Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 21-27. The account riven reuardino- the arrest of the chief officers of the temple and of the city, and concerning their transportation to Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar caused them to be executed, agrees with 2 Kings xxv. 18-21, except in some unimportant variations, which, however, do not alter the sense; the explanation has been already given in the commentary on that passage. In 2 Kings xxv., the account of the appointment of Gedaliah as the governor of Judah, together with that of his assassination by Ishmael, which follows the narrative just referred to, is here omitted, because the matter has been already more fully stated in the passage chap. xl. 7 on to xliii. 7, and had no close connection with the object of the present chapter. Instead of this, there follows here, in vers. 28-30 (as a continuation of the remark made, ver. 27, " Thus was Judah carried away captive out of his own land"), a calculation of the number of the Jews taken to Babylon at the three deportations: in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, 3023 Jews; in the eighteenth year, 832 souls from Jerusalem; and in the twentythird year, 745 souls, — in all, 4600 persons. The correctness of these data is vouched for by the exactness of the separate numbers, and the agreement of the sum with the individual items. In other respects, however, they present various difficulties. There is, first, the chronological discrepancy that the second deportation is here placed in the eighteenth year of

Nebuchadnezzar, in contradiction with ver. 12, according to which, the deportation after the taking of Jerusalem occurred in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar; and 832 souls could not well be carried out of Jerusalem during the siege. This difference can be settled only by assuming that this list of deportations was derived from another source than the preceding notice regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign were reckoned in some other way than elsewhere in Jeremiah and in the books of Kings, probably from the date of the actual commencement of his reign, which followed a year after he first appeared in Judah, from which his reign is dated elsewhere; see on Dan. i. 1 (p. 59 ff.). According to this mode of computation, the seventh year would correspond to the eighth of the common reckoning, and be the year in which Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon, together with a large number of the people. But this does not agree with 3023, which is given as the number of those who were carried away; for, at that time, according to 2 Kings xxiv. M, 16, as'many as 10,000 Jews, or, according to another view of these vei q 18,000, were carried away to Babylon. This difference does not permit of being explained in any way. Ewald {History of the PeopU of Israel, iii. p. 738) accordingly assumes that in ver. 28, after Vlf, the word rn&JJ has been omitted, as in 2 Chron. xxxvi. fc where the age of Jehoiachin is given; hence he thinks that' instead of " in the seventh," we must read " in the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar." On such a view, the reference would be to a deportation which took place under Zedekiah, a year before the capture, or during the time of the siege of Jerusalem, and that, too, out of the country districts of Judah in contrast with Jerusalem, ver. 29. This supposition is favoured not merely by the small number of those who are said to have been carried away, but also by the context of the narrative, inasmuch as, in what precedes, it is only the capture of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people in Zedekiah's time that is treated of. Nagelsbach has objected to this supposition that it was not likely the great mass of the people would be carried away during the war, at a time when the approach of the Egyptian army (cf. xxxvii. 5) was an object of drea 1. But the objection doea Dot weaken the supposition, Bin the former rests on two presuppositions that are quite erroneous: rst, that the deportation took place before the defeat of the auxiliary army from Egypt, whereas it may have followed that event; and secondly, that the Chaldeans, by keeping the hostile Jews in the country, might have been able to get some istance against the Egyptian army, when removing the hostile population of Judah, they would but diminish the number of the enemies with which they had to contend. We therefore regard this conjecture as highly probable, because it ihe moans of settling all difficulties, and because we can thereby account for the small number of those who were carried away in the deportations during and after the destruction oi Jerusalem. Regarding the third deportation, which was effected by Nebuzaradan (ver. 30) in the twenty-third, or, according to another reckoning, in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, we have no other information; for the statement of Josephus, Antt. x. 9. 7, that Nebuchadnezzar made war upon the Ammonites and Moabites in that year, has not been placed beyond a doubt, and is probably a mere inference from this verse, taken in connection with the prophecies in chap, xlviii. and xlix. Yet there is nothing improbable in the statement, viewed by itself. For it must be borne in mind that, after the appointment of Gedaliah as governor, and the departure of the Chaldean hosts, many Jews, who had fled during the war, returned into the country. Hence, in spite of the fact that, after the murder of Gedaliah, a multitude of Jews, fearing the vengeance of the Chaldeans, fled to Egypt, many may have still remained in the country; and many other fugitives may not have returned till afterwards, and given occasion to the Chaldeans for removing other 745 disturbers of the peace to Babylon, four or five years after Jerusalem had been laid in ashes. This deportation may have taken place on the occasion of the subjugation of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Idumeans, or during the war with the Phoenicians, possibly because they had rendered assistance to these nations against the Chaldeans. These verses thus contain nothing to justify the assumption of M. von Niebuhr (Gesch. Assyr. und Babels, S. 58, note) and

