John Hobbins and I have been discussing Habakkuk 3 a bit via email, and he encouraged me to bring the discussion to my blog.

I’m currently working on the grammar of Habakkuk 3 for a class this semester. Any chance to learn more about Hebrew grammar is well worth taking, and Habakkuk 3 just makes things that much more enjoyable. One of the first things that pops out about the grammar in Hab 3 is that scholars don’t particularly agree on how to render the verbs. Below, I outline the three ways I’ve noticed scholars rendering the verbs in Habakkuk 3:

1. Some scholars render the yiqtol forms as present-future and the qatal forms as past. (e.g., J.J.M. Roberts, Sinker). In Roberts’ case, at least, this is because he views the poem in Hab 3 as a visionary experience of the prophet. However, he does not elaborate on why he has chosen present-future and past. It could be that he is trying to bring out the aspect of the verbs by using these English tenses (understandable), it could also be that he views Hebrew as tense-prominent. I’d disagree, but an aspect-prominent view of the language could produce a nearly identical translation.

2. Other scholars analyze the yiqtol forms in Hab 3 as short-form preterits (e.g., Hiebert, Robertson, Andersen). That is okay, but I think it is far from certain that the context requires such an explanation. Basically, the scholars who take this view are following Robertson, and I’m just not convinced that his arguments are strong enough to support this understanding of the forms in Hab 3. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, however.

3. The final way in which scholars understand the verbs in Habakkuk 3 is disappointing, to say the least. Some scholars simply flatten all the forms (yiqtol, qatal and wayyiqtol) into English present tense forms (e.g., Smith, O. Palmer Robertson, Haak). Now, it may be that the scholars who do so feel that there is some interplay between aspect in Hebrew that simply cannot be brought into English. However, none of the authors mentioned above discuss their reasons for translating the forms in this way. My reaction is to say that this option really ought to be avoided, as it’s no option at all.

So, those are the three ways I’ve noticed scholars handling the forms in Habakkuk 3. Have I missed anything? Perhaps someone out there would like to argue for one of the above three? I don’t personally find any of them entirely convincing. I’d rather posit some kind of interplay between unbounded action (yiqtol) on the one hand and bounded action (qatal) on the other. How this would be represented in English is, of course, difficult. The idea is also still somewhat nebulous in my mind.

Basically, I’m proposing wildly speculating that there is some interplay between imperfective and perfective aspect in the Hebrew. Perhaps the imperfective action simply paints somewhat broader strokes and the perfective action views smaller, particular instances? Alternatively it may be that the poet intends an interplay between the qatal and yiqtol forms that, in English, would require a vast array of constructions to represent–thus they could not adequately be represented by a simple 1:1 correlation of verbal forms. In either case it may be that all the verbs have the same time reference, but the aspect is what differs.

I’m very interested to hear what thoughts others might have on this topic.

The new resource I speak of is Bible Ref Shelf. John has already mentioned it, but this is potentially too great a resource to keep quite about. There is not a great deal of resources yet on the reference shelf, but I imagine that the number will grow as time goes on.

If you need me, I’ll be reading my new PDF of A.B. Davidson’s Job Commentary.

My semester has officially begun. I’m very excited about the classes I’m taking this semester. I’m constantly reminded that GCTS truly affords students some wonderful opportunities when it comes to studying the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew language. Mandy has already posted her classes and so, without further ado, my classes:

Middle Egyptian I – I’m taking this class at Boston University. So far it has been absolutely wonderful. The professor is very concerned with moving at a pace the entire class can handle, and because of this he’d rather move too slowly rather than too quickly. Either way I’m finding the material fascinating. I think I’m doing well, other than the fact that I can not draw to save my life. Luckily the professor is gracious in this regard, and so I won’t have to worry too much about my grade being negatively effected by a falcon that looks a bit…odd.

History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East – Mandy actually took this class two years ago, and I am not playing a bit of catch up. This class is extremely interesting. It makes me wonder if maybe, just maybe I might like digging in the Levant at some point in the not too distant future. Eric keeps encouraging me to join him at Tell es-Safi, and this class might help him in that goal. I’m also finding the textbooks (Mazar’s Archaeology of the Land of the Bible and Kuhrt’s The Ancient Near East) engrossing. Because of this I think Mandy is finding me odd.

