A Survey of Research on Lamentations (2002–2012)

a. Historical Approaches

Despite these new trends, traditional historical-critical research continues on Lamentations, but recent scholarship typically explores how the book might be assessed in and through historiographical investigation interwoven with modern theories of historical study (C. Mitchell 2007; M.L. Mitchell 2008; Wilkins 2010). Wilkins’s careful and detailed study explores the situation of urban survivors of ancient siege warfare by attending to the rhetoric of Lamentations; comparative analysis of ancient Near Eastern material; the archaeological data from sixth-century bce Judah; and analogous social models from agrarian societies (2010: 6). From this analysis, Wilkins suggests that although not a historical document, Lamentations alludes to some of the lived realities of Jerusalemites during and after the conquest of Jerusalem. Yet, the material evidence and historical data from the period of the exile also show that there is no homogenous ‘Judah’ during this period, and that the story of Lamentations is not the story but a story of the period (Wilkins 2010: 218).

Alongside these recent historical approaches, we find scholarship which assesses the thought-world that gave rise to Lamentations, and explores possible development and growth of the book, as previous historical work had done. In previous research, it was axiomatic to view Lamentations 1, 2 and 4 as of a piece, belonging to the exilic period, while Lamentations 3 and 5 represented later additions to the book, likely belonging to a post-exilic milieu. In his recent commentary, Salters reaffirms this view (2010), but two major interpreters have nuanced this approach. Middlemas’s two major monographs on the exilic period, or what she prefers to label as ‘the Templeless Age’, address the book of Lamentations (2005; 2007). Berges researched the book in a number of articles and in a magisterial commentary (2000; 2002; 2004; 2005).

Salters’s commentary in the International Critical Commentary series is a welcome contribution that pays close attention to historical, lexical, grammatical and text-critical matters associated with the book (Salters 2010; see the review by Thomas 2011g). The book’s theology receives less, but adequate, attention. Salters stands out as a major interpreter of this book, having written a number of significant resources (e.g., 1994: 65-120). His new commentary (2010) diverges at points from his previous work (1994: 76-100), not least in terms of the unity of the book. He now suggests that the poems of Lamentations derive from different hands. The factors that led him to this change from relatively traditional arguments, are, among others: the poems could not have been written immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem; the acrostic is a secondary addition to original laments and the different theological foci; and literary forms suggest different hands. Salters’s contribution is timely indeed in light of the veritable flood of interest in Lamentations in the past decade, as this essay demonstrates. His facility with the versions both in the introduction (2010: 21-26) and throughout his commentary is commendable and in line with recent trends in texts and versions of the book. Additionally, Salters draws on his extensive knowledge of medieval Jewish commentary on Lamentations. His use of this material makes this commentary all the more helpful and unique in the field.

Middlemas’s monographs on the book of Lamentations should be understood within her larger interest on the exilic period in Judah. She searches out the major theological responses to this period both in Judah and Babylon (2007), with Lamentations serving as a distinctive Judahite theological voice. She suggests that in fact Lamentations 1, 2, 4 and 5 are a single piece, and derive from this Judahite exilic milieu (2005: 197-228). Lamentations 3, however, belongs to a different thought-world, displaying a different theological outlook even if it belongs to the exilic age as well. The theological perspective of Lamentations 1, 2, 4 and 5 is characterized by a focus upon human suffering; a lack of confidence in a future hope; a deconstruction of the efficacy of confession of sin; the vocalization of pain; and the formulation of grief (Middlemas 2005: 197-228). Differently, Lamentations 3 remains more hopeful than the other ‘complaint-orientated’ poems. In this way, it reflects the perspective of the Judahite exiles living in Babylon, or what Middlemas calls the ‘Golah’ writings, such as Isaiah 40–55. Therefore, although exilic, it represents (perhaps) different ideological and theological positions than the other poems.

Berges interprets the book along similar lines, though he dates ch. 3 later. He thinks that the Zion tradition stands foundational for the theological hope in Lamentations, particularly in ch. 3. Israel’s deity had identified himself with this people and place (the figure of Zion in Lam. 1–2 and Isa. 40–55), as well as committing himself to both the destruction and restoration of Zion. Because of this, Israel’s deity had not abandoned his people completely in the destruction of the city. The image of Zion in Lamentations 1–2 reaches its zenith in the ‘man’ of Lamentations 3. Because of this, the images of Zion and the man are related, and become figures of hope and restoration. Lamentations 3 reveals itself to be ‘Rollen- oder Problemträger-Dichtungen’, a model for faithful prayer and hope for those coping with hardships in Persian Yehud. Faithful prayer is marked by penitence, in hopes God will forgive (Lam. 3.25-39). For Berges, the final redaction of the book becomes a key in unlocking its meaning (2004; see also Berges 2002). He suggests that this third poem ritually served as a Zion lament in the temple in the period of the restoration.

Tiemeyer’s reading of Lamentations seeks to establish it as a particularly Judahite text. Like Middlemas, Tiemeyer suggests Lamentations is Judahite, but in contrast to Middlemas, she sees the whole of Lamentations, including ch. 3, as Judahite. In an article on the topic, Tiemeyer develops the intertextual relationship between Lamentations and Isaiah 40–55. She suggests that the cries of pain in Lamentations reflect the Judahite experience after the destruction of the temple in 587 bce, while the comfort theme of Isaiah 40–55 actually reflects the attitude of newly returned exiles from Babylon into Judah. The prophetic material comforts the cries of Lamentations, but may well be distinctively Judahite in origin (Tiemeyer 2007). Her recent monograph and essay on the same theme bolsters this view and develops it further (2010; 2011).

b. Lamentations and Liturgy

An ongoing question in the past century has been whether Lamentations represents a liturgy of penitence in the exilic age, or mourns Jerusalem’s demise. Recent research has redressed this question from a number of quarters. Greenstein uses comparative method between Lamentations and ancient Near Eastern city-laments (and related compositions), arguing that Lamentations does not memorialize or mourn disaster, but rather celebrates the reconstruction of the temple. Further, the text was used in a ritual of rebuilding at the restoration ca. 520–515 bce (2008; see also Berges 2004).

