elite.83 Prophets were responsible for advising the king, regardless of whether their message would be received

Berlin, Lamentations, 237. For example, see Yadin, Art of Warfare, 413, 430–431, and 437. 82 One notable exception to this observation appears in Sennacherib’s Prism Inscription (III.12–14 in Luckenbill, 32). A reference is made to the Assyrian king’s pardoning of citizens of Syria-Palestine who were not found guilty (la ba-bil hi-ti-ti) of conspiring with Hezekiah of Judah against Assyria. More common, however, are statements like the one made in the same document, regarding the slaughter of the leaders of Ekron, whose corpses were “hung … on stakes around the city” (Ibid., III.8–10). Clearly, whether pardon or slaughter is meted out to noncombatants, the rhetorical purpose of these statements is to accentuate the power of the conqueror over the land and its inhabitants. 83 R. P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in Old Testament Prophetic Traditions (London: SCM Press, 1979), 204; S. B. Parker, “The Lachish Letters and Official Reactions to Prophecies,” in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. L. A. Hopfe (Winona Lake: Eisenbauns, 1994), 63–64; and M. Weber, “Judaism: The Psychology of the Prophets,” in Propaganda and Communication in World History, vol. 1, The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times, ed. H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner, H. Speier (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1979), 301. 80 81

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

89

positively or negatively, on all matters of national interest.84 Without the counsel of reliable prophetic leaders, a nation under attack would be hopelessly lost: The counsel of the land was dissipated; the people groan. (LU 232)85 Counsel departed from the city, as the boats took off from the quay; The good sense of Agade turned to folly. (CA 346–347)86

However, two factors diminished the effective fulfillment of the prophetic mission. First, prophets who were appointed to office because they were trusted servants or even personal friends of the king, were inevitably biased and reticent to pronounce harsh criticism of the throne.87 These political insiders functioned to legitimate the ruling elite and to maintain the status quo for the benefit of the monarchy.88 Second, especially regarding prophets who were not accepted as political insiders (e.g., Jeremiah of Anathoth), sanctions were frequently placed on their prophetic activity. Their legitimacy was challenged by the elite and their message was often rejected, sometimes resulting in the prophets’ severe personal peril and even death.89 S. B. Parker, “Official Attitudes Toward Prophecy at Mari and in Israel,” VT 43 (1993), 63–64, 66. 85 ANET, 459. 86 Ibid., 649. 87 Appointment of personal friends as prophetic counselors to the emperor was a common practice noted in Roman annals; see D. Potter, Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 173. This phenomenon may also be reflected in the story of Rehoboam’s decision to dismiss the counsel of his father’s advisors and, instead, to rely on his own friends for advice and validation (1 Kg. 12:6–11). 88 Potter, Prophets and Emperors, 177. Accusations of deception by false prophets is a frequent motif in the prophetic canon; e.g., Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 13. 89 This appears to be the situation reflected in the Lachish Ostaca, the only extant extra-biblical texts known to date that refer to prophetic 84

90

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Hence, a prophet could be left with two unfortunate choices when confronted by a national crisis: either to run the risk of being denounced by the king as a bearer of bad news (which was apparently Jeremiah’s decision); or to be branded as deceptive for withholding divine warnings which, in hindsight, were construed as necessary for preventing national disaster.90 This latter is the situation suggested in Lam. 2:14. Jerusalem’s prophets chose not to issue a call for national repentance which might have prevented Judah’s demise;91 instead they reassured the nation’s rulers that all was well, despite increasing threats by the imperial forces that surrounded them. Finally, like the opening chapter of Lamentations, Lam. 2:16– 17 expresses the theme of taunting enemies ironically empowered by YHWH. Shame inflicted by means of public ridicule is common in the Hebrew Bible.92 Although that theme is not as common in ancient Near Eastern city-laments, it does appear in the Lament over Uruk: The foolish shall rejoice; they shall jubilate: ‘Come! Let us watch the city (suffer) war and battle! activity in pre-exilic Judah. Ostracon VI (lines 5–7) refers to a prophet whose message is considered to be unfavorable for the nation and the city. See H. Torczyner, Lachish I (Tell ed Duweir): The Lachish Letters (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938), 117. Also see Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 123. 90 Parker, “The Lachish Letters,” 66. 91 See also R. B. Carroll’s discussion of a similar reference to the silencing of deceptive prophets in Lam. 2:9 and Mic. 3:5–8, in “Night Without Vision: Micah and the Prophets,” VT Supplement 49 (1992): 76– 78. 92 For example, Pss. 22:7, 35:16, 37:12, and 112:10. For a fuller discussion of this topic, see L. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel,” JSOT 49 (1991), 47–76; and T. N. D. Mettinger, “Intertextuality: Allusion and Vertical Context Systems in Some Job Passages,” in Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Wybray on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines, JSOT Supplement 162 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 269–274.

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

91

To (see) how the sacred precinct (?) is destroyed! To (see) how the walls are battered down! To (see) how the city’s peace is disrupted! (LW 3.18–20)93

Distress over the role of the deity in empowering the enemy (Lam. 2:17) is also expressed in the Lament over Sumer and Ur: Enlil, in order to destroy the righteous houses, to decimate the righteous, … On that day Enlil brought down the Guti from the mountainland, … They laid waste to the [steppe] (and) whatever flourished in it … (LSUr 72–78)94

Whether written from the perspective of the victor or the vanquished, these taunts reflect a belief shared throughout the ancient Near East: public shame reinforced social alienation, and the belief that one’s own deity mandated the catastrophe only increased the anguish of those defeated in war.

Counter Reading The traditional view of Babylonia’s deportations of Jerusalemites both in 597 and in 586 BCE suggests that only Jerusalem’s elite were taken, leaving Judah’s poorest inhabitants behind. (See references to hadallat ʿam-hāʾāreṣ in 2 Kg. 24:14 and 2 Kg. 25:12).95 Green, “Uruk,” 270. In Sennacherib’s account of his first campaign against Babylon, the Assyrian king expresses his triumphant joy (ha-diš) as ˘ he appropriates both Babylon’s material treasure and the wife, harem, and palace personnel of the defeated king (cf. Luckenbill, Annals, 56). Furthermore, as G. Anderson (Time to Mourn, 73) points out, rejoicing over another’s sorrow is intended “to parade publicly one’s lack of solidarity with the party in question.” 94 ANET, 613. 95 Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Stretagies,” 256. Several Assyrian reliefs (e.g., Yadin, Art of Warfare, 413 and 430–431) depict captured women and children riding in wagons from a defeated city. Each scene suggests that 93

92

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Mothers who survived in the city may have been the wives of lesser officials or merchants who lived in modest quarters in the city or women who were part of Jerusalem’s sizable population of urban poor,96 including refugees and perhaps even the daughters of rural Judean peasants previously sold as domestic servants.97 Therefore, the image of Jerusalem as a mother anguishing over her starving children may have evoked sympathy among rural Judean peasants—especially those living closest to Jerusalem, who may have tried to help surviving mothers and their children, motivated not only by a general sense of compassion, but also perhaps by a hope of reconnecting with family members trapped in the city during the siege. As survivors inside and outside the city wall struggled to connect with each other, some urbanites may have been taken in by peasant families, offering to work as they were able in exchange for food and shelter. However, it is also likely that, as survivors left the city, they found that the land most accessible to them had been abandoned and the crops destroyed, these captives are of noble birth, in contrast to a few women walking behind the procession (e.g., Yadin, 437), who appear to be servants who were taken captive as well. See also Sennacherib’s description of the capture of the slaves and other personnel of the palace of the Babylonian king in the “First Campaign Inscription,” lines 32–33 (Luckenbill, Annals, 52). 96 A. Faust examines the archaeological remains of Iron Age II Hazor to infer how social rank was reflected in domestic architecture in Levantine cities. Faust corroborates what other scholars have speculated based mainly on sociological models; namely, that Hazor VI (and other similar communities) had a small wealthy class and a large segment of service providers who comprised the city’s poorest sector. Faust also suggests that a kind of “middle class” of lesser officials and merchants might have existed as well. See “Socioeconomic Stratification,” 187. Comparable findings have been based on studies of Tell en-Nasbeh, Tell al-Farʾah, and Beersheba (Ibid., 188 n. 8). It is reasonable to assume a similar demographic composition for Jerusalem in the early sixth century BCE, perhaps with a higher density because of increased numbers of administrative personnel and because of refugees taking cover inside the city walls. 97 McNutt, Reconstructing, 169–170.

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

93

since those who lived proximate to the city were attacked during the siege as well. Some family members (including widowed mothers) in the countryside also struggled for the survival of their children. As discussed in the previous chapter, many rural Judean women were widowed when their husbands and older sons were conscripted into Jerusalem’s labor or military force, or when Babylonia’s army attacked farmers prior to or immediately after the siege of Jerusalem. In rural communities that experienced severe depletion in the male population, mothers were hard pressed to survive on their own, especially if the attackers had raided and destroyed their crops as well. This was particularly true for households that lived closest to Jerusalem and its fortresses, on land that had been controlled by and devoted to the support of the monarchy. Women in those areas faced tremendous challenges and probably fled with their children, if they were able, to join extended family members in more distant parts of the region. Some displaced rural households traveled north towards Tell en-Nasbeh (only about eight miles from Jerusalem) where refugees may have sought shelter and assistance from the region’s new administrators. Others probably attempted the longer journey south toward Egypt, where many Judeans are known to have settled in the early sixth century BCE.98 Two factors may have helped mothers in rural settlements to survive the challenges that overwhelmed their urban counterparts. First, agrarian communities in a subsistence economy were accustomed to defending food and flocks as a top priority, and so may have developed various risk-controlling techniques (relocation, storage in secret areas, etc.) to build food reserves that could carry them through a crisis. Rural families periodically stored whatever they could in remote places as emergency supplies to offset the

Such migrations may have accounted for the apparent lack of continuity at rural Judean sites examined by Faust. The spread of disease also threatened the already crippled population in some rural settlements as the long-term effects of famine persisted. See A. Faust, “Judah in the Sixth Century BCE: A Rural Perspective,” PEQ 135 (2003): 45. 98

94

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

impact of crop failures, labor shortages, or attack.99 Second, rural communities, as previously noted, often were based on kinship relations that motivated stronger members to provide for the needs of more vulnerable ones.100 In addition, children at a very young age were pressed into service with farms and flocks to help compensate for the labor shortage resulting from older household members who were lost in the war. Therefore, while the (presumably widowed) mothers in the urban setting of Lam. 2:11– 12 are depicted as helpless and hopeless, those in rural areas were probably more able to provide for themselves and their children, thanks to family-based social structures and agrarian survival techniques that would have provided at least a minimal level of support. With regard to the prophets who are mentioned in Lam. 2:14, it is likely that a rural audience may have interpreted the failure of the king’s prophets differently from their urban counterparts. The Jerusalemite poet accuses the prophets of not giving sound advice about how to handle diplomatic relations in order to guarantee national security. However, the interests of rural audiences were more pragmatic than political. Rural Judeans may well have condemned the king’s prophetic advisors for their abandonment of domestic justice, but would have cared little about international affairs. In fact, rural communities might not have given much In the countryside stored food was probably susceptible to raids by the Babylonians, Edomites, or other groups of looters. See discussion of Lamentations 4. 100 Such was the case in several Native American tribes, which devoted considerable effort to defending their food supply, hiding in remote cliffs during times of external threat. See H. D. Tuggle and J. J. Reid, “Conflict and Defense in the Grasshopper Region of East-Central Arizona,” in Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, ed. G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2001), 89 and 97. Tribal leadership frequently made a concerted effort to provide for the needs of members unable to care for themselves, according to L. Fowler, Tribal Sovereignty and the Historical Imagination: Cheyenne-Arapaho Politics (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 3 and 8. 99

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

95

thought at all to the king’s advisors, since they had their own local leaders who mediated divine guidance and offered help and protection for rural families and villages.101 These local “prophets” probably received no formal training or title, but nonetheless were well respected in their communities. Either men or women might be called to fulfill this function.102 Like their urban counterparts, these rural prophets were regarded as sources of wise counsel especially in moments of communal crisis. Therefore, the role of the prophet was significant in the leadership of both urban and rural Judean communities, though the expectations of how prophets should function in relation to political and pragmatic concerns differed between the peasantry and the ruling elite. Finally, regarding the enemy’s taunt in Lam. 2:16–17, a rural Judean probably would have responded with ambivalence. On the one hand, as noted in relation to Lamentations 1, the fall of G. A. Herion (“Social Science Assumptions and Reconstruction of Israelite History,” JSOT 34 [1986]:5) poses a question regarding prophets (or individuals who functioned in ways generally associated with prophets) who were not necessarily related to an official institution or societal structure. Such individuals served their peasant kinship groups as advisors and intermediaries for family patron-deities when needed. Such a theory is supported by historical and anthropological studies of Native American tribal communities, in which a family leader might have dreams or visions carrying messages of divine guidance regarding various matters (e.g., moral judgments, ritual celebrations, intertribal disputes, imminent crises). See C. B. Kroeber and B. L. Fontana in Massacre on the Gila: An Account of the Last Major Battle Between American Indians, with Reflections on the Origin of War (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986), 40–43. In another context, Potter (Prophets and Emperors, 174, 180–181) points out that prophets of doom who were seen as promoting popular unrest by speaking out against harsh social conditions in peripheral regions of the Roman Empire, were usually suppressed by the government as subversive. 102 Both men and women were recognized in prophetic roles in the ancient Near East. See discussions in Parker, “Official Attitudes Toward Prophecy at Mari and in Israel,” VT 43 (1993): 50–68; Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 115; and Bird, Missing Persons, especially 41–43. 101

96

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Jerusalem represented the collapse of the oppressor for some Judean peasants who had experienced hardship under the monarchic administration. It is possible that YHWH’s perceived defeat of the city and the regime it represented might have been seen by some Judean farmers as a chance for deliverance promised long ago (v. 17).103 On the other hand, they probably did not embrace the Babylonians as liberators, but rather acknowledged them as new oppressors. It is quite unlikely, therefore, that the rural poor had either opportunity or reason for great rejoicing over Jerusalem’s demise (v. 16). To the contrary, they had their hands full, salvaging their crops and reordering their lives.104

LAMENTATIONS 2:18–22 18 Her heart cried out to the Lord. Oh, wall of Daughter Zion, For example, see Micah 2 and 3, in which YHWH promises judgment on Zion for the oppression of the poor by Jerusalem’s corrupt leaders (Mic. 3:9–11). According to the text, “Zion will become a ploughed field, Jerusalem a heap of ruins, and the temple mount rough moorland” (Mic. 3:12), as punishment for the exploitation of the poor (Mic. 2:1–2, 9–10). 104 Some scholars who support the traditional view that Judah’s population and culture were decimated in the neo-Babylonian era argue that Babylonia did not leave enough resources in Judah to warrant further economic exploitation. Therefore, the empire had no interest in rebuilding the region for that purpose. For example, see J. W. Betlyon, “NeoBabylonian Military Operations Other Than War in Judah and Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 271 and 278; and, in the same volume, Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Strategies,” 256. Even if that were the case, however, it does not mean that the Levant was without human activity during the fifty years of neo-Babylonian rule. In fact, an absence of imperial interference in the region would have made it possible for the “people of the land” to reestablish themselves and their livelihood, and even to develop the land sufficiently so that, decades later, Persia would quickly take interest in the region for purposes of economic exploitation. 103

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

97

let tears stream down like a torrent, day and night! Give yourself no relief, no rest for your precious eyes. 19 Arise! Cry out at night at the start of the watches! Pour out your heart like water in the presence of the Lord! Lift up your hands to him for the sake of your little ones fainting from hunger on every street corner. 20 Look, YHWH, and consider whom you have treated so harshly! Should a woman eat her offspring, the children she has carried? Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? 21 In the open streets lie both young and old; maidens and youths have fallen by the sword. On the day of your wrath you slaughtered, you butchered without compassion. 22 You summoned as on a day of assembly, terrors all around me. There was no one on the day of YHWH’s wrath who escaped or survived. Those whom I carried and nurtured my enemy has finished off.

Lamentations 2 ends with the same theme that dominates the entire chapter: the enormous suffering inflicted on Jerusalemites by their relentless, wrathful God. The last five verses appear as a closing prayer liturgy in which Daughter Zion, prompted by the

98

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

poem’s narrator, pleads with YHWH who alone has power to destroy but also to save.105 References to the city’s physical structures (vv. 18–20) continue the rhetorical effect of personification of the city-woman. Personification is reinforced by the merisms (“young and old” and “maidens and youths”) in v. 21 and the close association between the fate of the Temple and its personnel who are slain there (v. 20). Together those rhetorical devices convey the experience of indiscriminate and inescapable human devastation at the hands of an enemy empowered by Jerusalem’s own God. Although the textual parallels between Lam. 2:18–22 and other ancient Near Eastern city-laments are not as close as in other portions of Lamentations 2, there are a few notable examples. The motif of the Weeping Goddess in the Lament over Ur offers a close connection both to Daughter Zion’s interminable weeping (vv. 18–19) and to her recognition that YHWH is responsible for her suffering (v. 21): The woman loudly utters the wail for her attacked house; the princess in Ur, her attacked shrine, bitterly cries: ‘Verily Anu has cursed my city, my city verily has been destroyed …’ (LU 255–257)106

Raising the hands (v. 19) is a typical mourning gesture; however, as discussed in reference to Lamentations 1, women normally did not mourn alone, but were accompanied by loved

Mandolfo (Daughter Zion Talks Back, 69) rightly observes that the petition addressed to YHWH in Lam. 2:20–22 only specifically asks that the Deity look and pay attention to her plight. Zion neither asks directly for help, nor addresses God in terms (e.g., my rock, my strength, etc.) that are common in other laments. While Mandolfo’s observation is correct, I think that the intention to motivate YHWH to intervene, rescue, and restore the survivors of Jerusalem is implicit, not only in this initial supplication by the personified city, but even more in later chapters of the book. See, for example, Lam. 4:17 and 22; and 5:19–22. 106 ANET, 460. See also LSUr 150–151 (ANET, 614) for a similar text. 105

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

99

ones and ritual specialists as well.107 Of course, the women who survived the siege of Jerusalem faced the harshest of conditions and had to make do the best they could without benefit of normal support systems. The use of merisms, as well as the reference to corpses lying in the open streets (v. 21) convey both the all-encompassing scope of suffering and the physical danger (not to mention the demoralizing effect) of disease-ridden corpses rotting inside the city.108 They massacred its populace—they finished off young and old alike … (LW 4:27)109 In all its streets, where they were wont to promenade, dead bodies were lying about; … Its dead bodies, like fat placed in the sun, of themselves melted away. (LU 216–218)110

The image of a deity summoning or enabling the disaster that destroys a city is common to many ancient Near Eastern citylaments and conquest accounts, as is the declaration that no one is able to escape or survive the ordeal (v. 22). [Enlil] … stretched forth his hand; he induced terror in the land. … Its wings shall be the wide span of the anzu-bird that nothing can escape. (LW 3.1 and 3.10) 111 … what the sungoddess of Arinna, my lady, assigns to me, that I will carry out,

Women with their arms raised in mourning processions are depicted in ANEP, 208–209 (fig. 634) and 210 (fig. 638). 108 T. R. Hobbs, A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989), 180. 109 Green, “Uruk,” 273. 110 ANET, 459. 111 Green, “Uruk,” 269–270. Similar references appear in LSUr 75–76 and 112 (ANET, 613), and LU 173–179 (ANET, 458). 107

100

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS and I will accomplish. 112 The great army of Mitanni, it is overthrown in the twinkling of an eye. It has perished completely as though they had never existed.113

References to hunger introduced in Lam. 2:11–12 are accentuated in Lam. 2:18–22 by allusions to cannibalism, ritual slaughter and the consumption of a sacrificial meal: YHWH butchers (ṭābaḥ) Daughter Zion’s little ones (ʿôlelîm) who are fainting from hunger, and then summons the enemy as if to a festival (môʿēd) to finish them off (killām).114 In this closing unit of Lamentations 2, images of war (e.g., famine, watches, and the city’s defensive wall) are effectively intertwined with liturgical allusions: the call to lamentation and supplication, reference to the sanctuary, choice of the verb “butchered” in v. 21, and YHWH’s summons “as on a day of assembly.”115 A similar connection between the massacre of innocent people and ritual sacrifice appears in the Uruk lament: They let the blood of the people flow like that of a (sacrificial) cow … (LW 5.22)116

Conclusion to the “Ten Year Annals” of the Hittite king Muršili II, in Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 144. 113 Thutmose III, “Gebal Barkal Stela,” lines 5–7; cited by Younger in Ancient Conquest Accounts, 191 and 309 n. 144. 114 In her dialogic reading of Lamentations and the biblical prophets, Mandolfo (Daughter Zion Talks Back, 89) notes that the metaphorical shift from Zion as an unfaithful wife in the latter to a grieving mother in the former, increases the sympathy for Jerusalem felt by the reader of Lamentations. 115 Berlin (Lamentations, 76) notes that ṭābaḥ (v. 21) refers to the action of “butchering meat in preparation for a meal.” Ironically, the “meal” in Lamentations 2 is the starving Jerusalemite population being voraciously devoured by YHWH, who shows no compassion. 116 Green, “Uruk,” 274. 112

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

101

The association of military and liturgical images suggests three challenges that confronted Jerusalemite survivors after the crisis of 586 BCE. First, the ravages of war eventually gave way to grief. The wall built to defend the city was reduced to rubble until it became a wailing wall, a gathering place for mourners.117 The watches scheduled throughout the night to guard against enemy attack were converted to prayer vigils,118 times of lament for the dead and dying. Soon after the siege had ended and the Babylonians had left the city, the few surviving Jerusalemites became like the city’s physical structures: no longer defenders against the attackers, but victims overcome with grief. Second, the destruction of the Temple is rendered all the more appalling by the report that its cultic personnel are slain there.119 Interestingly, both in ancient Near Eastern city-laments and in Mesopotamian conquest accounts, destruction of shrines is often recounted by detailing the damage done to the shrine and sacred vessels, but rarely if ever do those texts refer to the fate of the cultic personnel who died in the shrine’s defense. In contrast, with a rhetorical question posed to intensify the tragedy, In this regard, Zion’s wall plays a similar function to that of the city gates in Lam. 1:4. The wall as the site of mourning rituals also appears in LSUr 382 regarding the destruction of Ur. “By its walls, as far as they extend in circumference, laments were uttered …” (ANET, 618). See also CA 168 and 226 in ANET, 649–650. 118 Several biblical narratives refer to the watch as an important feature in defensive and offensive military strategies. For example, see Ex. 14:24, Jdg. 7:19, and 1 Sam. 11:11. The role of the watchman is also a key image in some prophetic texts; e.g., Isa. 62:6–7, Ezek. 33:1–9, and Hab. 2:1. 119 Temple priests, like central prophets, were very much part of the monarchy’s inner circle, performing cultic functions in support of the state and its rulers. See Van der Toorn “Theology, Priests, and Worship, 2049. Following the account in 2 Kings 25:18–21, Josephus (Ant. X.viii, in The Complete Works of Josephus, trans. W. Whiston [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960; reprint 1981]), reports that the high priests and temple guards were not actually slain at the cultic site (as Lam. 2:20 suggests), but were seized and taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah, where they were executed. 117

102

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Lamentations 2 deplores the fact that the priests’ and prophets’ own blood was spilled in the sanctuary (v. 20),120 and most of the city’s population died in the streets without proper burial or mourning rituals (v. 21)—leaving the city and its shrine defiled by corpses and bereft of religious specialists to perform appropriate cleansing rituals.121 Finally, Lamentations 2 ends by completing a transition from images of nurture to images of torture. The city’s famished population is butchered as if for a ritual feast, and these victims are consumed by the enemy. The few Jerusalemite survivors in 586 BCE—especially grieving women and starving children—faced enormous physical and emotional crises, exacerbated by the stark reality of social isolation and shame.

Counter Reading As alluded to in the previous discussion of Lam. 2:17, the Babylonian army raided Judah’s crops both to feed themselves on the long journey home and to supplement their plunder. What they did not raid they may well have destroyed simply to reassert their authority over the region. In order to minimize Babylonian destruction of rural property, peasants might have been motivated to express (at least publicly) their support for the new regime and contempt for their former rulers (v. 17). Despite a cultural expectation that rural Judeans would mourn the loss of their king and kingdom,122 it is conceivable that at least some Judean peasants Ironically the tone of the reference to slain prophets in Lam. 2:20 is completely sympathetic, in contrast to the poet’s previous accusation that the failure of the prophets to be honest and truthful was partially to blame for Jerusalem’s demise (v. 14). 121 For a related discussion, see J. Milgrom, “The Graduated Hattä’t of Leviticus 5:1–13,” in Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1984), 251. 122 Such was apparently the case (noted by Pham, Mourning, 23), for example, when Babylonia’s queen mother died during Nabonidus’ reign: “all the people of the country” (both citizens of Babylonia and diplomatic representatives from other provinces and peoples) participated in a sevenday mourning process. See ANET, 561–562. 120

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

103

joined in mocking the fallen Jerusalemite leaders, rather than grieving for them.123 However, once the Babylonian army had left, rural Judean communities were probably quicker than surviving Jerusalemites to begin rebuilding their lives.124 Kinship groups were more likely to be intact in rural families. As previously noted, religious rituals undoubtedly were conducted in local and domestic shrines throughout the Judean countryside. However, that cultic activity was probably not focused on the fate of the monarchy, but on the survival of rural families and recovery of their crops and flocks. Although worship of YHWH was practiced in parts of rural Judah, the cults of other local deities may have enjoyed revivals as well, given that the Temple was no longer functioning and the Jerusalemite leadership was no longer able to enforce sanctions against polytheistic practices.125 Logic suggests that the further removed (geographically and ideologically) a Judean farming W. W. Smith (Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations [Boulder: Westview Press, Inc., 1996], 396) describes a process called “struggle” in which former landlords were publicly accused, taunted, and beaten by peasant mobs incited by Communist leaders seeking to promote class conflict. Although the Babylonians probably would not have encouraged mob violence among Judean peasants, it is possible that, at least in some areas, rural Judeans were encouraged to express open hostility and jeer at their fallen leaders being driven into exile. 124 This would be true whether or not Babylonia left behind garrisons to maintain control of the region. See Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Strategies,” 244. 125 As Bird (Missing Persons, 99–100) points out, women as well as men were active in local cultic practices prohibited by Jerusalem’s temple personnel and condemned by the prophets. One might presume that those practices continued in rural Judah, with Judean peasants feeling even more justified in their customs, since those who had forbidden them were summarily defeated and removed from power. Such a reaction is exemplified in Jer. 44:15ff, where Judean refugees in Egypt insist on worshiping the queen of heaven in the wake of Judah’s (and YHWH’s apparent) defeat. 123

104

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

settlement was from Jerusalem in 586 BCE, the more likely it was that its village- or family-based religious practices continued uninterrupted. Rural Judeans who lived closer to the city may have participated in relief efforts (to whatever extent possible) once the Babylonian threat subsided. However, their assistance was minimal, given their proximity to the destructive path of the attacking army. After the siege, many rural Judeans were reluctant to go anywhere near the city, and many (especially widows with small children) had to flee the area themselves. However, there was a powerful incentive to return for some whose family members had been enclosed in the city at the start of the siege (either as military conscripts, as servants employed by Jerusalemites, or as peasant refugees). These rural Judean survivors may have ventured to the city’s ruins fairly soon after the Babylonians left to check for their loved ones, and they may have joined those inside who were mourning at the wall, and assisted them by providing food, helping to bury the dead, and addressing other emergency needs. In terms of the merisms in v. 21, rural Judeans did not experience as wide a range of suffering as did their urban neighbors. Some of their young men and women did indeed fall in defense of their families and land, leaving younger children, already accustomed to sharing in domestic responsibilities, to take on even heavier burdens to assist their families during the crisis. However, elders (both men and women) were more likely to survive in rural communities than in the city and offered much needed guidance and support to their communities. In short, the sense of overwhelming and inescapable suffering expressed by the Jerusalemite authors of Lamentations 2, was not necessarily the lived reality of farmers and pastoralists who lived in most rural areas of Judah. Lamentations 2 ends with Daughter Zion mourning the assassination of the little ones whom, she poignantly remembers, she “had carried and nurtured” (Lam. 2:22). While the text focuses only on the perspective of Jerusalem’s survivors, however, it is possible that they, in fact, owed their lives to Judean peasants who did their best to assist the grieving and starving urbanites, even as they took on the challenges of rebuilding their own lives.

2 LAMENTATIONS TWO

105

SUMMARY After the siege of Jerusalem the reality of physical, social, and emotional decimation was inescapable for the city’s few survivors. With Jerusalem’s leaders exiled or slain, most of those who remained were the mothers and children of poorer families, consumed by the ravages of famine. The anguish over the exile of loved ones and cherished leaders that permeated Lamentations 1 (vv. 3, 5, 6, 18) began to dull as a memory (mentioned only twice in Lamentations 2, vv. 9 and 14), and became part of the tragic enigma that Daughter Zion struggled to comprehend (vv. 20–22). Now that the siege had ended, what overwhelmed the survivors was death—death of those who already had fallen and of those whose last gasp was near, and death of the city that was thought to be inviolable, and whose very defense systems had seemingly collapsed in mourning. The aftermath of the siege left urban survivors with little more than weeping and supplication to a God who showed them no mercy. It is very clear, yet only implicitly stated in the text, that Jerusalemites considered the surrounding region of Judah and Israel to be an integral part of their shattered world. From an urban perspective, the city of Jerusalem had been defeated because the fortresses of Daughter Judah had been torn down and the strongholds of Israel destroyed. Hunger devastated the urban inhabitants even after the siege had ended, because the “whole countryside of Judah” had been consumed. In short, from an urban perspective, the disaster confronting Jerusalemites who survived in 586 BCE was spread throughout Israel and Judah, leaving the entire region to cope with “mourning upon mourning.” As observed in the previous chapter, the close association between Jerusalem and its rural neighbors was more relevant to Judean peasants who lived in the immediate vicinity of the city and its military outposts than it was for Judeans who lived in more remote parts of the region. Proximity to Babylonia’s primary targets left rural Judeans open to attack both before the siege (when Babylonia was weakening Jerusalem’s fortresses in the west, including Lachish, Azekah, and Beit Mirsim); and after the siege (when nearby farms were raided and destroyed by the army returning to Babylonia). Those rural Judeans who experienced Babylonian aggression themselves may have felt a special

106

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

appreciation for the vulnerability of the fortified cities that crumbled like their own garden huts before the invading army. Settlements closest to urban centers also experienced greater labor shortages due to the loss of young men and women in the war. Labor had to be supplemented by pressing younger children (and perhaps an occasional survivor from the city) into service to help salvage and restore family farms. Rural families generally had more support to help them stabilize after the war, both in terms of extended kinship networks (through which households hardest hit in the war were assisted by relatives whose condition was more secure), and in terms of risk-minimizing techniques developed by previous generations of peasant households, to ensure survival in times of adversity. Another point raised in Lamentations 1 and 2 is the ambivalence of rural Judeans regarding the fallen Jerusalemite leadership. Some Judean peasants were undoubtedly relieved at the fall of Judah’s king and oppressive officials. Feelings regarding Jerusalem’s prophets, however, were probably more varied. Some prophets (like Jeremiah, Amos, and Micah) spoke as champions of the rural poor and supported their cause for justice; however, some of those same prophets condemned religious practices that threatened Judah’s allegiance to YHWH, thereby alienating rural Judeans who worshipped other deities. In rural, kinship-based settlements, individuals who functioned in leadership roles analogous to the city’s elders (heads of families), prophets (respected advisors), and priests (worship leaders), continued and perhaps even increased their activities, renewing the physical, social, and emotional structures of Judah’s agrarian society, even as Jerusalem itself lay in shambles.

3

LAMENTATIONS THREE

The differences between Lamentations 3 and the other chapters of Lamentations are striking. First, this poem is a blend of literary genres, including the individual lament, the communal lament, the city-lament, and the individual psalm of praise.1 Second, Lamentations 3 is distinctive with regard to poetic structure. The poem is an acrostic with the same number of stanzas (twenty-two, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet) as the two previous chapters. However, in chapter 3, all three cola within each stanza begin with the same letter. The structure is further complicated by the frequent use of enjambment, by which the last colon of one stanza forms a thematic bridge with the next.2 Another significant difference between Lamentations 3 and other chapters of this book is that the implied narrator in this poem is an individual male. The previous chapters focus on the plight of Daughter Zion, utilizing mainly female images and pronouns to represent the communal identity of Jerusalemite survivors, as well as the personified city itself. However, in Westermann, Lamentations, 168. All the major commentaries note these literary elements. See also the discussion of Lam. 3:21–42 in R. Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B. C., trans. D. Green (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 161–164. Because of the mix of genres in Lamentations 3, ancient Near Eastern parallels from a broader range of literary genres is examined in this chapter than in previous ones. 2 See, for example, the confession of guilt in v. 42, which both provides a response to the call to repentance in vv. 40–41 and introduces the motif of the enraged Divine Warrior (vv. 43ff), who has not yet forgiven (v. 42). 1

107

108

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Lamentations 3 the prominent perspective is of the geber who, most scholars believe, is best understood as “Everyman” or the typical man who survived Jerusalem’s fall.3 His story, presented as firstperson testimony,4 is of the emotional and spiritual turmoil experienced by Jerusalemite survivors trying to recover from the fact that their world has been shattered by overwhelming chaos and oppression. Interestingly, there is almost no reference to the city of Jerusalem or to the specific events associated with the city’s destruction in 587/6 BCE.5 Rather, there are stock images common in individual psalms of lament that convey the survivor’s spiritual struggle to reconcile his faith tradition with his lived reality. Those images include darkness and death (vv. 2, 6, 11, 43, 48, 54), persecution and oppression (vv. 1–20, 43–47, 52–53), tears and the waters of chaos (vv. 48–51), and taunts by an unnamed enemy (vv. 14, 60–63). The geber experiences attacks, presumably by the Divine Warrior, but those attacks are metaphorical, not literal. The emphasis is not on the physical devastation of the city and its people, but rather on their emotional struggle as victims of YHWH’s “rod of fury” (v. 1), fetters (v. 7), and arrows (v. 12) that inflict oppression, heavy heartedness, and bitter anguish. The image of the Divine Warrior gives way in Lamentations 3 to the image of the Divine Judge, who is called upon to vindicate the oppressed geber by returning to his attackers the harm they have inflicted on him. This transition in roles associated with YHWH Hillers, Lamentations, 120–122. O’Connor translates geber consistently as “strong man.” While geber does often connote strength, I simply use the term “man” since the poem does not emphasize the strength of the geber. For a fuller discussion of the interpretation of geber in Lamentations 3, see M. Saebø, “Who Is ‘the Man’ in Lamentations 3? A Fresh Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Lamentations,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. G. Auld (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 294–306. 4 First-person singular references are prominent in vv. 1–24 and 48– 63; first-person plurals appear in vv. 40–47. 5 The exception is in vv. 48–51, in which the poet mourns “over the destruction of my precious people” and is consumed with the “weeping of my city.” 3

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

109

follows a series of faith proclamations by which the survivor attempts to reaffirm that YHWH’s compassion is greater than his anger (vv. 31–33); that YHWH does not approve of oppression and injustice (vv. 34–36); and that suffering silently (v. 26) and accepting punishment as merited (v. 39) may lead to hope, because “YHWH is good to the one who waits for him” (v. 25). Emboldened by that theological reflection, the poet entreats YHWH in the final portion of the chapter to take up his cause and to reestablish a sense of justice (v. 58) by subjecting his attackers to the same treatment that they have inflicted on the people of Jerusalem (v. 66). Ironically, Judean peasants were probably all too familiar with the sentiments expressed in this poem—both the affirmations of faith and the struggle to maintain that faith in the midst of adversity—given the fact that the rural poor had suffered poverty and oppression at the hands of their Jerusalemite rulers for years prior to the city’s defeat. It is likely that rural Judeans were used to pleading with a divine judge to intervene in human affairs on their behalf. For them, the fall of the capital city actually may have been a sign of hope (even if short-lived) that YHWH would deliver them from their oppressors. Because of several factors, including the fact that this poem does not express the sense of immediacy and literal steps of survival that are prevalent in the other chapters of Lamentations, most scholars believe that it was written later than the rest, perhaps as part of the program of worship early in the Second Temple period.6 However, for purposes of the current study, which focuses on the lived reality of the social world of sixth-century BCE Judah, the poem will be read as a reflection of how some Jerusalemite survivors may have coped emotionally shortly after the Babylonian army left Judah.