Nagelsbach, that they are a gloss. The paucity of those who were carried away is not to be attributed to a desire on the part of the writer of this inserted portion to represent the calamity as not so very terrible after all; nor is it due to the substitution of the number of the Levites for that of the entire people,— two wholly arbitrary assumptions: it is completely explained by a consideration of the historical circumstances. The best of the population of Judah had already been carried away, and Zedekiah and his counsellors must have said to themselves, when they rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, that the latter would not spare this time; thus they must have defended themselves to the utmost, as is shown by the very fact that the sieo-e of Jerusalem lasted eighteen months. In this manner, war, pestilence, and famine carried off a great number of the population of Jerusalem; so that, of men who were able-bodied and fit for war, and who could be carried into exile, not more than 4600 fell into the hands of the Chaldeans. During the war, also, many had concealed themselves in inaccessible places, while the lowest of the people were left behind in the country to cultivate the fields. Still more strange might appear the circumstance that the sum-total of those who were carried away to Babylon, viz. 10,000 with Jehoiachin, and 4600 under Zedekiah,— 14,600 in all,— is evidently disproportionate to the number of those who returned to Jerusalem and Judah under Zerubbabel, which number is given in Ezra ii. 64 at 42,360, exclusive of men and maid servants. For this reason, Graf is of opinion that still later deportations may have taken place, of which no mention is made anywhere. This assumption, however, has little probability. On the other hand, we must consider these points: (1.) In the accounts given of those who were carried away, only full-grown and independent persons of the male sex are reckoned, while, along with fathers, both their wives and their children went into exile. (2.) Even so early as the first capture of Jerusalem in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a number of prisoners of war, perhaps not inconsiderable, came to Babylon; these might unite with the thousands of their brethren who were carried thither at a later period. (3.) When the exiles had settled down in Babylon, and there found not only a means of livelihood, but even in many instant is clear from several Intimations, attained to opulence as citizens, many, even of those who had been left in the country, may have gone to Babylon, in the hope of finding there greater prosperity than in Judah, now laid waste and depopulated by war. (4.) From the time when the 10,000 were carried away with Jehoiachin, in the year 599 B.C., till the return under Zerubbabel,.r>.">r» B.C., 63 years, i.e. nearly two generations, had passed, during which the exiles might largely increase in numbers. It' we take all these elements into consideration, then, in the simple fact that the number of those who returned amounts to nearly three times the numbers of those given as having been carried away under Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, we cannot find such a difficulty as entitles us to doubt the correctness of the numbers handed down to US.

\ PS. 31—34. The closing portion of this chapter, viz. the notice regarding the liberation of Jehoiachin from imprisonment, and his elevation to royal honours by Evil-merodach after Nebuchadnezzar's death, substantially agrees with the account given of that event in 2 Kings xxv. 27-30. The (lifts o ference of date, " on the twenty-fifth of the month" (ver. 31), and "on the twenty-seventh of the month" in 2 Kings, has arisen through the entrance of a clerical error into one text or the other. The few remaining variations of the two texts have no influence on the meaning. As to the fact itself, and its importance for the people languishing in exile, we may refer to the explanation given at 2 Kings xxv. 27 ff.

The Name. — The five Lamentations composed on the fall of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah, which have received their position in the canon of the Old Testament among the Hagiographa, have for their heading, in Hebrew mss. and in printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, the word Wit ("alas! how..."), which forms the characteristic initial word of three of these pieces (i. 1, ii. 1, and iv. 1). The Rabbis name the collection nirp (Lamentations), from the nature of its contents: so in the Talmud {Tract. Baba Batkra, f. 14/,); cf. Jerome in the Prol. tjaleat, and in the prologue to his translation: "incipiunt Threni, i.e. lamentationcs, qua; Cynoth Jiebraice inscribuntur." With this agree the designations OpfjvoL (LXX.), and Thrcni or Lamentationes, also Lamenta in the Vulgate and amon£ the Latin writers.

Contents. — The ancient custom of composing and singing lamentations over deceased friends (of which we find proof in the elegies of David on Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i. 1 7 ff., and on Abner, 2 Sam. iii. 33 ff., and in the notice given in 2 Chron. xxxv. 25) was even in early times extended so as to apply to the general calamities that befell countries and cities; hence the prophets often speak of taking up lamentations over the fall of nations, countries, and cities; cf. Amos v. 1, Jer. vii. 29, ix. 9, 17 f., Ezek. xix. 1, xxvi. 17, xxvii. 2, etc. The five lamentations of the book now before us all refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah by the Chaldeans; in them are deplored the unutterable misery that has befallen the covenant people in this catastrophe, and the disgrace which the fallen daughter of Zion has thereby suffered. This subject is treated of in the five poems from different points of view. In the fo*st, the lamentation is chiefly made over the carrying away of the people into captivity, the desolation of Zion, the acts of oppression, the plundering and the starvation connected with the taking of Jerusalem, the scoffing and contempt shown by the enemy, and the helpless and comfortless condition of the city, now fallen so low. In the second, the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah is set forth as an act of God's wrath against the sins of the people, the impotency of human comfort in the midst of the terrible calamity is shown, and the people are exhorted to seek help from the Lord. In the third, the deep spiritual sufferings of God's people in the midst of the general distress form the subject of grievous complaint, out of which the soul endeavours to rise, and to see the compassion of the Lord, and the justice of His dealings on earth generally, as well as in this visitation of judgment; ami on this is founded the confident expectation of help. In the fourth, the dreadful misery that has befallen Zion's citizens of every class is represented as a punishment for the grievous sins of the people and their leaders. And lastly, in the fifth, the Lord is entreated to remove the disgrace from 1 1 is people and restore them to their former state of grace. According to this view, one may readily perceive in these poems a wellcogitated plan in the treatment of the material common to the whole, and a distinct progress in the execution of this plan. There is no foundation, on the other hand, for the opinion of De Wette, that a gradation may be traced in the description given of the condition of the city; and the attempt of earlier expositors (Horrer, Pareau, Jahn, etc.) to explain and apply the contents of the different poems to different leading features in the Chaldean catastrophe— such as the siege, the capture, the destruction of the city and the temple— has entirely failed. Ewald, again, assumes that the five poems were composed for a time to be solemnly spent in sorrow and penitence, and that in the five lamentations the prophet-writer presents a kind of

: (drama), making five different acts follow each other progressively j and farther, that it is only with the changing that the entire greal act of real lamenta- n and divine Borrow concludes. But neither in the design nor in tin- execution of these poems are any points to be found which form a safe foundation for this assumption. Ewald i far correct, however, in his general remark, that the propheti< composer sought to present to the community, in their deep rrow, words which were meant to direct tin.' grieving heart to the only source of true comfort; and that lie understood how " to had the deeply sorrowing ones imperceptibly to a proper knowledge of themselves and of their own great guilt, and thereby, in the first place, to true Borrow and sighing; that he also knew how to resolve the wildest grief at last into true prayer for divine retribution, and to change new strength into rejoicing over the everlasting Messianic hope, and into the most touching request for the divine compassion " (Die Didder de» Alt. Bund A.uag. i. 2, S. 322).