Middlemas suggests that Lamentations reflects part of the larger liturgical repertoire available to the Judahite community in the exilic age (2005: 174-228; 2007: 28-51). She carefully analyses Lamentations 1, 2, 4 and 5; Psalms 74, 79, 89, 106, 137; and Isa. 63.7–64.11, using form-critical categories, to argue that Lamentations 1, 2 and 4 are communal dirges, while Lamentations 5 is a communal lament. These poems are marked by a sense of mourning over the desolation of the city (2007: 40-41).

Because of this, Lamentations contemplates disaster and mourns over it. Against Greenstein, Middlemas argues that these texts were in use before the so-called Edict of Cyrus in 539 bce, and likely before the reconstruction of the temple.

Still differently, Thomas argues that the prayers of Lamentations give a hint to its liturgical purpose, but he disagrees with those who characterize its purpose as only penitential (2008). He argues that the formulaic prayers contained in the book (Lam. 1.9, 11, 20; 2.20-22; 3.59; 5.1) provide a variety of ways to engage the deity aside from penitence. Still, Thomas does not posit the kind of historical fixity for the religious and social context of the book as does Greenstein. It simply fits broadly within the exilic period (2008). In another essay, Thomas suggests that the hope on display in the book is not found in Israel’s theological traditions (whether prophetic or from Zion), but in the hope that God would hear and respond to various prayers in the book: prayers for forgiveness, for action against enemies, and for relief from divine oppression. In his construction, Lam. 3.21-24 does not provide a golden pool of hope that ‘answers’ all of the prayers in the book; rather, it provides the impetus that drives forward the prayers all the more. Because there is an expectation in the ‘acts of Yhwh’s covenant loyalty’ (הוהי ידסח), there is an expectation that the deity will hear and respond (see also Lam. 5.21-22; Thomas 2011a). As such, the prayers of Lamentations are undergirded by a view of divine potency and justice, and by praying them, the Judahites place their trust and hope in their God.

c. Text and Versions

The study of the text of Lamentations continues as it has done in the past, focusing on such topics as contested words, phrases and concepts (Tiemeyer 2006; Thomas 2011f), and textual criticism of selected verses (Kotzé 2009). Current research also directs significant attention to versions of Lamentations. Two monographs focus on the Targum of Lamentations, and several major works focus on the Greek version of the book. Brady’s monograph (2003) takes up where previous research left off, advancing scholarly discourse by offering a theological entry into the Targum; its translation techniques and theology transform the book of Lamentations into a ‘manifesto for the synagogue, absolving God of all guilt, declaring Israel’s culpability, and presenting the path towards reconciliation through repentance and rabbinic worship’ (p. 4). Brady’s work builds on his Oxford dissertation on the same topic (1999), which is itself a significant contribution to the field. In addition to these, he offers a summative essay on the Targum of Lamentations (2011a), a translation of the Targum (2011b), and an article devoted to exploring the function of the theological prologue in the Targum (2002).

Alexander’s translation and critical introduction is the standard recent work available on the Targum of Lamentations (2007; see also 2011a, 2011b). It contains a critical apparatus as well, which makes the volume all the more useful for Lamentations scholarship. In addition to these features, Alexander includes an appendix on the Yemenite recension of Lamentations, which is the other major text type of the Targum of Lamentations. Alexander translates this Yemenite version into English, with a critical apparatus below the text. The presence of both the Western and the Yemenite translations of Lamentations makes this volume extremely useful for textual criticism of Lamentations, as well as for the history of interpretation of this biblical book.

In addition to work on the Targum, the past decade has witnessed a burgeoning interest in the Greek version(s) of Lamentations. For example, Alexander’s commentary has a brief introduction to the Greek versions of Lamentations (2007: 46-47). But perhaps the most detailed project is a dissertation completed at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on the translation technique in the Old Greek of Lamentations (Youngblood 2004; see also Youngblood 2011a). Using the Masoretic Text as a control by which to assess the Old Greek, Youngblood carefully categorizes the nouns, pronouns, verbs, particles, verbless clauses and word order in the Old Greek so as to gain a deeper understanding of the way the translator rendered the translation. He suggests that the translator utilized a kind of formal equivalence in his translation and ‘brought his translation into quantitative alignment with the Hebrew parent text’ (2004: 358). Youngblood also reinforces previous research that found that the Old Greek of Lamentations fits with the kaige group identified in previous research (2004: 284-364; 2011a). He provides a condensed account of the Old Greek of Lamentations in an edited volume (2011a), and is currently writing the Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint as well as a reworking of Origen’s rendering of Lamentations in the Hexapla for the Hexapla Project. Finally, Gentry has worked on the Septuagint of Lamentations, providing a new English translation of the Septuagint of Lamentations for Oxford University Press (2007). He also explores the Old Greek of Lamentations as an example of understanding the relationship between the kaige group of texts and Theodotian, and, in a separate essay, builds upon Youngblood’s research on translation technique of the Old Greek of Lamentations (Gentry 2008: 326-27).

Recent work has also paid closer attention to the Qumran material. Berlin’s commentary has utilized not only the Qumran fragments of Lamentations (2002: 36-37), but also those Qumranic works that draw upon Lamentations (2003; see also Ilan 2008). Alexander suggests, from his assessment of the Qumran Lamentations texts, that this material may have been used in fasts associated with the Ninth of Ab by the Dead Sea sects (2007: 72). Yet, the most extensive work done on the Qumran material on Lamentations undoubtedly is Kotzé’s dissertation (2011), which is a text-critical analysis of all of the Qumran Lamentations fragments. He scrutinizes the content of the Qumran material, the Hebrew (Masoretic) material, and other translations as witnesses to the content of the book. His aim is to assess the influence that the ancient scribes at Qumran had on the wordings of passages from 3QLam, 4QLam, 5QLam^a and 5QLam^b. Kotzé’s research demonstrates that the Qumran texts indeed closely represent the content of Lamentations, but they also include some scribal variation that is not due to error or transmission lapses (e.g., 2011: 217-22).