For example, see Westermann, Lamentations, 180. Alternatively, precisely because of the lack of historical referents and the general “psalm-like” quality of the third lament, it is possible that Lamentations 3 was written even before the neo-Babylonian era. 6

110

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

LAMENTATIONS 3:1–20 1 I am the man who has seen oppression by the rod of his fury. 2 He drove me and led me in darkness, with no light. 3 Indeed, against me he has turned his hand all day long. 4 He consumed my flesh and my skin; he broke my bones. 5 He besieged and surrounded me with bitterness and hardship. 6 He made me dwell in darkness like those long dead. 7 He walled me in so I could not escape; he made my fetters heavy. 8 Even when I called out for help, he shut out my prayer. 9 He walled off my roads with hewn stones, he twisted my path. 10 He was a bear lying in wait for me, a lion in hiding. 11 He lured me off the path and tore me to pieces. he left me desolate. 12 He took aim with his bow and set me up as a target for his arrow. 13 He shot through my insides the arrows of his quiver. 14 I became a laughingstock to all my people,7

Regarding the phrase “for all my people,” Gordis (Lamentations, 177) and Berlin (Lamentations, 177) discuss a notation in the MT which advises against emending ʿammî (“my people”) to ʿammîm (“peoples”). Such an emendation would suggest that foreign peoples were the ones singing taunt-songs about the Judeans, an idea that is more consistent with other Lamentations texts (e.g., 1:7 and 4:15), but not necessarily appropriate in 7

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

111

the butt of their jokes all day long.8 15 He filled me with bitterness; he sated me with wormwood. 16 He crushed my teeth in gravel; he made me cower in ashes. 17 My soul was bereft of peace; I forgot goodness. 18 I said, “Lost is my future, my hope from YHWH!” 19 Remember my poverty and destitution, the wormwood and bitterness. 20 Surely my soul remembers and is downcast within me.

The first rhetorical unit of Lamentations 3 contains allusions to attacks by the Divine Warrior cast in metaphorical and conventional language typical of a communal lament. God drives the poet into darkness (vv. 2 and 6), besieges him with bitterness and hardship (v. 5), uses him for target practice (vv. 12–13) and crushes him, forcing him to humiliating prostration (v. 16). Like other communal laments, Lam. 3:1–20 describes the victim’s physical malady (v. 4), which results from the emotional distress that has poisoned his spirit (vv. 15 and 19). As in the other chapters of Lamentations, the poet in chapter 3 bemoans the fact that YHWH is absent at a critical moment in his life (v. 8); consequently, he experiences anguish, depression, and alienation (vv. 17–20). Several of the images of Lam. 3:1–20 appear in a variety of literary and artistic expressions from the ancient Near East. For this one. The traditional rendering of the MT is chosen for the current study, conveying the disquieting image of Judeans mocking other Judeans. 8 The Hebrew text of Lam. 3:14b literally says, “their music [neggînāh] all the day.” However, the parallelism between neggînāh and śeḥōq (“laughing-stock” v. 14a) makes it clear that the music in 3:14b is mockery. (Compare with the use of neggînāh in Lam. 5:14.) The related term maneggînāh (“taunt-song”) appears in Lam. 3:63.

112

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

example, the experience of being besieged (vv. 5–9) is described in Sumerian city-laments: [Ur’s] refugees cannot hasten (to escape), they are pressed tight to the side of the wall. (LSUr 410) 9 … [The storm] circled its walls. It overturned their foundation. (LE 2.12)10

However, the siege described in Lam. 3:5–9 is more metaphorical than literal, implying the emotional affliction that torments the poet. These military metaphors are not unlike those used to describe a man’s suffering in the Akkadian text, “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom:” I took the bed to the jail, they have blocked (my exit). My prison—that is what my house has become. My hands have been cast into fetters—(i.e.) my flesh; into my own chains have my feet been thrown.11

Being surrounded by darkness is a prominent motif in the opening section of Lamentations 3. Darkness is sometimes associated with oppression and imprisonment, as in v. 2; or with death, as in v. 6 and in the Epic of Gilgamesh: Looking at me, he leads me to the House of Darkness, The abode of Irkalla, To the house which none leave who have entered On the road from which there is no way back, To the house wherein the dwellers are bereft of light …12

The Divine Warrior, who is not named in Lamentations 3 until v. 18, takes up arms against the siege victim, just as Inanna did against the inhabitants of Agade: Holy Inanna forsook the shrine Agade, Like a warrior hastening to (his) weapon, ANET, 618. Green, “Eridu,” 135. 11 “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom,” II Rev. 30–33, in ANET, 435. 12 “Epic of Gilgamesh,” VII.iv.33–36, in ANET, 87. 9

10

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

113

She went forth against the city in battle and combat, She attacked as if it were a foe. (CA 62–65)13

Jerusalemite prisoners of war probably were bound in fetters (v. 7), an act of humiliation depicted in ancient Near Eastern iconography.14 Judah’s roads may have been blocked as the conquerors marched back to Babylon, leaving a swath of destruction in their wake (v. 9), an action alluded to in LSUr 26.15 Prisoners most likely were subjected to severe humiliation as they were prostrated before their conquerors (v. 16); that image appears in the Curse of Agade (188) as well: “Mouths were crushed, ‘heads’ were turned to seeds.”16 Berlin suggests that the language of Lam. 3:1–13 depicts YHWH as an oppressive shepherd, in a way that is similar to the portrayal of Enlil in the Lament Over Sumer and Ur: Enlil, the shepherd of the blackheads, this is what he did— Enlil, in order to destroy the righteous houses, to decimate the righteous, To set an evil eye on the sons of the righteous … On that day Enlil brought down the Guti from the mountainland,

ANET, 648. For example, there is an Assyrian relief of a fettered prisoner in O. Keel, Symbolism, 70, fig. 77; and several Egyptian reliefs of the same in ANEP, 4, figs. 7–9. 15 ANET, 612. Gordis (Lamentations, 176–177) notes a rabbinic tradition of interpreting Lam. 3:11a as expressing the idea that the roads were overgrown with thorns (based on a translation of swr as “thorn” instead of “turn aside” or “lure away”). If that approach is accepted, then 3:11 suggests that the roads became impassable due to neglect over time; a similar message is found in the Lament Over Ur (LU 368) and the Curse of Agade (CA 273). 16 ANET, 650. Yadin (The Art of Warfare, 150) presents a similar scene in an Akkadian relief of King Naram-Sin crushing under his foot his vanquished enemies. 13 14

114

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS Whose coming is the Flood of Enlil, that none can withstand … (LSUr 77–81)17

Another image associated with YHWH in Lamentations 3 is the prowling lion or bear that dismembers its victims (vv. 10–11). Except for the bull, the lion is perhaps the animal most frequently associated with the Divine Warrior and with victorious kings in ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography. For example, an Egyptian hymn of penance warns: ‘Beware of the Peak! For a lion is in the Peak; she smites with the smiting of a savage lion. She pursues him who transgresses against her.’18

Lions often accompany divine figures portrayed in reliefs from Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt.19 In addition, as Keel has noted, the prowling lion was a common symbol for demonic danger in the ancient Near East.20 Based on the literary and iconographic examples cited above, it is reasonable to assume that images in Lam. 3:1–20 reflect conventional language and imagery of ancient Near Eastern communal laments. Such statements reflected the perspective of the Jerusalemite survivors who suffered the force of the Divine Warrior and “his rod of fury” when the city was under attack. Rural peasants, however, probably made different associations with these images, as the following discussion suggests. Counter Reading The Divine Warrior depicted as an oppressive shepherd reflects the experience of terror and suffering inflicted on Jerusalemites by

ANET, 613. “A Penitential Hymn to a Goddess,” in ANET, 381. 19 For example, ANEP, 163–164, figs. 470–474, and 167, fig. 486. 20 Keel, Symbolism, 85. Keel (88–89) notes that psalms that include references to lion attacks (e.g., Pss. 7:2 and 10:9–10), do not mention the danger of bears alluded to in Lam. 3:10 and other biblical texts (e.g., Prov. 17:12 and 28:15; Isa. 11:7; Hos. 13:8; and Amos 5:19). 17 18

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

115

their Babylonian conquerors.21 However, at least for some Judean peasants, that “bad shepherd” may have been hailed as a hero, overthrowing the rulers of Jerusalem and taking them out of Judah and into exile. It is quite likely that Jerusalemite deportees were subjected to various forms of physical abuse, including being beaten, driven forcibly with a “rod of fury” (v. 1), and even shot at with arrows (vv. 12–13) if they tried to escape.22 Such actions on the part of the Babylonians resulted in humiliation for the deported Jerusalemite elite. Furthermore, their humiliation may have been aggravated by the taunts of crowds gathered to mock the defeated Jerusalemites, since public shaming was common practice in the ancient Near East.23 What is striking about the particular reference to public shaming in Lam. 3:14 is that the poet’s claim that his own people (kol-ʿammî), rather than the conquerors or passersby, are the ones who are mocking him. It is quite possible that such a scenario occurred, given the likelihood that at least some rural Judeans may have been embittered toward their former oppressors and happy to see the tables turned on them. This is especially plausible in the region of Benjamin, where pro-Babylonian sentiment ran high, and where Judeans who were not taken into exile might have sought to assure their new rulers of their loyalty and cooperation. Although, as noted in the previous chapters, rural Judeans did experience some physical abuse at the hands of the Babylonian army, most of the hardship inflicted on the peasantry entailed Berlin, Lamentations, 86–89. A common strategy for discouraging escape attempts by prisoners of war is to execute publicly those who try to run, thus convincing the others that the attempt is not worth the risk. Also, D. L. Smith (The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile [Bloomington: Meyer-Stone Books, 1989], 30–31) argues that fetters were not actually used often in the military transport of exiles, but rather were reserved for occasions of public humiliation, such as the presentation of captives and other loot to the victorious king. 23 Becoming a laughingstock (śeḥōq) and a target of public mockery is a common motif in individual laments (e.g., Jer. 20:7, 48:26–27; and Job 12:4, 30:9). Taunt-songs (maneggînôt) are mentioned in Lam. 3:63 as well, as a feature of shaming activities. 21 22

116

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

destruction of property. Fields and vineyards were looted and destroyed, aggravating the problem of famine after the siege.24 In addition to the disruption of agriculture and pastoralism, it is likely that the Babylonians blocked off some roads near the fallen city (Lam. 3:9), further isolating peasants closest to Jerusalem and hindering their access to potential assistance or resources. Two other prominent images appear in Lam. 3:1–20. First is the description of the Divine Warrior as a wild beast (v. 10), a common image in ancient Near Eastern iconography. Portraying YHWH as a prowling bear or lion symbolized the fear of urbanites whose power structures had collapsed, leaving them vulnerable to any of the overwhelming and uncontrollable challenges that confronted them in post-586 BCE Judah. It is possible that some members of Jerusalem’s elite who had successfully fled and sought refuge in caves outside the city were pursued by Babylonian soldiers, who made them feel as though YHWH himself were on the prowl.25 However, the threat of wild animals was also part of the lived reality of rural Judeans, especially those who struggled to establish new settlements after the war. Some Judean farmers and pastoralists probably had to encroach in previously unsettled land in the most remote parts of the region, and wildlife populations were probably higher in those areas. For those rural Judeans, the image of YHWH as a prowling lion or bear might not have signified the threat of pursuit by the invading army, but rather, a general sense of danger that life in the wilderness sometimes entails. The second image of note in this rhetorical unit is the reference to YHWH crushing the teeth of the defeated Jerusalemites in the gravel and making them cower in ashes (v. 16). The act of forcing subjects or prisoners to prostrate themselves before their rulers is depicted in several Assyrian and Egyptian See previous chapters, as well as the discussion of Lamentations 4, regarding the long-term impact of famine conditions in the area of postwar Jerusalem. 25 See Lam. 1:3, 3:52, and 4:18 for references to survivors being hunted by the enemy, as well as numerous examples of this motif in the psalms (e.g., Pss. 31:16; 59:3, 6; 69:27). 24

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

117

reliefs. In some of those reliefs, the occasion appears to be the delivery of tribute payments and renewal of a vassal’s allegiance to a king.26 In others, the message is more clearly the utter humiliation that a triumphant king inflicts on his newly conquered enemy.27 As the Babylonian army marched Judean captives through the countryside into exile, some of the peasants who were left behind probably witnessed punitive and humiliating acts inflicted on the Jerusalemite leaders by their captors. Some rural Judeans may have felt sympathy or even apprehension about their own fate as their fallen leaders were driven out. However, at least some of those who had experienced the Jerusalemites as oppressive and overlydemanding probably had little sympathy for them and thought that they got what they deserved. Hence, while Lam. 3:1–20 contains the conventional language of ancient Near Eastern city-laments, some of the images in this rhetorical unit suggest elements in Judah’s social world that were overwhelming and oppressive for survivors of Jerusalem’s elite, and challenging for Judah’s rural population as well. The metaphorical reference to YHWH as a predator on the prowl may have signified for urban Judeans the persecution they experienced at the hands of their Babylonian conquerors; for peasants it may have functioned more as a symbol of the dangers of trying to resettle in isolated areas of Judah. Furthermore, as incongruous as it seems, the Lamentations poet speaks of becoming the object of ridicule not only by enemy nations whose taunts appear elsewhere in the book (e.g., Lam. 1:7–8 and 2:15–17), but also by “my own people” (3:14), including the Judean peasants who might have seen the debasement of their former oppressors as YHWH’s act of vindication on their behalf.

For example, see figures 45–47 in ANEP, 15–16; and Yadin, Art of War, 395. G. Anderson (Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987], 57–58) describes the process by which a conquering overlord exacted tribute from a subject as “an onerous affair” that is well attested in Canaanite texts. 27 Yadin, Art of War, 431. 26

118

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

LAMENTATIONS 3:21–42 21 This I call to mind. Therefore, I have hope: 22 YHWH’s steadfastness is never ending, nor does his compassion run out. 23 They are renewed every morning. Great is your faithfulness! 24 “YHWH is my portion,” declares my soul. “Therefore I hope in him.” 25 YHWH is good to the one who waits for him, to the soul who seeks him. 26 It is good to wait silently for YHWH’s deliverance. 27 It is good when a man bears a yoke in his youth. 28 Let him sit alone silently when it weighs heavily upon him.28 29 Let him put his mouth in the dust; perhaps there may be hope! 30 Let him give his cheek to his attacker and be filled with scorn! 31 For the Lord will not reject forever; 32 for though he causes suffering, he also has compassion according to the greatness of his faithfulness. 33 for he does not intentionally oppress nor cause suffering for humankind. Translation of Lam. 3:28 is complicated by the fact that both the subject and the object of the clause are unstated in the MT. Most commentators assume that YHWH is the subject and that the yoke borne in one’s youth (v. 27) is the object; thus, for example, “for he [YHWH] laid it upon him” (Berlin). Furthermore, the verb nāṭal is rare, and usually is translated, “to lift, bear” (BDB, 642); thus, Westermann renders it, “to impose,” while Hillers adds the nuance of bearing a burden which is heavy. 28

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

119

34 Crushing under foot all the world’s oppressed, 35 Denying justice to a man before the Most High, 36 Perverting a person’s cause― the Lord does not approve. 37 Who could speak and make it happen without the Lord commanding it? 38 Have not from the mouth of the Lord gone forth both the bad and the good? 39 How can anyone alive complain, any man, about his punishment? 40 Let us search and examine our ways, and return to YHWH. 41 Let us raise our hearts as well as our hands unto God in heaven: 42 “We have transgressed and rebelled; You have not forgiven.”

The second rhetorical unit of Lamentations 3 is distinctive in tone and content from the rest of the book, yet it fits the chapter and the book quite well in its function as an affirmation of faith within a communal lament.29 Such statements of faith play an important rhetorical role in communal laments by helping the poet “to convince himself and his audience that hope [in YHWH] is reliable and appropriate despite evidence to the contrary.”30 Set in the center of Lamentations 3 and of the book as a whole, Lam. 3:21– 42 is the theological and emotional pinnacle of what is otherwise an expression of overwhelming and unmitigated grief. These verses describe God’s positive attributes: although YHWH has been portrayed as oppressive in previous verses and is challenged as silent in subsequent ones, nonetheless he is praised in 3:21–42 as

29

C. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 52; Westermann, Lamentations,

173. 30

O’Connor, Lamentations, 50.

120

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

compassionate, faithful, and just, the one who upholds righteousness for all humankind. Several prominent rhetorical features function together to express the poet’s confidence and faith in the midst of disaster. First, in vv. 22–27 the poet recites a litany of faith proclamations. Some of these have strong parallels elsewhere in the Psalter and wisdom literature, suggesting that perhaps they are part of the poet’s learned traditions from which he draws for meaning and strength in the present crisis. For example: I will sing forever of the steadfast love of YHWH, From age to age I will bear witness to your faithfulness. (Ps. 89:2)31 Though my flesh and heart shall fail … God is my portion forever. (Ps. 73:26)32 Do not say, ‘I will requite evil’; wait for YHWH, and he will deliver you. (Prov. 20:22)33

A prominent theme in this affirmation of faith is YHWH’s enduring compassion. First, the Israelite belief in divine forgiveness in spite of human sinfulness (Lam. 3:19–24) is not unique in the ancient Near East, nor is the concept of a deity’s mercy surpassing his/her anger (Lam. 3:31–33),34 as the following Egyptian text illustrates: … Though it may be that the servant is normal in doing wrong, still the Lord is normal in being merciful. The Lord of Thebes does not spend an entire day angry. As for his anger— See Lam. 3:22 and related discussion in Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 118. 32 See Lam. 3:24 and Nu. 18:20, discussed in Hillers, Lamentations, 128–129; also H-J. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, trans. K. Crim (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992,), 174. 33 See Lam. 3:26, discussed in Westermann, Lamentations, 176. 34 N. K. Gottwald (Studies in the Book of Lamentations, 99) identifies the proclamation in v. 33 as “the high watermark in Lamentations’ understanding of God.” Gottwald states, “As long as such a view of God was held in Israel there was no danger of the extinction of Yahwism.” 31

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

121

in the completion of a moment there is no remnant, and the wind is turned about in mercy for us …35

Second, a series of rhetorical questions in Lam. 3:37–39 affirms YHWH’s sovereignty and justice despite the poet’s current situation of chaos and oppression. Rhetorical questions appear frequently in laments and in didactic texts, and function to persuade the reader to endorse the belief that YHWH’s compassion and justice, known from generations past, will prevail in even the most hopeless situations: I remember at night in my heart, I ponder and search my spirit: Will the Lord spurn forever? Will he no longer bestow favor? Is his steadfast love finished for good? Has his word ended for all time? Has God forgotten to be gracious? Has he even shut off compassion in his anger? … Your way, O God, is holy. What god is as great as our God? (Ps. 77:7–14) Does not calamity come to the unrighteous and misfortune to troublemakers? Does he [God] not see my ways, and does he not count all of my steps? (Job 31:3–4)

A third significant rhetorical feature of Lam. 3:21–42 is a shift in the use of contrasts. In the other four chapters of Lamentations, contrasts appear mainly in the form of tragic reversals of fortune, which convey the drastic change in status and well-being experienced by Jerusalemite survivors when their city was destroyed. However, the faith affirmations in Lam. 3:21–42 stand as a unit, in contrast to the complaints and supplications that are distributed broadly throughout the rest of the book. Dobbs-

“Gratitude for a God’s Mercy,” lines 21–22, in ANET, 380. The translation note suggests that “normal” may be rendered as “is disposed to.” 35

122

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Allsopp and Berlin have noted several points of contrast in this regard, including: v. 22: the notion that YHWH’s compassion never ends (contra Lam. 2:2, 17, 21; 3:43) vv. 26 and 28: The conviction that suffering silently and alone can be edifying (contra Lam. 1:2, 17–18; 2:18–19; 3:55–66; 5:20–22) v. 27: the transformation of the yoke from a symbol of subjugation to a symbol of hope (contra Lam. 1:14 and 5:15) v. 36: the irony that YHWH does not see (ārʾāh, here translated as “approve”) injustice, yet is asked throughout the book to see and to be attentive to the injustice inflicted on Jerusalem (cf. Lam. 1:9, 20; 2:20; 3:59–60, 63; 5:1)36

There are also several stanzas in this rhetorical unit that begin with the same term or verbal construction. This feature is not merely a function of the acrostic structure of the poem; rather, it also accentuates the content and rhetorical impact of those stanzas. For example, vv. 25–27 begin with ṭôb (“good”) and declare that patient endurance and discipline in youth are beneficial in times of suffering, a message that is distinctive within the context of the five chapters of Lamentations. Two stanzas are marked by common verb forms that begin each line of the stanzas: jussives at the start of vv. 28–30 signal exhortation; initial infinitives in vv. 34–36 declare emphatically that YHWH is the champion of justice. Verses 31–33 all begin with kî (“for”), which connects the benefits of silent suffering to the exhortation to suffer in silence in the previous stanza. In addition, the kî clauses relate the assertion about YHWH’s compassion in this stanza to the insistence that YHWH disapproves of injustice in the next. These instances of repetition augment the rhetorical impact of these verses and provide coherence (beyond the acrostic structure) for this textual unit.

36

Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 121; Berlin, Lamentations, 94.

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

123

Another point to consider with regard to the rhetoric in Lam. 3:21–42 is that the image of the Divine Warrior, so prominent in the first part of Lamentations 3 and in the previous two chapters of the book, gives way to the image of the Divine Judge, which is introduced in vv. 31–39 and continues through the end of the chapter. Depicting God as the one who establishes justice and upholds it through the actions of just earthly rulers is a common theme in the psalms (e.g., Psalms 58 and 82) and in wisdom texts (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23); in fact, it is a common theme in ancient Near Eastern literature in general. For example, in the Lamentation to Ishtar (LI), the goddess is praised as an exalted upholder of justice to whom a supplicant pleads for deliverance: Thou dost make complete judgment and decision, the ordinance of heaven and earth … Where art thou not great, where art thou not exalted? … The judgment of the people in truth and righteousness thou indeed dost decide. Thou regardest the oppressed and mistreated; daily thou causest them to prosper. Thy mercy! O Lady of heaven and earth, Shepherdess of the weary people. (LI 13–27)37

The following excerpt from the Instruction of Amen-em-opet conveys the same idea of divine approval of just social affairs as the one expressed in Lam. 3:34–36: Do not confuse a man in the law court, nor divert the righteous man. Give not thy attention (only) to him clothed in white, nor give consideration to him that is unkempt. [sic] Do not accept the bribe of a powerful man, nor oppress for him the disabled. Justice is the great reward of god; He gives it to whom he will …38 ANET, 384. “The Instruction of Amen-em-opet,” xx.7–xxi.6, in ANET, 424. A similar text appears in the KRT epic (KRT C, vi.39–50, in ANET, 149), 37 38

124

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

One observation that is noticeable regarding Lam. 3:21–42 is that, as plentiful as parallels are between this text and other biblical and extrabiblical texts, there are almost no direct parallels to this affirmation of faith in the Sumerian city-laments; the few that do exist appear in the context of petitions for, or declarations of, restoration. For example: O Nanna, thy city which has been returned to its place exalts thee. (LU 435)39 Lady whose greatness is vaster than the mountains; … Singularly exalted in all the four regions—a … ‘the way it was at the time when heaven and earth came about, Of that time nothing shall be changed!’ —let them promise it to us. (LW 12.1–30)40

Lamentations 3:21–42 ends with a call to repentance and communal confession. As Dobbs-Allsopp points out, the synonymous terms ḥāpaś (“search”) and ḥāqar (“examine”) in v. 40 appear frequently in didactic literature in relation to seeking wisdom (e.g., Job. 5:27; 28:3, 27; Prov. 2:4, 20:27; and Sir. 42:18).41 In addition, several commentators have noted the parallel between v. 41 and Joel 2:13.42 The rhetorical effect of the final stanza in this unit is not only to express humility before the Divine Judge (in compliance with the notion in v. 39 that no one should complain about his punishment), but also to motivate YHWH to forgive and to respond favorably to those who repent, “according to the greatness of his faithfulness” (v. 32).43 For Jerusalemite survivors in which Yassib rebukes his father the king for failing to be a champion of justice. 39 ANET, 463. 40 Green, “Uruk,” 275–276. 41 Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 123. 42 For example, see Hillers, Lamentations, 131; and Gordis, 185. 43 According to Westermann (Praise and Lament, 54 and 64), both individual and communal laments often include a statement to motivate YHWH to respond favorably to the supplicant. Examples include Pss. 6:5 and 13:4 (individual laments) and Pss. 79:10 and 80:14–15 (communal laments).

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

125

after 586 BCE, such a confession of guilt must have been a courageous act of faith, given the enormity of the suffering they endured. Counter Reading There is extensive scholarly debate regarding the nature of religious practice and belief in pre-exilic Judah. References to YHWH in cave inscriptions and to individuals with theophoric personal names in written documents found throughout Judah have been cited as evidence that Yahwistic religion was observed in rural areas, and not just in urban centers.44 However, it is apparent to many scholars that deities other than YHWH were worshipped as well, especially in areas outside of Jerusalem, and that religious activity took place not only in centralized shrines but even within household dwellings.45 Various archaeological studies have See J. H. Tigay’s discussion of onomastic evidence from Judah in You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Tigay (37) argues that worship of deities other than YHWH was not widespread in Judah. However, he also notes that, because his data was based on written documents that were more characteristic of the literate elite than of the rural peasantry, it may not have reflected accurately the extent to which other deities were recognized in rural Judah. Furthermore, Tigay’s theory that polytheism was not common in Judah runs contrary to the views of many scholars, including M. Smith, discussed below. 45 M. Smith (Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament [New York: Columbia University Press, 1971]) argues that syncretistic assimilationists represented the popular majority in Judah until the postexilic period, when a group which Smith calls the “YHWH-alone party” became the official, Persia-sanctioned religion of the province. Smith bases much of his argument on biblical texts such as the prophetic condemnations of polytheism. However, he also considers extra-biblical evidence such as figurines, ostraca, coins, and written documents that suggest that deities other than YHWH were recognized in Israel/Judah through the Iron Age, and in Jewish communities in Babylonia and Egypt as late as the fifth century. See also S. B. Parker, “Divine Intercession in Judah?” VT 56 (2006): 76–91. Parker (77–79) argues that, even as YHWH 44

126

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

suggested that it was not uncommon for domestic structures in late Iron Age Judah to contain space for household shrines or altars, thus supporting the theory that home- or family-based cultic practices were widespread in Judah.46 In addition, as R. Kletter has noted, clay figurines, many of which depict females with characteristics often associated with fertility (bared breasts, hands on abdomen, etc.) have been found in large numbers in a variety of domestic, public, and burial sites throughout Iron Age Judah.47 Although Kletter himself remains cautious about assuming that those Judean pillar figurines served a cultic function, he does accept the possibility that these clay figures (which might represent Asherah or some other female deity) could be evidence of “popular religion,” beliefs and practices observed by the general populace.48 Therefore, whether the relationship between the worship of YHWH and that of other deities was more cooperative or more competitive,49 it is reasonable to assume at the very least that Judean peasants worshipped YHWH in addition to other gods.50 gained prominence as the high God of Judah, Judeans continued to pray to lesser deities, including family gods, to intercede with YHWH for them, when their supplications went unanswered. 46 One such study (E. A. R. Willett, “Women and Household Shrines in Ancient Israel,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, 1999; cited in Nakhai, Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel, 191) interprets those structures as “prayer corners” in which women in the household participated in family-based piety involving female deities. 47 R. Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines, 30–31. Kletter offers a comprehensive survey of scholarship on the topic of Judean pillar figurines on pages 10–27 of that volume. 48 Ibid., 76–78. 49 Nakhai (Archaeology and the Religions) argues that the monarchy actually encouraged worship at high places (bāmôt) as a way of formulating and maintaining a sense of solidarity among Judeans who lived at a distance from the Temple. G. Anderson (Sacrifices and Offerings, 23) supports a similar view that religion throughout Judah contained a blend of elements from both national and local traditions. In contrast, a model of peasant religion that reflects greater antagonism between local and national cultic practices and symbols is proposed by J. Lundius and M.

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

127

Second, as Albertz has suggested, religion in rural areas of Judah was generally based on a different set of relationships and concerns than religion in urban communities.51 According to Albertz, the “official” or national cult of Judah was developed according to a model of historically based political covenants or treaties.52 The Jerusalem Temple was not only the center of worship for this official cult, but also the symbol of YHWH’s

Lundahl in Peasants and Religion: A Socioeconomic Study of Dios Olivorio and the Palma Sola Movement in the Dominican Republic (New York: Routlege, 2000), especially 10–11. Based on their study of rural villages in the Dominican Republic and neighboring Haiti, the authors conclude that frequently, there is antagonism between rural communities (which tend to reject influences of outside cultures, politics, and ideologies) and urban centers (where religion tends to reinforce the power of the state, and tolerance of outsiders’ faith traditions is often treated as a matter of international diplomacy). 50 M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 26–27. Many scholars assume that this kind of syncretism is part of the motive for the biblical prophets’ condemnation of polytheism, since worship of other gods often implied political alliances and economic relationships of which the biblical prophets did not approve. See R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, especially 194–201; and J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel From Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), especially 80–86 and 104–106. Two studies of interest in regard to the development of Yahwism as Judah’s national cult are L. K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994); and D. V. Edelman, ed., Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kempen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995), especially chapter 2, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and ReligioHistorical Aspects,” by H. Niehr. 51 R. Albertz, Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1978), 37. 52 R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees, trans. J. Bowden (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 400.

128

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

covenant or alliance with the people of Judah.53 Therefore, when a national crisis occurred (e.g., the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE), faith in YHWH as Judah’s sovereign treaty partner was threatened. In fact, the incredulity expressed in statements throughout Lamentations (e.g., 1:5, 10, 12–15; 2:1–8, 17, 20, 22; 5:20, 22) regarding the Divine Warrior’s attacks on Judah suggests that, for some urban survivors, the destruction of Jerusalem presented tremendous challenges to Yahwistic faith as it had been known.54 However, according to Albertz, rural Judean communities were more likely to maintain beliefs about YHWH (and about local or family deities as well) based on a model of kinship relations. To sustain them in times of crisis, those who practiced family piety had developed a more intimate relationship with their deities, not modeled on national treaties that could be jeopardized by historical events such as wars; but rather on family ties (e.g., parent-child relations) that were irrevocable and resilient even in the midst of adversity.55 Therefore, compared to their urban counterparts, rural Judeans were better able to maintain and recover a sense of confidence that their deities would intervene and deliver their families from danger, especially after Babylonian aggression in the region had subsided. Albertz’s theory offers a useful approach to understanding how Yahwistic religion survived in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Once the structures of the Jerusalem cult had been dismantled, rural communities that had never abandoned their local and family-based traditions offered a basis for the theological reorientation of a new Yahwistic community in Judah.56 Albertz (Persönliche Frömmigkeit, 37) interprets the language of the Deuteronomistic formula, “I shall be your God, and you shall be my people,” as an indication that Judah’s official cult was modeled on a political treaty format. 54 Albertz, History of Israelite Religion, 400. 55 R. Albertz, “Wieviel Pluralismus kann sich eine Religion leisten? Zum religionsinternen Pluralismus im alten Israel,” in Pluralismus und Identität, ed. J. Mehlhausen (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995), 208. 56 Albertz, History of Israelite Religion, 402. 53

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

129

Albertz sees the individual psalm of thanksgiving in Lam. 3:22–28 as a sincere affirmation of hope and celebration of deliverance— both for urban survivors who mourned the fact that Daughter Zion lay in ruins and that the treaty with YHWH had been shattered; and for rural Judeans who reaffirmed their belief that YHWH was still their creator and divine parent whose mercies had not been exhausted (3:21–24).57 Therefore, on this point, Judean peasants may have found themselves in agreement with Jerusalemite survivors, as both groups proclaimed their faith in YHWH, despite the hardships that they endured. One further note of importance regarding the theological allusions in the second rhetorical unit of Lamentations 3 involves the references to YHWH as one who disapproves of injustice (vv. 34–36). Because YHWH is compassionate (vv. 31–33), powerful (v. 37), and just (vv. 38–39)—a theological worldview common in the ancient Near East—Yahwists should have been able to count on him to act on their behalf in matters of social injustice.58 Therefore, when the Jerusalemite poet poses the rhetorical questions in Lam. 3:37–39, it was probably to motivate YHWH to intervene and to remind YHWH that his honor would be at stake if the suffering of the city’s survivors were to continue unchecked.59 However, a rural Judean might have challenged the poet, by asking: how many Jerusalemite śārîm (“officials”) have been guilty of the very actions that are condemned by the rhetoric of Lam. 3:21–42? How many rural Judeans had experienced oppression (through high taxation, land seizure, conscription of manual labor, and destruction of local worship sites), and denial of Albertz, Persönliche Frömmigkeit, 208. M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 9–12. 59 J. D. Pleins (Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001], 442) has suggested that, from an urban perspective, justice would only be served once YHWH had intervened with compassion on Jerusalem’s behalf. Pleins notes that in Lamentations 3, Judah’s elite “became the standard-bearers of the prophetic voice in a new way,” raising their protest as they themselves became the targets of injustice and oppression. 57 58

130

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

justice (through unfair labor practices, commercial dishonesty, and partiality in the courts) at the hands of unscrupulous Jerusalemite śārîm serving the interests of the monarchy? Ironically, urban survivors may have been praying for YHWH to show them compassion after they, in fact, had failed to be compassionate to the rural poor in their region; and Judean peasants, upon hearing the petitions of the fallen elite, may have thought that the tables had finally turned and justice for the poor had been wrought.