Advanced Hebrew Grammar – This is the single class that I have been looking forward to the most. Dr. T. Petter is doing a directed study with Mandy and I. Throughout the summer the syllabus has morphed and changed as the three of us (Dr. Petter, Mandy and I) have all given input. Now that the syllabus has been finalized I can say with confidence that I’m excited. We’ll be focusing on the Biblical Hebrew verbal system in prose. I will probably solicit your suggestions on additional readings that might be helpful to us in the coming weeks. The final evaluation for the course will be a paper dealing with the verbal system in prose via an analysis of a pericope in Judges, with special attention to the verbal system throughout the book. The specifics, of course, are subject to some small amount of change over the next couple weeks, but that’s the basic outline.

OT Prophetical Books – This will be my first class with Dr. D. Petter, and it seems like it’s going to be great. It has been a while since I’ve done any type of sustained study in the prophets, and so that alone makes this interesting. Dr. Petter is also extremely personable, and I’m sure that the class itself will be fascinating. It’s also another opportunity to work with the Hebrew text and that is always a worthwhile endeavor.

Akkadian – Finally, I will be taking Akkadian this semester. It might more properly be called “An introduction to Akkadian grammar,” since we won’t be learning any vocabulary, nor will we be learning the signs. Nevertheless I think this will be an interesting class as it will allow me yet more exposure to semitic languages. I fear my excite for this class is somewhat dimmed in light of the flaring beacon that is Middle Egyptian, but I still expect the class to be interesting.

Disclaimer: This review is on the 1st edition. I have not as of yet had the opportunity (or extra cash) to buy the 2nd edition. However, from what I’ve seen briefly of the 2nd edition, I don’t think too much of what I say below would change.

I was asked in a blog post to share my thoughts on Biblical Hebrew: A Text and Workbook, by Bonnie Pedrotti Kittel, Victoria Hoffer, & Rebecca Abts Wright, and my comment just became too long, so I figured I’d post about it.

I used Kittel for first year Hebrew as a student in my undergrad and also use it as a teacher (laypeople, at the moment). One of the reasons I decided to use it when teaching is that I loved it as a student. In case you’re confused about the title of my post, we affectionately called the book “Bonnie” in my undergrad (a practice I continue with my students).

The book is very much what the subtitle says: “text and workbook.” It’s not a grammar, and it can’t really be used as one, so if the student wanted a beginning reference grammar he or she would require a supplemental book. However, for first year students I don’t really think that’s necessary. She does have a sizable and easy to read section in the back with all the verbal paradigms, which is nice for reference.

One of the reasons I love Bonnie is because it’s so inductive. Literally, lesson one (after learning the aleph-bet) starts you reading the Hebrew text. While I’ve not looked at every first-year Hebrew textbook out there, so far, Kittel’s is the only one I’ve found that does such a great job of getting you into the text quickly and easily. She accomplishes this by teaching what she feels are the most common elements of Hebrew first, and going on from there.

Now, some who have learned a little bit less inductively (which is most) might find the book to be a bit “disorganized,” but to some extent that is the nature of inductive study. She uses an example text (usually a phrase or sentence) for each lesson which exemplifies the aspects of Hebrew she wants to teach. Lesson One starts with ויאמר יהוה. Yes, she starts with the wayyiqtol 3ms, which is literally EVERYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible. The student doesn’t learn another PGN until several lessons later, and that’s the 3mp – finally, quite a few lessons later she springs the whole prefix paradigm on you. Intermingled are other new aspects – the qatal form, the Pi’el, singular and plural masculine nouns, etc. She almost always introduces a new form, stem, etc in part before she introduces it in full, using only elements the student already knows. Therefore, she might seem to “skip around” a lot – but once again, this isn’t a grammar, it’s a textbook.