FORM. — In order to give an air of continuity as well as of exhaustive completeness to the lamentation, which constantly assumes new figures and turns of thought, the poems, with the exception of the last (chap, v.), are alphabetically arranged, and in such a form that the first three consist of lon<' stanzas each of three lines, which are for the most part further divided about the middle by a caesura into two portions of unequal length. These poems are so arranged in accordance with the letters of the alphabet, that in the first two, every verse of three lines, and in the third, every line in the verse, begins with the letters of the alphabet in their order. In this last [third] poem, moreover, all the letters of the alphabet occur thrice in succession, for which reason the Masoretes have divided these lines of the verses as if each formed a complete verse. In the fourth poem, the verses, which are also arranged and marked alphabetically, consist only of lines which are likewise divided into two by a caesura; in the fifth, the alphabetic arrangement of the verses is departed from, and it is only in their number that the verses of the poem are made like the letters of the alphabet. This alphabetic arrangement of the verses is exactly carried out in the four poems, but with the remarkable difference, that in the first only does the order of the letters entirely agree with the traditional arrangement of the alphabet, while, in the other three, the verse beginning with D stands before that beginning with ])■ This deviation from the rule does not admit of being explained by the assumption that the verses in question were afterwards transposed in consequence of an oversight on the part of the copyist, nor by the supposition that the order of the letters had not yet been absolutely fixed. The former assumption, adopted by Kennicott, Jahn, etc., is shown to be utterly incorrect, by the circumstance that the supposed transmutation cannot be reconciled with the course of thought in the poems; while the latter, which has been maintained by C. B. Michaelis, Ewald, etc., is disproved by the fact that no change has taken place in the order of the letters in the Shemitic alphabets (cf. Sommer, Bibl. Abhandll. i. S. 145; Gesenius, § 5, Rem. 2; Ewald, § 12, a); and other alphabetic poems, such as Ps. cxi., cxii., cxix., and Prov. xxxi. 10-31, exactly preserve the common arrangement of the letters. Still less does the irregularity in question permit of being attributed to an oversight on the part of the composer (which is Bertholdt's view), for the irregularity is repeated in three poems. It is rather connected with another circumstance. For we find in other alphabetic poems also, especially the older ones, many deviations from the rule, which undeniably prove that the composers bound themselves rigorously by the order of the alphabet only so long as it fitted in to the course of thought without any artificiality. Thus, for instance, in Ps. cxlv. the Nun verse is wanting; in Ps. xxxiv. the I '/r verse; while, at the close, after D, there follows another verse with 2. Just such another closing verse is found in Ps. xxv., in which, besides, the first two verses begin with N%, while 2 is wanting; two verses, moreover, begin with i instead of p and 1: in Ps. xxxvii. y is replaced by V, which is again found after B in its proper order. It is also to be considered that, in many of these poems, the division of the verses into strophes is not continuously and regularly carried out; e.g. in these same Lamentations, J. 7 and li. 19, verses of four lines occur among those with three. Attempts have, indeed, been made to attribute these irregularities to later revisers, who mistook the arrangement into strophes; but the arguments adduced will not stand the test: Bee details in H&vernick's EinL iii. S. 51 ft'.

It" we gather all these elements together, we shall be obliged to seek for the reason of most, if not all of these deviations from the norm, iti the free U8e made of sneh forms by the Hebrew p iets. Qerlach hero objects that, i{ In view of the loose connection of thought in alphabetic poems generally, and in these Lamentations particularly, and considering the evident dexterity with which the poet elsewhere uses the form, another arrangement of the series would not have caused him any difficulty." Wo reply that there is no want in these poems of a careful arrangement of thought; but that the skill of the poet, in making use of this arrangement, was not always sufficient to let him put his thoughts, corresponding to things, into the alphabetic form, without using artificial means or forced constructions; and that, in such cases, the form was rather sacrificed to the thought, than rigorously maintained through the adoption of forced and unnatural forms of expression.

Finally, the reason for the absence of the alphabetic arrangement from the fifth poem is simply, that the lamentation there resolves itself into a prayer, in which the careful consideration indispensable for the carrying out of the alphabetic arrangement must give place to the free and natural outcome of the feelings.

Author. — In the Hebrew text no one is named as the author of the Lamentations; but an old tradition ajfirms that the prophet Jeremiah composed them. Even so early as in the Alexandrine version, we find prefixed to i. 1, the words, Kal iyevero fiera al*%fia\u)Ticr6?)vai top ''IcrpaijX, KaVIepovaaXrjfjL ipTj/jLco- Orjvai, ifcddtcrev 'Iepefila^ kXclioov, Kal eOpijvrjcre top Oprjvov tovtov iirl (Iepovcra\rj/jL7 Kal etire. These words are also found in the Vulgate; only, instead of et dixit, there is the amplification, et amaro animo suspirans et ejulans dixit. The Syriac is without this notice; but the Arabic exactly reproduces the words of the LXX., and the Targum begins with the words, Dixit Jeremiad propheta et sacerdos magnus. After this, both in the Talmud (Baba bathr. f. 15, 1) and by the Church Fathers (Origen in Euseb. hist. eccl. iv. 25, Jerome in prolog, gal, etc.), as well as the later theologians, the Jeremianic authorship was assumed as certain. The learned but eccentric Hermann von der Hardt was the first to call in question the Jeremianic composition of the book, in a " Programm" published in 1712 at Ilelmstiidt; he attributed the five poems to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and King Jehoiachin (!). This doubt was resumed at a later period by an unknown writer in the Tubingen Theol. Quartalschr. 1819, part i.; it was mentioned by Au^usti (EinL), and further carried out by Conz in BengeTs Archiv, iv. p. 161 f. and 422 ff. Kalkar was the next to question the traditional belief, and urged against it the position of the book among the MV13, and the difference existing between the Greek translation of the Lamentations and that of the prophecies of Jeremiah; these objections he held to be not inconsiderable, yet not decisive. Then Ewald (Poet. B ncher des A. B. i. S. 145, and in the third edition of the same book, i. 2, S. 326; cf. Bibl. Jahrbb. vii. S. 151 f., and History of the People of Israel, iv. p. 22) decidedly refused to ascribe the book to the prophet, and rather attributed it to one of his pupils, Baruch or some other; in this opinion he is followed by Bunsen, as is usual in questions regarding the criticism of the Old Testament. Finally, Nagelsbach (in Lange'a series, see Clark's For. Theol. Lib.), with the help of the Concordance, has prepared a table of those words and forms of words found in the Lamentations, but not occurring in the prophecies of Jeremiah; by this means he has endeavoured to set forth the difference of language in the two books, which he accepts as a decisive reason for rejecting the Jeremianic authorship of the Lamentations. And Thenius assures us that, « in consequence of pretty long and conscientious examination, he has become convinced" that chap. ii. and iv., judging from their contents and form, undeniably proceeded from Jeremiah; while chap. i. and iii. were composed by one who was left behind in the country, some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and shortly before the last deportation; but chap. v. is from a man " who was probably wandering about everywhere, as the leader of a band of nobles king i safe asylum, but unwilling to attach themselves to the caravan going to Egypt."