LAMENTATIONS 3:43–66 43 You cloaked yourself in anger and pursued us. You slaughtered us without pity. 44 You cloaked yourself in a cloud, impervious to prayer. 45 Waste and refuse you have made us among the peoples. 46 All of our enemies speak out against us. 47 Panic and pit are ours, desolation and destruction. 48 Water streams down from my eyes over the destruction of my precious people. 49 My eyes are overflowing and will not rest; they will have no relief 50 until YHWH looks down from heaven and sees. 51 My eyes grieve for my soul because of all the weeping of my city.60 The MT of Lam. 3:51b literally reads, “from (or more than) all the daughters of my city,” but that does not fit well in the present context, though several commentators (e.g., Berlin, Gordis, O’Connor, Albrektson, and Provan) try to preserve the MT’s bānôt (“daughters”). There are two possible (but not persuasive) interpretations if bānôt is preserved in this verse. First, it could refer to the young women of Jerusalem who are mourning, though elsewhere (1:4, 18, 2:10, 21: 5:11) the term betûlôt is preferred in that regard. Second, the “daughters of Jerusalem” could be a 60

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

131

52 Like a bird my enemies hunted me, relentlessly and without cause. 53 They hurled me into the pit and threw stones at me. 54 Water flowed over my head; I thought, “I am cut off.” 55 I called your name, YHWH, from the deepest pit. 56 You heard my voice; do not close your ears to my cry for help. 57 You were near when I called to you. You said, “Do not fear.” 58 Take up my cause, Lord; redeem my life. 59 You have seen, Lord, the wrong I have suffered; judge in my favor! 60 You have seen all their vengefulness, all their schemes against me. 61 You have heard their insults, YHWH, all their schemes against me. 62 The thoughts and words of my attackers are against me all day long. 63 Look! In their coming and going I am the butt of their jokes. 64 Pay them back, YHWH, according to what they have done.

reference to the “daughter towns” of the capital (Berlin, Lamentations, 97). However, that interpretation contradicts the rhetoric of the rest of the book that implies that the towns and the entire region of Judah were equally decimated in the same catastrophe that befell the capital. An alternative is proposed by Westermann (Lamentations, 167), who follows the notation in the MT suggesting that bānôt may be a corruption of bākût (“weeping”). I have chosen that emendation because the imagery of crying is so prevalent in vv. 48–51.

132

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS 65 Strike them in the heart; let your curse be upon them! 66 Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens, YHWH!

The final rhetorical unit of Lamentations 3 begins with a return to the Divine Warrior motif (vv. 43–44). YHWH’s fury is manifested in the relentless pursuit and taunting by the poet’s enemies (vv. 46 and 52). The Jerusalemite victim is entrapped and stoned in a pit (vv. 47 and 53); he weeps and pleads for deliverance (vv. 48–51), vindication, and justice (vv. 55–66). As in the opening verse of Lamentations 2, YHWH is angry (ʾap in 3:43) and covered in a cloud (ʿānān in 3:44; cf. ʿāb in 2:1). However, the cloud in Lamentations 3 is not a sign of the divine chariot coming to attack; rather, it functions metaphorically as a shield that the poet’s cries for help cannot penetrate. Many images in Lam. 3:43–66 are common in Mesopotamian texts. For example, being hunted like an animal is a common motif in the literature of the ancient Near East: Their ‘arm’ stretched out for him in the steppe, like an animal trap, Nothing escaped their ‘arm.’ (CA 158–159)61 All day a pursuer pursues me. At night he does not let me draw my breath for a moment.62

Being trapped in a pit (bôr in vv. 53–55) is another common image that appears in several biblical psalms of lament associated with persecution, despair, and even death.63 In Lamentations 3, the terror and humiliation of being trapped in a pit are augmented by the fact that the victim is stoned by his attackers (v. 53), as were the inhabitants of Ur: ANET, 649. “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom,” II Rev. 37–38, in ANET, 435. 63 Hillers, Lamentations, 132; Berlin, Lamentations, 96–97. See, for example, Pss. 28:1, 30:3, and 40:2. Keel (Symbolism, 70–72) portrays various cisterns, some of which are thought to have been used as prisons like the one in which Jeremiah is said to have been entrapped (Jeremiah 38). 61 62

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

133

The large stones that of themselves (strike) afar, crush the bones, … Its people were turned over to the power of the enemy. (LSUr 388–391)64

As in other ancient Near Eastern laments, the poet in Lamentations 3 is ridiculed by taunting enemies (vv. 46 and 63).65 However, in vv. 60–62, enemy taunts are not mere mockery, but are indicative of malicious schemes and conspiracy against the poet. That idea is similar to the predicament described by the Joblike character in the following Sumerian text: My herdsman has sought out evil forces against me who am not (his) enemy, My companion says not a true word to me, My friend gives the lie to my righteous word. The man of deceit has conspired against me, (And) you, my god, do not thwart him, You carry off my understanding. The wicked has [sic.] conspired against me Angered you, stormed about, planned evil.66

Driven almost to the point of despair, the poet in Lamentations 3 weeps inconsolably, waiting “until YHWH looks down from heaven and sees” his suffering (v. 50).67 His weeping is followed by a supplication to YHWH. Interestingly, when a sequence of weeping and supplication appears in the Sumerian citylaments, the petitioner usually pleads for deliverance and ANET, 618. For example, see LU 309–310 in ANET, 461; and LW 3.19–3.21 in Green, “Uruk,” 270. Also see Lam. 1:7, 21; and 2:15–17. 66 “Man and his God,” lines 34–41 in ANET, 590. 67 Weeping imagery is also significant in Lam. 1:2, 16 and 2:11–12, 18– 19, as well as LU 86–90. However, in each of those texts, weeping is part of the Weeping Goddess motif, whereas in Lam. 3:48–51 it is an action by an individual (male) survivor (geber) mourning “the destruction of my precious people.” (v. 48). 64 65

134

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

restoration of the fallen city.68 However, the focus of Lam. 3:58–66 is not as much on the restoration of Jerusalem, as it is on vengeance against the poet’s enemies. The poem ends with judicial language signaling the motif of the Divine Judge, and suggesting a court scene69 similar to the following Egyptian text: O Amon, give thy ear to one who is alone in the law court, who is poor; he is [not] rich. The court cheats him (of) silver and gold for the scribes, of the mat and clothing for the attendants … May it be found that the poor man is vindicated. May the poor man surpass the rich.70

Unfortunately, as in the other chapters of Lamentations, YHWH remains silent and unresponsive to the petitioner’s plea. Nonetheless, the poet appeals to YHWH to treat the enemy as the deity has treated him; namely, to pursue the enemy in anger (rādap beʾap in v. 66; cf. v. 43), thereby demonstrating his belief that YHWH indeed upholds justice for the oppressed (3:34–36) and shows compassion for humankind (3:31–33). For Jerusalemite survivors, the closing petition of Lamentations 3 expresses the hope that the God who had driven them with a rod of fury (v. 1) will redirect that anger toward the enemy, thus providing vindication in the wake of the disaster. Counter Reading Judean peasants in the sixth century BCE would probably have found it ironic that members of Jerusalem’s elite were pleading for mercy, justice, and vengeance to the same God in whose name those former rulers had oppressed Judah’s poor. Justice functioned on two levels in monarchic Judah.71 On the first level, local elders See, for example, LSUr 340–356, in ANET, 617. Berlin, Lamentations, 97. 70 “A Prayer for Help in the Law Court,” in ANET, 380. 71 Z. Weisman, “The Place of the People in the Making of Law and Judgment,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freeman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 415. 68 69

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

135

and respected members of rural communities served as nonprofessional judges who, because of their integrity and social standing, were entrusted with maintaining generally accepted ethical norms in community affairs. Weisman argues (based on his reading of Deut. 16:19) that, although these “judges” did not have formal political authority, they still were expected to guarantee fairness and integrity within those rural kinship-based communities.72 In matters of local concern, that system probably remained intact at least until the Persian period. The second level of judicial activity involved the institutionalization of judicial roles and procedures. Though Judah’s laws were not codified in the modern sense of the word, they did become more formalized, consistent with the longestablished legal traditions of the ancient Near East.73 Officials who were considered to be knowledgeable about issues of justice were called upon to mediate in situations that sometimes involved affairs of the monarchy. Though conclusive evidence is lacking, texts like Deut. 17:8–13, Isa. 1:26, and Zeph. 3:3–4 suggest that judges eventually became, if not professionalized, at least recognized as a distinct leadership group within Jerusalemite society. As such, the efforts of judges were directed primarily toward supporting the interests of the monarchy and of the urban elite. The idea that an individual could pray to YHWH to uphold justice was familiar to rural Judeans as well as to urbanites. Throughout the ancient Near East there existed a belief that gods established and sought to maintain justice within the created order. People were responsible for implementing God’s justice by observing norms of equity and honor in social and economic affairs.74 In Mesopotamian cultures, as well as in Judah’s, a deity’s reward or punishment for ethical behavior was commonly believed to be carried out primarily in this life, not in an afterlife.75

Ibid., 415–416. Ibid., 415. 74 Weisman, “Place of the People,” 410. 75 See, for example, the blessings and curses that ratify the Mosaic Covenant in Deuteronomy 28. Also see Ps. 27:13 and Job 19:25–29. 72 73

136

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

In addition to being called on to mediate justice, YHWH is asked to redeem (gāʾal) the petitioner (v. 58). The gôʾēl (redeemer) played a number of different roles in Judean society. Often a gôʾēl was called upon to provide financial redemption (e.g., clearing a debt for a close relative); that would have been a common role among peasant families during the monarchical period. Occasionally the gôʾēl was asked to fulfill a familial duty to ensure heirs for a deceased male relative (according to the so-called levirate law; cf. Deut. 25:5–10).76 However, the most important overall purpose of the gôʾēl was to rectify social injustice, oppression, and violations of honor, especially on behalf of family members who had been wronged in some serious way. It is this third function that the poet requests that YHWH fulfill in Lam. 3:58ff.77 From a Jerusalemite perspective, the lament calls for vengeance against those who have oppressed survivors of the fallen city. However, it is possible that Judean peasants might have interpreted the events of 587/6 BCE as YHWH’s answer to the poet’s plea. Those whose family members had suffered—even died—under particularly abusive Jerusalemite overseers (śārîm) may have seen YHWH as their gôʾēl, who avenged the wrongs and restored the honor of their loved ones. It is likely that virtually all matters of justice, as well as other issues of daily life and ongoing survival, were addressed by the local elders of rural Judean families throughout most of the neoBabylonian era. Just as the Babylonian Empire showed almost no interest in the economic development of the region of Judah, it is unlikely that Babylonian authorities intervened in Judean disputes. Judean survivors who were not deported “flew under the radar” in matters of local governance once the aftermath of Gedaliah’s assassination was resolved. Ironically, urban Judeans were at the mercy of the very peasants that they had oppressed prior to 586 J. Unterman, “The Social-Legal Origin for the Image of God as Redeemer (gôʾēl) of Israel,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freeman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 402–403. 77 Ibid., 404. 76

3 LAMENTATIONS THREE

137

BCE; so they found themselves pleading, in the closing verses of Lamentations 3, for YHWH to attend to their needs.

SUMMARY More than any other chapter in the book, Lamentations 3 conveys the emotional anguish and spiritual turmoil experienced by Jerusalemite survivors after 586 BCE, as well as their determined adherence to the belief that YHWH was a compassionate judge who would vindicate them and restore justice and order to their decimated world. Jerusalemites still thought of YHWH as the Divine Warrior—persecuting, attacking, and destroying the precious people of the city—although those attacks became more metaphorical than literal once the Babylonian army had left Judah, carrying off the exiled elite in humiliation and chains. Urbanites who survived and remained in Judah were left with the challenge of soul-searching and repentance, hoping that because of their renewed faith, YHWH would respond with compassion and end the suffering inflicted on them by their attackers. Judean peasants, however, were all too familiar with lifethreatening crises, scorn, and injustice. For them, the overthrow of Jerusalem’s leadership and the eventual absence of Babylonian officials offered an opportunity to strengthen their kinship-based communities, with clan elders providing guidance in rebuilding efforts and wisdom in mediating disputes. Traditional local and family-based piety sustained these communities; in addition, the family model on which rural communities had established relationships with their deities provided a means by which urbanites—whose historical-political covenant-based approach to YHWH had been seriously challenged in 586 BCE—could continue to affirm Yahwistic faith, and even find a strong voice of protest against punishment disproportionate to Jerusalem’s sins. For at least some rural Judeans, the sixth century BCE did offer new hope and progress as they were able to reestablish their lives and survive with relative autonomy under Babylonian rule. Unfortunately for urban survivors, the Divine Judge remained silent and impervious to their prayers, leaving those survivors alone to face the challenges of famine, sickness, and despair that become the central themes of the fourth lament.

4

LAMENTATIONS FOUR

Elaborating on themes, motifs and images that appear in earlier chapters, Lamentations 4 provides a dramatic portrait of the human consequences of Babylonia’s conquest of Jerusalem. Famine, the most prominent of those themes, is the focus of the first half of the lament, which graphically describes the physical (vv. 7–8) and psychosocial (vv. 3–5 and 9–10) impact that famine has on the besieged population. The Divine Warrior motif appears for a final time in the book, as YHWH is recognized as the one responsible for the destruction of Zion’s foundations (v. 11) and the dispersion of its leaders (v. 16). There is an echo of the desperate plea for YHWH to pay attention and respond compassionately to Jerusalem’s suffering; but in 4:16 hope is waning, since Zion’s watching for “a nation that would save” proves to be in vain (v. 17). Finally, the phrase lō yôsîp (“no longer”) is repeated three times in the second half of the poem. The first two occurrences reinforce the sense of hopelessness, that Jerusalem’s survivors no longer have a place to stay (v. 15), and that YHWH no longer is concerned for their welfare. However, there is an ironic twist in the final verse of the poem, where lō yôsîp announces the end of Daughter Zion’s exile, anticipating that her punishment will finally come to an end. Whereas in Lamentations 1 and 2, personification of the city of Jerusalem is a significant feature of the poems’ rhetorical effect, in Lamentations 4 the people of Jerusalem themselves not only are the focus of the poet’s attention, but also they actually find their voices as they plead for help that tragically never comes (vv. 17– 20). Their society is in complete disarray: desperate mothers resort to cannibalism; defiled priests are ousted from the land (vv. 13–15); those who had been privileged wallow in squalor (v. 5). Not only the siege itself, but also the long-term consequences of famine, 139

140

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

have brought about “the destruction of my precious people” (v. 10).1 Two rhetorical devices used elsewhere in prophetic oracles of judgment appear in Lamentations 4 as well. First, comparisons to wild animals illustrate the depraved condition into which starving Jerusalemites have sunk (v. 3; cf. Isa. 1:3 and Jer. 8:9).2 Second, the poem ends with a condemnation of Edom similar to several prophetic oracles against Edom, most notably Jer. 49:7–22. In addition to these connections with prophetic texts, a new and ironic point of contrast is introduced in Lamentations 4; namely, the perceived “benefit” of dying swiftly by the sword instead of the agonizingly slow death by starvation that Jerusalemites are forced to endure (vv. 6 and 9). A final observation concerning the rhetoric of Lamentations 4 involves the effective use of irony throughout the chapter. The poem opens with the statement, “How the precious gold tarnished!” That statement, which expresses an absurd impossibility (since pure gold does not tarnish),3 helps prepare the reader for the other impossible experiences that have become part of the survivors’ dreadful reality: the devaluation and emaciation of Zion’s splendid children (vv. 2 and 7–8); cruel and heinous acts by Zion’s “precious people” (vv. 3 and 10); enemy invasion through Jerusalem’s inviolable gates (v. 12); the defilement and disgrace of the city’s cultic personnel (vv. 13–16); and the capture of “YHWH’s anointed” who had represented Jerusalem’s hope for the future (v. 20). Unlike previous chapters, Lamentations 4 mostly contains images that reflect post-siege conditions: the severe long-term effects of famine (vv. 8–10); the ostracism and banishment of Temple personnel (vv. 15–16); animosity against Edom as a rival The phrase šeber bat-ʿammî (“destruction of my precious people”) appears not only in Lam. 4:10, but in 2:11 and 3:48 as well. See Provan, Lamentations, 116. 2 Hillers (Lamentations, 146). 3 Hillers (Ibid., 149) notes a similar effect in the image of fire destroying the city’s stone foundations (v. 11), since stone does not literally burn any more than pure gold tarnishes. 1

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

141

nation (vv. 21–22); and the striking declaration that Daughter Zion’s exile is over (v. 22). This last feature, which has a strong parallel in Isa. 40:2, suggests that the years soon after the fall of Jerusalem would be an appropriate time frame for a social analysis of this poem.

LAMENTATIONS 4:1–10 1 How the gold grew dim! How the precious gold tarnished! Gems were strewn on every street corner. 2 The splendid children of Zion, who were worth their weight in gold, How they were regarded as clay pots, the work of a potter’s hands. 3 Even jackals offer their teats and nurse their young. But my precious people became cruel, like ostriches in the wilderness. 4 The suckling’s tongue clung to his palate from thirst. Children begged for food; they had no one to share with them. 5 Those who had dined on delicacies starved in the streets. Those raised in purple grasped at trash heaps. 6 The punishment of my precious people was greater than the chastisement of Sodom, which was overthrown so fast, that hands were not wrung over her.4 Translating Lam. 4:6 is difficult because of the verb ḥālû, which could be derived from several possible roots. Most commentators choose either the root ḥlh (“to weaken” or “to be sick or exhausted”) or the root 4

142

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS 7 Her princes were brighter than snow, whiter than milk. Their bodies were redder than coral, sapphire their physique.5 8 Their form became darker than black, they were unrecognizable in the streets. Their skin shriveled upon their bones; it became dry as wood. 9 Better were those pierced by the sword than those pierced by hunger who, wounded, wasted away for lack of fruits of the field. 10 The hands of loving mothers boiled their children; They became food for them, in the destruction of my precious people.

ḥwl (“to dance,” “whirl,” or “writhe”). A third possibility appears in T. F. McDaniel’s, “Philological Studies I,” 45–46. McDaniel notes that the combination of the verb ḥwl with the direct object yād indicates an attack in the form of “raising a hand against” the enemy. A similar expression appears in Gen. 37:22, 1 Sam 24:11 and in the Qumran War Scroll (1QM). See also Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, trans. B. and C. Rabin (Oxford, 1962). Alternatively, I have chosen Gordis’ (189) approach, which is based on Thenius’ rendering of Lam. 4:6b as, “no one wrung hands over her.” That translation intensifies the anguish of people under judgment, forced to endure a slow death by starvation, more painful than the instantaneous destruction of Sodom, alluded to in v. 9. 5 A literal translation of Lam. 4:7 is awkward: “Their bones [ʿeṣem] were redder than coral, sapphire their cutting (or polish) [gizrāh].” However, as Berlin (Lamentations, 107) points out, the sense of the verse is very clear. The terms ʿeṣem and gizrāh function together as a synecdoche (Gottlieb, Study on the Text, 63) for the overall appearance or form of Jerusalem’s nobility (nezîreyhā), who had once appeared vibrant and strong, but now are reduced to the deplorable, famine-ravaged state described in v. 8.

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

143

Physical and psychosocial effects of famine are the central concern of the first half of Lamentations 4. The survivors of Jerusalem’s siege are introduced as precious gems, strewn throughout the city’s streets, and reduced to the status of common pottery.6 They are suffering from symptoms typical of famine victims: thirst and dehydration (v. 4); skin discoloration and desiccation (v. 8); drastic weight loss and skeletal deformity (v. 8); and, of course, overwhelming feelings of hunger (vv. 4, 5, 9, and 10).7 References to the special plight of mothers and their children not only evoke a sense of horror and indignation in the reader, but also, reflect the tragic reality of starving populations throughout history: physical symptoms of famine tend to be more acute in children than in adults;8 and, especially in times of war, mothers, widowed or abandoned by their husbands, frequently are faced with the impossible task of providing food for their starving children.9 Starving a city’s inhabitants was the key to a besieging army’s success, rendering the city incapable of defending itself. Therefore, The LXX translates the reference to gems (ʾabnê-qōdeš) in v. 1b literally as lithoi hagioi (“holy stones”). Given the fact that Jerusalem was looted and stripped of any valuable treasures (Lam. 1:10), it is unlikely that this reference (along with the reference to gold in v. 1a) is either to precious minerals or to actual stones from the Temple; rather this was a metaphorical allusion to the children of Zion described in v. 2. In support of this view, Lee (Singers, 183) points out the word play between ʾabnê (stones) in v. 1b and benê (children) in v. 2a. 7 Three informative texts on the physical effects of famine are: D. Arnold, Famine: Social Crisis and Historical Change (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1988); J. P. W. Rivers, “The Nutritional Biology of Famine,” in Famine, G. A. Harrison, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), especially 63–65 and 78–79; and P. A. Sorokin, Hunger as a Factor in Human Affairs (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1975), especially 53–59. 8 Sorokin, 55. 9 D. Arnold, especially 86ff. Arnold (Famine, 73) points out that starving women become unable to nurse their children because of their own state of dehydration and malnourishment. 6

144

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

images of hunger are prominent not only in Lamentations 4 (and in the book of Lamentations as a whole), but also in other ancient Near Eastern laments over besieged cities. Examples include the following: The lord Nanna, the lord Asimbabbar, Destroyed his city Ur. He decimated the country by famine. (LE 6.15´–17´)10 Famine bends low their faces, it swells their sinews, Its people were filled with thirst, short is (their) breath. (LSUr 394–395)11

The physical signs of starvation are not described in as much detail in other city-laments as they are in Lamentations 4.12 However, references to starving mothers and their children (symbolizing the severity of the physical conditions of famine) do appear frequently in lament-related texts: [The mother abandoned her child] she said not ‘Oh my child …’ (LSUr 99)13 In your city a mother does not recognize her own child.14

The image of a starving mother who fails to feed her children also appears in ancient Egyptian iconography. An Egyptian relief of emaciated figures depicts a child reaching for the breast of his mother, who is unresponsive.15 The starving mother who was unable or unwilling to feed her children became a common symbol Green, “Eridu,” 139. ANET, 618. 12 However, as Berlin (Lamentations, 108) has noted the physical appearance of famine victims is described in the Atra-ḥasis myth; see S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 22–23. 13 ANET, 613. 14 M. E. Cohen, “The Steer in his Fold,” in balag-Compositions, 42. 15 ANEP, 30, fig. 102. Pritchard (ANEP, 261) notes that fig. 102 reflects living conditions during the cycle of “Seven Lean Years in Egypt.” See ANET, 31–32 for a corresponding text. 10 11

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

145

for the tragedy of food crises throughout the ancient Near East, and even in Egypt, which was known for its ability to store food surpluses successfully to minimize the risk of famine. Besides physical ravages of hunger, Lamentations 4 reflects the behavioral and social trauma endured by survivors of Jerusalem’s siege. As in the first two chapters of Lamentations, 4:1–10 portrays with dramatic contrasts the personal and social degradation into which members of Jerusalem’s elite have been plummeted, as they are reduced from a privileged and noble status (v. 5), to hunger-driven scavengers (v. 5), regarded as human debris (vv. 1–2). The very humanity of the city’s inhabitants has been destroyed, with survivors—themselves victims of starvation— refusing to share the little they have with the most vulnerable members of their community. Similar images appear in other ancient Near Eastern texts: Enlil, the (wearer of) fancy garments you killed by freezing, He whose fields are wide fields, you killed by hunger. (SCL 208–209)16 In Ur (people) were smashed as if they were clay pots. (LSUr Composite Text 406)17 May the princely children who ate (only) the very best bread, lie about in the grass, May your man who used to carry off the first fruits, eat the scraps of his tables. (CA 248–249)18

As shocking as is the image of the elite dying in squalor, references to mothers engaged in acts of cannibalism are even more appalling,19 suggesting that famine conditions have driven Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea, 150. P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over Sumer and Ur, 63. 18 ANET, 651. 19 Sorokin (Hunger, 109) reports several accounts of cannibalism that occurred during various famines in ancient and modern history. He claims that, although humans and most other animals have an instinctive reflex inhibiting cannibalism, that reflex is suppressed under conditions of starvation. Arnold (Famine, 74) refutes Sorokin’s views, insisting that 16 17

146

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

“compassionate women” (v. 10) to become crueler than wild beasts (v. 3).20 A similar reference appears in Atra-ḥasis: When the sixth year arrived, They served up a daughter for a meal, Served up a son for food.21

Death by starvation is so slow and agonizing that some urbanites would have welcomed death by the sword (v. 9). The same dilemma is suggested regarding the people of Ur who, starving from a siege conducted by the Elamites, are said finally to have thrown open the city gates to admit the invading army: The (people of the) city who did not succumb to the weapons were overcome by famine … Its people threw down the …, hurled the weapons to the ground, Raised their hands to their necks, wept, … ‘ … Until when will we perish in the mouth of destruction!…’ … They loosened the bolts of its gates, its doors stand (open) to the day, … Ur is shattered by the weapon like a (potter’s) vessel. (LSUr 392–409)22 deprivation of nourishment does not necessarily lead to depraved behavior. Even avoiding Sorokin’s deterministic approach, it is not inconceivable that the drastic measures alluded to in Lam. 4:10 were taken by some Jerusalemite survivors, just as they have been by famine victims (in accounts studied by Sorokin) in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and, in more recent times, parts of Asia, Europe, Australia, and North America. 20 As appalling as is the notion that mothers were cannibalizing their own children, this idea fits well with the other jarring image in Lam. 4:13 that priests, who had been called to maintain purity within the community, were shedding the blood of the righteous. 21 Dalley, “Atra-ḥasis,” 26–27. 22 ANET, 618.

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

147

For the few Jerusalemites who survived the city’s destruction in 586 BCE, the eighteen-month siege was just one phase in a hellish experience of infirmity and starvation. Even after the conquering army returned to Babylon, food sources closest to the city were gone—raided, trampled, burned. Destruction of both crops and storehouses is a common theme in ancient Near Eastern laments: In the fields there was (neither) grain (nor) vegetation, the people had nothing to eat, Its orchards (and) gardens were parched like an oven, their produce perished … (LSUR 132–133)23 In all its storehouses which abounded in the land, fires were kindled … (LU 240)24 The field and its grain are trampled down; viciously he tramples it down.25

It is hardly likely that survivors would have had the strength to venture far enough away from the city to find food; therefore, for many of the urban elite, famine really did become the weapon that dealt the fatal blow.26

ANET, 614. ANET, 459. 25 Cohen, “His Word (is) a Wail, a Wail,” in balag-Compositions, 21, line 23 24

17. Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 37–38) and others assume that Jerusalem and its administrative centers (e.g., Lachish and BethShemesh) were uninhabitable after Babylonia’s attacks in the early sixth century BCE. This view is consistent with circumstances implied by H. L. J. Vanstiphout in “The Death of an Era: The Great Mortality in the Sumerian City-Laments,” in Death in Mesopotamia, B. Alster, ed. (Copenhagen: Akademiske Forlag, 1980), 86–87. Vanstiphout argues that many of the victims of Sumerian sieges actually died from symptoms related to the plague. Those symptoms (e.g., dehydration, weakness, breathing difficulties, and plague spots) are alluded to in Lamentations 4, supporting the notion, mentioned frequently in the biblical literature, that disease 26

148

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Counter Reading The description of the famine and famine-related disease that destroyed Jerusalem’s inhabitants in the early sixth century BCE raises two interesting questions from a rural Judean perspective. First, is it possible that most Judean peasants did not share the same fate with regard to famine as did their urban neighbors (including not only residents of Jerusalem, but also of other fortified settlements)? Second, if a significant portion of the rural Judean population survived the Babylonian attacks of 587/6 BCE, what is the likelihood that they provided substantial relief and support to starving urbanites after Babylonia’s army had left, especially if relations between Judah’s urban elite and rural poor had been strained prior to the war? Scholars from various disciplines have offered insights—some of which are contradictory—that could help to inform plausible responses to these questions. Faust recently argued that there is no evidence of significant cultural continuity near Jerusalem and Gush-Etzion (Bethlehem) during most of the sixth century BCE.27 His study focused on rural Judean sites and used as a control group small settlements in the Samarian foothills, where continuity was apparent in the material culture of the neo-Babylonian period. Faust’s archaeological inquiry led him to conclude that different parts of the Levant experienced “different histories,” with signs of survival in Samaria and the southern coastal plain, but severe population decline in rural Judah (at least in areas closest to urban

along with weapons and hunger, decimated victims of ancient siegewarfare, including the population of sixth-century BCE Jerusalem. 27 Faust, “Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.,” 37–53. Faust notes that the sites chosen for this study were close to urban centers, which means that they may well have functioned as food suppliers for Judah’s military and administrative centers. If that was the case, those villages were vulnerable to attack as secondary military targets. Also, it means that the sites in Faust’s study were not necessarily small kinship-based communities (that might have been more likely to survive the collapse of Jerusalem’s power structure), but rather were state-owned properties managed by monarchical officials.

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

149

centers) caused by war, famine, epidemics, and flight.28 This theory, for the most part, supports the traditional view that “all Judah,” rural as well as urban, was decimated and barren throughout the neo-Babylonian period. Faust’s findings are supported by Kaufman’s sociological analysis of the collapse of ancient civilizations.29 According to his research, which compared the histories of several ancient empires, farmers in the ancient world were probably unaware of how heavily they relied on the administrative support provided by their governments. Peasant families may have believed that their own elders provided sufficient leadership to manage their local affairs. However, the fall of the state meant a loss of defense systems (from criminal activity or military incursion), public works (including irrigation, surplus storage, and roadway upkeep), and maintenance of the social order (viewed positively from an urban perspective)—all of which Kaufman sees as critical factors in rural survival.30 According to Kaufman’s theory, even after 586 BCE, Judean farmers who had abandoned their farms and fled to remote areas would have been reluctant to return to their land because of lack of security and loss of infrastructure. Trade (and with it access to products needed to supplement the farmers’ subsistence) would have been curtailed throughout the region for the same reason. Therefore, population levels and food production would have dropped sharply for both urban and rural Judeans in the first decades of the sixth century BCE. The only settlements that might have survived after 586 BCE were those in which new local leaders were able to manage the crisis of the war and guide their communities to develop sufficient alternative resources quickly and effectively.31 Kaufman sees such communities as rare exceptions to the rule of widespread social collapse. Faust, “Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.,” 45. H. Kaufman, “The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations As An Organizational Problem,” in The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, ed. N. Yoffee and G. L. Cowgill (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1988): 219–234. 30 Ibid., 222. 31 Ibid., 231. 28 29

150

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Both Faust and Kaufman assume a role of maximal importance on the part of the Jerusalem-based elite in the lives of rural Judean peasants. A different picture might emerge if one were to assume a more adversarial relationship between Judah’s urban centers and the rural households that fed them in the sixth-century BCE. Several archaeologists, historians, and sociologists have argued that portions of the rural Judean population survived and even thrived during the neo-Babylonian period. For example, Zorn’s examination of material evidence (including administrative structures and storehouses) at Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) supports the view that administration of the Levant shifted to that city once Jerusalem had fallen in 586 BCE.32 Lipschits cites Zorn’s work, as well as studies of Beitin (Bethel), el-Jib (Gibeon), and Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah), as evidence of an “intermediary culture” at least in the central part of the Benjaminite region of Judah (an area which neither Faust nor Kaufman discuss in detail) that lasted until the Persian period.33 Lipschits further suggests that the population actually increased in those towns during the mid-sixth century BCE, but then dropped significantly in the early Persian period, when Jerusalem was reestablished as the administrative center of the region.34 The “different histories” to which Faust referred likely reflect an urban-rural dichotomy as well as regional differences. In fact, several scholars have noted that rural families in various contexts throughout history have grown accustomed to food crises and have developed a variety of survival strategies and risk-management techniques, including: lowering food consumption; “stretching” food supply with supplements like wild grasses and fruits, shrubs, and roots; product diversification and surplus storage when possible; and “mutual assistance” efforts not only among Zorn, “Mizpah” 29–38, 66. O. Lipschits, “The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule,” Tel Aviv 26 (1999): 155–190. 34 Ibid., 182. Lipschits (184) suggests that the population of northern Judah (whether in rural or urban settlements is not specified) migrated toward Benjamin and settled in Mizpah, Gibeah, Gideon, and Bethel as refugees. 32 33

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

151

household members, but also between sub-groups within the peasant population (e.g., farmers, pastoralists, unlanded peasants and craftsmen).35 Migration has also been a common response among rural and semi-nomadic populations seeking to minimize the impact of famine conditions on their lives.36 Subsistence societies frequently are less dependent on trade and commerce than are urbanized societies. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that loss of that type of economic activity had less impact on rural Judeans than it did on urbanites. According to the twentieth-century economist A. Sen, in order for a group in an agrarian society to experience famine, its “food entitlement” must decline due to a drop in food production, or to a drop in the group’s “ability to command food” (by purchase, trade, or seizure)—or both.37 This theory suggests that, while a farmer or nomad may be used to accommodating fluctuations in food supply and may manage to eke by (living off the land until the crisis passes), urbanites are more likely to feel the full impact of a famine, since their access to food sources is cut off and they are left unable in many cases to purchase (except at drastically inflated prices), trade, or otherwise obtain food.38 Under normal circumstances the urban elite may stabilize a region’s economy, providing a kind of “safety net” (albeit at a hefty price) to peasants who represent the labor force that produces the urban Arnold, Famine, 52 and 78–79; P. Garnsey, “Responses to Food Crisis in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” in Hunger in History: Food Shortage, Poverty, and Deprivation, L. F. Newman, ed. (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990), 126–146. Regarding social conditions in post-586 BCE Judah, see also N. Na’aman, “Royal Vassals or Governors? On the Status of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the Persian Empire,” Henoch 22 (2000): 35–44. 36 Arnold, Famine, 91; M. Silberfein, “Cyclical Change in African Settlement and Modern Resettlement Programs,” in Rural Settlement Structure and African Development, ed. M. Silberfein (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998), 47–72. 37 A. Sen, Poverty and Famines: An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 154. 38 Garnsey, “Responses to Food Crisis,” 137. 35

152

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

food supply. However, if a famine does occur, especially like the one that resulted from Jerusalem’s siege, the rural poor may be able to escape to safe refuge and secure food sources on an emergency basis, leaving urban survivors to fend for themselves.39 It is difficult to glean sufficient evidence to reconstruct rural life, especially in antiquity, because in agrarian society the land was often used for subsistence, not for commercial ventures or to meet regional demands. Therefore, its productivity was neither regulated nor documented by the state; and the material culture, as noted earlier in this book, decomposed over time.40 However, there are several plausible scenarios that support the view that a significant rural Judean population survived Jerusalem’s collapse. First, if Lipschits and others are correct, the cities and towns that did survive (mainly in Benjamin) needed a large enough rural base to produce food for their long-term and recent refugee populations. Both wine and oil production probably continued on a very limited basis as long as Mizpah and the other Benjaminite towns thrived.41 Garnsey, “Responses to Food Crisis,” 144. G. van Driel, “Land in Ancient Mesopotamia: ‘That what remains undocumented does not exist,’” in Landless and Hungry? Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies, ed. B. Haring and R. de Maaijer (Leiden: Research School CNWS, 1998), 22. 41 R. Frankel, “Oil Presses in Western Galilee and Judea— A Comparison,” in Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period, ed. D. Eitam and M. Heltzer (Padova: Sargon, 1996), 207. As stated in previous chapters of the current study, scholars disagree about the likelihood that any significant food production (oil, wine, or any other crop) occurred in sixth-century BCE Judah. Some point to a lack of archaeological or epigraphical evidence as an indication that such activity simply did not occur. However, other scholars have interpreted that “argument from silence” differently. There is a thirty-eight-year gap in the neo-Babylonian Chronicles, and archival entries (e.g., inventory records from Nebuchadrezzar) are not necessarily comprehensive. It is likely that Nebuchadrezzar’s tribute campaigns continued after 594 BCE (his last campaign recorded in the Chronicles), but the records of those tribute payments are not extant. Furthermore, as many on both sides of the debate have pointed out, Babylonia did not 39 40

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

153

Those Judean peasants who were able, may have fled north as the Babylonian army closed in on Judah’s larger cities, and may have hired themselves out to Benjaminite vintners, thus easing the problem of a labor shortage in that region. Second, Judean peasants may have relocated with their families to remote areas of Judah and neighboring states,42 where they would have planted cereal crops that could grow quickly and that could, in combination with animal products and wild plants,43 sustain a family’s immediate food needs until the crisis had passed.44 Furthermore, it is likely that many have strong economic interests in the Levant, but rather was concerned about Judah’s strategic location in Babylonia’s military affairs, particularly in relationship to Egypt. (See Wiseman, Chronicles, 31.) This might further explain why neo-Babylonian texts hardly mention Judah at all. Material evidence of rural life is even difficult to find for more recent time periods, since so many rural structures are made of perishable materials. See D. Grossman and D. Siddle, “The Geographical Study of Rural Settlements,” in Rural Settlement Structure and African Development, ed. M. Silberfein (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998), 14. 42 For example, see the discussion of Lam. 4:17–22 below, regarding the role of the Transjordanian states in providing temporary shelter for Judean refugees. 43 Judean farmers would have been acquainted with wild plants (including olives, pistachios, dates, pomegranates, and sycamore figs) and herbs that could provide food supplements to subsistence communities. See A. S. Gilbert, “The Flora and Fauna of the Ancient Near East, especially 154–156, and J. M. Renfrew, “Vegetables in the Ancient Near Eastern Diet,” especially 192, both of which appear in CANE I, ed. J. M. Sasson (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1995). 44 Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 8. However, the timing of this move would have been critical, since grain needed the autumn rains in order to yield a harvest the following summer. (See C. J. Eyre, “The Agricultural Cycle, Farming, and Water Management in the Ancient Near East,” CANE I, 177.) A peasant family who lived near Jerusalem and anticipated the onset of the siege (which began in January 587 BCE), would have to have fled and settled in safer land further north in time to plant grain in the autumn of 588. There are no indications that news of the impending crisis reached rural household in 588 (prior to the siege); and by the summer of 587, farms close to the city already were overtaken by the

154

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Judean farmers who successfully fled the areas closest to the urban centers engaged in risk-spreading techniques, such as increasing the use of animal products, as a short-term solution to the food crisis.45 In fact, pastoralism, though not as prominent as agriculture in rural Judean communities north and west of Jerusalem, played an important role in the ongoing survival of peasants throughout the Levant during the Iron Age.46 Each of these scenarios assumes that rural households might have fled, more or less intact, before conditions in and near Jerusalem became critical. However, in some cases the men of peasant families undoubtedly were either killed or conscripted (by Judah to bolster its defenses, or by Babylonia to augment its offensive forces), leaving women and children behind. As discussed in relation to Lamentations 1, women in areas closest to the city were most vulnerable to attack by Babylonian soldiers, and were probably imprisoned on the land and forced to tend to the demands of the army. Any women who were able probably tried to escape with their children: they sought shelter with members of their extended families, if possible; or they sold themselves and/or their children as slaves to households in more stable and prosperous Benjaminite towns, if necessary.47

Babylonian army, which would have hindered the successful escape by farm families with seed to plant elsewhere. 45 See Banning, “Highlands and Lowlands,” 22–45. Banning (38–39) cites material evidence from wadi beds in the southern Levant to support the theory that semi-nomadism probably increased during food crises in Iron Age Judah. Finkelstein (Living on the Fringe, 9ff) agrees with that view, but also notes that the material evidence for nomadic activity in ancient times is by its nature extremely scarce. 46 D. C. Snell, “Ancient Israelite and Neo-Assyrian Societies and Economies,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993), 223. See also H. J. Bruins, Desert Environment and Agriculture in the Central Negev and Kadesh-Barnea During Historical Times (Nijkerk, the Netherlands: MIDBAR Foundation, 1986), 7. 47 See Arnold, Famine, 88–89.