Finally, we note the significant contribution of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) to the Megilloth, including Lamentations. Published in 2004, the fascicle of the Megilloth is the standard resource for studying the Masoretic text and exploring versions (Shäfer 2004a: 54-72). The volume also has a running commentary on the critical apparatus of Lamentations, notes on the masora magna and parva in the book, and a critical introduction to the versions of Lamentations (Shäfer 2004b). Each of these features makes BHQ on Lamentations indispensable for scholarly interaction with the book.

a. Feminist Interpretation

Because of the lucid and haunting image of the Daughter of Zion in Lamentations, the book has been a fertile resource for feminist readings. Early forays into this approach on Lamentations have been multiplied seemingly tenfold (Seidman 1995; Guest 1999). Yet, there is no one kind of feminist approach to the book, as there is no one kind of feminist interpretation in general (Thomas 2011d; 2011e). Rather, various kinds of feminist approaches have been employed in the book, from identifying and resisting divine violence (O’Connor 2002; cf. Mandolfo 2007a: 79-102; see also Kalmanofsky 2007), observing the gendered body of Zion in Lamentations (Maier 2008: 158-80), to reading Lamentations from a ‘woman’s perspective’ (Snow Flesher 2002). These works present an interesting mix of receptions of feminist discourse. O’Connor is clearly aware of feminist discourse, but does not exhibit the kind of feminist analysis per se as witnessed in, for instance, Guest’s reading. Rather, she attempts to let the edge of a feminist critique reveal oppression of feminine images in Lamentations, but, in so doing, discovers a constructive theology of protest in the book (O’Connor 2002). This is true as well for Mandolfo’s dialogic reading of Lamentations, which draws from the edge of feminist critique. For Mandolfo, theology may only be constructed after working through the feminine voice and its abuse in Lamentations.

O’Connor sees in the structure and imagery of Lamentations a gender bias. In its poetry, the concept of ‘hope’ is necessarily filtered through a prism of masculinity and androcentrism. She argues that where the masculine figure of the ‘suffering/strong man’ of Lamentations 3 appears and speaks (the central chapter of the book), hope begins to surface in the poetry. Likewise, when the community speaks in Lamentations 5 (the final chapter of the book), the feminine voice of Lamentations 1 and 2 recedes. Here, O’Connor sees an inherent gender prejudice that stifles the feminine voice in Lamentations (2002: 189-90). Despite these factors, O’Connor still develops a theology of ‘witness’ from the poetry, especially from the voice of Zion. O’Connor argues that Lamentations begs God to witness Zion’s pain and situation of disaster. O’Connor notes Lam. 2.20, where the Daughter of Zion stridently questions and protests God’s claims of justice in his acts of slaughter and punishment. Feminist reading enables her to avoid dismissing Lamentations as violent and oppressive. She sees Lamentations as a book that must be heard in light of its impulse for protest. Constructive theology emerges, then, only through a reading that accounts for the abuse and possibilities of the feminine voice in the book.

Mandolfo does not attempt to apply a rigid feminist hermeneutic to her interpretation of Lamentations. Instead, she learns from the political edge of feminist analyses, which become a conversation partner in her ‘dialogic theology’ of Lamentations (2007a: 3). Mandolfo employs the literary theory of Russian theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1998), who argues that texts speak beautifully when they speak with many voices (polyvalence) rather than with one voice (monologism). Mandolfo has also done something similar in a shorter article on Lamentations in an edited collection (2007b). She suggests that dialogism emerges from the interaction between the authoritative (male/father/husband) voice of the prophets (e.g., Ezek., Jer., Isa. 40–66) and the voice of the (feminine/daughter/wife) Daughter of Zion (Lam. 1–2). She says, ‘If we care about justice, we must be careful not to approach the Bible, in Bakhtinian terms, as the monologic “word of the father” that in the end justifies divine violence’ (2007a: 5). Lamentations is a counter-voice to the divine violence in the prophets through its feminine, resistant voice against God. Mandolfo’s aim is not to overturn the Bible or do away with it per se, but rather to refigure concretized, essentialist notions of justice, and contest them through the Daughter of Zion’s protestation. The Daughter of Zion in Lamentations, then, subverts the voice of God in the prophets, exposing the unjust construction of Zion therein and challenging it (2007a: 81-102). Mandolfo effectively destabilizes the objectification of ‘woman’, and restores ‘woman’ to being a cogent subject, a responsible agent.

Somewhat differently, Maier assesses Jerusalem/Zion as an embodied and gendered image in her reading of the Hebrew prophets and Lamentations. The historical reception of the image of the Daughter of Zion, especially on display in Lamentations, is transformed into a mother for her abused people especially in Isaiah 40–66. Maier suggests that it can be argued that this imagery inherently subordinates the female to the male, but it is nonetheless true that the abused woman in Lamentations is addressed in prophetic restoration. Although abused in siege and exile, the prophetic restoration envisioned in Isaiah 40–66 pictures the abandoned children of Zion coming back to their battered mother. She becomes a home and place of healing for the exiles (Maier 2008: 161-210). Further, for Maier, the presentation of Zion as a mother is not a subordinating image as much as it is a religious symbol that depicts care, welfare, refuge and glory. The mother image in the texts that receive Lamentations’ feminine imagery becomes a symbol of the vital body for the people where they are fed and find a space of rest. Effectively, then, in the reception of Lamentations’ imagery, the prophets transform the chastened ‘whore’ of Lamentations into an expanded female image, with new roles and a glorified image. The canonical and historical presentation of Lamentations in the Hebrew Bible depicts Lamentations’ moment of pain as one stop along the journey in relationship with God—from suffering to glorification (Maier 2008: 158-80).

Finally, Snow Flesher’s work on Lamentations presents a rather different kind of feminist analysis. Hers comports broadly with evangelical hermeneutics. The commentary in which Snow Flesher writes adopts the perspective of evangelical Christian faith, and believes that the Bible, even the difficult bits, is healing rather than hurtful for all peoples. At the outset, this perspective, which is especially directed toward ‘women’, fragments the naïve essentialism of feminist readings and highlights different kinds of voices present in feminist discourse. This kind of feminist reading is guided by a view that the Bible is fundamentally helpful as a good word from God, especially when received in the context of (a community of) women and interpreted in that light. She argues that the imagery of the Daughter of Zion in the book is a productive literary vehicle, designed to persuade God to deliver Jerusalem from distress, rather than to shame the people into repentance, as happens in the prophetic books (Snow Flesher 2002: 392). She reads Lamentations as a path of fidelity to God: faithful interpretation of Lamentations reads with the Daughter of Zion and cries out to God on behalf of sufferers. This is the case even if/when the deity has been the cause of the suffering. Snow Flesher’s reading on Zion is similar, though by no means identical, to O’Connor’s.

b. Psychological Readings

Seminal psychological analysis (Moore 1983) was first brought to bear upon Lamentations in the last century, but a systematic application was undertaken by Joyce (1993), who highlights the importance of the insights of Elizabeth Kübler-Ross’s ‘grief work’ (1997) to Lamentations research. In a recent essay (2011), Joyce discusses the state of the field on Lamentations and psychological readings, noting the fecundity of psychological readings (see also Joyce 1993).