It is also very much a workbook. She guides the student step by step through the lesson verse – asking key questions to nudge them in the right direction, making him or her fill in blanks along the way, and introducing new elements as one comes to them in the verse. As the student masters new concepts, she starts saying things like, “of course, you know by now that ….. means/is a _____:” and moves on quickly. Each lesson usually ends with some supplemental grammatical information, exercises (translation, as well as other types) that hammer on the new concepts learned that lesson, and instructions to memorize some more vocab (out of her list found at the back of the book).

She teaches parsing (and everything else) VERY diagnostically, so you could, theoretically, get away without ever memorizingverbal or noun paradigms when using her book (though she does recommend learning some of them throughout the book, she does such a great job there is very little that is required to be memorized). To some extent, how much needs to be memorized depends on the teacher. Nevertheless, her key word is recognize, not memorize. This last bit is one of the reasons I like using it for teaching the layperson: memorizing a ton of paradigms can be very daunting and a major stumbling block, and for just a 1st year reading knowledge of Hebrew, frankly, isn’t necessary.

Finally, at the end of the book she provides notes on reading and translating several handfuls of prolonged biblical texts (mostly narrative, some poetry at the end) that are meant to be worked through when the student reaches a particular lesson and has certain concepts under their belt (they start somewhere between lessons 12 and 19). I didn’t do this in my undergrad, as it’s optional, until after the fact, when I worked through several on my own. These help the student to begin working through longer texts using the knowledge they’ve learned, with some help from Bonnie.

This is not to say that the book doesn’t have it’s faults. There are things that I would change if I were writing a similar textbook (as I hope to do someday, geared for lay people, specifically). But, all-in-all, I still to this day (even though I’ve been shown other books that claim to be inductive) have yet to find a 1st year Hebrew textbook that does quite the job she does of getting a beginning student reading Hebrew quickly, and does it in an enjoyable way.

With the Fall semester just around the corner, it’s time for my beginning of semester run-down of classes. This semester is going to be a doozy – I have 5 resident classes and 1 SemLink (GCTS’s distance ed), not to mention doctoral apps and ministry at church (including the Hebrew class that I am now teaching).

Advanced Hebrew Grammar with Tom Petter
Calvin and I are really looking forward to this. It’s an independent study, but since we’re both taking it we’ll essentially be doing all the work together – which will include translating and syntactically tagging the entire book of Judges. I’m excited to see how this goes.

Intermediate Greek with Dave Mathewson
I’m kinda neutral towards this class – it’s required for my MABL and I really need it anyways to help further cement my Greek. But, as I’ve mentioned before on multiple occasions, Greek isn’t really my first love. However, I’ve heard that Dr. Mathewson has a different take on the Greek verbal system than we learned in Greek I & II so that should be at least mildly interesting to learn about.

Prophetical Books with Donna Petter
This is the first class I will have taken with the other Petter at GCTS, so I’m curious to see what her teaching style is like. You may remember that I took Poetical Books with Doug Stuart last semester and had fun typing my Lamentations exegesis paper, which has shown up in various parts over the summer on this blog. This time, I’m hoping to be able to do something in Jeremiah. I may also find out if I can sub in a research paper instead of the exegesis paper – since I’ve already done one at the 700 level.

Exegesis of James with Sean McDonough
I took Exegesis of John, my required Gospel exegesis course this past summer, and now I’m getting the epistle requirement out of the way this fall. I am, of course, neatly avoiding Paul. James is one of my favorite NT books, so I’m sure this class will present some fun tidbits for thought (even if it is more GREEK).

Middle Egyptian I with Alejandro Botta
We are taking advantage of the BTI again this year, and will be taking this class at Boston University. From what I understand, it’s a joint offering from the School of Theology and the Archaeology Department. We already have our textbooks for this one (just came in today!) and I’m pretty psyched. It’s going to be a lot of work, but worth it, I think.

Contemporary Theology and Theologians
This is the SemLink that I have had all summer to work on but have barely touched. Unfortunately, between two summer classes and visiting family for the past 3 weeks, I haven’t had a whole lot of spare time. That means this is essentially a sixth class I have to do this semester, which will make my life very hectic, to say the least. Nevertheless, I am and have been looking forward to some of the reading.