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

155

Having posed this array of scenarios, we return to the questions raised earlier in this discussion. First, is it likely that many rural Judeans survived the fall of Jerusalem and its administrative and military centers? Yes, it is conceivable that a significant portion of Judah’s peasants did survive the events of the 580s BCE but, because evidence of their survival is, by its nature, meager, this conclusion is admittedly speculative. Faust rightly points out that the rural settlements (and the food they produced) that were closest to Judah’s urban centers were destroyed during the Babylonian onslaught. The infrastructure that had sustained those farms and orchards (which were not operated by subsistence farmers, but by hired laborers under the supervision of Jerusalemite officials in support of the urban consumer market) did indeed collapse, as Kaufman’s theory suggests. However, as Lam. 4:6 and 9, as well as other ancient Near Eastern siege-related texts indicate, the fall of Jerusalem was a prolonged and arduous process. Some peasants undoubtedly were able to flee the area to more remote parts of Judah. Others, of course, either stayed on the land (by choice or by force), or ill-fatedly took cover inside the city walls before the siegeworks were built. Those who fled either took refuge in Benjaminite towns, or hired themselves out to farms in that area to produce food for the growing population of northern Judeans; alternatively, Judean refugees may have practiced subsistence measures (at least temporarily) in peripheral regions such as the Negev, where semi-nomadism is well attested. Those who were able to reestablish new cereal crops and/or make effective use of pastoralism had the best chance of surviving the food crisis of the 580s. The second question asks, to what extent rural Judeans offered assistance (especially famine relief) to Jerusalemite survivors after 586 BCE. As mentioned above, it is unlikely that starving urbanites would have been able to locate food outside the city on their own, since the crops nearest to the urban centers were destroyed and the survivors’ physical condition was so debilitated. Even though Mizpah, the new regional capital, was less than eight miles from Jerusalem, that distance was an insurmountable obstacle for Jerusalemites ravaged not only by hunger but also by disease. However, it is possible that some rural Judeans (even if only a few) did approach Jerusalem once the immediate danger of Babylonian attack had subsided (though, as noted previously, criminal attacks

156

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

were still a real danger in the absence of a law enforcement or military presence). Motivated perhaps by compassion, or by hope of finding loved ones left behind, some Judean peasants probably did risk the threat of disease and attack in order to assist the few Jerusalemites (including mothers and children) who were still alive in the early weeks after the city’s collapse.48 Another unfortunate but likely scenario is that some rural Judeans probably raided what little remained at abandoned and destroyed urban sites, believing that they were entitled to seize anything they could to ensure their own survival.49 In such cases, the lamenter’s declaration that “no one would share” with Jerusalem’s “children” may have been an allusion to Judean peasants refusing to assist their urban neighbors.50 In summary, according to some archaeological and epigraphic evidence, virtually “all Judah” was destroyed along with its capital in 586 BCE. The few survivors experienced famine so severe that they were practically dehumanized, driven to desperate acts of cannibalism and emaciated beyond recognition. However, in light of sociological and economic models formulated in relation to other situations of famine and societal collapse, it is more likely that many rural Judean peasants survived Jerusalem’s fall. Although they left almost no physical evidence, it is reasonable to assume that some met the challenges of Judean life in the 580s, and may even have done quite well, especially after the third Babylonian attack on the region in 582 BCE. Although an urban population is inevitably overcome by famine after an eighteen-month siege, as Arnold notes, “famine serves as a measure of peasants’ adaptability or inertia, as a means of gauging their ability (or otherwise) to Although rarely discussed in the context of Jerusalem’s fall, it is possible that the Deuteronomist’s special concern for the widow, orphan and sojourner (groups that were socially vulnerable even in favorable circumstances) may have been motivated by a recognition of the special challenges faced by these particular survivors of the war. 49 Arnold, Famine, 83–84. 50 Van Driel (“Land in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 48) suggests that, particularly in times of crisis, pastoralists and subsistence farmers may have played a critical role as “destabiliser(s) of the institutional world.” 48

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

157

control and alter the terms of their own predicament.”51 At least in more remote areas of Judah, it is likely that rural households successfully adjusted their circumstances once Jerusalemite (and Babylonian) governmental interference in local village affairs had ceased.52

LAMENTATIONS 4:11–16 11 YHWH flew into a complete rage. He poured out his scorching wrath; He kindled a fire in Zion and it consumed its foundations. 12 The kings of the earth could not believe, nor any inhabitants of the world, That enemy and foe had entered the gates of Jerusalem. 13 It was for the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests, who shed in her midst the blood of the righteous. 14 They wandered blindly in the streets, defiled by blood. No one could touch their garments. 15 “Away! Unclean!” they shouted at them. “Away! Away! Don’t touch!” So they fled and wandered. They said among the nations, “They shall stay here no longer.”53

Arnold, Famine, 61. Garnsey, “Responses to Food Crisis,” 136. 53 The interpretation of vv. 14–15 is difficult, in part because the subjects of the verbs are unspecified. Some commentators (e.g., Hillers, Provan, and Dobbs-Allsopp) view all the people of Judah as wandering and fleeing, perhaps as a veiled reference to the exile, or at least to Judeans seeking refuge in remote places. (See discussion of Lam. 4:17–22.) 51 52

158

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS 16 YHWH himself scattered them;54 he regarded them no longer. In the presence of priests, they do not rise, elders they do not treat graciously.

In the second rhetorical unit of Lamentations 4, the focus shifts from the devastation of Jerusalem’s famine-stricken population to the defilement and disgrace of the city’s leaders. Lamentations 4:11–16 is demarcated by references to YHWH the Divine Warrior, whose scorching wrath consumes Zion’s foundations (v. 11) and whose very presence (penêYHWH) causes social upheaval in the city (v. 16). Similar images appear in other ancient Near Eastern city-laments as well: [The storm] … overturned their foundations. Throughout his (?) city, the pure place, the foundations were filled with dirt. (LE 2.12–13)55 In front of the storm fires burned; the people groan. To the battling storms was joined the scorching heat; … fires burned. (LU 188–189)56 That Nanna show no respect for his people … (LSUr 30)57

Whereas in Lamentations 2 Jerusalem’s prophets are held responsible for the city’s demise, in the current chapter the priests are the focus of attention. The Lament over Sumer and Ur However, I believe (along with Westermann, O’Connor, and Reyburn) that vv. 14–15 refers specifically to the actions of the priests (v. 13), who incurred ritual pollution from unavoidable contact with corpses, blood, and disease, and who failed to purify themselves or their garments. 54 The expression penê-X opens both bi-cola of v. 16, but the repetition is lost in translation because the term functions differently in each case. Regarding v. 16a, McDaniel points out that the expression penê refers not only to YHWH’s presence but, by implication, to YHWH himself. (See McDaniel, “Philological Studies I,” 48). McDaniel cites Ex. 33:14–15 for similar usage of penê. In v. 16b, I assume that penê reflects the common sense of the term; namely, “before, in the presence of.” 55 Green, “Eridu,” 135. 56 ANET, 458. 57 ANET, 612.

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

159

expresses a similar concern, as the priests there fail to perform essential cultic duties: The mahhu in thy holy gigunu dressed not in linen; ˘˘ Thy righteous ênu chosen … From the shrine to the giparru proceed not joyfully. In the ahu, thy house of feasts, they celebrated not the feasts ˘ … (LSUr 351–354)58

Just as in the case of sixth-century BCE Jerusalem, some of the priests of Ur were included in the list of the city’s leaders who “were carried to an enemy city” during the war.59 However, some of Jerusalem’s priests were not deported and were entrapped in the city during the siege. Accusations against them are even more serious than those directed toward the Sumerian priests noted above. Not only do Jerusalem’s priests fail in their cultic duties, but they are actually accused of spilling “the blood of the righteous” in the midst of the city (v. 13).60 A similar scene is depicted in the Sumerian balag, “The Steer in his Fold” (line 23), but without a direct accusation against the priests themselves: In the house of the lord, Mullil [Enlil] has killed the supplicants at the shrine.61

The actions of the priests in Lam. 4:11–16 have consequences like those of Agade’s King Naram-Sin, who rebels against Enlil and destroys the Ekur (CA 97–130),62 bringing Enlil’s wrath upon all of ANET, 462. LSUr 455–456, in ANET, 619. 60 As Westermann (Lamentations, 203) points out, we do not know “just what it means by the priests’ shedding the blood of the righteous.” Renkema (Lamentations, 528) suggests that this may be a reference to literal murder, like the murder of the righteous prophet Uriah reported in Jer. 26:20–23. Berlin (Lamentations, 110) associates the reference to blood spilling with idolatry, citing Ezek. 22:1–15 and Ps. 106:37–40 as parallels. Hillers (Lamentations, 149) reads Lam. 4:13 as a metaphorical reference to “their whitewashing of injustice” alluded to in Lam. 2:14. 61 Cohen, Balag-Compositions, 16. 62 ANET, 648. 58 59

160

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

the people of the city of Agade (CA 150).63 Likewise, not only are Jerusalem and its people decimated, but also Zion’s religious leaders have become ritually unclean and are forced to flee the sacred precincts and wander outside the city ruins (v. 15). The repudiation of Jerusalem’s religious leaders (vv. 14–16) is similar to the fate of Uruk’s “honest men” of “loyal families” who, once Uruk and its shrine are destroyed, “droop (?) their heads” and “wander aimlessly about the city…” (LW 3.22–24).64 The priests who are left behind in Jerusalem after 586 BCE are denied shelter everywhere they go (v. 15); they are isolated from the community of survivors and from nearby communities as well, ostracized and treated as lepers.65 From an urban perspective, the priests who served in Jerusalem’s Temple bore an enormous responsibility to maintain the cult of YHWH and, consequently, to preserve the well-being of the monarchy. Although there was no sacred-secular dichotomy in the cultural worldview of the ancient Near East, there was a clear distinction between what was “clean” (i.e., dedicated to divine service) and what was “unclean;” and priests were charged with ANET, 649. See Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 171 for further discussion. Green, “Uruk,” 271. 65 The scandal of priestly defilement is not a common theme in ancient Near Eastern literature, though it has been the topic of social and anthropological research in other cultural contexts. According to Weber, who attempted to present a cross-cultural sociological model of priesthood, the function of priests is to perform cultic acts (e.g., sacrificial offerings, prayers, etc.) through which they mediate between the deity and the community. An important feature of the priestly office is its close association with a political power structure. Ancient Near Eastern priests (in contrast to some prophetic figures, according to Weber) were almost always identified with an institution (e.g., temple, shrine, or palace), and usually they supported the interests of the state. In fact, it is generally assumed that there was no dichotomy between religious and secular affairs in the worldview of ancient Judeans and their neighbors. See “Introduction,” in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, ed. M. Beard and J. North (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 4–5; and Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, especially 369–371. 63 64

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

161

preserving that distinction. Their cultic role helped to guarantee continuity and stability in the social order of the monarchy. In addition, priests themselves were presumably held to a higher standard of ritual and moral purity than non-priestly members of the community, since their primary social function was to serve the deity on behalf of the people.66 However, along with that higher standard of responsibility, priests also frequently enjoyed the privileges associated with elevated social status and favor within the political system. Those privileges included both the psychosocial benefits of having the respect of and authority over non-priestly members of the community, as well as more tangible benefits of being able to eat most sacrifices (which, of course, represented the choicest meats, grains, and fruits), and to live on Temple-owned estates with their families.67 These considerations of the social role of priests in ancient Judah and neighboring regions provide a clearer context for appreciating the situation of Jerusalemite priests in the wake of the city’s fall. They probably were among “those who had dined on delicacies” (Lam. 4:5) in the now famine-ravaged city. It is possible that, as food supplies in the Temple were depleted, resentment developed against priests who enforced rationing policies, and who may have been perceived as hording food for themselves and their families while others starved. It is also possible that v. 13 is not metaphorical at all, but rather a reference to priests (in collaboration with corrupt, institutionally sanctioned prophets) who may indeed have slain innocent, non-priestly Jerusalemites J. L. Berquist, Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000), 177; D. P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean,” in ABD, 1992. 67 S. H. Hooke, Babylonian and Assyrian Religion (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 48–49; A. Kuhrt, “Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood,” in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, ed. M. Beard and J. North (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 119 and 126. Kuhrt (153) notes that priests, who were often appointed by the ruling elite, tended to come from “prosperous, land-owning families” themselves, and so were accustomed to a life of power and privilege, which was perpetuated in their priestly office. 66

162

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

who attempted to break into the Temple’s storage rooms for food. Another possibility is that the defilement of the priests was due to blood contamination as they consumed animals (either inside the Temple or outside “in trash heaps” [v. 5]) that had not been ritually slaughtered.68 At any rate, the priests’ defilement by unavoidable contact with blood, corpses, and disease was a visible reminder to Jerusalemites, and to outsiders as well, that the sanctity and inviolability of the city were things of the past (v. 12). Priests who had failed to preserve that sanctity were shunned and scorned by the people (vv. 14–16), abandoned by YHWH, and “scattered” among the nations (v. 16). Counter Reading If little is known with certainty regarding the activity of the Jerusalemite priesthood, even less can be known about rural Judean perspectives on it. Some studies have been done on the cult at Bethel,69 and several essays have been written on Israelite priests who had roots outside of Jerusalem.70 However, nearly all of the research is based on biblical literature, and says more about the historiographical and ideological interests of the biblical writers According to Lev. 22:8 (see also Ezek. 44:31), priests were forbidden, on pain of death, from eating any animal that died on its own. See B. J. Schwartz, “The Prohibition Against the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 64; and J. Singer, Taboo in the Hebrew Scriptures (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 1928), 44. Once food stored in the Temple was completely exhausted, priests were probably forced to scavenge along with other starving survivors in Jerusalem. However, because of their priestly office, they were restricted from consuming, or even coming in contact with, the meager food sources they might have found in Jerusalem’s trash heaps (Lam. 4:5). 69 J. Blenkinsopp, “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” 93–108; K. Koenen, Bethel: Geschischte, Kult und Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003), especially 138–140. 70 For example, see J. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, especially 72– 87; L. L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Sages, especially 58–60. 68

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

163

than about the non-Jerusalemite priests themselves. One noteworthy exception is Heider’s study of The Cult of Molek.71 Based primarily on Punic iconography and archaeological evidence,72 Heider concludes that child sacrifice was practiced as part of the so-called Molek cult at least until the fall of Jerusalem and perhaps later.73 Although one can only speculate, given the nature of the sources, it is possible that Lam. 4:13 reflects the activity of Jerusalemite priests who practiced some form of human sacrifice (“spilling the blood of the righteous”) in a desperate attempt to avert destruction of the city.74 Rural Judeans, who may have

G. C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, JSOT Supplement Series 43 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). 72 Ibid., 193–199. Iconographic evidence includes a Punic stela and a stone relief reflecting Phoenician influence found on a sixth-century BCE tower in Pozo Moro, Spain (189). Both artifacts depict a priest conducting a ritual sacrifice of a child (189–190). In addition, burial urns containing remains of children and animals were found in the region of SyriaPalestine (196–197). Heider notes that later remains (i.e., from the sixth and fifth centuries BCE) reveal fewer human and more animal bones, suggesting that incidents of child sacrifice declined in favor of animal substitution (199). Heider’s conclusion that the sacrifice of children as well as animals was practiced by Israelites is speculative but plausible; it is largely based on a philological association of m-l-k references in Punic and biblical sources, as well as an interpretation of the ʿaqēdāh narrative (Genesis 22) as an injunction against such practice. 73 Heider, Cult of Molek, 405. Although Heider’s general observations appear to be sound, it is worth noting that most of the epigraphical evidence on which he bases his research of Syria-Palestine is biblical texts with strong rhetorical and theological agendas (e.g., Leviticus 18 and 20, Deuteronomy 12 and 18, and various polemical texts from the prophetic corpus). Therefore, the historical conclusions he draws (namely, that the Molek cult was observed in Jerusalem until its fall and was possibly “revive[d] sometime during the Exile or soon after the Return” [405]) should be considered speculative. 74 The reference in Ezek. 8:5–6 to abominations committed in the Temple may provide further support for this notion, although that text does not specify what priestly actions led to their condemnation. 71

164

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

engaged in such practices themselves as part of their local custom,75 might not have been scandalized by the practice of human sacrifice itself, but still may have shared the disdain reflected in vv. 14–16 against Jerusalem’s priests, both because their actions failed to placate YHWH’s wrath, and because their defilement threatened to contaminate all with whom they came in contact. It is possible that some temple priests who survived the destruction of Zion fled the city and took refuge in caves. As S. B. Parker has suggested, graffiti found in Levantine caves like the one at Khirbet Beit Lei (near Lachish) probably is evidence of people hiding out from threat of attack, or even from “the social chaos and vindictiveness following conquest.”76 The content and literary form of those inscriptions indicate that at least some of those refugees were Yahwists with well developed writing skills. If Jerusalemite priests, prophets, and elders escaped or survived the siege and hid in Judean caves, they may have been discovered (perhaps during food collection expeditions)77 by rural Judean survivors, and even ousted from their hiding places (a possible explanation for the reference in Lam. 4:15). Just as disdain for the urban elite may have persisted among Judean peasants, respect for local elders and reliance on local religious leaders probably increased significantly. Since beliefs regarding the need to control the activity of evil spirits (manifested in the form of famine, disease, and other misfortune) were universal throughout the ancient Near East, and since there was no dichotomy between sacred and secular affairs in ancient worldviews, it is likely that rural cultic activity was renewed after 586 BCE among Judean peasants to ensure successful Heider (Cult of Molek, 407) explains the adoption of the Molek cult in Israelite society as a form of “accommodationism” in the development of Yahwistic religion. Motives for the cult may have been to promote fertility (406), which would certainly have been a major concern for the war-torn region trying to reestablish its food production capabilities. 76 S. B. Parker, “Graves, Caves, and Refugees: An Essay in Microhistory,” JSOT 27 (1993): 276. 77 See discussion of Lam. 5:9–10 in the following chapter and Parker’s treatment of that text in “Graves, Caves, and Refugees,” 273. 75

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

165

reestablishment of farms, flocks, and households. In particular, priests at Bethel probably worked hard to reaffirm order and to assert their authority when Bethel supplanted Jerusalem as Judah’s cultic center.78 In addition, in areas not proximate to Bethel, family elders probably conducted some rituals themselves, entreating divine blessing for their households’ survival. In both cases, a strong underlying theme of rural Judean worship would have been restoration of stability and renewal of life, reaffirming a distinction between that which was associated with death (e.g., the defiled Jerusalemite elite) and that which was associated with life (i.e., a return to local leadership, subsistence economy, and a degree of autonomy under relatively disinterested Babylonian rulers).79 Cultic activity, whether conducted by religious specialists or family elders, had as a priority maintaining distinction—but also harmony— between the divine and human realms.

Few details are known about religious activity in sixth-century BCE Bethel. K. Koenen (Bethel, 138–140) argues that the Aaronide tradition was closely associated with the site although, he admits, evidence is lacking about what eventually became of Bethel’s priests. 79 For an interesting discussion of similar notions of life and death taboos, see J. Smith, Tapu Removal in Maori Religion (Wellington: The Polynesian Society, Inc. 1974), which contains a description of Polynesian tribal traditions regarding life and death taboos. In consideration of earlier work done by anthropologist A. VanGennep (The Rites of Passage [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960]), Smith (23) states that, in Maori religion, death rituals function to restore a “boundary” or “margin” between the living and the dead. In that religious tradition, life and death are seen as a continuum. Therefore, “If one fails to remove death [through proper burial] or pollutes life [by not performing prescribed purification rituals], one returns to death” (51). Similarly, conditions in Jerusalem in 586 BCE were so severe, it was virtually impossible for priests “to remove death” from the community or even from themselves. As the siege ended, and survivors’ shock and sorrow gave way to indignation over the atrocities they had suffered, some Jerusalemites probably did blame their fallen leaders, including priests defiled with “the blood of the righteous,” for the catastrophe that shattered their lives. 78

166

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

There is no extrabiblical evidence that Zion’s reputation as inviolable (Lam. 4:12) was broadly held by an international audience. However, it is likely that rural Judeans assumed that fortified cities like Jerusalem were at least more secure than vulnerable farm houses. That would explain why some peasants chose to seek refuge inside fortification walls, rather than to flee to the mountains and deserts for shelter from the approaching army. As suggested in previous chapters of this book, however, the agency of YHWH the Divine Warrior in Jerusalem’s demise was probably a source of comfort for some rural Judeans, who had seen the capital city as a symbol of oppression. With the city in ruins (4:12) and its leaders scattered and disgraced (4:16), at least some rural Judeans probably felt relieved—albeit briefly—that their past oppressors had been vanquished.

LAMENTATIONS 4:17–22 17 Longingly our eyes strained for help, in vain. At our watchpost, we watched for a nation that did not save. 18 They stalked our steps so that we could not walk in our streets. Our end drew near; our days were over for our end had come. 19 Swifter were our pursuers than eagles in the sky! Upon the mountains, fiercely they chased us; in the wilderness, they lay in wait for us. 20 The breath of our nostrils, YHWH’s anointed, was seized in their traps― the one of whom we said, “In his shadow we will dwell among the nations.” 21 Rejoice and be glad, O Daughter Edom, you who dwell in the land of Uz! To you too shall pass the cup; you shall get drunk and expose yourself!

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

167

22 Your punishment is complete, O Daughter Zion; He will exile you no longer! He will see to your punishment, O Daughter Edom; He will reveal your sins!

Lamentations 4 concludes with first-person reflections from the perspective of Jerusalemite survivors on their experiences of war: the anticipation of intervention that never comes (v. 17), persecution by relentless oppressors both within the city (v. 18) and in the countryside (v. 19), dashed hope for Jerusalem’s monarch (v. 20), and bitter chastisement of the neighboring people of Edom (vv. 21–22). Parallels between Lam. 4:17–22 and other ancient Near Eastern city-laments are not as numerous as they are for other passages in Lamentations; nonetheless, there are a few notable examples. First, although mountains are frequently depicted as a source of strength and refuge,80 the image of siege survivors escaping to the mountains, only to be ambushed and massacred by enemy troops (v. 19) appears in the laments over Sumer and Ur, and over Uruk: In the outskirts [of Eridu], the steppe built up with houses … the righteous [have been led off] to slaughter. (LSUr 225–226)81 [The people of Uruk] hid out in the mountains … … [The deluge] shall make the mountains rumble; at its reverberation the mountain peaks shall be uprooted; the population shall be pitched about like hay (into) stacks. (LW 2.26, 3.15–16)82

In addition to city-laments, several conquest accounts depict the same scenario from the perspective of the triumphant attacker:

For example, Gen. 19:17, Jer. 49:16, and Ps. 121:1. ANET, 615. 82 Green, “Uruk,” 268 and 270. 80 81

168

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS None of those who had gone up and entered the mountains to find refuge escaped. Not one survivor slipped through my hands. (Prism A [Rassam], Col. IX.38–40)83 The speedy runner, who fled to the stepped ledges of far-off mountains, I caught and tied their wings like a bird from the mountain caves. (Ninurta A, Col.V.11–14)84 The whole country of Arzawa fled; and certain of its inhabitants went to the mountains … Then I, my sun, went after the inhabitants of Mt. Arinnanda, and I fought (them) … and brought [them] into the royal palace [as booty] … (Ten Year Annals of Muršili)85

As Parker points out, prayers inscribed in caves in the Judean countryside reflect the terror as well as the faith convictions of Jerusalemites (or other literate Judeans) fleeing persecution like that described in Lam. 4:19.86 The situation in 586 BCE became so desperate that the victims of war feared that their “end drew near” (v. 18), an expression similar to statements appearing in other ancient Near Eastern city-laments: Eridu’s day is long. Its night is over. (LE 7.15)87 Their … is come to an end, they were carried to an enemy city. (LSUr 456)88

Younger, Conquest Accounts, 221. Ibid. 85 Ibid., 208–209. Most Mesopotamian reliefs documented by Yadin in The Art of Warfare feature besieged cities rather than battle in the open field. But there are a few examples illustrating the strategy of archers flanking the enemy in the countryside (e.g., Yadin, 303), or driving the enemy into a river (Yadin, 442–445), evoking images similar to the scene depicted in Lam. 4:19. 86 Parker, “Graves, Caves, and Refugees,” 270. 87 Green, “Eridu,” 141. 88 ANET, 619. 83 84

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

169

The entrapment of the king (“YHWH’s anointed,” presumed by many scholars to be a reference to Zedekiah in v. 20),89 is noted as an element of the destruction of Sumer as well: That kingship be carried off from the land, … That its shepherd (living) in terror in the palace be seized by the foe, That Ibbi-Sin be brought to the land of Elam in a trap … (LSUr 19, 34–35)90

Arguably the most striking feature of Lam. 4:17–22 is the condemnation of Edom in vv. 21–22. Each of the first four chapters of Lamentations ends with a condemnation of an unnamed enemy, which is typical of communal laments.91 However, Lam. 4:21–22 contains the only reference in the book to judgment of a specifically identified nation other than Judah. That judgment is announced with the use of irony that functions in two distinct ways. First, Edom is addressed as bat ʾ edôm (“Daughter Edom”), a title otherwise reserved in Lamentations for conveying a sense of pity and compassion for the people of Judah and Jerusalem. Use of that title augments the bitterness of the denunciation of Edom (vv. 21–22), that had previously been precious to YHWH but would eventually become the target of divine wrath, just like Zion. Furthermore, “Daughter” implies a kinship relation between Edom and Judah: both “sister” nations and possibly treaty partners will face punishment from YHWH, the Divine Warrior. Second, there is irony in the invitation to Daughter Edom to rejoice over Judah’s misfortune, given the fact that Edom’s own doom is imminent. Taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, particularly of a treaty partner, was itself a condemnable act, reflective of folly and shame,92 as suggested also in the Uruk Lament: Berlin, Lamentations, 113. ANET, 612. 91 For example, see Ps. 137:7–9. 92 See previous discussion in Chapter 1, regarding covenant obligations in relation to Lam. 1:1–2. 89 90

170

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS The foolish shall rejoice; shall jubilate: ‘Come! Let us watch the city (suffer) war and battle! … (LW 3:18–19)93

By reveling in Judah’s demise, Daughter Edom will presumably bring upon herself the same wrath that YHWH has displayed against Zion. A strong parallel exists between Lam. 4:21–22 (as well as earlier verses in Lamentations 4) and Jer. 49:7–22.94 That prophetic text and Lamentations 4 describe the judgment of Edom and Judah in similar terms: a) YHWH “reveals” (gālāh) Edom’s hiding places (mistār) in Jer. 49:10, and Edom’s sins (ḥaṭṭoʾôt) in Lam. 4:22. b) Edom must drink the cup (of judgment) in Jer. 49:12 and Lam. 4:21. c) Pursuit of Edom is associated with eagles (nešer) in Jer. 49:22, as is the pursuit of Judah in Lam. 4:19. d) Edom’s punishment is likened to that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Jer. 49:18; Judah’s punishment is compared to Sodom’s in Lam. 4:6.