Reimer (2002) follows Joyce in assessing Lamentations via Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief. Disagreeing with Joyce, Reimer suggests that a ‘dominant perspective’ appears in each chapter of Lamentations, reflecting each stage of the grief work developed by Kübler-Ross. Lamentations 1 reflects the stage of denial and isolation. The dominant theme of ch. 2 is anger. God is angry, especially in Lam. 2.1-9, but this anger is tempered by the anger of Zion personified, who protests God’s actions (Lam. 2.20-22). Lamentations 3 effects ‘a transition from hopelessness to hope through a reflection on the character of God. While hope remains uncertain, there is no better option’ (Reimer 2002: 551). This is the bargaining stage. It demonstrates the proper way forward: ‘good behaviour’ will hopefully lead to God’s deliverance, although this deliverance remains uncertain for ‘God is no automaton’ (p. 552). Lamentations 4 reveals depression through the dominant theme of reversal. The former glory of Jerusalem, when contrasted against the present destruction of the people and city, reveals the great reversal God’s people have experienced and the deep sadness that this brings: ‘what was once precious, good, and vital has become worthless, spoiled, and lifeless’ (p. 552). Especially in Lam. 4.1-20, the poetry mourns the loss and depicts a persistent negativity over the desolation of Jerusalem (p. 552). Lamentations 5 is ‘the most distinctive section of the book’ because prayer frames both this poem and the book as a whole. This poem cries out for future life, refusing to let God see the sufferers perish (p. 555), but it contrasts with Kübler-Ross’s stage of acceptance. Still, Reimer concludes that the other poems fit the grief paradigm of Kübler-Ross.

Using a different approach, Labahn applies insights from psychologist John Archer (1999) to Lamentations. She suggests that mourning actually paves the way toward a positive future with God (2002). Archer argues that grief is a natural reaction that occurs in all humans, in all cultures. Human grief involves both ‘primitive emotional reactions’ (protest, denial, anger, outrage) and ‘complex mental processes’ (searching for meaning in the troubling events, and blaming oneself, others, or even the deceased). Archer suggests that people ‘try to cope with grief in different ways’, but two in particular stand out: a ‘loss-oriented’ process and a ‘restoration-oriented’ process of coping (1999: 104-107, 249, 250-51). According to Labahn, Lamentations evinces both coping styles, but it emphasizes the ‘restoration-oriented’ style via the structure of the book. On the other hand, Lamentations 1, 2, 4 and 5 emulate the ‘loss-oriented’ style, and reflect an extreme sense of loneliness and pain. Labahn says, ‘Der erlebte Abbruch führt zur Einsamkeit. Trauer isoliert die Menchen nicht nur von ihrem Gott, sondern auch voneinander. Einsamkeit ist deswegen für das Trauern konstitutiv’ (‘The experienced disruption leads to loneliness. Grief does not only isolate humans from their God, but also from each other. Therefore loneliness is a constitutive part of grief’, Labahn 2002: 518 [all translation from the German derives from the author]). The central position of Lam. 3.21-39a, on the other hand, highlights the ‘restoration-oriented’ coping process. Here the poetry proffers a new way of life for God’s people. Under the mercy of Israel’s deity, with his help and through his intervention, the crisis that Lamentations expresses can be navigated. In fact, this parenetic section provides a ‘grundsätzliche Bereitschaft zur Neukonstituierung der Lebensumstände’ (‘foreseeable way to move toward renewed life’, p. 523). Labahn avers, ‘Weil Israel seine Katastrophe leidvoll durchlebt und “durchtrauert” hat, ist es nun in die Lage versetzt, mit Jahwes Hilfe Zukunft gestalten zu können’ (‘Since Israel has painfully lived through and “grieved through” her catastrophe, she has now come into the position where she can shape a future with God’s help’, p. 525). She argues that providing the way out of the crisis is the purpose of the book: ‘Den Weg dorthin zu schaffen und nicht im Elend des Abbruchs stehen zu bleiben, is die Funktion der Threni’ (‘The purpose of Lamentations is to provide the community of God’s people a way to negotiate the misery of exile and to move beyond it’, p. 526).

Smith-Christopher (2002) explores Lamentations through the psychological insights of refugee studies and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Smith-Christopher recognizes the serial trauma depicted in Lamentations, and relates this to PTSD. Recurring memories of destruction and brutality crop up in Lamentations, indicative of ‘intrusive memories’, which are symptomatic of PTSD. These include cannibalism (Lam. 1.11; 2.12; 4.4, 9-10), famine (Lam. 2.11-12; 4.4-10), rape (Lam. 1.10; 5.11), and slaughter (Lam. 1.1; 2.21). Further, the sense of isolation (the lack of comfort in Lam. 1.2, 9, 16-17, 21) and depression (Lam. 1.20; 2.11) evidenced in the poetry are also PTSD symptoms. The multi-angled and multi-faceted portrayal of destruction is itself symptomatic of PTSD: from the immediacy of famine and siege (Lam. 1–2), and reflection upon the finished disaster (Lam. 3), to a complaint about living conditions long after the disaster has occurred (Lam. 5). Smith-Christopher concludes that reading the book through the lens of PTSD ‘is once again to recover Lamentations as a measure of the psychological and spiritual crisis of the exile’ (2002: 104).