This post is a review of Matthew Anstey’s “The Biblical Hebrew qatal verb: a functional discourse grammar analysis,” Linguistics 47 (2009) 824-844. John Hobbins has already reviewed the article at length, beginning here, but I wanted to add my two cents.

First, some helpful definitions for those not necessarily in the know. Qatal is what I call the variously titled affix, suffix and perfect conjugation. Yiqtol is what I call the variously titled prefix and imperfect conjugation. Wayyiqtol is what I call the prefix/imperfect + vav conversive (or consecutive) construction. Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) is “a theory with a rich descriptive apparatus, facilitating the modeling of language data that takes into account the several levels of interdependent information that are present in any utterance,” (Anstey 825). FDG is, to say the least, comprehensive.

It is important to note that Anstey does not set out to prove anything in particular about the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. His stated goal is simply to show that FDG provides a “descriptively robust” if somewhat “problematic” analysis of the qatal verb type.

Anstey’s article succeeds in doing exactly what he sets out to do. His discussion of qatal in narrative vs. narration (ie, direct speech), as well as the function of qatal vs. wayyiqtol in narrative is spot on. Ultimately his conclusion is that qatal and wayyiqtol differ in how they are used in the narrative, not with regard to tense (cf. Anstey 831).

One of the most refreshing things about Anstey’s article is his honesty in regards to the theoretical problems of FDG in regards to analyzing qatal. In his conclusion Anstey writes, “Hence FDG clearly o¤ers a robust descriptive apparatus, capable of modeling the multiple interpersonal and representational contributing
factors to each distinct QV function. But this raises the dilemma discussed in Section 3.2,” (Anstey 840). The dilemma discussed in Section 3.2 of the article is highly technical, but boils down to the following: FDG “strongly prefers a tenseless interpretation [of qatal verbs],” (Anstey 837). Though it might be better to say that it prefers a “monofunctional” interpretation, as Anstey does just a few paragraphs later. One could, of course, treat BH qatal as a tenseless verb, but that does not fit in with Anstey’s own opinion that qatal is a past-tense verb, as he readily admits.

Ultimately this is one of the most fascinating aspects of the article. It is also, sadly, the part that is most quickly glossed over, primarily because it is not the focus of the article. This is, of course, an inevitability. I do not ultimately find that past-tense is the best description of qatal. In my own opinion the BH verbal system has to do with aspect primarily, and tense(ie, time) only secondarily; though in truth the situation is more complex than that. That, however, is neither here nor there since–if I understand FDG correctly–similar problems would arise in any interpretation of the qatal. It would have been fascinating if Anstey had shown how these other understandings of qatal still arrive at the same problematic analysis for FDG. I think it may have added additional weight to his conclusion.

In the end, Anstey’s article is worth reading for those interested in the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. One must note, however, that the article is more about discussing the ability of FDG to provide a “robust analysis” of the BH qatal as opposed to discussing issues specifically about the qatal. To be sure, those issues are touched upon, but it is not the focus of the article. I imagine the article will be of most use to those interested in the BH verbal system as well as functional discourse grammar analysis.

Before one may speak of the structure of Job 5.2-7, one must establish that this passage is set off, structurally, from the surrounding verses in some way. In other words, is Job 5.2-7 a self-contained pericope? To some extent, no passage in the Book of Job is a self-contained pericope, since each passage is part of the greater whole and intricately related to its surrounding passages. Nevertheless, this passage is a unit that is distinguishable from the surrounding units.

Murphy treats this pericope as two separate units. Specifically, he associates verses one and two of chapter five as the conclusion of the preceding material (ie, chapter four).¹ This association is largely because of what he calls the “quasi-acrostic features” of verses three to seven.² However, as other commentators have pointed out, verses two to seven could be removed, leaving verses one and eight next to each other without interrupting the flow of the passage.³ Even if one does not agree that verses two to seven could be removed without interrupting the flow of the passage, verse one is clearly a framing statement, and not part of the pericope proper.⁴

Perhaps most convincing, from a structural perspective, as to why these verses should be taken as a unit is the inclusio which is formed by verse two and verses six and seven. Verse two is a proverbial saying, as are verses six and seven. In addition, verse two as well as verses six and seven begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. In fact, the entire pericope forms a kind of quasi-acrostic chiasm, to borrow Murphy’s terminology. This quasi-acrostic chiasm may be illustrated as follows:kaph, alef, yod, alef, kaph, kaph; with each of the letters beginning a verse line. The chiasm is as follows A-B-C-B’-A’-A’. The double occurrence of כי at the end of the section serves as a mechanism to close the pericope.