Schrader, in his late revision of Do Wette's Introduction, 5 339, has thus condensed the results of these critical investigations: In support of the old tradition, which mentions Jeremiah

as the author, " one might appeal to the affinity in contents, spirit, tone, and language (De \\\). Nevertheless, this same Style of language, ami the mode of representation, exhibit, again, BO much that is peculiar; the artificiality of form, especially in chap, i., ii., anil iv., is so unlike Jeremiah's style; the absence of certain specific Jeremianic peculiarities, and the contradiction between some expressions of the prophet and those of the author of the Lamentations, is again so striking, that one must characterize the authorship of Jeremiah as very improbable, if not quite impossible, especially since the points of likeness to the language used by Jeremiah, on the one hand, are sufficiently accounted for in general by the fact that both works were composed at the same time; and on the other hand, are nullified by other points of likeness to Ezekiel's style, which show that use has already been made of his prophecies." Again: " The hypothesis of Thenius, that the poems are by different authors, is refuted by the similarity in the fundamental character of the poems, and in the character of the language."

We may therefore dispense with a special refutation of this hypothesis, especially since it will be shown in the exposition that the points which Thenius has brought forward in support of his view are all founded on a wretchedly prosaic style of.interpretation, which fails to recognise the true nature of poetry, and regards mere poetic figures as actual history. Of the considerations, however, which Schrader has adduced against the Jeremianic authorship, the last two that are mentioned would, of course, have decided influence, if there were any real foundation for them, viz. the contradiction between some expressions of Jeremiah and those of the author of the Lamentations. But they have no foundation in fact.

The only instance of a contradiction is said to exist between v. 7 and Jer. xxxi. 29, 30. It is quoted by Schrader, who refers to Noldeke, die alttest. Literat. S. 146. But the expression, " Our fathers have sinned, they are no more, we bear their iniquities" (v. 7), does not stand in contradiction to what is said in Jer. xxxix. 29 f. against the current proverb, " The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth have become blunt," viz. that in the future, after the restoration of Israel, " every one shall die for his own iniquity, and the teeth of every one who eats sour grapes shall become blunt." One statement would contradict the other only if the latter meant that those who bear the punishment were guiltless, or thought themselves such. But how far this thought was from the mind of the suppliant in v. 7, is shown by what he says in ver. 16: " Woe unto us, for we have sinned." According to these words, those in ver. 7 can only mean, " We atone not merely for our own sins, but also the sins of our fathers," or, " The sins of our fathers as well as our own are visited on us." This confession accords with Scripture (cf. Ex. xx. 5, Jer. xvi. 11, etc.), and is radically different from the proverb, " The fathers have eaten sour grapes," etc., which was constantly in the mouth of those who considered themselves innocent, and who thereby perverted the great truth, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children who hate Him, into the false statement, that innocent children must atone for the sins of their fathers. On this, cf. also the exposition of v. 7. But when Schrader, following Noldeke, further remarks, " that Jeremiah would hardly have said nothing whatever about God's having foretold all this suffering through him" there lies at the foundation of this remark the preposterous notion, that Jeremiah ought to have brought himself prominently forward in the Lamentations (supposing him to have written them), as one who ought not to suffer the evil under which the people were groaning. Such gross Pelagianism was foreign to the prophet Jeremiah. No one need speak, therefore, of a contradiction between the Lamentations and the prophecies of Jeremiah.

As little proof is there for the assertion that the author of the Lamentations made use of the prophecies of Ezekiel. Nagelsbach and Schrader, in support of this allegation, have adduced only ii. 14, compared with Ezek. xii. 24, xiii. 5 f.; and ii. 15, compared with Ezek. xxvii. 3, xxviii. 12. Nagelsbach says: " The words, barn intf $ *n sjwaj, in „-. Uy are no doubt a quotation from Ezek. xii. 24, xiii. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, xxi. 28, 34, uii. 28. For it is only in these passages and nowhere else in the Old Testament, that the expression mi Kjp occurs, and in combination with »n. Moreover WrMa in ii. 15, is an expression decidedly peculiar to Ezekiel, for it CUTS only in Ezek. xxvii. 3 (cf. xxviii. 12), and nowhere else." Bat the three expressions of these two passages form really weak a proof that the author of the Lamentations made use of the prophecies of Ezekiel. Of course, as regards the mere form