The image of the cup of wrath and judgment (Lam. 4:21) reflects two well attested ancient Near Eastern traditions. First, as Berlin points out, it is a common biblical motif: as the offending party “drinks” or takes God’s punishment, they become drunk and reveal their own shame.95 Second, Hillers notes that drinking Green, “Uruk,” 270. This parallel is also recognized by Lee (Singers, 190). For a fuller discussion of this and other prophetic oracles against Edom, see B. Bidlack, “Imagery in Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Foreign Nations and Rulers (Ezekiel 25–32),” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 2000, especially 135. 95 Berlin, Lamentations, 114. There is a rhetorical connection between Edom’s self-exposure (titʿorî) after drinking the cup of judgment in Lam. 4:21, and God’s revealing (gillāh) of Edom’s sins as part of her punishment in the closing line of the chapter. 93 94

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

171

contaminated water is a form of punishment that appears in an Assyrian treaty-curse:96 May Ea, king of the apsu, lord of the springs, give you deadly water to drink, and fill you with dropsy (The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, 521–522).97

A final note of textual comparison between Lam. 4:17–22 and other ancient Near Eastern texts is regarding the statement in v. 22 that Daughter Zion’s punishment is complete. A similar notion appears in the Lament over Ur, in which the following supplication is made: May Anu, the king of the gods, utter thy ‘’tis enough’; May Enlil, the king of all the lands, decree thy favorable fate. (LU 381–382)98

The implication in v. 22 that Zion’s punishment would be complete once her enemy Edom was brought to justice reflects the hostility felt by Jerusalemite survivors toward Edomites in the years following Jerusalem’s destruction.99 However, rural Judeans, and perhaps a few Judean urbanites who found shelter in Edom during Babylonia’s campaign against Judah, may have been much more ambivalent and less condemning of their southern neighbors. The D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 63. 97 ANET, 539. Hillers (Treaty-Curses, 64) also notes similarities between the Esarhaddon treaty-curse and some biblical prophetic texts (e.g., Jer. 9:14 and 23:15) on the one hand, and the ordeal ritual described in Numbers 5 on the other hand. However, he rightly points out that the latter is prescribed ostensibly as a means of verifying guilt, while the former is punishment for guilt already confirmed. 98 ANET, 462. Westermann (Lamentations, 206) identifies biblical parallels to v. 22 in Is. 40:2 and Nah. 1:12–13. 99 A different view is proposed by E. Assis (“Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources,” VT 56 (2006): 1–20). Assis explains the source of Judah’s animosity toward Edom, not in any role that Edom might have played in Judah’s demise, but rather in Israel’s biblical traditions of competition between Jacob and Esau. 96

172

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

relationship between Edomites and Judeans (especially rural farmers and pastoralists) in the border region of the Negev is the focus of the following Counter Reading. Counter Reading A key question raised by the rhetoric of Lam. 4:17–22 from a rural Judean perspective is, what was the relationship between rural Judeans and Edomites in the sixth century BCE? Would Judean farmers and pastoralists have shared the sentiments that Jerusalemites expressed in vv. 21–22, or was their relationship with those Transjordanian neighbors more amicable? To begin this discussion, it is important to note that there is no scholarly consensus about the nature of “Edomite” ethnicity, material culture, or political identity; therefore discussion of “Edomite”-Judean relations (urban or rural) is necessarily tenuous. Although a particular ceramic style (e.g., vessels and figurines typically painted with red and black decorations) is associated primarily with the southern Transjordan, that pottery is not found exclusively in that region, nor is it found consistently at major sites within that region.100 Likewise, as Bienkowski argues, the use of a particular script, or of the term “Qos” (often assumed to be an “Edomite” deity) which frequently appears in names of individuals in the area of the southern Transjordan, is not unequivocal evidence of a distinct “Edomite” culture or policy.101 Finally, in the border area between Edom and Judah (i.e., the eastern Negev) there appear to be features of cultic sites (e.g., at Ḥorvat Qitmit and En Ḥaṣeva) that suggest both “Judean” and “Edomite” influences, but no definitive indication of how the two groups interacted.102 Therefore, it remains nearly impossible to determine, based on material or epigraphic evidence, the nature of the relationship

P. Bienkowski and L. Sedman, “Busayra and Judah: Stylistic Parallels in the Material Culture,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, JSOT Supplement Series 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 319. 101 Ibid., 320. 102 Ibid., 321–322. 100

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

173

between Judeans and Edomites during the late Iron Age and neoBabylonian period. Furthermore, what can be known about Edom itself is fairly limited. Based on N. Glueck’s survey (1938–40) and later work by C. M. Bennett (1971–84),103 most scholars believe that there was little permanent settlement in Edom until it became an Assyrian vassal (independent of Judah) in the mid-ninth century BCE104 and gained state status under Tiglath-Pileser III a century later.105 Assyrian interests in the area of the southern Transjordan focused on trade, as well as on exploitation of the copper mines in the Wadi Feinan region.106 Buseirah (Edom’s capital) and Tell el-Kheleifeh were developed in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE as fortified urban centers along trade routes between Arabia and the Mediterranean;107 Tawilan was built around the same time to support the agricultural needs of those small urban centers.108 Assyrian presence remained strong along Edom’s southern trade routes, providing defense from would-be intruders (including

A comprehensive survey of Edomite research appears in J. R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, JSOT Supplement Series 77 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 16–32. 104 Ibid., 202. 105 E. A. Knauf-Belleri, “Edom: The Social and Economic History,” in You Shall Not Abhor An Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed. D. V. Edelman (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 93–94. 106 S. Hart, “Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom,” in Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7 (Sheffield: J. R. Collins Publications, 1992), 96–97. 107 Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 133–135; and J. Lindsay, “The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605–550 B.C.,” PEQ (1976): 30. 108 P. Bienkowski “The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom: Evidence from Umm el-Bujara, Tawilan and Buseirah,” in Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7 (Sheffield: J. R. Collins Publications, 1992), especially 99–104. 103

174

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Judeans as well as Arabians) until Assyria’s power waned in the late seventh century BCE.109 What exactly happened in the relationship between Edom and Judah as the Babylonians rose to power is unclear. Lamentations 4:19 suggests that there was fighting in the Judean countryside, including the buffer zone between Judah and Edom. Several fortified settlements in the Negev region (e.g., Arad, Ḥorvat Uza and Tel Ira) were destroyed in the late Iron Age, presumably by Nebuchadrezzar’s army.110 As was true of Jerusalem, food supplies for those military outposts came from nearby agricultural villages.111 The Judean peasants who lived in those villages would have been as vulnerable as were the inhabitants of the fortified towns. Also, some Judean pastoralists in the vicinity of those towns during the Babylonian offensive were undoubtedly attacked, and their herds were confiscated as loot. However, there is no extrabiblical evidence of Edomite participation in Babylonia’s military Judeans sought refuge in northern Transjordan as well. Archaeological evidence from Ammon indicates both an increase in overall population and in types of ceramics and other artifacts corresponding to the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian periods. (See R. H. Dornemann, The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages [Milwaukee: Milwaukee Publishing Museum, 1983], especially 178– 182.) The material culture supports the theory that significant numbers of Judean refugees found homes in Ammon (and to a lesser degree in Moab as well) at least temporarily in the early years of neo-Babylonian rule. Josephus (Ant. X.ix) reports that Ammon and Moab suffered heavy damages inflicted by Babylonia in 582 BCE, as retaliation for participating in the assassination of Gedaliah, the Babylon-appointed governor of Judah. (See Jeremiah 40.) Although no corroborating texts exist from neoBabylonian sources, archaeological evidence does reflect destruction by fire in Ammon, and possible interruption in the material culture of northern Transjordan during the neo-Babylonian period (Dornemann, 180). 110 L. E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1987), 42. 111 Ibid., 39. 109

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

175

campaign against Judah. In all likelihood, Edom probably was a silent bystander at best, keeping a safe distance while Babylonia assaulted Jerusalem and its administrative centers.112 Some biblical texts (e.g., Lam. 4:21–22 and Obad. 11–12) support the view that Edom did not necessarily attack Judah, but simply stood by while Jerusalem suffered crushing defeat. Although some Edomites indeed may have looted parts of Judah after Jerusalem fell, it is highly doubtful that much of material value remained for them to take (contra Obad. 13). Other biblical texts (e.g., Joel 4:19 and Ezek. 35:5–9) portray Edom as Judah’s aggressive and violent enemy (Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 153). Various pieces of evidence have been cited in support of this view—most frequently is Arad Ostracon 24, which suggests that Judeans in that fortress town might have been trying to avert an Edomite attack. Unfortunately, the date and exact meaning of the message are unclear; and while some scholars have assumed that this inscription implies Edom’s allegiance to Babylonia during the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE, others argue that that assumption is ill-founded (Lindsay, “Babylonian Kings,” 25). In addition, there is a statement in the Harran Inscriptions that, when Nabonidus did campaign against Edom in 553 BCE (en route to Temaʿ), he included in his army both “the people of Akkad and of the Hatti-land;” i.e., perhaps, Jewish mercenaries. (See Harran Inscriptions, col. 1, 1.32; col. 2, 1.6, quoted in Lindsay, “Babylonian Kings,” 33.) This text leads some scholars to conclude that citizens of Judah participated in the sacking of Edom in retaliation for Edom’s presumed involvement in Jerusalem’s demise. Another possible clue regarding Judah-Edom relations is a theory that Edom assumed administrative control of southern Judah (similar to Samaria’s role in the north) during the neo-Babylonian period. (See J. M. Myers, “Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries BC,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971], 387.) However, although archaeological evidence suggests that Edom continued to thrive (primarily from international trade activity) after Jerusalem’s collapse, there is little support for the view that Edom gained significant power over southern Judah that was comparable to the influence of Judah’s competitors in the north. In fact, Edom’s power was so tenuous that, when Nabonidus did attack Edom in 553/2 BCE, the administrative structure by which 112

176

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

In fact, it is possible that, prior to the rise of the neoBabylonian Empire, the area of western Edom and southeastern Judah (i.e., the eastern Negev) functioned as a buffer region in which semi-nomadic tribes from both peoples coexisted more or less peacefully, with no clear border. Judeans and Edomites probably shared common cultural traits, participated in cooperative exchange of agricultural and animal products, observed similar religious practices (or at least tolerated religious differences), and allowed intermarriage.113 The notion that the eastern Negev served as a buffer zone between Judah and Edom has been supported by both Aharoni and Bartlett, who argue that because of a history of peaceful coexistence, many Judeans were able to find refuge in that region as news spread of the Babylonian aggression against Jerusalem. Eventually those rural Judeans settled with their Edomite neighbors in the area between Arad and Lachish that came to be known as Idoumea.114 During the first half of the neoBabylonian era, some Judean pastoralists and farmers subsisted in the buffer area of Judah-Edom;115 and quite possibly urban Judean “Edom” had functioned as a state immediately collapsed. Most of the local population probably reverted to its earlier pattern of semi-nomadic tribal groups, which had never really ceased to exist for most Edomites (Knauf-Belleri, “Edom: The Social and Economic History,” 109). Edom (later Idoumea) did not function again as an effective administrative district until the Nabatean period (Ibid., 94). 113 Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 142–143. 114 Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2d edition (London: Burns and Oates, 1979), 410; cited in Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 150. Further support of this view is expressed by Bienkowsi, who argues that Edom never became a centralized, militarized state and, therefore, was unable (even if it had been willing) to defend Jerusalem against Nebuchadrezzar’s forces. (See Bienkowski and Sedman, “Busayra and Judah,” 322.) It is noted that in Obad. 14, Edom is accused of blocking safe passage for Jacob’s fugitives (pālîṭ) and handing them over “in the day of distress.” However, the historical referent or reliability of the text is questionable. 115 B. MacDonald, “Evidence from the Wadi el-Hasa and Southern Ghors and North-east Arabah Archaeological Surveys,” in Early Edom and

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

177

refugees did what they could to survive in the same area, including participating in the commercial life of Edom’s trade centers.116 If Edom did provide safe haven for Judean refugees in 586 BCE, then why does Lam. 4:21–22 express such hostility toward “Daughter Edom?” It is quite possible that relations were cooperative between Judean peasants and their Edomite neighbors. However, as will be discussed in the following chapter, the very events that were catastrophic for Jerusalem’s elite many have become a golden opportunity for Judeans (especially rural peasants) fortunate enough to find shelter in Edom. Edom (and eventually the Judeans who settled there) prospered under the Babylonians until Nabonidus’ campaign in 553/2 BCE.117 The events of 586 BCE may have meant the tragic end of life as it had been known Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski (Sheffield: J. R. Collins Publications, 1992), 119. MacDonald notes that surveys taken from rural sites in the “border area” between Judah and Edom reflect increased population and pastoralist activity during the late Iron Age, which might support the theory that significant numbers Judeans survived Babylonia’s attack and sought refuge in territory that eventually became identified as Edomite. 116 It is, of course, possible that Judean refugees (especially urbanites) were seen more as competitors and intruders by the Edomites (especially those engaged in trade activity). In that case, the remark in Obad. 14 that Edom turned Judean refugees over (presumably to Babylonian authorities) may indeed have an historical referent in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s fall. 117 Lindsay, “Babylonian Kings,” 33–36. As Lindsay points out, there are two neo-Babylonian texts, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Harran Inscriptions, that describe Nabonidus’ campaign through Edom to Temaʿ. Those texts are unclear regarding the motives of the last king of the neo-Babylonian Empire. Some scholars assume that he was reinforcing his control over the Arabian trade route through Edom, securing it against increasing incidents of Arabian tribal raids. That would explain why Nabonidus did not completely destroy Buseirah and Elath, but simply reasserted his control over the region, which lasted until the Persian takeover. See Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 159, for a fuller discussion of this view.

178

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

for Jerusalem’s elite (Lam. 4:18), but it offered a new beginning for Judean peasants and others who found refuge in the area that became Idoumea. By the end of the neo-Babylonian era, a number of Judeans who had survived in the land of Judah and surrounding states flourished in the absence of the Jerusalemite elite. Resentment toward them, and the struggle of land rights as the exilic period came to a close, are among the key focal points of the final poem of the book of Lamentations.

SUMMARY Lamentations 4 introduces the struggle to survive from the perspective of Jerusalemites in the months shortly after the siege of 587/6 BCE. The most severe challenge they faced was the longterm impact of famine. Some survivors, including Zion’s most robust nobles, were left emaciated, too debilitated to recover from starvation and disease. Hunger became the social force that leveled the few Jerusalemite survivors—both “those raised in purple” (v. 5) and the invisible “urban poor”—into one homogenous, dehumanized group, barely clinging to life. Famine victims were said to become cruel and predatory, unwilling or unable to feed the most vulnerable members of the community, perhaps even resorting to cannibalism in a desperate attempt to survive “the destruction of my precious people” (v. 10). All the while, urban survivors tried to keep hope that someone would come to their rescue; but their hope was in vain (v. 17). Gone was the protection of their leader, “YHWH’s anointed” (v. 20), as well as the trustworthy counsel of the prophets, priests, and elders who were held morally responsible for the city’s demise (v. 13–16). In contrast, rural Judean survivors probably found themselves quite busy during the period immediately after the siege of Jerusalem, having settled (at least temporarily) in remote areas of Judah (including Benjamin) and neighboring lands (including Transjordan). As noted in previous chapters, rural households engaged in various risk-management techniques: planting emergency crops (e.g., cereals) that could be harvested fairly quickly; increasing use of animals for food, clothing, and other necessities; and practicing mutual assistance efforts whereby rural households that were able provided food and shelter for those more seriously affected by the war. While siege and famine were unquestionably devastating for urbanites, those challenges became

4 LAMENTATIONS FOUR

179

a test of resilience for Judean peasant families, who had learned over the centuries how to survive the vicissitudes of the food supply in their subsistence economy. Judean peasants probably encountered refugees from Judah’s urban centers in two ways. First, the two groups competed for shelter in caves outside the cities. While the region’s former leaders may have had weapons that gave them an early advantage in competition for these hiding places, rural Judeans were better equipped to sustain themselves over a longer period of time because of their familiarity with the terrain and with the wild food sources it contained. Second, both urban and rural Judeans became refugees in the regions surrounding Judah, including Edom, with whom it shared a porous border or buffer area. Material evidence suggests (though inconclusively) that Judeans and Edomites shared the eastern Negev, engaging in semi-nomadic activity more or less peacefully during the late Iron Age. There is no archaeological support for the notion that Edom attacked Judah, as some biblical texts suggest it did. To the contrary, as Bartlett and others argue, Edom seemed to provide shelter for Judean refugees; and both groups probably benefited from increased agricultural, pastoral, and trade activity until Nabonidus took control of Edomite towns along the east-west trade route in the mid-sixth century BCE. The animosity expressed in Lam. 4:21–22 and various prophetic texts probably reflects urban resentment that Edom never intervened to defend Jerusalem when it was under attack by Babylonia (a move that undoubtedly would have resulted in military suicide had Edom attempted it). Furthermore, Jerusalemites (especially in the post-exilic period) may have resented the fact that Edom prospered while Jerusalem lay in ruins during the years immediately following the war, when some of the territory that was previously Judean became part of the province of Idoumea. The resentment toward Edom expressed by urban Judeans, however, was probably not shared by rural Judeans in the south, who saw Edomites as neighbors with whom they could work, worship, and even intermarry. Therefore, while many Jerusalemite survivors felt keenly their own disenfranchisement, many Judean peasants began to recover and in some cases even prosper. Jerusalemites lamented, “Our days were over for our end had come (Lam. 4:18),” but for some rural Judean survivors, the fall of Jerusalem meant a new beginning of relative autonomy and hope.

5

LAMENTATIONS FIVE

Lamentations 5 varies from the previous chapters of the book both in structure and purpose. Considerably briefer than the other chapters (only one colon per verse), it is the only one of the five poems that is not constrained by an acrostic structure. Rather, its structure most closely reflects that of the communal lament genre, which includes: a plea for YHWH’s attention (v. 1) and intervention (v. 21); an accusation of divine abandonment (vv. 20 and 22); and an acknowledgement of guilt (vv. 7 and 16).1 The bulk of the lament consists of a communal complaint (vv. 2–18),2 which focuses on three critical challenges confronting Jerusalem’s survivors: displacement from family bonds and property (vv. 2–5); long-term effects of famine and malnutrition (vv. 6–10); and the complete dissolution of the social order (vv. 11–14). The complaint concludes with a brief profession of guilt and a final declaration of the emotional devastation that afflicts the struggling community (vv. 15–18), in hopes that YHWH will be motivated to restore their shattered lives (vv. 19–22). It is significant that, in this litany of complaints, one feature common in the first two chapters of Lamentations is almost nonexistent in the last; namely, references to the physical structures of the city as part of the personification of Daughter Zion, which Westermann, Lamentations, 211–212. Ibid., 211. Westermann (219) presupposes the existence of a preexilic psalm of communal lament in vv. 1, 19–22, to which vv. 2–18 were added sometime after 586 BCE in order to reflect the particular circumstances of survivors of Jerusalem’s fall. The complaint in vv. 2–18 reflects the influence of the dirge genre, according to Westermann, which is not usually part of the communal lament form. 1 2

181

182

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

appear in this final chapter only in veiled form in vv. 2 and 18. Thus, the concluding chapter of Lamentations draws the reader’s attention away from the destruction of Jerusalem itself, and focuses almost exclusively on the long-term impact that the Babylonian conquest has had on the city’s human survivors. As a summary conclusion to the book of Lamentations, Chapter 5 contains echoes of prominent images and terms frequently used in earlier chapters. Verse 1 contains the imperative verb forms nābaṭ (look) and rāʾāh (see) which also appear in both 1:11 and 2:20. The reference to mothers who are like widows (5:3) evokes the poignant image of the city-widow that opens Lamentations 1; this image is enhanced in Chapter 5 by the inclusion of orphans (the only occurrence of the term yātôm in Lamentations), a reminder of the plight of the few children who survived the ordeal of wartime famine.3 The statement in 5:8 that survivors had no one to rescue them (pāraq) is similar to previous statements that Daughter Zion lacked a comforter (menaḥēm in 1:2, 9, 16, 17, 21), a helper (ʿôzēr in 1:7), or anyone to share food with her children (pāraś in 4:4). In addition to these images, there are several rhetorical devices that contribute to the literary coherence of the book. First, a sense of tragic irony pervades these laments from beginning to end, as the poet describes the desperate measures that survivors take “just to stay alive” (1:11, 19), including: selling their treasures (1:1), cannibalizing their children (2:20, 4:10), clinging to faith when all seems lost (3:21–33), begging from enemy nations (5:6), and putting their lives at peril (5:9). Ironically, some of these actions mean bringing an end to the lives of some human survivors in order to preserve the lives of others.4 A second familiar rhetorical device is the reversal of fortune that indicates how Jerusalem’s survivors have plummeted in political power and social status (e.g., 1:1, 2:1, 2:15, 4:1, 5:16). From the first lament, in which the poet complains that Daughter Zion’s “enemies have become her overseers” (1:5), to the last, which declares that “Slaves rule over

3 4

See previous discussions of Lam. 2:11, 12, 20; 4:2, 4, 10. O’Connor, Lamentations, 75.

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

183

us” (5:8),5 these reversals of fortune show that it is not only human lives but also a community’s way of life that is lost and mourned by Jerusalemites in the aftermath of the Babylonian conquest. Like the previous chapters, Lamentations 5 is difficult to date. However, it seems to reflect social conditions far removed from the immediate crisis of the siege that is so prevalent in Lamentations 1 and 2. The final chapter describes changes in Judah’s social world that developed perhaps years after Jerusalem’s collapse.6 Therefore, the period of approximately 560–540 BCE will be assumed as the historical context for the following discussion.7

LAMENTATIONS 5:1–5 1 Remember, YHWH, what has happened to us. Look and see our disgrace. 2 Our property has been turned over to strangers, our homes to foreigners. 3 We have become orphans, fatherless; our mothers like widows. 4 Our water we drink for a fee, our wood comes with a price. 5 With a yoke upon our necks, we are oppressed.8 We are weary, but we have no rest. The statement in Lam. 5:8 about former slaves rising to power is particularly relevant for the current study, since it supports the notion that Judean peasants probably did survive, and may even have surpassed urbanites in social standing during the neo-Babylonian era. 6 Westermann, Lamentations, 219. 7 Some scholars date Lamentations 4 and 5 much later. For example, see S. T. Lachs (“The Date of Lamentations V,” Jewish Quarterly Review 57 [1966/7], 46–56), who suggests the Maccabean period for the writing of these poems (47). 8 Two textual problems in Lam. 5:5a lead to a variety of interpretations. First, the Hebrew term ʿl, which can mean either “yoke” or “upon,” only appears once in the Hebrew of v. 5a. Assuming a scribal 5

184

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

The final chapter of Lamentations begins with a supplication to YHWH to observe the community’s suffering (v. 1), followed by the first part of a communal complaint that reveals the disorientation of Jerusalem’s survivors who have lost family members and land. If the late decades of the neo-Babylonian period are assumed as the time frame for Lamentations 5, then perhaps this poem expresses the perspective of urbanites who were young children in 586 BCE, or who were the first generation born after the war. That perspective would be consistent with the ambiguous sentiments expressed in vv. 7 and 16 regarding whether it was previous generations or the poet’s own, that were morally responsible for the tremendous suffering that persisted years later. As observed in the other Lamentations poems, several similarities exist between these biblical images and those in other ancient Near Eastern texts. For example, pleading for a deity to attend to suffering survivors is a common motif that appears in Sumerian laments:

omission, Hillers, Westermann, and Provan supply a second ʿl at the beginning of the verse to reflect Symmachus’ inclusion of the term zugos (yoke) in his Greek translation. (See also T. F. McDaniel, “Philological Studies I,” 51.) Others read ʿal ṣawwāʾrēnû (literally, “upon our necks”) without emandation, as an idiomatic expression meaning “up to our neck” (O’Connor, 72) or “hot upon our necks” (Gordis, 150). I have chosen to add a second ʿl for this translation. The second question is about the term nirdāpnû (“we are pursued”). Typically rādap connotes pursuit; thus, O’Connor reads: “We are pursued up to our neck” and, as Provan (127) points out, that meaning appears in several other Lamentations verses as well (e.g., 1:3, 6; 3:43, 66; and 4:19). However, I agree with Albrektson (197, contra Provan) that 5:5 does not seem to refer to pursuit, but rather to persecution or oppression. Provan rightly states that the issue is whether the metaphor is related to agriculture (driving draft animals under the yoke, for example), or hunting (i.e., pursuing prey). Given that the theme of famine and food procurement is more prominent than the theme of being hunted by the enemy in this chapter, I have chosen the agricultural image of oppressive toil. (See also the discussion of Lam. 5:13.)

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

185

Oh Enlil, gaze upon your city full of desolation; Gaze upon your city Nippur, full of desolation … (LSUr 348–349)9 ‘Enlil, Father of the Nation, turn around and look at your city!’10

In addition, loss of ancestral property (naḥalāh) is a frequent topic in city-laments and other ancient Near Eastern texts. In Lam. 5:2 and in each of the following examples, the pain of having property expropriated often is amplified rhetorically by the fact that it is given to strangers or foreigners who, in the view of the poet, have no legitimate right to it. You hand over the ewe and (her) lamb to the foreigners. You hand over the goat and (her) kid to the foreigners. You destroy the rich man along with his property. (“The Steer in his Fold,” 164–166)11 ‘Give not our inheritance to strangers nor our possessions to foreigners!’ (Qumran Scroll, 4Q501)12

Adding to the disorienting effect of land expropriation is the dissolution of family bonds and identity alluded to in Lam. 5:3. The community, which traditionally was based on the patriarchal unit of the bêt ʾāb (“father’s house”) mourns the loss of husbands, fathers, and grown sons, which has resulted in the experience of being orphaned, with mothers abandoned like widows. The terseness of ANET, 617. Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea, 151, line 241. 11 Cohen, balag-Compositions, 20. 12 Cited in J. J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 378. Collins identifies this Qumran text as an allusion to Lam. 5:2, expressing the resistance of the Qumran community to the imminent Roman conquest of Judea. See also J. Jarick’s discussion of Lam. 5:2 in “The Bible’s ‘Festive Scrolls’ Among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years Later, ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 175. 9

10

186

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

v. 3 mutes the devastating trauma that has shattered the lives of the most vulnerable members of Judean society; namely, women and children.13 The loss of able-bodied men to provide not only a sense of identity and belonging, but also the material needs and physical defense of Jerusalem’s survivors, has stripped them of all that had been safe and familiar, left to struggle in a harsh, unyielding environment. This predicament was not unlike the circumstances described in the Lament over Ur: In the city the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, the possessions were scattered about; The black-headed people into their family places … were carried off. (LU 235–236)14

Lamentations 5:4 presents what must have been a difficult reality to accept for Jerusalem’s survivors: namely the financial crisis that confronted them after the war. Especially in the last half of the seventh century BCE, the ruling elite enjoyed access to wealth and luxury goods, as Judah’s international trade began to prosper. However, after Babylonia’s conquest, inflation was probably high and commodities so scarce that, even the most basic necessities, which had been taken for granted during times of prosperity, became practically inaccessible to those who remained in Judah. Economic conditions expressed in v. 4 are similar to those reflected in the Curse of Agade: Then did half a sila of oil equal one shekel, Half a sila of grain—one shekel, Half a mina of wool—one shekel, One ban of fish—one shekel.

Domeris, Touching the Heart, 163–165. Domeris cites a large number of biblical texts from the Torah, the prophets, wisdom literature and the Psalms, that express serious concern for women and young children who are not under the protection of an adult male relative. Domeris notes that the underlying agenda of these texts seems to be promoting one’s honor by upholding ancient Near Eastern ideals of social justice, rather than addressing directly the plight of the marginalized. 14 ANET, 459. 13

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

187

The commodities of their cities were brought up like good ‘words,’ … The people droop helplessly because of their hunger. (CA 175–182)15

The first unit of Lamentations 5 ends with a statement of bitter dejection. Unaccustomed to, or simply resentful of, the physical labor demanded of them, Judah’s urban survivors bemoan their weariness which knows no end (v. 5). The Jerusalemites’ survival depends on how well they are able to carry out the rigors of manual labor, especially in order to produce food. Despite their best efforts, they remain hungry and rest-broken, like the victims of Ur described in the following parallel texts: Nor verily, because of its affliction, has the quiet of my sleeping place … been allowed me. (LU 101)16 Agade, (instead of) its sweet-flowing water, salt water flowed (there), … He who said, ‘I would sleep in Agade,’ found not a good sleeping place there … (CA 278–280)

Counter Reading Regardless of what one thinks about the “myth of the empty land,” most scholars agree that the Babylonian Empire did not invest much in terms of resources or concern in the economic exploitation or social development of the Levant. Especially during the reigns of Nabopolassar (625–605 BCE) and Nebuchadrezzar (605–562 BCE), the empire focused heavily on building its own ANET, 649–650. A similar situation of severe market inflation related to social upheaval is alluded to in Rev. 6:5–6, where economic corruption results in the raising of the cost of grains needed for the survival of the poor, with price protection on luxury items guaranteed for the wealthy. 16 ANET, 457. Physical toil for food production is a prominent theme in Egyptian iconography as well; see ANEP, fig. 85 on page 25 and fig. 101 on page 30. 15

188

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

central territory, especially the urban centers and nearby agricultural lands to support them.17 Peripheral regions like Syria-Palestine did not offer enough potential income to justify significant investment of imperial resources in bureaucratic oversight and military defense.18 Therefore, Babylonia’s interest in that region was limited

M. A. Dandamaev, “Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy,” in CAH, vol. 3, pt. 2, eds. J. Boardman et al (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 268. 18 The lax policies of the Babylonian Empire toward Syria-Palestine may have accounted for the assassination of the Judean governor Gedaliah in 582 BCE (recounted in Jeremiah 41), and the empire’s swift response; namely, to kill or deport any remaining Judeans who threatened regional security, and to withdraw any further resources and support from the area. See N. Yoffee, The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period (Lancaster, California: Undena Publications, 1977), 148–149; and H. Kreissig, Die sozialökonomische Situation in Juda zur Achämenidenzeit (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1973), 31–32. See also M. G. Morony, “‘In a city without watchdogs the fox is the overseer’: Issues and Problems in the Study of Bureaucracy,” in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, eds. M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Morony (10) identifies three models of imperial bureaucracy evident in the ancient Near East, all of which are distinct from the model apparently adopted by the Babylonians in the Levant. The three models were designed to: 1) “organize economic activity on a relatively large scale;” 2) ensure “territorial unification and mobilization of resources;” or 3) “centralize…[imperial] power at the expense of local authority.” An example of those approaches to imperial oversight of peripheral regions appears in a state letter (K. 617) dated during Sargon’s reign (722–626 BCE), in which local tenant farmers are urged to keep rural areas productive and secure, providing significant revenue for the state. See R. H. Pfeiffer, State Letters of Assyria: A Transliteration and Translation of 355 Official Assyrian Letters dating from the Sargonid Period, 722–625 B.C. (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1935; reprint, New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1967), 73–74 (page references are to reprint edition). In contrast, there is no evidence of any such correspondence or expectation of the Babylonian Empire regarding Syria-Palestine, although there are numerous texts indicating that the 17

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

189

to securing safe passage for commercial and military interaction with Egypt, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean. However, it is likely that even a minimal effort to secure the Levant resulted in Babylonian expropriation of land and property from Jerusalemite survivors.19 The reference in Lam. 5:2 to property (naḥalāh) being turned over to strangers alludes to that situation. The term naḥalāh suggests property that is seized, perhaps through conquest, and given to others.20 In Lamentations, this is clearly a tragedy for the former urban elite, for whom property rights had been a symbol of wealth and power.21 In sixth-century BCE Judah, however, the elite lost control not only of the land, but also of access to the food, water, and other resources it offered.22 empire did maintain tight economic controls over areas where it had commercial interests. 19 McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 187; Kreissig, Die sozialökonomische Situation, 26. As discussed in previous chapters, there was apparently some attempt to reallocate land and reward Babylonian sympathizers at least in the northern region of Benjamin in the mid–580s BCE. Some of those allocations may have been revoked in retaliation for the Judean rebellion in 582. 20 B. A. Levine, “On the Semantics of Land Tenure in Biblical Literature: The Term ʾaḥuzzah,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, eds. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993), 135. Levine points out that both naḥalāh and yeruššāh were replaced in the late biblical period by ʾ aḥuzzāh, the common term for land possession. 21 Similar treatment of the propertied elite occurred in the Mexican Revolution, when the dismantling of large haciendas and collapse of luxury commercial enterprises resulted in the financial ruin of many prominent Mexican families. At the same time, peasants living on communal Indian lands suffered relatively little disruption, at least in the years immediately following the war. See M. Chowning, Wealth and Power in Provincial Mexico: Michoacán from the Late Colony to the Revolution (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 263–267. 22 Kreissig (Die sozialökonomische Situation, 26) points out that the emphasis in Lam. 5:2 is not on the destruction of the land, but the loss of social status associated with Jerusalem’s conquest: it is not that the land is destroyed, but rather that it is in someone else’s control. However, as

190

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

As suggested in previous chapters, peasants living in the most remote areas of Judah survived in greater numbers than urbanites from cities targeted by the Babylonian army. After the 580s, rural farmers, who probably outnumbered and out-powered urban survivors, began to claim abandoned property (the “wilderness” alluded to in Lam. 5:9?) and to function under a system based on something like “squatters’ rights.”23 That situation left urbanites at an uncomfortable disadvantage—dependent on peasants (who were skilled at eking out an existence despite food scarcity) to offer assistance to Jerusalem’s refugees, some of whom may have been their former rulers (see Lam. 5:8). The husbandless women and fatherless children mentioned in Lam. 5:3 probably included both the survivors of Jerusalem’s ruling class and its sizable population of urban poor. Among the latter may even have been children of Judean peasants who had previously been sold into service to wealthy Jerusalemites in order to satisfy family debts.24 In addition, some rural Judean women Safrai suggests, this reversal of fortune is not simply a concern about prestige and rank; it is about survival, since food, water, and the basic necessities mentioned in Lamentations 5 represented “the primary means of production” and therefore of survival in post-586 BCE Judah. See Z. Safrai, “The Agrarian Structure in Palestine in the Time of the Second Temple, Mishna, and Talmud,” in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, A. M. Maeir, S. Dar, Z. Safrai (Oxford: Archaeological Press, 2003), 105– 126. 23 Safrai, “Agrarian Structure,” 121. According to Safrai (120), the reference to midbār (“wilderness,” according to a common translation of v. 9) may suggest a custom in both Jewish and Roman law that land considered to be “wilderness” was available for the taking 24 McNutt, Restructuring, 169–170. The conditions alluded to in Lam. 5:3 are not unlike the challenges that confronted enslaved Black families in the antebellum period of American history. As has been well documented, members of Black slave families were routinely separated, not just by death but, even more frequently, by the auction block. Soon after Emancipation, some freed Black mothers were able to locate and reunite with their children and, less frequently, with their spouses. However, Black families have continued to be fragmented through the

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

191

who had been widowed during the war, probably fled with their children if they were able, to join members of their extended families in more remote regions of Judah.25 It is likely that Judean farmers extended aid, food, and shelter to struggling mothers and children (both peasants and urbanites), motivated by compassion or, perhaps, by a desire to reconnect with (or build surrogate relations for) family members lost in the war. Such arrangements probably resulted in intermarriage and, at least to some extent, a new sense of family bonds by the time the neo-Babylonian era came to a close. The reference in Lam. 5:4 to survivors paying money for wood and water may be more rhetorical than literal. Although a limited market economy existed in Jerusalem prior to 586 BCE (and in Babylonia and Assyria for several centuries earlier),26 the Babylonians probably seized everything of significant value before destroying the city. While it is possible that inflation, and even a type of “black market,” may have developed in sixth-century BCE Judah,27 it is just as likely that urban survivors simply resented short-lived Reconstruction period and up to the present. See David W. Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 108–120; and Darlene Clark Hine and Kathleen Thompson, A Shining Thread of Hope: The History of Black Women in America (New York: Broadway Books, 1998), 150–151. 25 See discussion of Lam. 2:12 in Chapter Two. 26 R. C. Hunt, “The Role of Bureaucracy in the Provisioning of Cities: A Framework for Analysis of the Ancient Near East,” in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, eds. M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 183; and W. H. Dubberstein, “Comparative Prices in Later Babylonia (625–400 B.C.),” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 56 (1939), 23. 27 Dubberstein (“Comparative Prices,” 25) reports that both Assyria and Babylonia practiced price fixing to stabilize the economies of their respective empires. Prices in the region remained level until after the Persian conquest, when inflation rose sharply. However, as Dubberstein (42) points out, price fixing did not guarantee protection from unscrupulous business practices, especially in remote and unsupervised areas like Syria-Palestine. It is possible that prices (i.e., in-kind labor)

192

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

having to perform highly demanding and demeaning physical labor (alluded to in Lam. 5:5 and 13) to pay for the basic necessities they once took for granted. Without a doubt, any Judeans who survived the destruction of Jerusalem were confronted by enormous physical, social, and emotional challenges. For urbanites and their children, those challenges were exacerbated by the displacement they experienced, particularly from family land and legacy. However, for Judah’s peasants, who had for generations worked the land for the benefit of others, the adjustment to post-war conditions was not quite as traumatic and may have provided a brief respite from oppressive state overseers, so they could provide for themselves.

LAMENTATIONS 5:6–10 6 With Egypt we have made a pact, and with Assyria, for enough bread. 7 Our ancestors sinned; but it is not they but we who bear their guilt. 8 Slaves rule over us; there is no one to snatch us from their hand. 9 At the risk of our lives we gather our food because of the desert heat.28

charged to hired workers for commodities after 586 BCE may have been inflated by some elders of peasant communities to maximize the benefit of laborers not related to rural families. 28 The MT for Lam. 5:9b literally says, “before the sword of the wilderness,” a translation preferred by Hillers, Westermann, Provan, and O’Connor. Provan (129) identifies three interpretations generally given to this phrase: 1) a literal sword, referring to attacks by desert dwellers; 2) a metaphor for heat (based on emending ḥereb [sword] to ḥōreb [heat], preferred by Gottlieb and Gordis); and 3) as a general symbol for the dangers of life in the wilderness. I have chosen the image of heat because, as Gordis points out, it offers a literary connection with the heat imagery in v. 10.