The passage may be outlined thusly:
I. Wisdom saying concerning the fate of the fool (v. 2)
II. Example Story (vv. 3-5)
     A. The fool is consumed (v. 3)
     B. The fate of the fool’s children (vv. 4-5)
          1. They lack a benefactor (v. 4)
          2. Their possessions are taken by the destitute (v. 5)
III. Wisdom sayings concerning the origin of trouble (vv. 6-7)
The basic structure of the wisdom sayings (vv. 2, 6-7) is synonymous parallelism, although verses six and seven are more complex than this basic structure may imply.

Verses six and seven are linked, not only in that verse seven further explains verse six, but also in certain structural elements. As has already been mentioned, both lines begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. Furthermore, stitch A of verse seven uses two of the same roots as stitch B of verse six, namely אדם and עמל. Dhorme has noted that whereas verse six uses two Qal yiqtol forms, verse seven uses two Hifil yiqtol forms.⁵ These instances, when taken together, show a strong connection between verses six and seven. How then do the two verses connect structurally? The following is an attempt at showing the logical, structural connections between the two verses:
6a -כי לא יצא מעפר און
6b -ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל
     7a -כי אדם לעמל יולד
          7b -ובני רשף יגביהו עוף
The logical progression from one stitch to the next may be expressed in this way: 6a and 6b conversely 7a just like 7b.

The example story (vv. 3-5) is structured as the outline above indicates. First Eliphaz states that he has seen the fool משריש, “taking root,” but that the fool’s abode was suddenly consumed. He then proceeds to speak of the negative repercussions to the fool’s children. Structurally, verse three is a synthetic parallelism, which may be more accurately termed enjambment.⁶ Stitch B of the two stitch line moves the story onward. In stitch A Eliphaz declares that he has seen the fool, whereas in stitch B he reports what took place. Verses four and five, which deal with the plight of the children of the fool, are each three stitches, as opposed to the standard two stitches in all the other verses of this pericope.

Verse four follows an interesting downward movement. Each stitch becomes shorter, which has the effect of creating a kind of falling off effect. Stitch A contains a verb, stated subject and indirect object. Stitch B contains a verb and indirect object, but lacks a stated subject. Stitch C contains a particle and a Hifil participle functioning as a predicate nominative.

Verse five has an equally fascinating internal structure. Like verse four, verse five is a tricolon line. The verse, as it has been restored, is entirely synonymous throughout the three stitches.⁷ The table below illustrates that synonymity, as well as the fascinating structural reversal in stitch C. That is, stitches A and B follow a somewhat non-standard Object-Subject-Verb word order. Stitch C, however, reverses this order, reverting to the more standard Verb-Subject-Object word order. This creates a kind of chiasm between stitches A and B on the one hand, and stitch C on the other. It is also interesting to note that stitch C replaces the expected yiqtol form with a weqatal form.

What does this structure reveal about the verse? Does it impact the meaning? Perhaps not in any non-obvious way. The reversal of word order in the final stitch is likely a way of indicating the end of the line and, possibly, the end of the discussion of the fool’s children, or even the entire example story. In this way it is a mechanism to show closure, not dissimilar to verses six and seven starting with kaph. The change from yiqtol verbal forms to a weqatal form likely serves the same purpose. Notice also that stitch C switches to a plural subject, whereas the other stitches have had collective singulars.

In summary, there are several major structural patterns and many minor ones in this passage. The major structural patterns, in order of priority, are 1) the inclusio formed by wisdom sayings at the beginning and end of the pericope; 2) the tricolon structure of verses four and five; and 3) the synonymous parallelism within verse five. The inclusio clearly establishes the limits of the passage, while the tricolon structure in verses four and five tie together the bulk of the example story, specifically the report of the fate of the fool’s children. Finally, the synonymous parallelism in verse five, aside from representing a stroke of artistic genius, serves as a mechanism for closing the example story before moving on to the final wisdom saying.