OJ the words, it is true that the expression W rMa, «8he who is perfect in beauty;' is found, besides Lam. ii. 15,only in Ezek xxvii. 3, where the prophet says of Tyre, -Thou sayest, I am perfect in beauty/' and in Ezek. xxvui. 12, where it is said of the kingof Tyre, "Thou art... <tf W?;» but the thing occurs also m Ps 1. 2, with the unimportant chancre in the form of the words V »?», " perfection of beauty," where Zion is so designated. Now, if we not merely gather out of the Concordance the expressions of like import, but also keep in view the idea presented in ii. 15, "Is this the city P^n"!?^ ctjTD *tf rM>3 riDltnp'f" and at the same time consider that the poet says this of Jerusalem, there cannot be the least doubt that he did not take these epithets, which are applied to Jerusalem, from Ezekiel, who used them to designate Tyre, but that he had Ps. 1. 2 in view just as the other epithet, « a joy of the whole earth," points to Ps! xlvm. 3. Only on the basis of these passages in the Psalms could he employ the expression n$tf>£ « which thev call." Or are we to believe that the word »*, rM>3 was originally unknown to the author of the Lamentations, and that he first became acquainted with it through Ezekiel? Nor, again, can we say that the words taken by Nagelsbach out of ii. 14 are "undoubtedly a quotation from Ezekiel," because they do not occur in this way in any of the passages cited from Ezekiel. All that we can found on this assertion is, that in the prophecies of Jeremiah neither K10 nrn nor the word-form ban occurs; while Ezekiel not only' uses *P m xii. 14, K0 nrn, and mf mno, as svnonymous with «V? n?,, «j? DD?, and » ntn (xiii. 6-9, 23), but also says of the false prophets, xiii. 9-11, « They build a wall, and plaster it over with lime" (ban ink DW>, Xiii. io, cf. vers. 14, 15, 18). These same false prophets are also called, in ver. 11, J>nn <na "those who plaster with lime." But Ezekiel uses the word £w only in the meaning of " lime," while the writer of these Lamentations employs it in the metaphorical sense, a absurdity, nonsense," in the same way as Jeremiah, xxiii. 13, uses nten, « absurdity," of the prophets of Samaria. Now, just as Jeremiah has not taken nten from Ezekiel, where it does not occur at all (but only in Job i. 22, xxiv. 12), so there is as little likelihood in the opinion that the word ten, in Lam. ii. 14, has been derived from Ezekiel, because Job vi. 6 shows that it was far from rarely used by the Hebrews. Nor does the non-occurrence of Nit? run in Jeremiah afford any tenable ground for the opinion that the expression, as found in Lam. ii. 14, was taken from Ezekiel. The idea contained in njn was not unknown to Jeremiah; for he speaks, xiv. 14, of "W PTn:, and in xxiii. 16 of Dnk>;irn, referring to the false prophets, whose doings he characterizes as *ip'^; cf. vi.

13, viii. 10, xiv. 14, xxiii. 25 f., 32, xxvii. 10, 15, xxviii. 16, xxix. 9, 23, 31. Further, if we consult only the text of the Bible instead of the Concordance, and ponder the connection of thought in the separate passages, we can easily perceive why, instead of IgP ($D) nTrn, which is so frequent in Jeremiah, there is found in Lam. ii. 14, KW njn and KW nist?» 7Mn. Jn the addresses in which Jeremiah warns the people of the lying conduct of the false prophets, who spoke merely out of their own heart, 1j?? was the most suitable expression; in Lam. ii.

14, on the contrary, where complaint is made that the prophecies of their prophets afford no comfort to the people in their present distress, ttof was certainly the most appropriate word which the composer could select, even without a knowledge of Ezekiel. There can be no question, then, regarding a quotation from that prophet. But even though it were allowed that ii. 14 implied an actual acquaintance with chap. xii. and xiii. of Ezekiel, still, nothing would follow from that against the Jeremianic authorship of the Lamentations. For Jeremiah uttered these prophecies in the sixth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e. in the third year before the last siege, and the fifth before the destruction of Jerusalem; and considering the frequent intercourse carried on between the captives in Babylon and those who still remained in Judah and Jerusalem, in virtue of which the former even sent letters to Jerusalem (cf. Jer. xxix. 25), some of Ezekiel's prophecies might have become known in the latter city.1 considerable time before the final catastrophe,

With the demolition of these two arguments, the main strength of oar opponents, in the bringing forward of proof, has been broken. Schrader has nut adduced a single instance showing "the absence of certain specific Jeremianic peculiarities.11 For M the comparatively less emphasis given to the sins of the people," which is alleged in Noldeke's note, cannot be applied in support of that position, even if it were correct, in view of the prominence so frequently assigned to grievous sin i.

i I, 18, -2-2, ii. 14, iii. 39, 42, iv. «;, 13, v. 7; because the Lamentations were not composed with the design of punishing the people for their sin, but were intended to comfort in their misery, and to raise up again, the people who had been sevi i chastised for the guilt of their sin, which was greater than the sili of Sodom (iv. 6). Add to this, that Schrader, by asing this argument, contradicts himself; for he has shortly before adduced the affinity in contents, spirit, tone, and language as an argument to which one might appeal in support of the Jeremianic authorship, and this affinity he has established by a long series of quotations.1

Further, the remark that u the artificiality of form, especially in chap, i., ii., and iv., is unlike Jeremiah," is correct only in so far as no alphabetic poems are to be found in the prophetic book of Jeremiah. But are we then to look for poetic compositions in prophetic addresses and historical narratives? The remark now quoted is based on the assertion made by other critics, that the alphabetic arrangement of poetic compositions generally is a mere rhetorical work of art, and the production of a later but degenerate taste (Ed. Reuss and others), or a piece of trifling unworthy of the prophet. This view has long ago been shown groundless; cf. Havernick's Einl. iii. S. 46 ff. Even Hupfeld, who calls the alphabetical arrangement " artificiality or trifling," considers that it is of a kindred nature with collectrons of proverbs, and with small poems of a didactic character but deficient in close connection of thought; he thinks, too, that it may be comparatively ancient as a style of composition, and that it was not applied till later to other species of writing (as Lamentations). To this, Ed. Riehm, in the second edition of Hupfeld on the Psalms, i. p. 31, has added a very true remark: u In lyric poetry proper, the employment of this artificial form is naturally and intrinsically justified only when a single fundamental strain, that fills the whole soul of the poet, — deep, strong, and sustained, — seeks to die away in many different forms of chords; hence its employment in the elegy." The application of this artificial form to such a purpose is perfectly justified in these Lamentations; and the attempt to deny that these poems are the work of Jeremiah, on the ground of their artificial construction, would be as great an exhibition of arbitrary conduct, as if any one refused to ascribe the hymn "Befiehl du deine Wege" to Paul Gerhardt, or u Wie schon leucht' uns der Morgenstern" to Philip Nicolai, on the ground of the "artificiality" that manifests itself in the be£innin<i 0f the vers