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

193

10 Our skin is scorched like an oven because of the raging fever of famine.

The second rhetorical unit of Lamentations 5 presents a final outcry against the ravages of famine. Overwhelmed by the task of food procurement in a relentlessly scorching wilderness (v. 9), the poet confesses that Jerusalem’s survivors have been forced to seek aid from foreign nations (v. 6)—a point of shame for the covenant partners of YHWH. Added to the physical debilitation caused by prolonged hunger (v. 10) is the emotional devastation of being subjected to the authority of those who were formerly members of the servant class (v. 8). The poet interprets this reversal of fortune and the anguish of hunger as punishment for sin: the children of Daughter Zion’s survivors must bear the tragic consequences of their ancestors’ guilt (v. 7). The reference to seeking humanitarian assistance from Egypt and Assyria functions rhetorically to illustrate the disastrous effect of YHWH’s abandonment of Judah’s survivors. Implicit in Lam. 5:6 is an accusation: YHWH has not heard, or at least has not responded compassionately to, the community’s supplications (contrary to Lam. 3:55–57); therefore, desperate survivors are forced to seek help elsewhere. Furthermore, the fact that it is Egypt and Assyria specifically who come to Judah’s aid is a direct challenge to prophetic warnings (e.g., Isaiah 7 and Jeremiah 42) not to rely on the nations for strength, but rather on YHWH alone— an option that has proven ineffective for Jerusalemite refugees after decades of divine silence.29 Just as access to wood and water is severely restricted (Lam. 5:4), so also food production is a slow and painful process. Verses 9–10 allude to how difficult it is to yield crops in a parched, dry land. Similar references appear in Mesopotamian city-laments that

In contrast to these prophetic exhortations, there are several biblical texts that do not condemn Israelites for seeking help from foreign nations during times of famine, including stories about Abraham and Jacob and his sons seeking food from Egypt (Genesis 12, 13, and 42ff), and about Elimelech and Naomi fleeing to Moab for food (Ruth 1). 29

194

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

bemoan the fate of victims plagued by famine and challenged by devastating heat: In the fields there was (neither) grain (nor) vegetation, the people had nothing to eat, Its orchards (and) gardens were parched like an oven, their produce perished … (LSUr 132–133)30 My palm groves and vineyards that abounded with honey and wine verily have brought forth the mountain thorn. My plain where the kazallu and strong drink were prepared verily like an oven has become parched. (LU 273–274)31

The perils of survival seem all the more acute because, as Lam. 5:8 suggests, levels of social status have been reversed, so that the children of Jerusalem’s former ruling elite must take orders from the children of their servants. They seem to feel betrayed as did the survivors of Agade perhaps, who decried their own loss of social privilege: The faithful ‘slaves’ were changed into treacherous slaves. (CA 189)32

Abandoned by their God, humiliated by former subordinates, and ravaged by the relentless plague of famine, Jerusalem’s survivors and their children languished beneath the long-term effects of war for decades after Zion had been razed. Counter Reading The long-term survival efforts described in Lam. 5:6–10 focus on food-gathering which was hampered by several factors, including both strenuous labor and life-threatening dangers.33 Before the fall ANET, 614. ANET, 460. 32 ANET, 650. 33 O’Connor (Lamentations, 75) suggests that references to physical risks in food-gathering in Lamentations 5 may have been figurative and not necessarily historical. However, Parker (“Graves, Caves,” 273) does make an historical connection to Lam. 5:9–10, which he sees as an 30 31

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

195

of Jerusalem, the urban elite had been accustomed to having their food provided by peasant laborers.34 Not only did Jerusalemite overseers have to exert relatively little physical energy to obtain food, but also they had the security of food surpluses available to the urban population even when harvests were sparse.35 However, after 586 BCE, life changed dramatically, especially for urban Judeans. Under normal pre-war conditions, Judah’s peasants expended most of their time and effort in food production, both for their own households and for the inhabitants of urban centers.36 After the war, the labor-intensive tasks of plowing, sowing, cultivating, and eventually harvesting could not begin until fields damaged by the war had been cleared and restored.37 The extra demand for labor probably provided the incentive that peasant households needed to justify taking in urban refugees, who not only represented more mouths to feed, but also more hands to work in the rebuilding of Judah’s farmland. D. Smith has suggested that those left behind in Judah eventually may have formed “a new ‘upper class’ on its own

allusion to Judean refugees being pursued by Babylonian soldiers. Even if it is unlikely that any organized physical attack threatened Judeans in the later decades of the neo-Babylonian era, it seems reasonable to assume that physical hardship and danger did characterize the lived experience of both urban and rural survivors alike. 34 Yoffee, Economic Role, 98; Hunt, “The Role of Bureaucracy,” 163. 35 H. T. Wright, The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1969), 121; and Domeris, Touching the Heart, 88–89. 36 Wright, 74. 37 Ibid., 95. Draft animals, used for performing heavy farm tasks prior to the war, may have been taken by the Babylonians as plunder or killed for food as the famine wore on, leaving only able-bodied men to take on the most arduous challenges of subsistence farming. As suggested by Berlin (Lamentations, 123), even chores like operating large grinding mills had to be taken on by men in the absence of donkeys and oxen (Lam. 5:13).

196

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

terms,” free from close scrutiny by Babylonian bureaucrats.38 Even if Judean society was not completely restructured with a “new ‘upper class,’” it does seem clear that the old Sumerian proverb probably rang true for sixth-century BCE Judah: “In a city without watchdogs the fox is the overseer.”39 It is quite likely that abandoned land in rural Judah was taken over by peasants who assumed leadership in developing effective strategies for survival. Urban survivors who were hired to provide hard manual labor to which they were unaccustomed, were probably paid in a fashion similar to the way in which peasants had formerly been compensated by their urban overseers; namely, with rations from the harvest.40 The lament that “slaves rule over us” (Lam. 5:8) probably reflects this reversal in social roles, as peasants took charge of the process of restoring war-battered land.41 D. L. Smith, “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judean Society,” in Second Temple Studies I: Persian Period, ed. P. R. Davies, JSOT Supplement Series 117 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 95. A similar situation is proposed by L. Hunt in her discussion of a Marxist model of the impact of the French Revolution on social class development. See L. Hunt, Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 179 and 218. According to Hunt, peasants who survived the struggle of the French Revolution had had no fixed ties to the former political establishment, and so were free to forge a new life and new networks based on family, common culture, and shared community concerns. If that model is appropriate for understanding sixth-century BCE Judah, it is possible that small rural settlements, which developed over time as extended family units under the leadership of local elders, took in Jerusalemite survivors (and perhaps refugees from other areas) as hired help. 39 Morony, “City without Watchdogs,” 14. 40 Yoffee, Economic Role, 94–95. Yoffee describes arrangements documented in Old Babylonian “harvest labor contracts” which provide a reasonable model for understanding how labor may have been managed in rural Judah during the neo-Babylonian era. 41 The term translated as “slaves” (ʿabādîm) in Lam. 5:8 is not necessarily a literal reference, but probably a more general reference to those peasants who had formerly been subservient to Jerusalemite 38

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

197

Regarding the statement in Lam. 5:6 that Judean survivors negotiated with Egypt and Assyria for food, it is possible that Judah’s survivors did benefit from some trade activity, even in the last decades of the neo-Babylonian period. On the one hand, as has been previously discussed, the empire demonstrated relatively little commercial interest in Judah after the 550s, once the region was militarily secured. On the other hand, Barkay has identified evidence of international trade even in the neo-Babylonian era.42 Although a significant system of foreign trade did not develop in Judah until the Persian period, there seems to have been a gradual increase in the commercial and cross-cultural exchange in that region. In the mid-550s Babylonian power started to wane under increasing pressure from Cilicia in the west and Egypt in the south; a decade later, famine arose in Babylonia itself, in the area near Uruk.43 Therefore, in years when crops failed, Judeans (peasants and urbanites alike) may have indeed sought assistance from neighboring peoples.

LAMENTATIONS 5:11–14 11 They rape women in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah. 12 Rulers have been hung by their hands, elders are not greeted with respect.

overseers. As several scholars have pointed out, the number of actual slaves (both debt slaves and conquered peoples) was small compared to the number of freemen hired as laborers, because slave labor was generally considered to be too expensive and inefficient. See M. A. Dandamaev, “Neo-Babylonian Society,” 266; and Domeris, Touching the Heart, 137. 42 G. Barkay, “The Iron Age II–III,” in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor (New Haven: Yale University Press), 357; cited in Domeris, Touching the Heart, 141. 43 von Voigtlander, 196–197.

198

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS 13 Young men bear the grinding mill, and boys stumble over wood.44 14 Elders have quit the city gate, young men their music.

Lamentations 5:11–14 is a terse listing of various features of social disarray in post–586 BCE Judah. Through a series of word-pairs (women and virgins, rulers and elders, young men and boys, etc.), the poet declares that nothing is going well for Zion’s children. Social roles and privileged status have dissolved and, though the war has long been over, survivors are still fighting a losing battle against chaos, disrespect and grief. Rather than introducing new points of complaint, the images evoked in this rhetorical unit echo and summarize those that appear in earlier chapters of Lamentations, and that have been discussed in relation to other ancient Near Eastern literary parallels as well. This rhetorical unit begins with a declarative statement, emotionally evocative precisely in its lack of emotive language: “They rape women in Zion … ” Rape imagery appears in chilling detail in Lam. 1:9 to depict the violation and desecration of the Temple (see discussion in Chapter 1). However, in this final lament it is simply reported as a matter of fact: the perpetrator of these rapes is anonymous, specific actions and reactions are not described, and Zion and Judah are cited as the locations of these crimes without any of the accompanying terms of endearment— e.g., bat (daughter) or ʿammî (my people)—that appear in previous

Hillers (Lamentations, 159) points out that the expression kāšal be means “to stumble over something” (emphasis mine); therefore, he rejects the notion that Lam. 5:13b describes youths staggering under the burden of loads of wood. However, he and several other commentators still interpret the verse as a reference to being overwhelmed with grueling toil. As the discussion of the rhetoric in Lam. 5:11–14 suggests, the message in this unit seems to be more about the discomfort, embarrassment, and shame that urban survivors experience in a social world gone awry. My translation is meant to convey that sense of discomfort. 44

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

199

references to these victims of war.45 Verse 11 is not meant to cause excessive attention to or concern about the act of rape or the plight of women, but rather to introduce a litany of complaints about how wrong life has become for Jerusalemites now that the city has fallen.46 Lamentations 5:12 points to the fact that symbols of authority have now become objects of scorn. The fall in social stature of Jerusalem’s śārîm (rulers, officials), which was deplored in earlier laments (e.g., Lam. 1:6, 2:2, 9), takes an ironic twist in v. 12. The śārîm who previously had been raised up in honor and social status are now hung up by their hands for public display and shame. Elders who have been depicted as pitiable and broken in spirit (1:19 and 2:10) no longer command respect (5:12; cf. 4:16). In fact, they have ceased (šābbatû) to offer counsel at the city-gate (5:14),47 which lay in ruins as a visible memorial to Zion’s former strength and stability. There has been significant scholarly discussion regarding the apparent references in Lam. 5:13 to boys (neʿārîm) and young men (baḥûrîm) performing varying tasks of manual labor. Dobbs-Allsopp Lamentations 5:11 contains the book’s last reference to Judah. It functions rhetorically, as in previous chapters, as a way of amplifying the impact of the war on Jerusalemites: the parallelism in v. 11a and b implies that women throughout Judah were continually raped just as Jerusalem’s women were. 46 W. A. Bailey notes that biblical references to the violation of women (specifically Lam. 5:11) rarely reflect a woman’s perspective, but instead express concerns of the (presumably male) writers and audiences. See Bailey’s essay, “The Lament Traditions of Enslaved African American Women and the Lament Traditions of the Hebrew Bible,” in Lamentations in Contemporary Cultural Contexts, eds. N. C. Lee and C. Mandolfo (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 155. 47 The other reference to the Hebrew root šbt appears in Lam. 2:6: feast and sabbath (šabbāt) are no longer observed because YHWH has wiped them from memory. It is therefore ironic that Lam. 5:14 bemoans the fact that Zion’s elders are “taking a sabbath” (the verb form šābat, meaning “to cease”) from their leadership roles, at the time when Jerusalemites most need their counsel. 45

200

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

argues that the gathering of wood and water is “a common literary topos” and that it is usually considered to be women’s work.48 Furthermore, as Berlin points out, grinding mills were usually powered by draft animals, not humans.49 Therefore, what is clear in v. 13 is not so much the difficulty of the tasks necessary to produce food and fuel (which is, in fact, the central message of Lam. 5:4 and 9), but the humiliation and degradation experienced by male survivors forced to perform chores considered inappropriate to their former standing in Jerusalemite society. Counter Reading As chaotic as the world seemed for Jerusalemites who survived the Babylonian conquest and their descendants, Judah’s peasant population probably regained a sense of stability as the decades of the sixth-century BCE wore on. Under the monarchy, peasants had been forced to provide for the heavy demands of the urban elite, giving up whatever surpluses they were able to produce as taxes collected by the city’s officials. That system of taxation was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, some of that produce was used to build reserves in Jerusalem (stored in the Temple and elsewhere) that could provide emergency assistance for the poor in times of need. On the other hand, during the monarchical period, the poverty of Judah’s peasants was prolonged and intensified by the fact that so much of what they produced was siphoned off for the benefit of others, often leaving them with insufficient means to sustain their own families.50 Judean peasants also continued to lose resources in the decade after Jerusalem fell, when they were compelled to make heavy tribute payments to the Babylonian Empire. However, as the empire turned its attention away from commercial concerns in the Levant, peasant communities there were gradually able to rebuild both the resources needed to sustain their households and a sense of social cohesion in their settlements. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 74. Berlin, Lamentations, 123. See also K. van der Toorn, “Mill, Millstone,” ABD, 1992. 50 Domeris, Touching the Heart, 55. 48 49

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

201

The difficult manual labor described in Lamentations 4 and 5 was the lived reality for Judah’s rural survivors both before and after 586 BCE. As Domeris remarks, A farmer in Palestine has never had an easy life; its land is stony and hilly, the sirocco is oppressive, fire is a constant danger and blight, rust and black rot is [sic.] devastating … Famine, hunger and thirst are so much part and parcel of life that they become symbols of the common person’s relationship with God.51

What distinguishes the perspective of Judean peasants from that of urban survivors is that the latter resented the loss of their social privilege, while the former welcomed a more egalitarian and autonomous way of life. In exchange for food and shelter, Jerusalemite refugees were expected to work just as hard as peasants did to contribute to the resources of the household. Peasants probably did not show traditional signs of respect to Jerusalemites who thought they were entitled to it (Lam. 5:12); rather, respect was reserved for those who contributed to the successful rebuilding of the new community. Undertaking difficult work was not considered demeaning (5:13) but rather was recognized as necessary for survival. Peasants continued to depend on the guidance of their local elders, and therefore did not regret the loss of Jerusalem’s leaders who ceased to function in the citygate (v.14). And those same local elders ensured to the best of their ability, the relative safety and well-being of all members of their households.52 Domeris, Touching the Heart, 60. Domeris cites J. Navone, “Famine, Hunger, and Thirst in the Bible,” The Bible Today 39 (2001): 155–159. 52 Domeris (60–65) indicates that the ability of peasant villages to survive depended on a delicate balance of factors, such as family size, quality of land, and options for diversification (especially animal husbandry, food surplus storage, and cooperative relations with neighboring villages). Because peasant villages in ancient Israel were so small (probably a single extended family living on about five acres of land), it was difficult for most households to reach long-term viability. However, I argue that the absence of exploitation by Jerusalem’s 51

202

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Therefore, the signs of social chaos identified by the poet of Lam. 5:11–14 probably would have been dismissed by a rural Judean audience. They would have believed that the privileges enjoyed by Jerusalem’s former elite were part of what had kept Judah’s peasants in poverty; but with everyone pulling his or her own weight, subsistence and survival at least were within reach.

LAMENTATIONS 5:15–18 15 Gone is the joy of our heart; transformed into grief is our dancing. 16 A crown has fallen from our head. How downcast are we, for we have sinned! 17 Because of this, our hearts are faint. Because of these things, our eyes have dimmed. 18 Because Mount Zion is desolate, jackals prowl on it.

The extended communal complaint in Lam. 5:2–18 ends with a statement of the emotional toll that the living conditions of sixthcentury BCE Judah have taken on the survivors from Jerusalem and their children. Building on the reference in v. 14 to the cessation of celebration in Jerusalem, 5:15 opens this rhetorical unit with a proclamation that the joys of life are a thing of the past. The majesty of Zion’s king and the privileged status of the ruling elite (both symbolized by the reference to the crown in v. 16) have plummeted, leaving urban survivors heart-broken and despairing (v. 17), as desolate as the ruins of Mount Zion itself (v. 18). Images of emotional trauma, expressed in terms of curtailed communal celebration (5:14b–15) appear in other ancient Near Eastern texts as well; for example:53 monarchy and Babylonia’s imperial bureaucracy provided at least some peasant households (and the urbanites who joined them) an opportunity to achieve a reasonable level of self-sufficiency. 53 Biblical parallels include Isa. 16:10, Am. 8:10, and Jer. 7:34. See a detailed discussion in Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 105.

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

203

In your city where you (no longer) sleep to (the sound of) tigi-music, Where you (no longer) go to bed with a joyful heart … (CA 258–259)54 The sound of the cithara shall not be heard in Arpad and among its people, only … and only [mournful so]unds and lamentation. (Sefire A)55

These final memories of pre-war life in Jerusalem include a reference to the fall of the crown (v. 16a) as a symbol of the death of the nation. A similar declaration is made in the Lament over Sumer and Ur: On that day a defiling hand was placed over the kingship of the land, Its tiara (and) crown worn on the head were both …, All the lands … their submission and respect, Of Ur, the shrine of great offerings—its offerings [were changed. (LSUr 103–106)56

After the extensive litany of complaints in Lam. 5:2–16a, there is a brief statement of guilt that appears to be a portion of a penitential rite by Jerusalem’s survivors. This communal confession stops short of the petition for forgiveness that concludes the Lament over Ur: Verily thy black-headed people who have been cast away, prostrate themselves unto thee! … O Nanna, thou whose penetrating gaze searches the bowels, May every evil heart of its people be pure before thee!

ANET, 651. Ibid., 660. Hillers’ published dissertation, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, cites this text and several other treaty documents that contain literary and/or thematic parallels with Hebrew Bible passages of various genres. 56 ANET, 613. 54 55

204

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS May the heart of those who dwell in the land be good before thee! O Nanna, thy city which has been returned to its place exalts thee. (LU 421, 432–433)57

The complaint ends with a final mournful reference to the poet’s beloved city which lay in ruins (v. 18). The motif of wild animals inhabiting the rubble of abandoned cities, is a common literary feature in biblical and other ancient Near Eastern texts,58 conveying not only a sense of danger in the wild, but also of shame in the fact that all signs of civilization and human power have been erased. For example: In the rivers of my city dust has gathered, into fox-dens verily they have been made … (LU 269)59 The mo[uth] of snakes [shall devour], the mouth of scorpions, the mouth of bears, the mouth of panthers, and moths and lice … Arpad shall be a (desolate) mound for [ … and] gazelles, foxes, hares, wild-cats, owls, [ … ], and magpies. (Sefire IA)60 Over your usga-place established for lustrations, may the ‘fox of the ruined mounds’ glide (his) tail … (CA 254–255)61

For urban survivors in sixth-century BCE Judah, Lamentations 5 expressed succinctly the broad range of hardships they were forced to bear. The physical, social, and emotional challenges they faced were similar to those endured by survivors of other urban disasters in the ancient world. However, some of the harshest elements of their lived reality may have represented ANET, 463. Similar sentiments are expressed from the perspective of an individual petitioner in the Lament to Ishtar, 80–86, in ANET, 385. 58 For example, see Isa. 13:20–22 and 34:11–15, cited in Gottlieb, Study of Lamentations, 70–71, and McDaniel, “Philological Studies I,” 52– 53. 59 ANET, 460. 60 Ibid., 660. 61 Ibid., 651. 57

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

205

challenging opportunities for social progress and hope for Judah’s rural population. Counter Reading Lamentations 5:15–18 refers to the demise of two prominent symbols of Jerusalem’s ruling elite, the crown and Mount Zion. While the end of the monarchy signaled prolonged grief for urban survivors (and, presumably, for their children who might have expected to inherit the privileges enjoyed by the pre-586 BCE Judean nobility), it introduced new possibilities for autonomy among Judah’s peasants in the final years of the neo-Babylonian era. Pre-exilic prophets had frequently indicted Israelite rulers for abusing and oppressing the poor.62 Some of the most scathing accusations were directed against the priesthood which was sometimes depicted as preying on peasants, accepting food offerings for the Temple reserves that peasants needed to feed their hungry children. As Domeris notes, by perpetuating the deprivation of the poor instead of alleviating it, “The cult … [had] become enmeshed within the web of social crimes, and so the prophets call[ed] for its cleansing, if not for its abolition.”63 Therefore, as has been demonstrated throughout this study, the dismantling of the symbols of Jerusalem’s leadership (e.g., Lam. 5:16 and 18) did not necessarily occasion profound grief for Judah’s peasants (vv. 15 and 17). Especially relevant is the poet’s concern about the deplorable state of the Temple ruins (v. 18). In rural settlements, where subsistence farming became the means of short-term survival, peasants were clear that producing immediate necessities was the top priority. The rural poor made little or no effort to help rebuild Jerusalem or other urban sites. Therefore, it is likely that scavengers like jackals or foxes may indeed have prowled the city’s ruins to glean what they could; but peasants (especially those who remembered the Temple as an oppressive institution) would not have found that situation to be overly distressing. Domeris (Touching the Heart, 119) cites Amos 5:21ff, Jer. 7:11, and Hos. 6:9 as examples. 63 Ibid. Domeris cites H. Gossai, Justice, Righteousness and the Social Critique of the Eighth-Century Prophets (New York: Lang, 1993), 265–271. 62

206

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Rather, they would have focused more on their own family-based religious traditions at local and domestic cultic sites, to ensure divine blessing and protection of their newly restored flocks and crops from animal predators that encroached in their settlements.

LAMENTATIONS 5:19–22 19 But you, YHWH, reign forever, and your throne is from age to age. 20 Why have you continued to forget us, to forsake us for so long? 21 Restore us to yourself, YHWH, so that we may return. Renew our lives as in days of old, 22 even though you have utterly rejected us, and are angry with us beyond measure!64

The conclusion of Lamentations 5 is perhaps the most disputed and ambiguous text in the entire book. Like the chapter’s opening verse, 5:19 begins its rhetorical unit with a statement addressed to The final verse of Lamentations is perhaps the most puzzling one to translate. Several options have been suggested concerning the initial expression kî ʾim, including: “But instead” or “Nevertheless” (Hillers, Berlin, Albrektson), “Unless” (O’Connor), or “For if” (T. Linafelt, “The Refusal of a Conclusion in the Book of Lamentations,” JBL 120 [2001], 340–343.) Each of these translations requires some level of theological gymnastics to explain how a book so meticulously structured would “refuse a conclusion” (Linafelt), or how a lament that has catalogued the devastating acts of YHWH would end with a simple summary statement (Hillers et al). I have chosen an alternative proposed by R. Gordis (The Song of Songs and Lamentations, 197–198; and “The Conclusion of the Book of Lamentations [5:22],” JBL 93 [1974], 289–293). Gordis argues that “Even though” fits syntactically and theologically with the rest of the poem and is well attested in other biblical texts; e.g., Isa. 10:22, Am. 5:22 and, most notably, Lam. 3:32. “Even though” acknowledges the enormity (but not impossibility) of the petition raised in 5:21; namely, that YHWH would restore the people of Zion, despite the now shattered covenant under which they had been bound. 64

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

207

YHWH, an affirmation of the sovereignty and eternality of the Deity’s reign.65 That affirmation, though understandably subdued in light of the people’s suffering and YHWH’s noticeable silence throughout the poem, provides the context for the petition which follows. Though YHWH’s abandonment of the people of Jerusalem has been prolonged (v. 20) and profound (v. 22), they plead for restoration and renewal (v. 21). Apart from Lamentations 3, there has been no word of hope expressed in the book, yet the poet insists, against all odds, on making a final plea for salvation.66 The clearest parallels between Lam. 5:19–22 and other ancient Near Eastern laments appear in the Lament over Sumer and Ur. First, the complaint questioning why the deity has permitted such suffering mirrors the accusation of divine abandonment in Lam. 5:20. Oh Enki, your city has been cursed, it has been made into enemy territory. Why do you reckon us among those who have been displaced from Eridu! (LSUr 242–243)67

The affirmation of YHWH’s eternal reign (5:19) stands in rhetorical contrast to the reference to Judah’s fallen monarch (5:16). Furthermore, v. 19 affirms YHWH’s autonomy by implying that God’s sovereignty depends neither on the physical state of the Temple (v. 18) nor on God’s relationship to the people (vv. 21–22). See Berlin, Lamentations, 125. 66 This interpretation contradicts the views of most commentators, who render 5:22 as a declaration of utmost pessimism. However, as several, including Westermann and Gordis, point out, many communal laments end on a hopeful note of some kind; therefore, it seems reasonable to assume a similar kind of ending in this “lament of all biblical laments.” Both syntactical and theological explanations have been contrived to justify the common view that Lamentations fails to provide closure (Linafelt, “Refusal of a Conclusion,” 340–343) or comfort (Berlin, Lamentations, 125). The interpretation offered in the current study is much simpler, both grammatically and theologically, and finds support in biblical and extra-biblical texts as well. 67 ANET, 615. 65

208

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Second, the Sumerian poet utters a prayer for restoration similar to the one in Lam. 5:21: ‘ … Oh Enlil, turn my city from its loneliness back to your arms … Let Ur (once again) bring forth offspring, let people multiply for you, May the me of Sumer that had ceased to exist, be restored for you.’ (LSUr 353–356)68

Similar sentiments are also expressed in the Lament over Ur, which ends with the assembly of survivors engaged in a communal lament: O Nanna, the humble who have taken thy path, Have brought unto thee their tears of the smitten house: before thee is their cry! Verily thy black-headed people who have been cast away, prostrate themselves unto thee! Verily thy city which has been made into ruins set up a wail unto thee! O Nanna, may thy city which has been returned to its place, step forth gloriously before thee! Like a bright star let it not be destroyed; may it proceed before thee! (LU 419–424)69

Another text that shares several elements with Lam. 5:19–22 is the composite text proposed by R. Kutscher of the Sumerian hymn, “Oh Angry Sea.” It contains a refrain, typical of communal laments, that echoes the poet’s plea in v. 20: Oh, … father, your angry heart, until when will it not be pacified?”70

Also, this Sumerian poem contains praise (more extensive than what appears in Lam. 5:19) for the deity who, despite apparent ANET, 617. Ibid., 463. 70 Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea, 143, line 1. 68 69

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

209

anger and abandonment, nonetheless is exalted and without equal.71 Finally, the Sumerian hymn contains a petition of restoration that focuses not on the restored role of the people (as in Lam. 5:21), but on the restored presence of the deity, who alone can vouchsafe the wellbeing of the disaster-stricken city: Enlil, Father of the Nation, restore (your) heart, restore!72

As several commentators have pointed out, the conclusion of Lamentations 5 is based on the idea of covenant restoration and renewal: the people plead with YHWH to return (šûb) as their sovereign, so that they might be restored (šûb) as God’s people.73 Lamentations 5:19–22 follows a model similar to the covenant renewal efforts of Josiah in the First Temple period (2 Kings 23) and Ezra in the Second (Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 9–10).74 According to this model, the community acknowledges that its sinfulness has led to a breach in its covenantal bond with YHWH; and the people take the initiative by confessing and petitioning YHWH for forgiveness.75 However, two important components of this model are missing in the Lamentations text. First, there is no recognized and effective leader among the urban survivors in sixth century BCE Judah to fill the role that Josiah and Ezra play in the texts cited above. The book of Lamentations bemoans the fact that Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea, 147, lines 105–116. Ibid., 148, line 130. 73 O’Connor, Lamentations, 78. Also, see Westermann, Lamentations, 217. Hillers (Lamentations, 165) interprets v. 21 as a call for national restoration, not just renewal of personal and spiritual life. 74 D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), 146–147; and P. Buis, “La Nouvelle Alliance,” VT 18 (1968), 9. 75 Both Hillers (Covenant, 167–168) and Buis (“Nouvelle Alliance,” 9– 10) compare the model of restoring a broken covenant (similar to Lam. 5:19–22) with the model of establishing a new one (e.g., Jer. 31:32–34 and Ezek. 37:16–28). Both scholars recognize that the “new covenant” is like the “old covenant” because both are initiated by YHWH and take as a starting point God’s grace, in contrast to covenant renewal which is initiated by the people’s confession and supplication. 71 72

210

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

the leadership of Jerusalem has been completely dismantled; while the sentiments of confession and petition may be expressed in this poem, Jerusalem’s rulers and elders (5:12 and 14) are unable to conduct a proper and effective renewal ceremony. Second, there is no clear vision of how the people might be restored in the future, and no covenantal stipulations to which they must consent; there is only a nostalgic desire to be renewed “as in days of old” (v. 21). The absence of those two elements augments the gravity of the situation, suggesting that reestablishing a bond with YHWH may prove to be an unattainable goal. Finally, in 5:22, the poet acknowledges how deep the breach is that would have to be overcome in order for his petition to be granted.76 Only if YHWH’s mercy proves to be greater than his anger will reconciliation be possible. Lamentations 5:19–22 reflects the feelings of urban survivors whose former lives, favorably remembered, have been devastated and permanently altered. Jerusalemites in the sixth century BCE, like their urban counterparts from other ancient Near Eastern cities that had fallen, hoped for a return to “days of old” (v. 21) and a restoration of their safe and familiar world. However, the same circumstances that seemed to evoke in Jerusalemites anguish over YHWH’s abandonment and immeasurable anger (vv. 20–22) may have offered a respite from oppression for rural Judean peasants in the late neo-Babylonian era, as the following discussion suggests.

The seriousness of the covenantal breach would probably have been understood very clearly by urbanites who had been involved in Jerusalem’s administration. Expectations of a faithful vassal were widely known, and failure to keep covenant with one’s sovereign was severely punished. For example, Wiseman (Chronicles, 37) describes a situation in which an Elamite vassal was executed for breaking a covenant between Nabopolassar and the vassal’s father. If the death penalty was the expected consequence for covenantal infidelity in the secular world, then the former Jerusalemite śārîm would have known all too well the importance of divine favor so fervently sought in Lam. 5:20–22. 76

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

211

Counter Reading While Jerusalemites struggled to survive harsh living conditions during the mid-sixth century BCE, Judean peasants may have experienced a sense of renewed hope and potential. As concluded in earlier chapters of this study, these peasants probably were able to establish new settlements, regain a level of autonomy in their family-based social groups, and enjoy some semblance of continuity with past cultural traditions.77 The affirmation that YHWH’s throne is eternal (v. 19) may be consistent with beliefs shared at least by some rural Judeans, though not in the same sense that an urbanite might have meant it. For Jerusalemites, the throne of YHWH had as its earthly counterpart the throne of the king sanctioned by the divine presence in the Temple. Those earthly symbols had come to represent for rural Judeans the oppression that the Jerusalemite monarchy had imposed on the peasantry. However, after 586 BCE, and especially after 582, rural Judeans apparently experienced little oppression from their Babylonian rulers, who were too concerned with development of the empire’s core urban centers and expansion of trade with international markets to invest their limited resources in exploitation and administration of the Levant. Therefore, a reference to YHWH reigning forever probably conveyed for Judah’s peasants a sense of liberation from past oppression, in contrast to the urbanites’ hope that their former institutions would soon be reestablished.78 McNutt, Reconstructing the Society, 188–189. Morony (“City without Watchdogs,” 16) suggests that kinship bonds (which provided the basis for rural Judean communities under normal conditions) were among the strongest motivating factors in the development of strong communal organization and cohesion. 78 I am not suggesting that rural Judeans were “liberation theologians” in the technical sense of the term. In fact, most Judean peasants did not even own the land where they lived, but rather retained the right to work it as sharecroppers or tenant farmers (Domeris, Touching the Heart, 131– 132). However, if Judeans believed that the land really belonged to YHWH, then peasants would have welcomed the removal from power of oppressive representatives from the monarchy or the empire, so that the rural poor could control the use of whatever they produced from the land. 77

212

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

If the concept of covenant was universally recognized and understood in the ancient world,79 then it is reasonable to assume that rural Judeans interpreted their ability to survive and subsist throughout the neo-Babylonian era as a sign of divine blessing, not abandonment. It is possible, especially in the 550s and 540s, that rural Judean villages had increasing contact with outsiders (e.g., Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks) engaged in military and commercial exchange.80 Such encounters were not documented because the Levant was not the focus of this activity. However, east-west trade routes through Syria-Palestine probably were utilized to some extent, and the commercial activity may have provided at least a meager benefit to Judean peasants.81 Therefore, the conclusion of Lamentations 5 probably did not represent the

G. E. Mendenhall and G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD, I:1180. According to Mendenhall and Herion (1181), in the ancient Near East it was generally expected that those who faithfully kept covenant would experience “economic prosperity, freedom from disease, and a tranquil long life.” Therefore, Judean peasants may have believed that their survival in the years following Jerusalem’s fall was a sign of divine reward and blessing. 80 Ahlström (History of Ancient Palestine, 809–810) notes an increase in the appearance of Greek pottery which he assumes was “probably transported by Phoenician merchants” throughout Syria-Palestine in the sixth century BCE. However, the dating of such evidence is in dispute, as Vanderhooft (“Babylonian Strategies,” 255) points out. He is much more reluctant to locate such evidence in the neo-Babylonian era and, in fact, he argues that commercial activity was completely curtailed in sixth-century BCE Judah. 81 A similar phenomenon can be observed in the interaction between nomadic groups and outside institutions or power structures in the Levantine region in modern times. See A. Meir, As Nomadism Ends: The Israeli Bedowin of the Negev (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997), especially pages 53–54. Increasing contact with the outside world (whether it is experienced as commercial opportunity or military incursion) inevitably leads to changes in the material culture and social character of isolated rural groups. 79

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

213

experience and sentiments of rural Judeans as long as the Babylonian Empire kept a loose administrative hold on the region. However, as Babylonian rule gave way to Persian, another reversal of fortune took place. Rural Judeans who had survived the fifty-year exile of their former Jerusalemite rulers found themselves under increasing imperial scrutiny, manipulation, and demand by new leaders appointed by Persia. By the close of the sixth century BCE, Judean peasants were again relegated to the bottom of the social order, dispossessed of the land that later came to be called “empty” so that newly appointed leaders (immigrants or returnees) from Babylon could carry out effective administration of the region to serve Persia’s interests. Only then does the closing remark in Lamentations 5 reflect the experience of rural Judeans, who probably saw the return of the oppressive “days of old” as a sign of God’s utter rejection and immeasurable anger. Only in the Persian period were Judean peasants, who had survived the attacks and years of neglect by the Babylonians, finally and forever dispossessed both of the land and of their place in history.