There are also many minor structural patterns which have been mentioned. The two that are likely deliberate, and therefore of interest to one studying the passage, are 1) the quasi-acrostic pattern and 2) the structure of verses six and seven. The first is likely deliberate since it serves to both set off this section from the surrounding sections, as well as indicate the close of the section by two successive lines beginning with kaph. It also ties the entire passage together. The second is important since one might argue that verses six and seven are the end towards which the entire pericope–perhaps even the entirety of Eliphaz’ first speech so far–points.

The community lament, the funeral song, and the city lament appear to be the main influences on the poetry of Lamentations. In chapter two, the community lament is particularly strong, though it consists only of complaint and petition. In verses 18-22, several points of comparison can be made with the three forms summarized above:

18-19: The initial address to the wall is a characteristic found in the city lament.¹ These verses also contain the summons to mourn found in the qinah form. While not exactly a petition itself, the poet here calls on Daughter Zion to petition God. There is also a continuation of the complaint in the description of the condition of the children in verse 19.

20: The standard petition of the community lament is found here in the mouth of the city – an imperative directed at God. In this case, ראה and נבט are the verbs chosen to encourage God to act. Of course, the fact that the poet demands that God “look” indicates that he is not currently “looking,” therefore hints at the divine abandonment motif of city laments (also featured frequently in individual laments). Also in this verse is the hint of reprimand and incredulity that is often found in the psalmic laments: because of God’s actions XY and Z has occurred – does God really want XY and Z to continue?

21-22: The poet returns to the complaint against God. God is accused of slaughtering the people without mercy, and no one has escaped his wrath. This is, of course, also a general description of the distress in correlation to the qinah. As in the beginning of the chapter, the blame continues to be assigned to the deity – echoes of the city lament. Finally, in these last two verses as well as verse 20, there is the possibility that that the personification of the city as a woman could be an Israelite version of the “weeping goddess” of the city lament.

Verses 20-22 in and of themselves are a mini-lament, since they are put as a unit into the mouth of Daughter Zion. She begins with a petition, and moves on to the complaint, as noted above.

Obviously a tone of sorrow and mourning permeates the entire passage, though anger is especially prominent in chapter two. After evaluating the forms most likely to have influenced chapter two and specifically verses 18-22, one could indeed say that Lamentations is a mixture of forms. The community lament is especially prominent in chapter two, and several features of the Mesopotamian city lament can also be seen. Whether or not the qinah form had a real influence on this chapter is debatable; a general feeling of lamentation is of course common to all three forms. Nevertheless, chapter two cannot be pinpointed into any one form. The variety of motifs drawn together, however, is “not something to be scoffed at or derided, but should be celebrated and enjoyed.”² It is difficult to tell if the pulling of various types of lament was intentional; either way, the poet shows his skill in weaving a dramatic and emotional portrayal of the grief of the people, pulling in whatever resources he had available, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Whether one wants to create a new form, as does Berlin, or be satisfied identifying the poem as a creative mixture of several types of forms, the end result is one of emotional rawness that probably would have been used by the community in their mourning of the destruction of Jerusalem and the death and exile of many of her people. In this respect, it could have been used very much as a metaphorical dirge. Certainly, it is very unlikely that the poem was used to commemorate the re-building of the temple, as it is theorized that some city laments were used. The closest connections for use are those of the community lament, which later became integrated into the formal liturgy of the community.³

My next two posts on Lamentations will focus on identifying the form of Lamentations 2 (though it applies generally to Lamentations as a whole as well). Keep in mind that this is a very broad overview of the issues as part of a larger paper, so there is obviously a lot here that could be treated much more in depth. Once again, enjoy, and comments are always welcome!

The genre of Lamentations seems almost laughably obvious, as it is reflected in the English title. Lamentations is part of the broad category of lament literature, a genre which at its core is “a cry uttered when life falls apart.”¹ The book is composed of five separate “laments.” Chapter two is one of these laments, and verses 18-22 are one part of the lament of chapter two. Identifying the type of lament in chapter two, and the laments of Lamentations as a whole, is more complex.