Finally, the language and the mode of representation in these poems certainly exhibit much that is peculiar; and we find in them many words, word-forms, and modes of expression, which do not occur in the prophecies of Jeremiah. But it must also be borne in mind that the Lamentations are not prophetic addresses intended to warn, rebuke, and comfort, but lyric poetry, which has its own proper style of language, and this different from prophetic address. Both the subjectmatter and the poetic form of these poems, smooth though this is in general, necessarily resulted in this, — that through the prevalence of peculiar thoughts, modes of representation, and feelings, the language also received an impress, in words and modes of expression, that was peculiar to itself, and different from the prophetic diction of Jeremiah. The mere collection of the words, word-forms, and expressions peculiar to the Lamentations, and not occurring in the prophecies of Jeremiah, cannot furnish irrefragable proof that the authors of the two writings wore different, unless it be shown, at the same time, that the character of the language in both writings is essentially different, and that for the Ideas, modes of representation, and thoughts Common tO both, other words and expressions arc used in the Lamentations than those found in the prophecies of Jeremiah. But neither the one nor the other has been made out by Nagelsbach. After giving the lone; list he has prepared, which occupies five and a half columns, and which gives the words occurring in the different \ of the five chapters, he explains that ho i Iocs not seek to lay any weight on the tiira^ \eyu/j,eva, probably because Jeremiah also has many such words; but then he raises the question, u How is the fact to be accounted for, that Jeremiah never uses hytf or *J^N except as divine names, while the latter, nevertheless, occurs fourteen times in the Lamentations; that Jeremiah never uses D*an, HJ^ n:S} n:T, w} the relative c;, or TlgS without a suffix, while all these expressions occur more or less frequently in the Lamentations? And it has been well remarked that these expressions are not of so specific a kind, that the fact of their not being used in the prophetic book, but employed in the Lamentations, might be explained from the nature of the contents; but they belong, in great measure, to what I may call the house-dress of the author, which he constantly wears, — which he more or less unconsciously and unintentionally uses." We answer that the simile of the house-dress has been most unhappily chosen. Although the style of a writer may possibly be compared to his coat, yet nobody is in the habit of wearing his house-coat always, on Sundays and week-days, in the house and out of it; so, too, no writer is in the habit of using always the same words in prose and poetry. When we investigate the matter itself, we find wTe must, first of all, deduct fully one-third of the words enumerated, although these have evidently been collected and arranged as the most convincing proof; the words thus rejected are also found in the prophetic book of Jeremiah, though not quite in the same grammatical form, as the note shows.1 Then we ask the counter question, whether words which one who composed five poems employs only in one of these pieces, or only once or twice throughout the whole, ought to be reckoned as his house-dress? Of the words adduced, we do not find a single one in all the five poems, but T^n only in iii. 2, D^D N;J'J only in iv. 16, n^J3 only in iii. 14 and v. 14, hd nvs only in ii. 16 and iii. 46, 1% only in iii. 35 and 38, n;x (Niphal) only in chap. i. (four times). Moreover, we ask whether Jeremiah might not also, in lyric poems, use poetic words which could not be employed in homely address? But of the words enumerated, to£, |ivV, and tflM alone as a name of God, together with iWJJ, belong to the poetic style.1 They are therefore not found in Jeremiah, simply because his prophetic addresses are neither lyric poems, nor rise to the lyric height of prophetic address. The rest of the words mentioned are also found in the Psalms especially, and in Job, as will be shown in the detailed exposition. And when we go deeper into the matter, we find that, in the Lamentations, there is the same tendency to reproduce the thoughts and language of the Psalms

Jeremiah (xiii. 14, xv. 5. xxi. 7, 1. 14, li. 3), not only in the 3d pers. | feet, but also in the imperfect. Of j^a there occurs the Kal, Jer. li. 84, and the noun ypa, li. 44; from ^*j;n. the noun TpjTl certainly is not found, but perhaps the verb is used in the Hiphil, Jer. xiii. 16, as the Kal in Lam. iv. 8, v. 16. With Ktpn, i. 8 and iii. 89, alternates nitOfl, iv. 6, 22, wh Jeremiah frequently uses. Of Dotfi the participle DDfo? certainly is Dot found in Jeremiah, but the adj. D£& is found in Jer. xii. 11, as in Lam. v. 8; and the Niphal of the verb in Jer. iv. 9 and x.xxiii. 10, as in Lam. iv. 5. Lastly, neither is r\:y wholly wanting in Jeremiah; for in xxii. 16 we are to read ^y, miter, although the noun <ju and the verb are not met with in his book.

only in poetic pieces, Num. xxvi. 16, Dent, xxxii. 8, and about twenty times in the Psalms; tfia used by i in direct addresses to God and interviews with Him. occurs in the Psalms about forty times, and also in the addresses of particular prophets, composed in the loftier style, particularly Isaiab and Amos; lastly, n:yi. in iii. 14, occurs as a reminiscence ipecially those describing the psalmist's sufferings) and of the book of Job, that characterizes the prophecies of Jeremiah, in the use he makes of Deuteronomy and the writings of earlier prophets, Another peculiarity of Jeremiah's style is seen in the fact that the composer of the Lamentations, like Jeremiah in his addresses, repeats himself much, not merely in his ideas, but also in his words: en., bpn n^> occurs four times, of which three instances are in chap. ii. (vers. 2, 17, 21) and one in iii. 43; lOHO (and 'rtonD) also occurs four times (i. 7, 10, 11, ii. 4), and mm as frequently (i. 4, 8, 11, 21); W is found five tunes (i. 4, 5, 12, iii. 32, 33), but in all the other Old Testament writings only thrice; and Jeremiah also uses [fr four times, while, of all the other prophet., Isaiah is the only one who employs it, and this h<> does twice.