Thomas (2010) notes an underexamined aspect of the poetry that is ripe for psychological analysis. Specifically, he suggests that research in the psychology of prayer helps to elucidate both the divergent prayer forms in the book and different motivations of appeal (Thomas 2010). As is typical in research on the psychology of prayer, Thomas suggests that different prayer forms exist in the book, most significantly petitionary prayer and meditation. Meditation appears in the third poem of the book (Lam. 3.21-39), but petitionary prayer occurs throughout the rest (2010: 199-201). He also notes divergent motivations for prayer in the book, driven by ‘desire’: a hope that God would change something. Absolution, vengeance, and relief from oppression are powerful extensions of ‘desire’ in the prayers of Lamentations, but the meditative prayer of Lam. 3.21-39 does not contain this expectation. Finally, Thomas addresses the question of the dominant form of prayer in Lamentations, and engages the analysis of Labahn. Specifically, he addresses whether mediation or petitionary prayer gains dominance in the book. He thinks that the meditative prayer of Lam. 3.21-39 cannot be the preferred prayer in the book, as the poem concludes with a petition, as do the other poems in the book: ‘Although Lamentations 3:21-24 is important to Lamentations’ construction of hope, one cannot isolate these verses because they sit within a larger context that one must address’ (Thomas 2010: 205).

c. Literary Readings

Recent scholarship which may be characterized as ‘literary’ includes both works that explore metaphor, structure and the unity of Lamentations, as well as works that employ critical theories of Mikhail Bakhtin (1998) and Umberto Eco (1984) to the book. Each of these will be explored below, as will the commentaries of Dobbs-Allsopp (2002), Berlin (2002), O’Connor (2002), Bergant (2003), and House (2004), all of whom approach Lamentations with a high degree of literary sensitivity and attention to poetics in the book.

A number of works have explored how metaphor is employed in Lamentations’ poetry. Labahn devotes two major contributions to the question of how metaphor works in the depiction of wild animals and Israel’s god in Lamentations. In the first essay (2005), she explores the eight animal metaphors in the book and asserts that they are designed to provide various poetic avenues to relate to the devastation of destruction and exile. In the second essay (2006), she suggests that ‘fire from above’ in Lamentations (esp. in ch. 2) serves as an apt metaphor to describe the deity’s wrath, and that this ‘fire’ consumes ‘the entire physical, socio-economic, political, and cultic spheres in which the people of Judah live’ (p. 256). Further, the presentation of divine fire descending ‘from heaven’ demonstrates the deity’s distance and removal from his people and land. Middlemas’s contribution concerning the authorship of Lamentations 3 explores the differing ways that the image of ‘divine warrior’ and ‘divine saviour’ are played off of one another in the book (2006). In fact, she suggests that Lamentations 3, deriving from a different thought milieu from Lamentations 1, 2, 4 and 5, uses ‘divine saviour’ imagery to provide a vision of hope for God’s people. The ‘divine warrior’ image, present in the other portions of the book, depicts the negative characteristics of the deity that may be protested (pp. 518-19).

In addition to these, some recent work has paid close attention to the structure of the book. Middlemas argues that the final form and shape of the book can be understood by attending to the image of the ‘violent storm’ (2004). Using reader-response analysis as a beginning point, Middlemas suggests that the whirlwind is a vibrant and effective image that closely links the center of the book (the hopeful vision of ch. 3) to be understood in light of the other chapters (visions of destruction and loss). The interplay between the ‘eye’ of Lamentations 3 and the broader ‘storm’ in the other chapters remains productive interpretatively. The hopeful presentation of Lamentations 3 is the calm eye of the storm that gives a sense of orientation to the confusion of the storm that is pictured in the other chapters (2004: 93-97).

In contrast, Assis devotes two articles (2007; 2009) to the question of the structure and unity of the book (2007: 710-24; 2009: 306-29). In the first, he explores the acrostic structure of the book and suggests a fresh approach to its meaning. He suggests that the structure of Lamentations was, in fact, ‘employed in order to create an unparalleled tension between the deep emotional mode and the contemplated structure, with the aim of conveying the idea that, contrary to the genre of dirges, Lamentations is a rational reflection on the horrifying situation’ (2007: 717). The acrostic was employed, Assis argues, so that the reader would be forced to interact with its ideas and images at both an emotional and rational level. In his second article, Assis suggests that Lamentations displays a unified structure beyond a simple recognition of the parallel acrostic structure across the poems (2009). He exposes close connections, both lexical and thematic, that exist between chapters 2 and 4, and chapters 1 and 5 in the book. This gives purchase to his argument that the book displays a concentric structure that is ‘immanent’ in the book’s original composition, and not a secondary phenomenon (2009: 328). He does not, however, offer analysis of Lamentations 3.

Morse explores Lamentations using Walter Benjamin’s Arcades Project (1999) as a resource. Benjamin’s Arcades Project derives from his experience with small glass-roofed rows of diverse shops (that is, ‘arcades’) that existed in nineteenth-century Paris. In his own work, Benjamin sets up his own series of intellectual shops that engage a range of issues, among others: boredom, fashion, photography. What emerges from Benjamin’s work is a montage of thoughts that expose his views of bourgeois life and consumerism. He attempts to probe beneath the surface of what he sees in this consumerism to find the real story of life beneath it. Morse applies these insights from Benjamin to the fragmented vision of Lamentations. He discovers a montage of images and voices brought together in Lamentations, united in form but nonetheless disparate and polyvalent (2003: 113-27). This reading of the book moves beyond historical-critical paradigms, treating the various images and voices in the book as literary ‘photographs’ that have been brought together in order to express the fragmentation of reality in post-war life, but also in order to provide a subtle means of recovery. In this way, Morse defends the book’s artistic integrity and affirms its value as an imaginative means of negotiating pain (2003: 124-27).

Beyond these approaches, a good deal of research on Lamentations has drawn upon the insights of Bakhtin. Bakhtin’s theory of polyphonic texts (1984) influences, as evidenced above, Mandolfo’s research on Lamentations. Boase’s work precedes Mandolfo’s, and uses Bakhtin’s work as well. Using Bakhtinian analysis, Boase suggests that Lamentations reveals itself as a complex book with a complex theological outlook that cannot be equated with prophetic ideology concerning sin and punishment. Rather, Lamentations shares some similarities to prophetic ideology (personification of Zion as female, prophetic ideology on the Day of the Lord, and sin and judgment). But the poetry interacts with this ideology in various ways, especially in terms of protest (Boase 2006: 140-241). As a result, Lamentations pushes towards polyphonic, rather than a monophonic, theological discourse.