SUMMARY Lamentations 5 provides a glimpse into the quality of life for Judeans who managed to live through the decades following the collapse of Jerusalem. For urbanites, those years brought social upheaval and continued unrest. Unaccustomed to manual labor and previously sheltered from the vicissitudes of subsistence farming, members of Jerusalem’s elite who survived the destruction of their city found themselves at the mercy of their former slaves or peasants. They were probably forced to do the work of draft animals and to endure harsh living conditions just to meet basic human needs. Even in the later years of the neo-Babylonian era, urbanites remembered the experience of being targets of physical attack and public scorn; and they felt frustration, humiliation, sorrow, and shame. During that same time period, however, some rural Judeans reclaimed land and began to reestablish family farms and small communities. They apparently did not rebuild fallen urban sites, which were considered dangerous, not only because of wild animals that prowled in them, but also because of the disastrous fate that had befallen them; but probably they established small rural settlements where they could practice centuries-old

214

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

techniques of subsistence farming. Because of the need for extra laborers to help clear fields and establish, cultivate, and harvest new crops, peasant households were probably quite willing to take in urban refugees who were able to pull their weight on the farms. As years passed, especially in the 550s and 540s, those new rural settlements undoubtedly came in contact with outsiders, especially with Babylonian and Persian forces travelling through Syria-Palestine en route to regions along the Mediterranean. Peasant households had little interest in international politics, but probably cooperated with those strangers in order to increase their options for assistance in lean years, and to ensure that their communities would be protected. Urbanites, however, may have continued to harbor antagonistic feelings well into the sixth century—both toward Judah’s peasants, who refused to acknowledge their former status of social privilege; and toward their Babylonian conquerors who had mercilessly destroyed their way of life. For them, petitions to YHWH for help and restoration remained unanswered, and the breach in the covenant with YHWH seemed as irreparable as Zion’s crumbled walls. Berlin concludes that the ending of Lamentations 5 deliberately “fail[s] to provide the comfort that has been sought throughout” the entire book, leaving the scroll to serve as “a perpetual lament commemorating inconsolable mourning.”82 This may have been true for the Jerusalemite authors of the Lamentations scroll; and it may have come to be true for those who have read the scroll at times of profound grieving since the onset of the Persian period, searching in vain for healing and hope. However, for the rural Judean peasants who survived the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and remained in the land of Judah for the fifty years of Babylonian rule, life was not a complete disaster. To the contrary, as Lam. 5:8 suggests, some even assumed positions of authority over those who had once oppressed them. During the 550s and 540s BCE, some rural households probably experienced as a lived reality exactly what their Jerusalemite counterparts still sought: restoration of a former time and of relative wellbeing. Of course, history shows that for rural Judeans that period of 82

Berlin, Lamentations, 125.

5 LAMENTATIONS FIVE

215

wellbeing was short-lived. As several scholars have demonstrated, Persian administration of the region forced Judeans who had not been exiled (rural peasants and, perhaps, urban survivors as well) into a subordinate social position in the new province of Yehud.83 They were once again dispossessed of the land and forced to produce, by the sweat of their brow, food and other goods that would meet the demands of Judah’s newly rebuilt urban centers and of Persia’s newly appointed, tax-hungry rulers (śārîm). Once Persia had firmly established its control in Yehud, rural Judean households indeed experienced the anguish expressed in the concluding petition of this final lament.

For example, see J. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), especially pages 51–86; and L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 1, The Persian and Greek Periods (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 115–116. 83

CONCLUSION Histories of ancient Israel certainly can be written, and the multitude of such enterprises testifies to that, but ‘a history’ (of anything) means both someone’s history, and indeed a history of something … Histories of an ancient Israel … are possible; the history of the ancient Israel is not.1

As the current study has demonstrated, the book of Lamentations expresses in poetic form the anguish of urban survivors of ancient siege warfare. Although Lamentations is not an historical document, it does allude to some of the historical realities and lived experiences of Jerusalemites during and after the Babylonian conquest. Its five poems convey the physical decimation, social dissolution, and emotional desperation of Jerusalemites struggling to comprehend and reconstruct their shattered lives. The images and themes in these laments are consistent with those in other Mesopotamian city-laments, and with the “metahistory” that the Hebrew Bible presents regarding the virtual curtailment of life in Judah during the so-called “exilic” period. However, such a reading of Lamentations overlooks the fact that there was no single, homogeneous community called “Judah” in 587/6 BCE. The institutions and lives of the urban elite were different from those of the rural poor. Material evidence shows that the destruction of Jerusalem did have a serious effect on peasants who lived closest to Babylonia’s military targets, but those who lived in the north (i.e., Benjamin) and in remote parts of Judah experienced relatively little disruption, or at least were able to seek P. R. Davies, “Whose History? Whose Israel? Whose Bible? Biblical Histories, Ancient and Modern,” in Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? ed. L. L. Grabbe (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 104. 1

217

218

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

refuge and survive Babylonia’s campaigns. The history, or rather the story, of the devastated world that is the subject of Lamentations, is a story of an ancient Judah, but is not the story of the ancient Judah, because the ancient Judah (as the more or less homogeneous society portrayed by the biblical writers) did not exist. In this concluding chapter, the book of Lamentations as a whole is discussed in a manner similar to the approach used in the previous five chapters. First, the rhetoric of the five Lamentations poems is summarized, reflecting primarily the perspectives of the Jerusalemite authors who composed those texts. Second, a reconstruction of Judah’s social world is proposed, that takes seriously differences in perspectives and experiences between rural Judeans and the urban elite. The book concludes with a discussion of the implications of this study, especially in regard to how this form of social-rhetorical criticism can elucidate the lives of those in ancient Israel/Judah whose histories have been marginalized and ignored in traditional historical-critical research.

THE RHETORIC OF LAMENTATIONS A number of rhetorical features appear in all five poems in Lamentations, creating a sense of continuity and literary coherence for the book as a whole. The most prominent of these features is the tragic reversals of fortune that provide stark contrasts between the former power, stability, and prestige enjoyed by the ruling class of Jerusalem, and the suffering, devastation, and loss the city’s survivors experience after Zion’s fall. From the opening chapter, in which Jerusalem is esteemed as “the greatest among the nations, mistress among the provinces” (1:1), to the last, in which Jerusalem’s survivors bemoan the fact that “slaves rule over us” (5:8), Lamentations exemplifies the rhetorical power of the citylament genre to express the traumatic losses that siege warfare inflicts on its urban victims. A second rhetorical device used throughout Lamentations, as well as in Mesopotamian city-laments, is hyperbolic language. Hyperbole accentuates the impact of the city’s devastation and the survivors’ grief. Zion’s past is glorified, associated with memories of splendor (1:6, 2:1, 4:2), beauty (2:15), hope (3:24), and bounty (4:5). In contrast, her present is full of shame and disgrace (1:9, 4:16, 5:1), grief (2:5, 3:51, 5:15), and death (e.g., 1:20, 2:21, 3:43,

CONCLUSION

219

4:18). The frequent use of merisms amplifies the rhetorical effect of the poems’ hyperbole, so that the reader may envision the immense impact that the war has had, not only on the groups of Jerusalemites specifically mentioned in the book, but also on the whole population of Jerusalem, its fortresses, and even “the whole countryside of Judah.”2 The combined effect of these rhetorical devices—tragic reversals, hyperbolic statements, and merisms—is to convey a message that is consistent throughout the book: Jerusalem’s devastation is all-encompassing, overwhelming, and irrevocable. Her splendor has fallen from heaven to earth (2:1); no one in all Judah has escaped her fate (2:22), and no passage of time can extricate her from the deep pit into which she has been flung (3:53–55). Two related motifs that appear consistently throughout Lamentations also contribute to a sense of rhetorical continuity in the book, as they express the shame and disgrace that Jerusalemite survivors must have felt. First is the theme of abandonment and social isolation from neighboring nations that Jerusalem might have called on as allies. Jerusalem’s allies have betrayed her (1:2, 19); they may have offered some limited assistance (5:6), but all the urban survivors’ basic needs are met at a great price (1:11; 5:4, 9). Jerusalem seeks in vain for a helper (1:7), a comforter (1:2, 9, 16, 17, 21), someone to share food with her starving children (4:4) and save them from further persecution (4:17), someone to deliver her from former slaves who have become oppressive taskmasters (5:8). However, Zion finds herself surrounded by enemies who taunt her and scheme against her (e.g., 1:7, 2:15–17, 3:46, 60–63). As a result, her “precious people” are shunned and banished (e.g., 4:15). A second motif that pervades these laments is divine abandonment and rage. YHWH himself refuses to respond to her repeated pleas to look at (rāʾāh) and take notice of (nabaṭ) her affliction. The verb nabaṭ appears in each Lamentations chapter (1:11, 12; 2:20; 3:63; 4:16; 5:1). Yet YHWH, who remains silent throughout the book, not only refuses to take notice of Zion’s These merisms include: young women and young men (1:18), its king and its rulers (2:2, 9), elders and maidens (2:10), and elders and youths (5:14). 2

220

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

predicament, but actually covers himself in a cloud and remains impervious to her prayers (3:44). The effect of these literary elements is to delineate, augment, and carry through from beginning to end the central message of the book: that Jerusalem is lonely, abandoned, and downcast, with neither neighbor nor Deity to comfort, assist, or restore her. While the rhetoric of Lamentations evokes a consistent sense of tragedy and loss, several rhetorical features are transformed over the course of the five laments, suggesting changes over time not only in the Jerusalemites’ grieving process but also in their struggle to survive. First, the tone and focus of the rhetoric shift from mourning and grief in the first two chapters to an expression of the resolve to survive in the last two. Coincident with that shift in mood is a shift in voice. A narrator predominates in Chapters 1 and 2, with Daughter Zion speaking only in occasional outbursts to plead her case. In Chapter 3, an individual survivor finds his voice; virtually the entire poem can be read as a first-person testimony of faith in the face of adversity. In Chapter 4, the voice of the narrator returns a final time; but at the end of the poem, first-person statements by numerous survivors emerge and remain the focus of the final chapter of the book. Rhetorically, the effect is to see the struggling of Jerusalemites first as the voiceless victims of the city’s demise, but finally as targets of injustice against which they themselves cry out for vindication. Furthermore, that transformation in the portrait of Zion’s survivors mirrors a change in the rhetorical goal of each chapter. The book as a whole presents a series of appeals to YHWH which shift from: comfort (Lamentations 1), to mercy (Lamentations 2), to justice (Lamentations 3), to vindication (Lamentations 4), and finally to restoration of Zion’s former status (Lamentations 5). A second way in which the rhetoric of Lamentations changes from the beginning to the end of the book is in the use of personification. In the first two chapters, the depiction of the city herself suffering and grieving is a powerful rhetorical tool that expresses the devastation—physical, psychological, and social— that must have occurred in Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE. The predominance of female imagery in those chapters (e.g., the citywidow weeping inconsolably and alone, Daughter Zion ravaged and scorned, and the helpless mother unable to feed her children) increases the sense of Jerusalem’s victimization and anguish. The

CONCLUSION

221

juxtaposition of references to the city’s physical structures that mourn and languish in ruins, and to her people who are overcome with grief and despair, adds to the impact of personification, as it becomes impossible to separate the fate of the city from the fate of “her” inhabitants. The reader must feel the agony of both. Another related feature of the rhetoric in the first two chapters of Lamentations is the juxtaposition of “Jerusalem” or “Zion” with “Judah” or “Israel” or “Jacob.” This feature, which is most frequent in Chapter 2, leads the reader to assume that the decimation of the capital city extended beyond its own shattered walls to enshroud even the most remote regions of the countryside (a notion of particular concern for the current study). This juxtaposition is combined with personification especially in the association of Daughter Judah and Daughter Zion in Lam. 2:1–2 and 4–5, to strengthen a sense of shared identity between rural and urban survivors. Once the connection is established in Chapters 1 and 2 between Daughter Zion and her people, personification fades away; and the rhetorical focus shifts from the destruction of the city to the human impact of the war—both on the people and on their way of life. The last three chapters suggest the ongoing hardship, hunger, and shame that Jerusalemite survivors endured, even after the ravaging of Zion had become a distant memory. Especially acute are the jarring images of human starvation, emaciation, and depravity that predominate in the rhetoric of Chapter 4. Throughout the book there is ambiguity regarding YHWH’s wrath and Jerusalem’s guilt. On the one hand, the Lamentations poet recognizes the sinfulness of the city’s people and the appropriateness of YHWH’s punishment of their guilt (1:5, 8, 22; 3:42). On the other hand, there is periodic questioning regarding whether that punishment is disproportionate to the people’s sin (2:20; 4:6, 5:20). That ambiguity reaches a climax in Chapter 4, where the poet declares that Zion’s punishment is greater than that of Sodom (4:6); but the same poem ends by declaring that Zion’s exile would soon be over and Edom’s judgment was imminent (4:22). The final effect of having YHWH addressed strictly as the hoped-for (but silent) deliverer (5:1, 21–22) is that the poet acknowledges that, despite the alienation that has occurred between

222

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Zion and her God (5:22), YHWH remains the only one who can restore her. As demonstrated in Chapters 1 through 5 of this book, the rhetoric of Lamentations draws on stock imagery of the literature and iconography of the ancient Near East. The most common motifs include: the Divine Warrior (who has the power both to condemn and to deliver); the Weeping Goddess (who, like Daughter Zion, grieves desperately “over the destruction of my precious people” [2:11, 4:10]); the hyperbolic descriptions of suffering and reversals of fortune; and the loss of human life and breakdown of social structures. Although earlier work by Kramer suggests that such common themes are evidence of literary borrowing, more recent studies by Dobbs-Allsopp and others attribute these similarities to shared worldviews and literary conventions that are not necessarily “original” to a single culture (e.g., Sumerian) and “borrowed” by another (e.g., Judean).3 The variety of parallels noted in the current study, not only with Sumerian city-laments, but also with a number of conquest accounts, prayers and hymns, prophetic texts, cave inscriptions, and iconography, supports Dobbs-Allsopp’s view that many of the

See especially Kramer, “Sumerian Literature and the Bible;” DobbsAllsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion; and McDaniel, “Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations.” In a more recent essay regarding the citylament genre, Dobbs-Allsopp draws on D. Fishelov’s work on genre theory, to elucidate further his analysis of Lamentations as a city-lament. See D. Fishelov, Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 53–85; cited in F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Darwinism, Genre Theory, and City Laments,” LAOS 120 (2000): 625–630. Dobbs-Allsopp (“Darwinism,” 629) suggests that Lamentations was, in a sense, derived from or evolved from the Mesopotamian city-laments; but in a process of “generic evolution,” the authors of Lamentations adapted the city-lament genre to the “cultural and literary environs” of Israel/Judah (630). Evidence of that adaptation in Lamentations includes the portrayal of YHWH as Divine Warrior as well as the modification of the Weeping Goddess motif to reflect the grief of Daughter Zion. 3

CONCLUSION

223

prominent motifs and images in Lamentations reflect the common literary repertoire and worldview of the ancient Near East. Two general conclusions about the rhetoric of Lamentations can be drawn from these observations. First, the book of Lamentations is not merely about the destruction of a city and the collapse of a dynasty; rather, it is about the tragic loss of human life and the anguish over the challenges of faith that tragedy produces. Jerusalem is not just a set of physical structures, or a symbol of the Davidic monarchy, or even the site of YHWH’s shrine (although the loss of the Temple is an important element in the message of these poems). If the poet in Chapters 1 and 2 had simply catalogued the various parts of the city that had been destroyed, the reader’s attention would never have been directed to the depth of human suffering that is the focus of these poems. For Lamentations, Jerusalem is not just a collection of buildings destroyed in a war, but also a community of people whose lives were decimated in 587/6 BCE. The use of personification and the juxtaposition of references to the war’s impact on the city’s physical structures and on her people create much greater sympathy and evoke a sense that the siege was not just a geopolitical event, but a human tragedy. The emphasis on human suffering, especially the dehumanizing effects of famine and the demoralizing demands of toil and oppression, augment the impact of the rhetoric of the book, motivating the reader (and hopefully for the poet, YHWH) to look and consider both the loss of the city and its shrine, and the agony of its people. Second, the rhetoric of Lamentations clearly focuses on the urban elite, with no significant consideration for Judah’s rural inhabitants. All of the imagery, allusions, and literary devices that encourage the reader to sympathize with the urban siege victims effectively communicate two messages: first, that the victims’ anguish is all the more tragic because they have lost social status, power, and privilege (over Judah’s former servant class); and second, that the suffering inflicted on Daughter Zion was equally devastating for Daughter Judah. There is no reference in this book to the lives of rural Judeans apart from their presumed participation in Jerusalem’s drama. “Judah” was exiled just like Zion’s children (1:3, 5); “the whole countryside of Jacob” and “the fortresses of Daughter Judah” were destroyed along with the capital city (2:2, 6, 8). The damage caused by the Babylonian army

224

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

not only overwhelmed all of the inhabitants of the primary military targets, but also, according to the rhetoric of the poems, the inhabitants of rural Judah as well (2:5). The frequent use of merisms (throughout the book) and the juxtaposition (in Chapters 1 and 2) of Jerusalem/Zion and Judah/Israel/Jacob, work together effectively to dramatize and magnify the catastrophic events experienced by the people in Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE. However, those rhetorical devices also obscure the notion that anyone in Judah could have escaped that disaster. The experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of Judean peasants in remote parts of Judah lie buried deep below the images of Zion’s ruins; and the voices of those peasants are drowned out by her grief.

JUDAH’S SOCIAL WORLD IN THE NEO-BABYLONIAN ERA Although the rhetoric of Lamentations has as its primary focus the perspective of members of Jerusalem’s elite who remained in Judah during the neo-Babylonian era, poetic allusions in these five laments can raise questions regarding the perspectives and experiences of Judah’s peasants who also survived in that period. First is the extent to which rural areas were targets of Babylonian attacks. Archaeological evidence supports the historicity of the statement in Lam. 1:1 regarding the emptiness of the besieged city, as well as of the destruction of the fortress towns that supported Jerusalem; e.g., Lachish, Arad, Ramat Raḥel, and all urban centers to the immediate west and south of the city. Destroyed with those towns were the nearby agricultural lands that had produced their food. However, the urban centers, including Jerusalem, only housed a minority of Judah’s population in 587 BCE; and, although rural Judah did experience population losses due to warfare, famine, and temporary displacement, most rural Judeans at a distance from the urban centers—including those who lived in the northern region of Benjamin, in remote areas of the Negev, and in border zones near the Jordan—survived and remained in Judah throughout the neo-Babylonian era. Although Jerusalem and its military and administrative centers were abandoned and in ruins, the region of Judah as a whole was by no means depopulated. A second question regarding the perspective of Judah’s rural population is that, although the Jerusalemite poet establishes a strong sense of identity between Jerusalem (or Zion) and Judah, Judean peasants, especially those who lived at a distance from the

CONCLUSION

225

capital, may have only identified with the capital, its king, and its shrine insofar as they had been compelled to meet the demands of the monarchy for tribute payments and labor conscriptions. Most peasant communities base their sense of identity not on political affiliations, but on kinship ties. While Judean peasants may have provided goods and services to the monarchy, they did not think of themselves as “Judeans” in the same sense as, say, modern farmers in rural America might think of themselves as “Americans.” Likewise, references to the northern territory of Israel (2:1, 3, 5) or Jacob (2:2) reflect an even more tenuous association with Jerusalem, since that territory (if there is any truth to the biblical narrative) had strained relations with Jerusalem for over 400 years. Furthermore, not only was the sense of identity of rural Judeans not clearly associated with Jerusalem, but also the relationships between rural Judeans and other peoples, including Edom (4:21– 22) and Egypt and Assyria (5:6), were different from the relations that Jerusalemites had with those peoples. In the case of Jerusalem, those relations were more politicized and, especially regarding Edom, characterized more by competition and contention.4 However, rural Judeans in the border regions of Judah may have had a more cooperative relationship with Edom and other neighboring peoples. In some cases, especially in semi-arid regions, competition over land use and access to water and other limited resources may have existed; but there also seems to have been greater possibility for common cultural, religious, and even familial bonds that provided for peaceful co-existence between rural Judeans and their Arab neighbors. A third point is related to the survival of peasant households and the reestablishment of their subsistence economies. I agree with the majority of biblical scholars who maintain that Judean society was transformed in the sixth century BCE. Material and epigraphic evidence supports statements in Lamentations that the physical structures and social institutions associated with

See discussion in Chapter 4 of Lam. 4:21–22 regarding evidence of Judean-Edomite relations. 4

226

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Jerusalem’s monarchy were severely disrupted in 587/6 BCE.5 In addition, there is no evidence of formal administrative measures by which Judah functioned as a productive province under Babylonia. However, unlike many scholars, I interpret those factors as leaving open the possibilities that relative freedom existed for surviving Judean peasants in the sixth century BCE. Even after 582 BCE, when Babylonia secured the Benjamin region after Gedaliah’s assassination, Judah’s rural communities were able to function as extended kinship groups, just as they had in the pre-monarchic period. After Jerusalem and its administration collapsed, and the Babylonians directed their attention elsewhere, rural survivors had an opportunity to strengthen their previous social structures. Family elders provided leadership for peasant communities regarding: when and where to seek refuge until the immediate crisis had passed, and how to rebuild settlements, reestablish crops, protect livestock, and engage in whatever risk-management strategies they could to ensure their survival.6 Since subsistence economies are dependent neither on a complex social infrastructure nor on regional or international trade, it is reasonable to assume that Judean peasants did not experience social and economic upheaval to the extent that urbanites did during and after the Babylonian conquest.7 Fourth, famine, which is such a prominent theme in Lamentations and other Mesopotamian city-laments, did have an impact on some parts of rural Judah. A combination of raids and References to the destruction of the city are particularly prominent in Lamentations 1 and 2. Allusions to the dissolution of Jerusalemite society include remarks about the plight of the king (2:9, 4:20), officials (1:6, 5:12), priests (1:4, 4:14), and prophets (2:9, 20), who were no longer able to provide leadership for Jerusalemites in crisis. 6 This is in contrast to Jerusalem’s elders, who apparently were rendered ineffective and helpless in the aftermath of the war (Lam. 1:19, 2:10, 5:14). 7 For example, the abandonment of Zion’s roads (1:4), destruction of military outposts (2:2), and frustration about the poor response of neighboring peoples to provide adequate emergency assistance (5:6), were more serious challenges for Jerusalemites than for Judean peasants. 5

CONCLUSION

227

ravaging by the Babylonian army, and a labor shortage caused by the killing of peasants in the war, led to the disruption of food production especially in farms closest to the urban centers (2:2). It is possible that some Judean farmers may have tried to find a way to bring relief to siege victims, but their efforts were minimal given the dangers involved in approaching the city until well after the army had left. However, peasants who did survive were able to take measures to alleviate the food crisis, including: establishing crops (e.g., grains and legumes) that yielded food quickly; and hiring laborers, including the few Jerusalemite men who might have survived along with women and children, to supplement the labor supply and expedite farming efforts (5:1–9). Peasant households also kept livestock which helped to diversify the sources of food and other products necessary for survival. Rural Judeans who survived after 586 BCE had to reckon with raids by Babylonian soldiers and neighboring peoples, as well as attacks by wild animals that threatened isolated and abandoned settlements (5:18). Despite all these challenges, however, the impact of famine was not as acute for rural households as it was for urban survivors unaccustomed to the harsh living conditions and manual labor necessary to procure food in the ancient world. A fifth issue involves different ways in which Jerusalemites and Judean peasants might have viewed certain groups within Judean society. Monarchical leaders, including the king, his advisors the prophets, and administrative officials (śārîm), represented the oppressive regime under which many rural Judeans were burdened by the demands of taxes (in-kind), and military and labor conscription. Therefore, it is likely that adversarial dynamics characterized the relationship between members of Judah’s urban elite and its peasantry in the monarchic period. The collapse of Jerusalem and its leaders was probably welcome news for some rural Judeans who interpreted the events of 587/6 BCE as vindication for the injustices they had suffered under the monarchy. It is even possible that some rural Judeans hoped to gain the favor of their new Babylonian overseers by participating publicly in mocking Jerusalem’s fallen rulers as they were marched into exile. Some of the taunts, especially the one mentioned in Lam. 3:14 by “my people,” might be allusions to sentiments expressed by pro-Babylonian Benjamites and rural Judean survivors who were relieved to see their former oppressors fall from power.

228

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

In the book of Lamentations there are several references to priests who are mourning (1:6), defiled (4:15), starving (1:19), and slain (2:20). A rural Judean audience might have responded to such references with ambiguity. On the one hand, the Temple priests who collected tribute in support of the monarchy may have been perceived as part of the oppressive Jerusalemite elite. On the other hand, the priests who were in service to YHWH, may have been afforded a certain level of respect and consideration (4:16). In addition, among the Jerusalemite priests who were not exiled or killed in the war, there were probably priests of lesser rank and, perhaps, even some from rural households. Those priests may have received more sympathy from rural Judeans than other Jerusalemite leaders did. Another consideration regarding the reference in Lamentations to Jerusalem’s priests and cult is that, although the Temple and its cult were destroyed in 586 BCE, worship probably did not cease in remote parts of Judah (and maybe even not completely at the Temple ruins themselves). Many scholars believe that local religious customs may have been observed with relative continuity, not only in Bethel, which served temporarily as a cultic center during the neo-Babylonian period, but also in remote regions of Judah, where family piety and regional customs were observed in domestic and rural shrines. In fact, Albertz has suggested that the family-based religious beliefs and practices of rural Judeans may have been instrumental in enabling Yahwistic faith to survive the catastrophic impact that the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple caused for Jerusalemites associated with the national cult.8 A final group mentioned with great frequency in Lamentations is women and children. References to women, including widows (1:1, 5:3), mothers unable to feed their children (2:12, 4:10), maidens who are mourning (1:4, 2:10), and women who are raped (5:11) serve as stark reminders of the hardships that women frequently face in times of war. Lamentations also mentions children who are exiled (1:5), starved (2:11, 4:4), and slain

Albertz, “Wieviel Pluralismus kann sich eine Religion leisten?” 208; and History of Religion, 400. 8

CONCLUSION

229

by the sword (1:20), reflecting the tragic realities of children of war, not only in the ancient world, but in modern times as well. Based on the preceding summary, several conclusions may be drawn regarding the social world of Judah in the neo-Babylonian era. First, the evidence is clear that there was little Babylonian presence in Judah after the third deportation of Judeans to Babylon in 582 BCE. However, it does not necessarily follow that there was no life in Judah after that time. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that many rural Judeans, and a few urbanites, survived through the sixth century BCE. It is likely that they lived in remote parts of the region (perhaps after seeking refuge among neighboring peoples), and subsisted on basic agricultural products (especially grains and legumes) and pastoralism; in the north, viticulture also survived the Babylonian conquest. Faust’s statement that “different histories” developed in different areas of Judah is true;9 however, the differences were most acute between the most isolated parts of the region and the urban centers, near which farm communities were raided and destroyed. Finally, Jerusalemites who survived after 586 BCE probably found themselves under the leadership of elders of the peasant households that provided them with shelter and food. Animosity was greatest in the years soon after the collapse of Jerusalem, though resentment on the part of some of the displaced urban elite probably persisted throughout the neo-Babylonian era. However, by the time the Persian Empire had assumed control of the region and sent “deported” (or “returned exiles”) from Babylon to rebuild Jerusalem and manage the province of Yehud, it is possible that the urban-rural dichotomy that had characterized the Judean society in the 580s had, to some extent, diminished. What emerged in the latter part of the sixth century BCE was a rivalry between the new, Persian-supported urban elite and the second generation of survivors (both urbanites and peasants) from the Babylonian conquest.

9

Faust, “Judah in the Sixth Century B. C. E.,” 45.

230

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY The current study arrives at a reconstruction of the social world of Judah during a period which many historians have considered inaccessible. Two prominent scholars, H. Barstad and B. Oded, represent different schools of thought about sixth-century BCE Judah, but they share in common one flawed assumption. Barstad rejects the “myth of the empty land,” and insists that Judean society in the neo-Babylonian era “must have consisted not only of peasants …, but also of artisans, traders, village and town elders, scribes, priests and prophets. In other words, [it was] a functioning society, with many of the different political institutions still intact.”10 Oded also admits that some Judeans survived after 586 BCE, but argues that the Judean population in the neo-Babylonian era exhibited “a marked decline in quality [!] and … quantity.” According to Oded, Judah proper was a land with no state or capital, no leader or elders …, no organized community with political, social, and religious institutions, no priests or prophets …, no significant economic activities or trade … [and] no cultural or literary activities.”11 In other words, both Barstad and Oded—and many other biblical scholars as well—equate “Judean” society with the cultural, political, and social institutions of the minority of Judah’s population that comprised Jerusalem’s ruling class. To say that sixth-century BCE Judah had no continuity in cultural or social life apart from the function of Jerusalem’s elite is to say that the urban culture and population were all that mattered, both to the biblical writers and to modern historians of the biblical era. The experiences of Judah’s peasant majority clearly did not. Such a position demeans the very important role that peasants played in the ability of any Judeans to survive the devastating consequences of the Babylonian conquest. Furthermore, such a position perpetuates the exclusion from historical inquiry of similar Barstad, Myth of the Empty Land, 18–19. B. Oded, “Where is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ to Be Found? History versus Myth,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 71. 10 11

CONCLUSION

231

agrarian communities who, because their experiences were not documented or preserved in the material record, are inaccessible through traditional historical methods. Admittedly, there is much we cannot know about Judean society in the neo-Babylonian era; traditional historical sources tell us little, and poetic rhetoric can be equally opaque. However, this study demonstrates that close examination of the meager evidence that does exist can inform a reasonable reconstruction of Judah’s social world, one that is more plausible than the notion that no social life persisted in the land apart from the institutions and activities of the few survivors of Jerusalem’s elite. Although the book of Lamentations was not written to document specific historical events, and although it is full of poetic allusions designed to achieve a certain rhetorical effect (e.g., to evoke sympathy, promote faith, etc.), it does not necessarily follow that Lamentations is devoid of historical relevance. In fact, the process of triangulating rhetorical, archaeological and sociological evidence used in this study leads to an appreciation of the “different histories” experienced by rural and urban Judeans after Jerusalem’s collapse. Many modern interpreters have discounted the historical value of Lamentations and other Mesopotamian citylaments because they utilize conventional language, stock imagery, and common motifs which presumably detract from their historical reliability. However, as the current study shows, the fact that certain literary devices were common throughout the ancient Near East suggests that they can indeed serve as an effective guide for inquiry into the lived reality—or at least the perceptions of the reality—of siege victims and survivors of ancient siege warfare. Of course, because of the highly symbolic nature of poetic language, Lamentations should not be read literally; but when read as a spring board for critical inquiry, it can assist in the development of a much clearer understanding of Judah’s social world in the neoBabylonian era, than conventional historical critical methods generally reveal. Furthermore, as one gains greater understanding of the complex social dynamics that existed between survivors of Jerusalem’s ruling class and Judah’s peasants after 586 BCE, it becomes apparent that Lamentations evokes sympathy for the former, but suppresses any sympathy for, or even awareness of, the peasants who played an important role in Judah’s survival. There is

232

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

no direct reference to the experiences of rural Judeans per se. Any allusion to Judean peasants—whether seen in the pilgrimages of offerings to Zion which have ended (1:4), or in the complaint that “slaves rule over us” (5:8)—is only made in order to accentuate the suffering of the fallen Jerusalemite elite. Reading Lamentations from the perspective of its Jerusalemite authors offers no recognition of efforts on the part of Judean peasants to survive and establish viable communities, or to assist Jerusalemite refugees during the neo-Babylonian era. However, a counter reading from a rural perspective breaks open the possibility that a less homogeneous group of Judeans somehow worked together to rebuild their lives after Zion fell. A critical reading of Lamentations (or any other ancient poetic text) does not have to be limited to literary analysis devoid of historical relevance. It is possible to explore creatively even limited clues about the lives of people whose very existence has been denied by traditional approaches to biblical scholarship. Hopefully, the approach used in this study will lead to greater appreciation for the complexities of the “Israelite” peoples among whom the biblical literature was written and preserved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aharoni, Y. Arad Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981). _____. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2d ed. (London: Burns and Oates, 1979). _____. “Ramat Raḥel.” In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. IV. 1975. Ahlström, G. W. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982). Albertz, R. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees. Translated by J. Bowden (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994). _____. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B. C. Translated by D. Green (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). _____. Personliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1978). _____. “Wieviel Pluralismus kann sich eine Religion leisten? Zum religionsinternen Pluralismus im alten Israel.” In Pluralismus und Identität. Edited by J. Mehlhausen, 193–213 (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995). _____. “Die Zerstörung des Jerusalemer Tempels 587 v. Chr.: Historische Einordnung und religionspolitische Bedeutung.” In Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Edited by J. Hahn, 23–39 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Albrektson, B. Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Lund: Gleerup, 1963). Albright, W. F. “Beit Mirsim, Tell.” In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. I. 1991. Amit, D. “Farmsteads in Northern Judea (Betar Area): Survey.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 10 (1991): 147–148. 233

234

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Anderson, G. A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). _____. A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). Arnold, D. Famine: Social Crisis and Historical Change (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ltd., 1988). Artzi, P. “Mourning in International Relations.” In Death in Mesopotamia. Edited by B. Alster, 161–170 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980). Aschkenasy, N. Woman at the Window: Biblical Texts of Oppression and Escape (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1998). Assis, E. “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources.” Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006): 1–20. Avigad, N. Discovering Jerusalem (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1980). _____. Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986). Axelsson, L. E. The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1987). Bailey, W. A. “The Lament Traditions of Enslaved African American Women and the Lament Traditions of the Hebrew Bible.” In Lamentations in Contemporary Cultural Contexts. Edited by N. C. Lee and C. Mandolfo (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008). Banning, E. B. “Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Frameworks for Rural Archaeology in the Near East.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 301 (1996): 25–46. Barash, I. “Survey of Wine Presses and Agricultural Installations.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 17 (1998): 132–136. Barkay, G. “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by H. Geva, 85–106 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994). _____. “The Iron Age II and III.” In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Edited by A. Ben-Tor. Translated by R. Greenberg, 302–373 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). Barkay, G., A. Fantalkin, and O. Tal. “A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 323 (2002): 49–71.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Barstad, H. “After the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah.’ In Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 3–20 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003). _____. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the ‘Exilic’ Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996). Bartlett, J. R. Edom and the Edomites. JSOT Supplement Series 77 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). Beaulieu, P.-A. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–529 B.C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). Beard, M. and J. North, ed. “Introduction.” In Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, 1–14 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). Bechtel, L. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991): 47–76. Beit-Arieh, I. Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1995). Berlin, A. Lamentations: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 2002). Berquist, J. Controllling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000). _____. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Berrigan, D. Lamentations from New York to Kabul and Beyond (Lanham, Maryland: Sheed and Ward, 2002). Betlyon, J. W. “Neo-Babylonian Military Operations Other Than War in Judah and Jerusalem.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 263–284 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003). Bidlack, B. “Imagery in Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Foreign Nations and Rulers (Ezekiel 25–32). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University, 2000. Bienkowski, P. “The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom: Evidence from Umm el-Bujara, Tawilan and Buseirah.” In Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan. Edited by P. Bienkowski, 99–112 (Sheffield: J. R. Collins Publications, 1992).