These marks may be sufficient of themselves to show unmistakeably that the peculiarity of the prophet as an author is also found in the Lamentations, and that nothing can be discovered showing a difference of language in the°expression of thoughts common to both writings. But this will be still more evident if we consider, finally, the similarity, both as regards the subjects of thought and the style of expression, exhibited in a considerable number of instances in which certain expressions characteristic of Jeremiah are also found in Lamentations:., the frequent employment of ~\2? and najf H3 1315*, ii. 11 13 iii. 47, 48, iv. 10, cf. with Jer. iv. 6, 20, vi. 1, 14, viii/ 11 ' 21, x. 19, xiv. 17, etc.; MDD nuo, ii. 22, with MDD ntoj Jer. vi. 25, xx. 3, 10, xlvi. 5, xlix. 2V; (D*D, or) nytn rnv |;£ i. 16, ii. 18, iii. 48, ii. 11, cf. with Jer. viii. 23, ix.' 17, xiii. 17, xiv. 17; phv W)a} iii. \^ wjtn prr;'1? ^ Jer. xx. 7! nnsj nns, iii. 47, as in Jer. xlviii. 43. Cf. also' the note on p. 345, after the passages quoted by De Wette. Pareau, then, had good reason when, long ago, he pointed out the peculiarities of Jeremiah in the style of the Lamentations; and only a superficial criticism can assert against this, that the existing coincidences find a sufficient explanation in the assumption that^ speaking generally, the two books were composed at the same period.1 We therefore close this investigation, after having

1 Pareau has discussed this question very well in the Observatt. general, prefixed to his Commentary, § 6-8, and concludes with this result: Non

proved that the tradition which ascribes the Lamentations to the prophet Jeremiah as their author is as well-founded as any ancient historical tradition whatever.

Time of Composition.— From the organic connection of the five poems, as shown above, it follows of itself that they cannot have proceeded from different authors, nor originated at different periods, but were composed at brief intervals, one after the other, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the kingdom of Judah, and in the order in which they have been transmitted to us. What gives special support to this conclusion is the circumstance that, throughout these Lamentations, there is no possibility of mistaking the expression of grief, still fresh in the writers mind, over the horrors of that fearful catastrophe. The assumption, however, that the prophet, in the picture he draws, had before his eyes the ruins of the city, and the misery of those who had been left behind, cannot be certainly made out from a consideration of the contents of the poems. But there seems to be no doubt that Jeremiah composed them in the interval between the destruction of Jerusalem and his involuntary departure to Egypt. There is no tenable ground for the confident assertion of Ewald, that they were composed in Egypt; for the passages, i. 3, iv. 18 f., v. 5, 9, do not mean that the writer was then living among the fugitives who had fled in such vast multitudes to Egypt, partly before and partly after the destruction of the city.

Position of the Lamentations in the Canon. — The separation of the Lamentations from the book of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and their reception into the third division of the Old Testament canon (the Kdhulim)— which Kalkschmidt and Thenius, in complete misunderstanding of the principle on which the tripartition of the canon is founded, would bring to bear as an argument against their having been composed by Jeremiah, — are tantum regnant in Threnis verii Mi chard*. fuas stilo Jeremiee proprioi esse vidimus, verum etiam manifesto cernitur in eorum s<-rijjt<>ii animus tener, lenis, ad qusevis tristi a facile commotus ac dolorem a,v< /'< r< ns. Quod </">' m in iis frequentius observctur, qnam in sermonibus./< remiss propheticis, dictionis sublimitas et hre vitas majorque imaginum copia et pulchritudo, atque conceptuum vis et intentio: illudvix atiter fieri potuisse agnoscemust si ad argutnenti naturam attendamus, quo vehementur affici debuerit Jeremias; etc., p. 40.

f ti II % accounted for by their subjective, lyric contents; in consequence ot this they differ essentially from the prophecies, and take their place alongside of the Psalms and other productions of sacred poesy. This position of theirs among the Kethubim must be considered (against Bleek) as the original one; their arrangement by the side of the prophetic writings <>f Jeremiah in the LXX. and Vulgate, which Luther [as well as the translators of the " authorized" English version] has retained, must have originated with the Alexandrine translators, who could not understand the arrangement of the Hebrew canon, and who afterwards, in order to make the number of the books of the Bible the same as that of the letters of the alphabet (twentytwo), counted the Lamentations as forming one book with the prophecies of Jeremiah. That this arrangement and enumeration of the Lamentations, observed by the Hellenists, deviated from the tradition of the Jews of Palestine, may be perceived from the remark of Jerome, in his Pro/, galeat., regarding this mode of reckoning: quamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cynoth inter hagiographa scriptitent, et hos libros in suo putent numero supputamlos. Their arrangement in the series of the five ^^e<jilloth (rolls appointed to be read on certain annual feast-days and memorial-days) in our editions of the Hebrew Bible was not fixed till a later period, when, according to the ordinance in the synagogal liturgy, the Lamentations were appointed to be read on the ninth of the month Ab, as the anniversary of the destruction of the temples of Solomon and of Herod. [Cf. Herzog's Real-Encykl. xv. 310.]