Somewhat differently, Thomas explores the poetry and theology of Lamentations through the work of Italian semiotician Umberto Eco (1984). Thomas relates Eco’s distinction between ‘open’ and ‘closed’ texts (1984) to Lamentations to show how the poetry creates a number of interpretative possibilities for the model reader of Lamentations 1–3, and thereby, various theological outlooks in the book (2007). As a result, Thomas asserts, the theology of the book is varied: it affirms the deity’s punishment of his people and land, while simultaneously providing strong counter-testimony of this affirmation in the form of protest prayer. Further, Thomas decenters the notion that Lamentations 3, especially vv. 21-39, culminates as the ‘high point’ and theological crux of the book (2007: 204-50). These insights are taken further to the whole of Lamentations in a forthcoming monograph (Thomas forthcoming).

d. Reception Theory and Lamentations

A refreshing trend in research focuses upon the reception history of Lamentations. Of course, Jewish reception of Lamentations is witnessed in the Old Greek version of the book, as well as in Qumran, and these have been mentioned above. But recently, articles on different periods of Jewish and Christian interpretation of Lamentations have increased, and their variety has deepened the scholarship on this biblical book.

Scholars have explored both the use of Lamentations within the Jewish worship tradition of the Ninth of Ab, as well as the exploration of medieval rabbinic commentary on the book. The Ninth of Ab is the holiday that commemorates various catastrophes in the Jewish historical past. It is celebrated within the synagogue, and Lamentations is the scriptural center of the celebration. Stern assesses how Lamentations was used in liturgy during the Ninth of Ab season (Stern 2004; 2011), and reveals that the book provides a way for the community to negotiate pain and loss; however, this experience of pain is ultimately situated in a larger movement toward reconciliation when coupled with Tammuz and Rosh Hashanah (Stern 2011). Others have focused upon the interpretations of Lamentations in medieval Jewish commentary. Gruber assesses Rashi’s commentary on Lamentations (2011), and Japhet studies Rashbam’s commentary on the same, particularly the introduction to the book (2010). These, along with the insights of Salters on the interpretation of Lamentations by Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Joseph Kara (Salters 1999; 2010), represent a renewed interest in rabbinic reception and interpretation of the book.

Scholars also attend to Lamentations’ reception in Christian interpretation. We will present the research chronologically by period/interpreter in the reception history chain. Although Lamentations is rarely used in the New Testament, Moffitt suggests that Lamentations is featured within the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in the Matthean presentation of the Passion of Jesus (2006). He argues that Lamentations is alluded to three times in the New Testament (Mt. 23.35; 27.34; and 27.39), and that the writer uses these allusions as a ‘scriptural warrant for interpreting certain historical events theologically and polemically—namely, for understanding Jesus’ crucifixion as the act of righteous bloodshed par excellence that directly results in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple’ (Moffitt 2006: 319). Moffitt’s analysis is the first such work done on New Testament reception of Lamentations, and presents a viable example of biblical interpretation in the first century ce. Thomas assesses Lamentations’ use in the patristic period, and discovers that it was read as a Christological text (esp. Lam. 4.20) as well as a source of moral instruction for the early Christian church (2011b). He also identifies the text-types of Lamentations that were used during this period, including the Old Greek, the lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, Origen’s (lost) commentary on Lamentations reconstructed via the Byzantine catenae, and Jerome’s Vulgate (2011b).

Wenthe’s recent commentary on Lamentations (2009) draws together many of the church fathers’ comments on Lamentations, and provides a rich resource for early Christian thought on the book. Hogg (2011) discusses the reception history of Lamentations in the medieval period, and Wilcox (2011) addresses the reception history of Lamentations in Calvin’s work. Albert (2005) focuses on the anti-Jewish exegesis in the commentaries on Lamentations by Hrabanus Maurus and Pascasias Radbertus during the Carolingian period. Discussing the medieval reception history of Lam. 1.12, Davis observes that ‘Medieval poetic renditions of Lamentations 1.12 brought historic suffering—of the Lamentations’ widow, of Christ—into the present of their audiences’ (2011: 439). Davis suggests that this is made possible through the medieval understanding and conception of time. Geiger (2007) surveys the Hebrew text of Nicholas of Lyra’s commentary on Lamentations, and argues that Lyra was only partially successful in determining the correct Hebrew parent text of the book. Lyra’s translation was a step forward from the Latin Vulgate, but not a complete success.

Wilcox studies Calvin’s commentary on Lamentations in terms of its humanistic style of exegesis, Calvin’s engagement with other interpreters, and his application of the text (2011). Wilcox examines Calvin’s thoughts on the purposes of the ancient text: to speak of God’s judgments, to exhort God’s people to repentance, to encourage them in hope (largely through Lam. 3), and to open the door for prayer to God (2011: 126). Kallendorf explores the artistic receptions of Lamentations by John Donne and Francisco de Quevedo (2009).

The most significant work to emerge on reception history is the edited volume by Parry and Thomas (2011) who, in addition to offering insight on reading the text theologically for the Christian church (Parry 2011b), provide reception-historical ‘soundings’ on particular interpreters and periods: Jewish and Christian, ancient and modern. Some of these essays have been mentioned above, but the full monograph includes reception of Lamentations in: Isaiah (Tiemeyer 2011), the Old Greek (Youngblood 2011a), the rabbinic Targum (Brady 2011a), Lamentations Rabbati (Neusner 2011), Rashi (Gruber 2011), Jewish worship (Stern 2011), and post-holocaust theology (Braiterman 2011). Beyond these, they provide space for Christian interpretation in patristic (Thomas 2011b) and medieval periods (Hogg 2011), in Calvin (Wilcox 2011), Orthodox theology (Constantinou 2011), and Catholic worship (Cameron-Mowat 2011). They treat Messianic Jewish interpretation (Harvey 2011) as well as modern readings: psychological, feminist, musical and visual (Joyce 2011; Thomas 2011d; Schopf 2011; Thomas 2011c). In addition to these essays, there are fresh translations of the Old Greek and Targum of Lamentations, with the Greek and Aramaic provided next to the English in parallel columns (Parry and Thomas 2011: 211-47).