236

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Bienkowski, P. and L. Sedman. “Busayra and Judah: Stylistic Parallels in the Material Culture.” In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Edited by A. Mazar, 310–325. JSOT Supplement Series 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Bienkowski, P. and E. Van der Steen. “Tribes, Trades, and Towns: A New Framework for the Late Iron Age in Southern Jordan and the Negev.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 323 (2001): 21–47. Bird, P. Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997). Blenkinsopp, J. “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 93–108 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003). _____. A History of Prophecy in Israel From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983). _____. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995). Blight, D. W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001). Bloch-Smith, E. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOT Supplement Series 123 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Broshi, M. “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem.” Biblical Archaeology Review 4 (1978): 10–15. _____. “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reign of Hezekiah and Manasseh.” Israel Exploration Journal 24 (1974): 21–26. Broshi, M. and I. Finkelstein. “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 287 (1992): 47–60. Brown, F. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Genesius Hebrew and English Lexicon with Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979). Bruins, H. J. Desert Environment and Agriculture in the Central Negev and Kadesh-Barnea During Historical Times (Nijkerk, The Netherlands: MIDBAR Foundation, 1986). Buis, P. “La Nouvelle Alliance.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 1–15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Cahill, J. M. “Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from Ancient Judah.” Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995): 230–252. Cahill, J. M. and D. Tarler. “Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–1985.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by H. Geva, 31–45 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994). Carroll, R. P. “Night Without Vision: Micah and the Prophets.” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 49 (1992): 74–84. _____. When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in Old Testament Prophetic Traditions (London: SCM Press, 1979). Chowning, M. Wealth and Power in Provincial Mexico: Michoacán from the Late Colony to the Revolution (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999). Cohen, M. E. balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second and First Millennium B. C. (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1974). Collins, J. J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Committee for the Compilation of Materials on Damage Caused by the Atomic Bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings. Translated by E. Ishikawa and D. L. Swain (New York: Basic Books, 1981). Dahood, M. “New Readings in Lamentations.” Biblica 59 (1978): 174–197. Dalley, S. Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Dandamaev, M. A. “Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3, part 2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. 2d ed. Edited by J. Boardman et al, 252–275 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Davies, P. R. “Whose History? Whose Israel? Whose Bible? Biblical Histories, Ancient and Modern.” In Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? Edited by L. L. Grabbe, 104–122 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Dever, W. G. “Social Structure in Palestine in the Iron II Period on the Eve of Destruction.” In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy

238

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Land. Edited by T. E. Levy, 416–431 (Washington: Leicester University Press, 1995; reprint 1998). Diakonoff, I. M. “The Rural Community in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18 (1975): 121–133. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Darwinism, Genre Theory, and City Laments.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 120 (2000): 625–630. _____. Lamentations. Interpretation Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002). _____. “Tragedy, Tradition, and Theology in the Book of Lamentations.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 74 (1997): 29–60. _____. Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993). Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. and T. Linafelt. “The Rape of Zion in Thr. 1, 10.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001): 77–81. Domeris, W. R. Touching the Heart of God: The Social Construction of Poverty Among Biblical Peasants. (New York: T & T Clark, 2007). Dornemann, R. H. The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Milwaukee: Milwaukee Publishing Museum, 1983). Dubberstein, W. H. “Comparative Prices in Later Babylonia (625– 400 B.C.).” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 56 (1939): 20–43. Edelstein, G. and S. Gibson. “Ancient Jerusalem’s Rural Food Basket.” Biblical Archaeology Review 8 (1982): 46–54. Edelstein, G. and I. Milevski. “The Rural Settlement of Jerusalem Re-Evaluated: Surveys and Excavations in the Rephaʾim Valley and Mevasseret Yerusalayim.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 126 (1994): 2–23. Edelman, D. V., ed. Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995). Eitam, D. “Olive Oil Production during the Biblical Period.” In Olive Oil in Antiquity. Edited by M. Heltzer and D. Eitam, 16– 43 (Haifa: Haifa University, 1987).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Elayi, L. and J. Sapin. Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene. Translated by J. E. Crowley. JSOT Supplement Series 250 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Eyre, C. J. “The Agricultural Cycle, Farming, and Water Management in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Edited by J. M. Sasson, 175–189 (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1995). Faust, A. “Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 135 (2001): 37–53. _____. “Rural Community in Ancient Israel.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 317 (2000): 17–40. _____. “Socioeconomic Stratification in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test Case,” Levant 31 (1999): 179–190. Faust, A. and E. Weiss. “Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World: Reconstructing the Economic System of the Seventh Century B. C. E.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 338 (2005): 71–92. Feig, T. N. “New Discoveries in the Rephaim Valley, Jerusalem.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 128 (1996): 3–7. Ferris, P. W., Jr. The Genre of Communal Laments in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. SBL Dissertation Series 127 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Finkelstein, I. “The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh.” In Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager, 169–187 (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994). _____. Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Fishelov, D. Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993). Follis, E. R. “The Holy City as Daughter.” In Directions in Hebrew Poetry. Edited by E. R. Follis, 173–184. JSOT Supplement Series 40. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987). Fowler, L. Tribal Sovereignty and the Historical Imagination: CheyenneArapaho Politics (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992). Frankel, R. “Oil Presses in Western Galilee and Judea— A Comparison.” In Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighboring

240

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period. Edited by D. Eitam and M. Heltzer, 197–218 (Padova: Sargon, 1996). Garnsey, P. “Responses to Food Crisis in the Ancient Mediterranean World.” In Hunger in History: Food Shortage, Poverty, and Deprivation. Edited by L. F. Newman, 126–146 (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990). Gilbert, A. S. “The Flora and Fauna of the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Edited by J. M. Sasson, 153–173 (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1995). Gordis, R. “The Conclusion of the Book of Lamentations [5:22].” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974): 289–93. _____. The Song of Songs and Lamentations. 3d ed. (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974). Gossai, H. L. Justice, Righteousness and the Social Critique of the EighthCentury Prophets (New York: Lang, 1993). Gosse, B. “Les ‘Confessions’ de Jérémie, la vengeance contre Jerusalem a l’image de celle contre Babylone et les nations, et Lamentations 1.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 111 (1999): 58–67. Gottleib, H. A Study on the Text of Lamentations. Translated by J. Sturdy (Denmark: ֵÅrhus University, 1978). Gottwald, N. K. “The Book of Lamentations Reconsidered.” In The Hebrew Bible in Its Social World and in Ours. Edited by N. K. Gottwald, 165–173 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). _____. Studies in the Book of Lamentations. 2d rev. ed. (London: SCM Press, 1962). Grabbe, L. L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Vol. 1, The Persian and Greek Periods (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). _____. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995). Graetz, N. “Jerusalem the Widow.” Shofar 17 (1999): 16–24. Green, M. W. “The Eridu Lament.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30 (1978): 127–167. _____. “The Uruk Lament.” American Oriental Society Journal 104 (1984): 253–279. Grossman, D. and D. Siddle. “The Geographical Study of Rural Settlements.” In Rural Settlement Structure and African Development. Edited by M. Silberfein, 13–31 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

Gwaltney, W. C., Jr. “The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature.” In Scripture in Context II: More Essays in Comparative Method. Edited by W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue, 191–211 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983). Hachiya, M. Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6 – September 30, 1945. Translated by W. Wells (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955). Handy, L. K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994). Hart, S. “Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom.” In Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan. Edited by P. Bienkowski, 93–98. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7 (Sheffield: J. R. Collins Publications, 1992). Hayden, B. “Village Approaches to Complex Societies.” In Archaeological Views from the Countryside. Edited by G. Schwartz and S. Falconer, 198–206 (Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994). Hayes, J. H. “The Songs of Israel (Psalms and Lamentations).” In The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham, 153–171 (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1978). Heider, G. C. The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. JSOT Supplement Series 43 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). Heim, K. M. “Personification of Jerusalem and the Drama of her Bereavement on Lamentations.” In Zion, City of Our God. Edited by R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham, 129–169 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Herion, G. A. “The Impact of Social Science Assumptions and Reconstruction of Israelite History.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34 (1986): 3–33. Hillers, D. R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969). _____. Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2d rev. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1992). _____. Lamentations: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible 7A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972). _____. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964).

242

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Hine, D. C. and K. Thompson. A Shining Thread of Hope: The History of Black Women in America (New York: Broadway Books, 1998). Hobbs, T. R. A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989). Hooke, S. H. Babylonian and Assyrian Religion (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963). Hopkins, D. C. The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985). Hunt, L. Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). Hunt, R. C. “The Role of Bureaucracy in the Provisioning of Cities: A Framework for Analysis of the Ancient Near East.” In The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs, 161–192 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Jacobsen, T. The Harps that Once ...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). Jahnow, K. Das hebräischer Leichenleid im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung (Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1923). Jarick, J. “The Bible’s ‘Festival Scrolls’ Among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years Later. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans, 179–182 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Jones, D. “The Cessation of Sacrifice After the Destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.” Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1963): 12– 31. Josephus, F. “Antiquities of the Jews.” In The Complete Works of Josephus. Translated by W. Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960; reprint 1981). Kaiser, B. B. “Poet as ‘Female Impersonator’: The Image of Daughter Zion as Speaker in Biblical Poems of Suffering.” Journal of Religion 67 (1987): 164–182. Kaufman, H. “The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations as an Organizational Problem.” In The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. Edited by N. Yoffee and G. L. Cowgill, 219– 234 (Tucscon: University of Arizona Press, 1988). Keefe, A. A. “Rapes of Women/Wars of Men.” In Women, War, and Metaphor: Language and Society in the Study of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by C. V. Camp and C. R. Fontaine, 79–98. Semeia 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

Keel, O. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by T. J. Hallet (New York: Seabury Press, 1978). Kern, P. B. Ancient Siege Warfare (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999). Kletter, R. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm, 1996). Koenen, K. Bethel: Geschischte, Kult und Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003). Knauf-Belleri, E. A. “Edom: The Social and Economic History.” In You Shall Not Abhor An Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Edited by D. V. Edelman (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). Kramer, S. N. Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940). _____. “Sumerian Literature and the Bible.” Analecta Biblica 12 (1959): 185–204. _____. “The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa.” Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983): 69–83. Kraus, H.-J. Klagelieder (Threni). 2d ed. (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960). _____. Theology of the Psalms. Translated by K. Crim (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Kreissig, H. Die sozialökonomische Situation in Juda zur Achämenidenzeit (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1973). Kroeber, C. B. and B. L. Fontana. Massacre on the Gila: An Account of the Last Major Battle Between American Indians, with Reflections on the Origin of War (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986). Kuhrt, A. “Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood.” In Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by M. Beard and J. North, 117–155 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). Kutscher, R. Oh Angry Sea (a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha): The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). Lachs, S. T. “The Date of Lamentations V.” Jewish Quarterly Review 57 (1966/7): 46–56. Lapp, N. L. “The 7th–6th Century Occupation: Period III.” In The Third Campaign of Tell el-Fûl: The Excavations of 1964, 39–46 (Cambridge: American School of Oriental Research, 1981).

244

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Lee, N. C. The Singers of Lamentations: City Under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to Sarajevo (Boston: Brill, 2002). Levine, B. A. “On the Semantics of Land Tenure in Biblical Literature: The Term ʿahuzzāh.” In The Tablet and the Scroll: Near ˘ Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by M. E. Cohen, D. S. Snell, D. B. Weisberg, 134–139 (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993). Linafelt, T. “The Impossibility of Mourning: Lamentations after the Holocaust.” In God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal, 279–289 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988). _____. “The Refusal of a Conclusion in the Book of Lamentations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 340– 343. _____. Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Laments, and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000). Lindsay, J. “The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605–550 B.C.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1976): 23–39. Lipiński, E. “Juda et ‘tout Israël’: analogie et contrastes.” The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations. Edited by E. Lipiński, 93– 112 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985). Lipschits, O. “The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule.” Tel Aviv 26 (1999): 155–190. _____. “Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Hattu-Land’ and the Fate of ˘ the Kingdom of Judah.” Ugarit-Forschungen 30 (1998): 467–487. Lipschits, O. and J. Blenkinsopp, ed. Judah and the Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003). Lopata, H. Z., ed. Widows. Vol. 1, The Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific (Durham: Duke University Press, 1987). Luckenbill, D. D. The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924). Lundius, J. and M. Lundahl. Peasants and Religion: A Socioeconomic Study of Dios Olivorio and the Palma Sola Movement in the Dominican Republic (New York: Routledge, 2000). MacDonald, B. “Evidence from the Wadi el-Hasa and Southern Ghors and North-east Arabah Archaeological Surveys.” In Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan. Edited by P. Bienkowski, 113–142 (Sheffield: J. R. Collins Publications, 1992).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

Malina, B. J. “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation.” Interpretation 36 (1982): 229–242. Mandolfo, C. R. Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). Mazar, A. and G. L. Kelm. “Tel Batash (Timna)—1984/1985/ 1986.” In Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5 (1986): 6–9. McDaniel, T. F. “The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 198–209. _____. “Philological Studies in Lamentations I–II.” Biblica 49 (1968): 27–53, 199–220. Meir, A. Nomadism Ends: The Israeli Bedouin of the Negev (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997). Mendenhall, G. E. and G. A. Herion. “Covenant.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992. Mettinger, T. N. D. “Intertextuality: Allusion and Vertical Context Systems in Some Job Passages.” In Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines, 257–275. JSOT Supplement 162 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Meyers, C. “The Family in Early Israel.” In Families in Ancient Israel. Edited by L. G. Perdue et al, 1–47 (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1997). Michalowski, P. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. 2d ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989). Milgrom, J. “The Graduated Hattäʿt of Leviticus 5:1–13.” In Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson, 249–254 (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1984). Miller, P. D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973). _____. They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994). Mintz, A. “The Rhetoric of Lamentations and the Representation of Catastrophe.” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 1–17. Moore, E. W. Neo-Babylonian Documents at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1939). Morony, M. G. “‘In a city without watchdogs the fox is the overseer’: Issues and Problems in the Study of Bureaucracy.” In The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient

246

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Near East. Edited by M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs, 7–18 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Myers, J. M. “Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B. C.” In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by H. Goedicke, 377–392 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971). Naʾaman, N. “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 261 (1986): 5– 21. _____. “Royal Vassals or Governors? On the Status of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the Persian Empire.” Henoch 22 (2000): 35–44. Nakhai, B. A. Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (Boston: American School of Oriental Research, 2001). Navone, J. “Famine, Hunger, and Thirst in the Bible.” The Bible Today 39 (2001): 155–159. Neufeld, E. “The Emergence of a Royal-Union Society in Ancient Israel.” Hebrew Union College Annual 31 (1960): 31–53. Niehr, H. “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects.” In Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by D. V. Edelman, 45–72 (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995). O’Connor, K. M. Lamentations and the Tears of the World (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002). Oded, B. “Judah and the Exile.” In Israelite and Judaean History. Edited by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, 435–488. Old Testament Library (London: SCM Press, 1977). _____. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Weisbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reitchert Verlag, 1979). _____. “Where Is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ to Be Found? History versus Myth.” In Judah and the Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 55–74 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003). Okoye, P. U. Widow: A Natural or Cultural Tragedy (Enugu, Nigeria: Nucik Publishers, 1995). Olyan, S. M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenantal Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 201–218.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Oppenheim, A. L. “‘Siege-Documents’ from Nippur.” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–89. Oredsson, D. Moats in Ancient Palestine (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2003). Parker, S. B. “Divine Intercession in Judah?” Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006): 76–91. _____. “Graves, Caves, and Refugees: An Essay in Microhistory.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (1993): 259–288. _____. “The Lachish Letters and Official Reactions to Prophecies.” In Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson. Edited by L. M. Hopfe, 65–78 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994). _____. “Official Attitudes Toward Prophecy at Mari and in Israel.” Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 50–68. Pfeiffer, R. H. State Letters of Assyria: A Transliteration and Translation of 355 Official Assyrian Letters Dating from the Sargonid Period, 722–625 B.C. (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1935; reprint, New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1967). Pham, X. H. T. Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Pleins, J. D. Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001). Pommerantz, I., A. Roshwalb-Hurowitz, and R. Kudish. Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Vol. 17 (Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998). Potter, D. Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1994). Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). _____. The Ancient Near East In Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2d ed. with Supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). _____. Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1964). Provan, I. Lamentations. The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). Rainey, A. F. “Wine from the Royal Vineyards.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 245 (1983): 57–61.

248

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

Reich, R. “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by H. Geva, 111–118 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994). Renfrew, J. M. “Vegetables in the Ancient Near Eastern Diet.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Edited by J. M. Sasson, 191–202 (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1995). Renkema, J. Lamentations (Leuven: Peeters, 1998). Reyburn, W. D. A Handbook on Lamentations (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992). Riklin, S. “Maʿalé Mickmash.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18 (1998): 78. Rivers, J. P. W. “The Nutritional Biology of Famine.” In Famine. Edited by G. A. Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). Saebø, A. “Who Is ‘the Man’ in Lamentations 3? A Fresh Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Lamentations.” In Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson. Edited by G. A. Auld, 294– 306 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Safrai, Z. “The Agrarian Structure in Palestine in the Time of the Second Temple, Mishna, and Talmud.” In The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel. Edited by A. M. Maeir, S. Dar, Z. Safrai, 105– 126 (Oxford: Archaeological Press, 2003). Schwartz, B. J. “The Prohibitions Against the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17.” In Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan, 34–66 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). Seifert, R. “War and Rape: A Preliminary Analysis.” In Mass Rape: The War Against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Edited by A. Stiglmayer, 54–72 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1994). Sen, A. Poverty and Famines: An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). Shiloh, Y. “Judah and Jerusalem in the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C. E.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. Edited by S. Gitin and W. G. Dever, 97–105 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989). _____. “The Population of Iron Age Palestine in Light of Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas and Population Density.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 239 (1980): 25– 35. Silberfein, M. “Cyclical Change in African Settlement and Modern Resettlement Programs.” In Rural Settlement Structure and African Development. Edited by M. Silberfein, 47–72 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998). Singer, J. Taboo in the Hebrew Scriptures (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 1928). Smelik, K. A. D. Writings from Ancient Israel. Translated by G. I. Davies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991). Smith, D. L. “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of PostExilic Judaean Society.” In Second Temple Studies. Vol. 1, Persian Period. Edited by P. R. Davies, 73–97 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). _____. The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington: Meyer-Stone Books, 1989). Smith, J. Tapu Removal in Maori Religion (Wellington: The Polynesian Society, Inc., 1974). Smith, M. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971). Smith, S. Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen and Company, 1924). Smith, W. W. Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996). Snell, D. C. “Ancient Israelite and Neo-Assyrian Societies and Economies.” In The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weiserg, 221–224 (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993). Sorokin, P. A. Hunger as a Factor in Human Affairs (Gainsville: University of Florida Press, 1975). Spanier, Y. “Map of el-Mughayir: Survey.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14 (1994): 78–79. Sporty, L. D. “The Location of the Holy House of Herod’s Temple: Evidence from the Post-Destruction Period.” Biblical Archaeologist 54 (1991): 28–35. Stager, L. E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 20 (1985): 1–35.

250

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

_____. “The First-Fruits of Civilization.” In Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Edited by J. N. Tubb, 172–188 (London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985). Steiner, M. L. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961– 1967. Vol. 3, The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Stern, E. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 2001). Stiglmayer, A. “The Rapes in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” In Mass Rape: The War Against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Edited by A. Stiglayer, 82–169 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994). Thompson, T. L. Early History of the Israelite People From the Written and Archaeological Sources (New York: Brill, 1992). Tigay, J. H. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Torczyner, H. Lachish I (Tell ed Duweir): The Lachish Letters (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938). Torrey, C. C. Ezra Studies (New York: Ktav, 1910; reprint 1970). Tuggle, H. D., and J. J. Reid. “Conflict and Defense in the Grasshopper Region of East-Central Arizona.” In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare. Edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, 85–107 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2001). Unterman, J. “The Social-Legal Origin for the Image of God as Redeemer (gwʾl) of Israel. In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 399–406 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995). Ussishkin, D. “Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 223 (1976): 1–13. Vanderhooft, D. S. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). _____. “Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 235–262 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Van der Toorn, K. “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 3. Edited by J. M. Sasson, 2043–2058 (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1995). van Driel, G. “Land in Ancient Mesopotamia: ‘That what remains undocumented does not exist.’” In Landless and Hungry: Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies. Edited by B. Haring and R. de Maaijer, 19–49 (Leiden: Research School CNWS, 1998). VanGennep, A. The Rites of Passage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960). Vanstiphout, H. L. J. “The Death of an Era: The Great Mortality in the Sumerian City-Laments.” In Death in Mesopotamia. Edited by B. Alster, 83–90 (Copenhagen: Akademiske Forlag, 1980). Walsh, C. E. Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Weber, M. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. Translated by R. I. Frank (New York: Verso, 1988). _____. “Judaism: The Psychology of the Prophets.” In Propaganda and Communication in World History. Vol. 1, The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times. Edited by H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner, and H. Speier, 299–329 (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1979). _____. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947; reprint, New York: Collier-MacMillan Publishing Company, 1964). Weinberg, J. The Citizen-Temple Community. Translated by D. L. Smith-Christopher. JSOT Supplement Series 151 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Weinfeld, M. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Weisman, Z. “The Place of the People in the Making of Law and Judgment.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 407–420 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995). Westermann, C. “The Complaint Against God.” In God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal, 233–241 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988).

252

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

_____. Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation. Translated by C. Muenchow (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994). _____. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by K. R. Krim and R. N. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981). Willett, E. A. R. “Women and Household Shrines in Ancient Israel.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, 1993. Cited in B. A. Nakhai, Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (Boston: American School of Oriental Research, 2001). Willi, T. Juda-Jehud-Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995). Wilson, R. R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings 626–556 B. C. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956). _____. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). Wright, D. P. “Unclean and Clean.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992. Wright, H. T. The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969). Yadin, Y. Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963). _____. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by B. and C. Rabin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). Yeivin, S. “The Divided Kingdom.” In World History of the Jewish People. Vol. 4-I. Edited by A. Malamat, 126–179 (Jerusalem: Masada Press, Ltd., 1979). Yoffee, N. The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period (Lancaster, California: Undena Publications, 1977). Younger, K. L., Jr. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. JSOT Supplement 98 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Zorn, J. R. “Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 295 (1994): 31–48. _____. “Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23 (1997): 29–38, 66.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Zorn, J., J. Yellin, and J. Hayes. “The m(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian Period.” Israel Exploration Journal 44 (1994): 161–183.

INDEX OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS

Genesis ch. 12 193 ch. 13 193 19:15ff 17 19:17 167 37:22 142 ch. 42ff 193

23:3ff 36 25:5-10 136 27:19 57 ch. 28 135 28:20ff 57 28:63 57 33:2 65

Exodus 14:24 101 19:9 65 33:14-15 158

Judges 7:19 101 11:34-40 15 Ruth ch. 1 193

Leviticus 5:1-13 102 15:19-24 53 ch. 18 163 ch. 20 163 22:8 162

1 Samuel 11:11 101 24:11 142 2 Samuel 3:39 54 10:1-6 15 22:11-12 65

Numbers ch. 5 171 18:20 120

1 Kings ch. 12 47 12:6-11 89

Deuteronomy ch. 12 163 16:19 135 17:8-13 135 ch. 18 163 23:3 54

2 Kings ch. 23 209

255

256 24:14 91 25:12 91 25:18-21 101 Ezra ch. 4 83 ch. 9-10 209 Nehemiah ch. 9-10 209 Job 5:27 124 12:4 115 19:25-29 135 28:3 124 28:27 124 30:9 115 31:3-4 121 Psalms 6:5 124 7:2 114 10:9-10 114 13:4 124 22:7 90 27:3 135 28:1 132 30:3 132 31:5 46 31:16 116 35:8 46 35:15 90 37:12 90 40:2 132 50:13 44 58 123 59:3 116 59:6 116 68:18 65

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS 69:29 116 73:26 120 74:3-6 79 77:7-14 121 79:10 124 80:14-15 124 82 123 89:2 120 106:37-40 159 112:10 90 121:1 167 122 25 137 54 137:7-9 169 Proverbs 2:4 124 17:12 114 20:22 120 20:27 124 22:22-23 28:15 114 Isaiah 1:3 140 1:26 135 ch. 7 193 10:13 44 10:22 206 11:7 114 13:20-22 204 16:10 202 34:7 44 34:11-15 204 40:2 141, 171 62:6-7 101 Jeremiah 7:11 205 7:34 202

INDEX OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS 8:9 140 9:14 171 13:19 16 13:22 38 20:7 115 ch. 23 89 23:15 171 26:20-23 159 27:1-11 15 31:32-34 209 ch. 38 132 ch. 40 174 ch. 42 193 44:15ff 103 48:1-10 67 48:26-27 115 48:29-47 67 49:7-22 140, 170 49:10 170 49:12 170 49:16 167 49:18 170 49:22 170 51:12-14 54 Lamentations ch. 1 3, 4, 7, 9-10, 19, 26, 37, 39, 45, 52, 53, 54, 59, 62, 67, 73, 75, 95, 105, 106, 139, 154, 182, 183, 220-221, 223224, 226 1:1 9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 25, 182, 218, 228 1:1-2 11-22, 23, 169 1:2 9, 14, 20, 52, 122, 133, 182, 219 1:3 22, 23, 27-28, 30, 34, 42, 54, 105, 116, 184, 223 1:3-6 22-34

257

1:4 25, 32-33, 52, 101, 130, 226, 228, 232 1:5 14, 37, 42, 52, 105, 182, 221, 223 1:6 5, 9, 11, 24, 25, 42, 105, 184, 199, 218, 226, 228 1:7 23, 42, 110, 133, 182, 219 1:7-8 117 1:7ff 10 1:7-11 34-42 1:8 38, 52-53, 221 1:8-10 36-37 1:8-11 34 1:9 9, 37, 38, 52, 122, 182, 218, 219 1:10 9, 37, 42, 52, 54, 128, 143 1:11 38, 41, 52, 182, 219 1:12 37, 44, 219 1:12-15 52, 128 1:12-16 42-51 1:13 43, 45-46 1:14 43-44, 55, 122 1:15 42, 43, 44, 49, 50-51, 54 1:16 9, 44, 52, 133, 182, 219 1:17 9, 34, 37, 52-53, 54, 55, 57, 182, 219 1:17-18 122 1:17-22 51-57 1:18 42, 52, 53, 55, 57, 105, 130, 219 1:19 9, 42, 52, 53, 56, 182, 198, 219, 226, 228 1:20 38, 42, 52, 53, 55, 218, 229 1:21 9, 52, 53, 56, 57, 122, 133, 182, 219 1:21-22 37, 54 1:22 53, 54, 57, 221 ch. 2 4, 7, 10, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 75, 78, 81, 86, 87, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 139,

258

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

158, 183, 220-221, 223-224, 226 2:1 5, 61-63, 65, 67, 78, 132, 182, 218, 219, 225 2:1-2 221 2:1-3 65 2:1-5 63-75 2:1-8 128 2:1-9 61 2:2 9, 61, 62, 63, 68, 70, 73, 122, 199, 219, 223, 225, 226, 227 2:3 61, 65, 225 2:4 61, 63, 64, 67 2:4-5 221 2:5 63, 65, 70, 218, 225 2:6 61, 62, 76, 81, 84, 199, 223 2:6-7 9, 76, 82 2:6-8 83 2:6-9 76 2:6-10 75-85 2:7 62, 76, 79 2:7-8 80 2:7-9 77 2:8 9, 76, 79, 223 2:8-9 61, 62 2:9 61, 62, 75, 77, 84, 88, 90, 105, 199, 219, 226 2:9-10 62, 76, 84 2:10 62, 76, 78, 84-85, 130, 198, 219, 226, 228 2:11 61, 85, 86, 140, 182, 222, 228 2:11-12 87, 94, 100, 133 2:11-13 61 2:11-17 77, 85-96 2:12 61, 62, 87, 182, 191, 228 2:13 62 2:14 88, 90, 94, 102, 105, 159 2:15 62, 182, 218

2:15-16 62 2:15-17 117, 133, 219 2:16 96 2:16-17 90, 95 2:17 61, 91, 96, 102, 122, 128 2:18 61, 85 2:18-19 62, 98, 122, 133 2:18-20 98 2:18-22 96-104 2:19 98 2:20 61, 62, 98, 101, 102, 122, 128, 182, 219, 221, 226, 228 2:20-22 61, 98, 105 2:21 61, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 130, 218 2:22 61, 62, 99, 104, 128, 219 ch. 3 7, 10, 107-109, 111, 114, 119, 123, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 207, 220 3:1 108, 115, 134 3:1-13 113 3:1-20 108, 110-117 3:1-24 108 3:2 108, 111, 112 3:4 111 3:5 111 3:5-9 112 3:6 108, 111, 112 3:7 108, 113 3:8 111 3:9 113, 116 3:10 114, 116 3:10-11 114 3:11 108, 113 3:12 108 3:12-13 111, 115 3:14 108, 111, 115, 117, 227 3:15 111 3:16 111, 113, 116 3:17-20 111

INDEX OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS 3:18 112 3:19 111 3:19-23 9 3:19-24 120 3:21-24 129 3:21-33 182 3:21-42 107, 118-130 3:22 120, 122 3:22-27 120 3:22-28 129 3:24 120, 218 3:25 109 3:25-27 122 3:26 109, 120, 122 3:27 118, 122 3:28 118, 122 3:28-30 122 3:31-33 109, 120, 122, 134 3:31-39 123 3:32 124, 206 3:33 120 3:34-36 109, 122, 123, 129, 134 3:36 121 3:37 129 3:37-39 121, 129 3:38-39 129 3:39 109, 124 3:40-41 107 3:40-47 108 3:41 124 3:42 107, 221 3:43 108, 122, 132, 134, 184, 218 3:43ff 107 3:43-44 132 3:43-47 108 3:43-66 130-137 3:44 132, 220 3:46 132, 133, 219 3:47 132

259

3:48 108, 133, 140 3:48-51 108, 131, 132, 133 3:48-63 108 3:50 133 3:51 130, 218 3:52 116, 132 3:52-53 108 3:53 132 3:53-55 132, 219 3:54 108 3:55-57 193 3:55-66 122, 132 3:58 109, 136 3:58ff 136 3:58-66 134 3:59-60 122 3:60-62 133 3:60-63 108, 219 3:63 111, 115, 122, 133, 219 3:66 109, 134, 184 ch. 4 7, 10, 94, 116, 139-141, 143, 144, 145, 147, 158, 178, 201, 220-221 4:1 143, 182 4:1-2 9, 145 4:1-10 41, 141-157 4:2 140, 143, 182, 218 4:3 140, 146 4:3-5 139 4:4 143, 182, 219, 228 4:5 5, 139, 143, 145, 161-162, 178, 218 4:6 140, 141-142, 143, 155, 221 4:7 142 4:7-8 139, 140 4:8 142, 143 4:8-10 140 4:9 140, 142, 143, 146, 155 4:9-10 139

260

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS

4:10 140, 143, 146, 182, 222, 228 4:11 139, 140, 158 4:11-16 157-166, 178 4:12 140, 162, 166 4:13 146, 158, 159, 161, 163 4:13-15 139 4:13-16 140, 178 4:14 226, 228 4:14-15 38, 157-158 4:14-16 160, 162, 164 4:15 139, 160, 164, 219 4:15-16 130 4:16 139, 158, 162, 166, 199, 218, 219, 228 4:17 98, 139, 167, 178, 219 4:17-20 139 4:17-22 153, 157, 166-178 4:18 116, 167, 178, 179, 219 4:19 167, 168, 174, 184 4:20 140, 167, 169, 178, 226 4:21 170 4:21-22 15, 54, 141, 167, 172 169, 170, 175, 177, 179, 225 4:22 98, 141, 170-171, 221 ch. 5 7, 10, 181-183, 187, 190, 193, 201, 204, 206, 209, 213215, 220 5:1 122, 181, 182, 184, 218, 219, 221 5:1-5 183-192 5:1-9 227 5:2 182, 185, 189 5:2-5 181 5:2-16 203 5:2-18 181, 202 5:3 182, 185-186, 190, 228 5:4 186, 193, 200, 219 5:4-9 57 5:5 183, 187, 192

5:6 182, 193, 197, 219, 225, 226 5:6-10 181, 192-197 5:7 181, 184, 193 5:8 5, 9, 182-183, 190, 193-194, 196, 214, 219, 232 5:9 182, 190, 192, 193, 200, 219 5:9-10 164, 193-194 5:10 192, 193 5:11 130, 199, 228 5:11-14 181, 197-202 5:12 199, 201, 226 5:13 184, 192, 195, 198, 199201 5:14 111, 199, 201, 202, 226 5:14-15 202 5:15 122, 202, 205, 218 5:15-18 181, 202-206 5:16 181, 182, 184, 202, 219, 203, 205, 207 5:17 202, 205 5:18 182, 202, 204, 205, 207227 5:19 206, 207, 208, 211 5:19-22 98, 181, 206-213 5:20 128, 181, 207, 208, 221 5:20-22 122, 210 5:21 181, 206, 207-209, 210 5:21-22 207, 221 5:22 128, 181, 206, 207, 210, 222 Ezekiel 8:5-6 163 ch. 13 89 22:1-15 159 ch. 25-32 170 33:1-9 101 35:5-9 175 36:17 55 37:16-28 209 44:31 162

INDEX OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS Hosea 6:9 205 13:8 114 Joel 2:13 124 4:19 175 Amos 2:6-8 5:19 114 5:21ff 205 5:22 206 6:4 30 8:10 202

2:1ff 30 2:1-2 56, 96 2:9-10 96 ch. 3 96 3:5-8 90 3:9-11 96 3:12 96 Nahum 1:12-13 171 Habakkuk 2:1 101 Zephaniah 3:3-4 135

Obadiah 11-12 175 14 177

Sirach 42:19 124

Micah ch. 2 96

Revelation 6:5-6 187

261

INDEX OF EXTRA-BIBLICAL ANCIENT TEXTS 273 113 278-80 187 346-347 89

Ancient Conquest Accounts 99-100, 167-168 Annals of Sennacherib 23-24, 31, 38, 44, 46-47, 69, 79, 80, 91, 92

Epic of Gilgamesh 112 The Eridu Lament 1:10-11 66 1:18-19 67-68 2:1 77 2:4 77 2:12 77, 112 2:12-13 158 2:14 77 5:1-7 12 6:15´-17´ 144 7:15 168 7:2-4 26

Atraḥasis Myth 146 Babylonian Chronicles BM 21901 17, 69, 79 BM 21946 20, 48, 73, 79 BM 22047 69, 74 BM 35382 69 Curse of Agade 62-65 67, 113 97-130 159 150 160 158-159 132 168 101 170-177 68 175-182 186-187 188 113 189 194 201-204 78 226 101 248-249 145 254-255 204 258-259 203

Instruction of Amen-em-opet 123 Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews 101, 174 Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur 1 87 12-15 87 19 169

263

264 26 113 30 158 34-35 169 39-40 25 72-78 91 75-76 99 77-81 113-114 94-97 45-46 99 144 103-106 203 112 99 132-133 147, 194 150-151 98 164-165 35 225-226 167 242-243 207 294-296 24-25 297 38 308 38 310 38 311-312 12 340-356 134 348-349 185 351-354 159 353-356 208 368-371 78 382 101 388-391 133 392-409 146 394-395 144 396-398 78 402-404 53 406 145 410 112 450 36 455-456 159 456 168

THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 82-83 35 86-90 133 101 187 116-117 76-77 122-123 76-77 145-149 87 156-162 53 173-179 99 188-189 158 213-216 45, 77 216-218 99 231-232 78 232-89 235-236 186 239 87 240 147 255-257 98 269 204 273-274 194 283-285 53 309-310 133 368 113 381-382 171 390-394 36 419-424 208 421 203-204 432-433 204 435 124 Ninurta Myth 76-83 67 96-97 68 Prayer of Lamentation to Ishtar 13-27 123 41-50 87

INDEX OF EXTRA-BIBLICAL ANCIENT TEXTS The Prism Inscription 20, 88 Qumran Scrolls 142, 185 Sumerian Congregational Lament 33-34 53 208-209 145 The Uruk Lament 1:16 46 2:23 66 2:26 167 2:27´-28´ 68 3:1 99 3:2-3 67 3:10 99

3:15 67 3:15-16 167 3:17 67 3:18-19 170 3:18-20 90-91 3:19-21 133 3:22-24 160 3:30 54 4:12-17 45 4:27 99 4:30-31 36 5:12-13 77 5:15-16 12 5:17 44 5:22 44, 100 12:1-30 124

265