The most well known biblical laments are, of course, the psalmic laments, which are in and of themselves broken down into two types: the individual and the community lament. Other forms of lament are the dirge (funeral lament) and the city lament. The problem with Lamentations, especially chapters one, two, and four, is that it does not fit neatly into any of the lament forms named above. That is to say, it is not just that the lament is missing parts of a typical community lament, for instance, but rather that it appears to be a mixture of several types of laments. Chapter two is one of these “hybrid” forms.

The first type of lament that has similarities to the chapter in question is the community lament. The community lament generally consists of the following parts:²

1. Address to God
2. Complaint (against God, themselves, and/or the enemy)
3. Review of God’s past acts
4. Petition
5. Divine response³
6. Vow to praise

In the community lament, the community cries out to God because of a disaster by which the whole people are affected. The community lament seeks to prompt God to action to help and deliver his people. In many ways, chapter two has similarities with the community lament. A “disaster par excellence” was at hand, and the community cries out to God in the hopes that he will act, or in the case of chapter two, have mercy after all.⁴ However, unlike the community (or individual) lament, the chapter consists entirely of the complaint and petition portions of the lament. There is no summary of God’s past gracious acts and no hint of a response from God. Chapter two, especially, is entirely consumed by reviewing not the gracious acts of God but the recent destructive acts of God (vs. 1-18; complaint against God) and a demand for God to act (vs. 19-22; petition). Certainly, there is no vow of praise (or an expression of confidence, as in the related individual lament). One might then ask, can chapter two really be called a community lament in form, when it is missing so many of the crucial pieces of the lament?

Another possibility that may have had influence on Lamentations chapter two is the funeral dirge, or qinah form. Examples of actual dirges in the Bible are limited, but the prophets make use of the dirge form metaphorically in many instances.⁵ Elements of a dirge may include any of the following:⁶

1. Announcement that a death has occurred
2. Summons to mourn
3. Thematic statement of finality
4. Contrast motif
5. Reference to the impact of the demise upon immediate bystanders
6. Description of a general state of distress

The opening איכה of Lamentations 2 might be said to have similarities to a dirge. Additionally, there is a clear “summons to mourn” and certainly a description of suffering. Nevertheless, a true qinah was used for mourning over the death of an individual; any similarities to the dirge in Lamentations 2 are purely metaphorical in nature. Adele Berlin notes the similarities of the poems in Lamentations to both a community lament and a dirge, and suggests a new form for the laments that is part community lament, part dirge, with a little bit of uniqueness thrown in: the Jerusalem lament.⁷

The final type of lament that has been compared extensively to the laments of Lamentations is the Mesopotamian city lament. These laments, which “describe the destruction of particular cities and their important shrines,” date to the 2nd millennium BCE.⁸ The features of a city lament are as follows:⁹

1. A somber and mournful mood
2. Specific literary techniques: interchange of speakers, contrast and reversal, focus on a deity, kirugu form, lists
3. Divine abandonment
4. Assignment of responsibility to divine council
5. Divine agent of destruction
6. Destruction of the city, sanctuary, people, and their customs
7. A weeping goddess
8. Lamentation
9. Restoration of the city and return of the gods

F. W. Dobbs-Allsop has compared and contrasted each of these elements with the poems in Lamentations and comes to the conclusion that they have many features in common. However, he notes that ultimately the author of Lamentations does not copy exactly the city lament, but molds it to Israelite customs and beliefs.¹⁰ Most scholars now admit at least some similarities between Lamentations and the Mesopotamian city lament genre, though not all agree that the city lament is the most important influence on Lamentations.¹¹

I recently came across this quote, and it’s simply too good not to post.

“If I had been a priest I should have made a thorough study of Hebrew and Greek so as to understand the thought of God as he has vouchsafed to express it in our human language.”

There is only one bit of what St. Theresa says that I don’t entirely agree with: don’t miss the chance of understanding the thought of God by not learning the languages, even if you are not a priest.