Finally, we note the reception of Lamentations in the Greenbelt Arts Festival in 2003. Done from the perspective of visual arts and composition, the artwork was exhibited in a ‘Lamentations Exhibition’ at the University of Gloucestershire Chapel (Rowley and Hayes 2003). Interestingly, the photographic art of Lavery and Meatyard drew upon the recurrent imagery of broken and battered children in Lamentations; their photographs emphasize the shattered experience of infants and, horrifically, an infant ablaze (Rowley and Hayes 2003: 9, 11). The written compositions draw significantly upon the biblical book’s major theme of lament, and seven poems are devoted to that theme. Despite the emphasis upon Lamentations 3 in academic discourse on the book, none of the contributions draws upon the ‘hopeful’ sections of the poem in the exhibition.

e. Lamentations, War and Violence

The controversial Jesuit priest, Father Daniel Berrigan, does not seek to ‘explain’ Lamentations as much as to receive and respond to it in his commentary on the book (2002). He writes from the perspective of the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC on 11 September 2001, and America’s subsequent wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. He addresses this experience as it intersects with theology. In Lamentations, Berrigan finds resource to critique American war policy, as well as the Christian church’s complicity in imperialism. Lamentations surfaces what Berrigan identifies as ‘idolatry’ within the sanctuaries of modern (especially American) churches. ‘Idolatry’ appears in the form of the nationalistic zeal pronounced in the church that detracts from the heart of Christian faith. The power of the state forces itself onto the church, and the beauty and non-violence revealed in the Eucharist is censored (Berrigan 2002: 18-19). For Berrigan, Lamentations is a resource that draws God’s people to respond to the call of the Eucharist, particularly through repentance. In fact, penitence is a hallmark for the book, and key to negotiating the sins of American policy. As America (particularly the Catholic Church within America) learns penitence, it will discover the way to live before God and to relate to the rest of the world (Berrigan 2002: xix).

Lee’s analysis of Lamentations is accomplished in dialog with other dirge/lament songs orally performed among South Slavs, as well as literary lament poems from Bosnia and Croatia that were composed within the context of recent wars in the area (2002: 7-8). Hers is an integrative method of study on the book that draws together socio-rhetorical and oral-poetic methodologies. Using her approach, Lee is able to identify formulaic expressions in Lamentations, and to establish more coherently the book’s presentation of justice, survival, and the expression of grief. She notes that it is characteristic for poetry created in the aftermath of war and violence, especially in compositions addressing city-siege, to personify cities as female, just as is Zion portrayed in Lamentations. This insight enables the singers of Lamentations—and more singers through the ages—to negotiate pain and suffering in a distinctively human manner. The poetry enables its singers to stand up and protest war, violence and suffering while simultaneously providing space to grieve the loss and pain of the experience. So, Lamentations provides the sufferers a poetic vehicle through which they can survive their experience and formulate a way to return to life. Her study reveals that this is accomplished by critiquing crystallized ideology that had permeated the rhetoric of some (prophets and leaders) in Israel (Lee 2002: 128-29, 186-89, 198-99).

Other works also interpret Lamentations from the perspective of war and violence. O’Connor’s commentary approaches the book with the events of 11 September 2011 in view (2002: xiii-xvi), but moves outward, allowing Lamentations to provide a voice for those suffering in larger contexts of war and violence, as noted above. Stiebert takes a different tack, making connections between Lamentations’ presentation of the deity and the victims and perpetrators of violence in post-Apartheid South Africa (2003). In particular, she examines the reality of post-Apartheid South Africa and the work done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and then relates this to the notion of giving voice to the abused victims of violence, both in South Africa and in the biblical book of Lamentations. She sees similarities between the presentation of victims in the speech of Zion and the victims of violence in South Africa. She also draws a comparison between the characterization of God in Lamentations and perpetrators of violence in South Africa’s Apartheid regime (2003: 209-11). Finally, Stiebert concludes by exploring the possibility of forgiveness, both in Lamentations and in the context of South Africa.

f. Ecological and Post-Colonial Readings

Other, less common, trends in Lamentations research are emerging. Trudinger moves beyond anthropocentric explorations of the book to focus upon a ‘geocentric’ reading of Lamentations 1–2 (2008). He notes that the poetry of Lamentations concentrates upon human suffering rather than the broader suffering of creation. However, there is evidence that the narrator of Lamentations 1–2 empathizes with the city and environs around Jerusalem. ‘His concern goes beyond the death of people…to include the damage done to Jerusalem’ (p. 48). Still, Trudinger suggests that, taken as a whole, the construction of creation in Lamentations is not ‘eco-friendly’, as it concentrates on people rather than place (p. 51).

If ecological readings are concerned with place, then they can be productively compared with post-colonial readings as well. For post-colonial readings, place is vitally important, because it represents a counter-place, a counter-voice, to dominant, imperialist places and the practices that grow out of them. Chi Chung Lee offers two readings of Lamentations that blend post-colonial, feminist and comparative approaches to biblical texts (2004; 2005). His first essay assesses Lamentations ‘cross-textually’, that is, by reading Lamentations from the context of a Chinese people who have endured pain and, secondarily, alongside the context of The Lament for the South (Ai Jiangnan Fu), which is a poem that employs traditional Chinese lament genre stemming from the fourth century bce (2004: 173-74). In his reading, he revisits previous research on Lamentations and recontextualizes Lamentations within a majority world audience. Lee’s second essay explores Lamentations ‘cross-textually’ as well, but focuses upon the mothers of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (4 June 1989), and relates them to the bereaved mother Zion in Lamentations (2005). What emerges is an interesting, yet troubling, presentation of bereavement, loss and pain, of weeping mothers and inconclusive responses to suffering.

g. Theological Readings

Theological readings of Lamentations have gained currency in recent times, with particular emphasis upon the religious thinking of the Judahites in the sixth century bce; how to appropriate Lamentations as a Jewish or Christian sacred text in the modern context; or, a blended approach that assesses the theological thought in Lamentations and its modern relevance. Allen’s sensitive pastoral commentary (2011) probes the book’s poetry for its theological import in the context of the Christian church. He draws upon pastoral care and grief work, as well as traditional historical and literary research, to formulate his analysis. It is a sensitive and powerful commentary that helps to negotiate grief, both in ancient and modern contexts, and it is up to date on critical discussions on the book.

Dobbs-Allsopp (2002; see also 2004) carefully observes that the poetics at work in Lamentations helps to elucidate its vacillating theological portrait. He presents the theology of Lamentations in its ancient context, but is clearly interested in its modern relevance as well. He suggests that the poetry of Lamentations follows neither narrative nor dramatic logic, but is paratactic, deeply imbued with contrasting imagery, and highly allusive. As such, the poetry fits the qualities of lyric poetry more than anything else (pp. 12-14). Because of its paratactic nature, Lamentations is a collage of poems that provide a variety of viewpoints on the disaster of Judah and Jerusalem’s destruction. Dobbs-Allsopp identifies the poetry as ‘anti-theodic’, because it enables a theology that questions God’s interaction with his people and land (pp. 23-46). However, he rightly notes a ‘theodic’ impulse in the poetry as well, which affirms God’s interactions with his people and land. Still, it is muted in comparison with the focus upon divine violence, the expression of anger and pain, and the sheer presentation of human suffering in the book.

Two exegetical and theological commentaries deserve attention, although they are structured somewhat differently (Dearman 2002; House 2004). Dearman attends to the historical horizons of the book, but then ‘bridges contexts’ between the ancient world and modern world to examine what Lamentations has to say to the Christian church of the present day (2002: 444-46, 452-53, 460-61, 469, 474-75). His work may thus be identified as a blended theological approach. House’s 2004 commentary is particularly exegetically focused, and aims to elucidate the theological thought of Lamentations within its own (historical) horizons (pp. 316-29; see also House 2011). House argues that Lamentations 3 provides a hopeful center for the book. There one finds the theological high point as well, articulated by the strong covenantal affirmation of Lam. 3.21-24, where the poetry affirms that God will not ultimately reject his people (2004: 323-29). Despite this, House emphasizes the vitality of lament, the voicing of pain and prayer, especially in and through the perspective of the Daughter of Zion.

Parry has contributed a number of works demonstrating a theological reading of Lamentations (2006; 2007; 2010; 2011a; 2011b). Like House, Parry reads the book within its own horizons, but then moves to broader horizons within the discourse of the New Testament and Christian theology, ethics and political theology. Parry reads Lamentations from an overtly Christian perspective, connecting the theology of the book within a covenantal framework that unites the Old and New Testaments. This informs his reading at the outset, helping to create a fecund interpretation of the book. Still, his interpretation remains tempered both by the worlds behind the text, and the worlds within the text (2010: 1-34). By highlighting the world behind the text, he claims that Lamentations (as a whole) arrives in the context of the exile, and is informed by prophetic oracles of judgment against covenant violation. However, Parry recognizes the importance of prayer in this period and the vitality that comes by expressing suffering to God (p. 33).

Berges (2005) provides an extended discussion of divine violence in Lamentations, and a full commentary that wrestles with the theology of the book (2002). Against the so-called formulaic phrasing that describes Yhwh’s mercy present in Exod. 34.6-7, and that appears in abbreviated form in Lam. 3.21-24, Berges explores the divine violence of God in Lamentations in order to redress the ‘often too one-sided view of divine love’ (p. 22). His aim is to demonstrate that God’s behavior in the Bible is bound ‘neither to human expectations nor to ethical standards of modern western societies’ (p. 23). He employs an ideological-critical approach to Lamentations’ poetry, and evaluates the deity’s wrath and violence in the Hebrew Bible, in the ancient Near Eastern context, and in Lamentations. Berges proposes that severe divine violence is present in Lamentations, but that personified Zion holds Yhwh responsible for grief in the form of protest (see also Lam. 2.20-22). Berges suggests that this vision of God in Lamentations is challenging to orthodox faith—he provocatively terms the verses as ‘satanic’ (p. 40)—but also argues that it cannot be exorcised from the book, the Bible, or indeed from Yhwh himself. Still, there is hope that Yhwh will hear the cries of Zion, the cries of the people, and respond out of his mercy.

Boase evaluates how appropriate it is, in its ancient context, to categorize Lamentations as an extended theodicy (2008b). She is not convinced that the book advances a proper theodicy: justifying God’s ways to humanity. While she is convinced that the book does contain ‘theodic’ elements, she argues that the book as a whole is not designed to answer the question of theodicy: ‘We cannot argue that these poems contain a rational explanation concerning God’s relationship to the suffering’ that is presented and endured in the poetry (p. 467). Any ‘theodic’ elements that are clearly present in the book are ‘countered’ and/or ‘subverted’ within the poetry of Lamentations by ‘anti-theodic’ elements focusing expressly on pain and suffering. The weight and emphasis on suffering in the book shifts ‘the reader’s response to one of empathy for Jerusalem/the people, a response which undermines the rational link between sin and punishment’ (p. 468).

In another article (2008a), Boase explores the variable characterization of God in the book to ascertain how this should be understood theologically, particularly within its ancient context. Since the genre of Lament is strong in Lamentations, it is difficult for the reader to affirm the positive propositions about God, because the lament format is always calling this positive characterization into question (2008a; see also Middlemas 2006).

Gladson (2010) seeks to clarify the theological thinking in the sixth-century Judahite context by engaging the silence and absence of the deity in the book. He recognizes that the prevailing scholarly view is that Israel’s deity remains silent in the poetry. The book, then, presents God and prayer to God from the midst of human suffering. From this embodied state, the book offers no assurance of a firm divine response. Gladson counters this view by providing an interpretation of Lam. 3.55-57 that treats the verbs as fientive (‘unfinished’ or ‘ongoing’) perfects, and the imperative ‘Do not fear!’ in v. 57 as a salvation oracle. This brief word of confidence represents the divine response to the suffering in Lamentations: God is doing something restorative for the beleaguered followers of the deity (2010: 329-30). In this way, Lamentations does give some hope that God is doing something for Israel in the midst of an ambiguous and indeterminate world. Gladson suggests that this fleeting voice of God joins the other voices in the book, and provides a vision of hope amidst the confusion.