The importance of the Lamentations, as a part of the canon, does not so much consist in the mere fact that they were composed by Jeremiah, and contain outpourings of sorrow on different occasions over the misery of his people, as rather in their being an evidence of the interest with which Jeremiah, in the discharge of his functions as a prophet, continued to watch over the ruins of Jerusalem. In these Lamentations he seeks not merely to give expression to the sorrow of the people that he may weep with them, but by his outpour of complaint to rouse his fellow-countrymen to an acknowledgment of God's justice in this visitation, to keep them from despair under the burden of unutterable woe, and by teaching them how to give

, • • +„ +v,o inrlcrment that has bcfalleu them, to lead due submission to the judgment themselves be onee more to God those who would not let themselves be T!,„ Him through his previous testimony regarding that S£n wE -yet impending. The Jewish synagogue has ^cognised and duly estimated the importance of the Lamentations in these respects, by appointuig that the book Sd be read on the anniversary of the destruction of the ml. A like appreciation has been made by the Chnstian Church which, rightly perceiving that the Israeht.sh comm „ y is the 'subject in these poems, attributed to them a e erence to the church militant; and, viewing the judgment on the people of God as a prophecy of the judgment that came on Him who took the sins of the whole world upon llnnse f it has received a portion of the Lamentations into the ritual for the Passion Week, and concludes each of these lessons with the words « Jerusalem, Jerusalem, converter ad Dommum, Deum tuum" Cf. The Passion Week in Us Ceremonies and 1 rai/ers, Spire's 1856, and the OJieium hebdomads Miwto, a reprinted extract from Dr. Keischl's Passionale, Munich 1857. lhe motives for this choice are so far set forth by Allioli (in Neumann, ii. S. 480) in the following terms: "The church wished

believers to see, in the great punishments which God had ordained against Jerusalem by the instrumentality of Nebuchadnezzar, the still more severe chastisement that God has brought on Israel after the dreadful murder of the Moss.as. She sleeks to bewail the unhappy condition of the blinded nation, once favoured with the divine revelation. In the fall of Jerusalem, she seeks to deplore the evil that has come on herself from external and internal foes, the persecution of brother by brother, the havoc made by false teachers, the looseness of opinions, the sad advances made by indifference in matters of faith and by the corruption of morals. In the devastation and the penalties inflicted on Jerusalem, she wibhes to present for consideration the destruction which comes on every soul that dies the death in sins. In the condition of the ruined city and the homeless nation, she seeks to make men bewail the homeless condition of the whole race, who have fallen into decay and disorder through Adam's sin. And lastly, in the nation visited with punishment, she seeks to set forth Jesus Christ Himself, in bo far u He fa >me the substitute of all men, and

Buffered for their sins." This display of all i!

sadly deficient in logical arrangement; but it contains a precious kernel oi biblical truth, which the Evangelical Church1 has endeavoured in many ways to turn to advantage. Regarding the adaptations of the Lamentations made for liturgical use in the Evangelical Church, sec particulars in Schoberlein, SchaU ■hen C/tor- und Gemeindegesanges, ii. S. -1 1 1 n. As to the commentaries on the Lamentations, see KeiTs nual of Introduction to the Old 71 ' imentj vol. i. p. 508 [Clark's Foreign TheoL Library]. To the list of works therein given arc to be appended, as later productions, Ewald's recent treatment of the book in the third edition of the Didder des A. Bundes (1866), i. 2, where the Lamentations have been inserted among the Psalms, S. 321 ff.; Willi. Engelhardt, die Klagel Joan. UberseUL 18(57; Ernst Gerlach, die K lag el. erkl. 1868; and Nagelsbach, in Lange's series of commentaries (Clark's English edition), 1868.

She has become like a widow, [that was] great among the nations; The princess among provinces lias become a vassal.

All her friends have deceive 1 her; they have become enemies to her. 8 Judah is taken captive out of affliction, and out of much servitude; She sit tot li among the nations, she hath found no rest; All those who pursued her overtook her in the midst of her distresses.

feast; All her gates are waste; her priests Hgh; Her virgins are sad, ami she herself is in bitterness.

5 Her enemies have become supreme; those who hate her art' at ease; For Jahveh hath afflicted her because of the multitude of her transgressions:

6 And from the daughter of Zion all her honour has departed; Her princes have become like harts [that] have found no pasture, And have gone without strength before the pursuer.

Jerusalem remembers all her pleasant things which have been from the days of old: When her people fell by the hand of the oppressor, and there was none to help her, Her oppressors saw her,— they laughed at her times of rest.

nation: All those who honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness; And she herself sighs, and turns backward.

9 Her filth is on her flowing skirts; she remembered not her latter end; And so she sank wonderfully: she has no comforter.

10 The oppressor hath spread out his hand upon all her precious things; For she hath seen [how] the heathen have come into her sanctuary, [Concerning] whom Thou didst command that they should not enter

They have given their precious things for bread, to revive their soul. See, 0 Jahveh, and consider that I am become despised.

12 [Is it] nothing to you, all ye that pass along the way.'■

Consider, and see if there be sorrow like my sorrow which is done to me, Whom Jahveh hath afflicted in the day of the burning of His anger.

13 From above He sent fire in my bones, so that it mastered them; He hath spread a net for my feet, 1I<- hath turned me back;

14 The yoke of my transgressions hath 1 tened to by His hand; They have interwoven them>elves, they have come up on my neck; it hath made my strength fail: The Lord hath put me into the hands of [those against whom] I cannot rise up.

He hath proclaimed a festival against me, to break my young men in pieces: The Lord hath trodden the wine-press for the virgin daughter of Judah.

water, Because a comforter is far from me, one to refresh my soul; My children are destroyed, because the enemy hath prevailed.

17 Zion stretcheth forth her hands, [yet] there is none to comfort her; Jahveh hath commanded concerning Jacob; his oppressors are round

18 Jahveh is righteous, for I have rebelled against His mouth. Hear now, all ye peoples, and behold my sorrow;

My virgins and my young men are gone into captivity.

19 1 called for my [overt, [bat] they have deceived me | Mv priests and my elders expired in the city, When they were seeking bread for themselves, that they might revive their spirit. Behold, 0 Jahveh, how distressed I am! my bowels are moved; My heart is turned within me, for I was very rebellious: Without, the sword bereaveth [me]; within, [it is] like death. •_M They have heard that I Bigh, I have uo comforter:

All mine enemies haw heard of my trouble; they are -lid because Thou hast done it. Thoubringest the day [that] Thou hast proclaimed, that they maybe like me. Let all their wickedness com.- before Thee. And do to them as Thou hast done to me because of all my transgressions; For my sighs are many and my heart is faint.

The poem begins with a doleful meditation on the deeply degraded state into which Jerusalem lias fallen; and in the first half (vers. 1-11), lament is made over the sad condition of the unhappy city, which, forsaken by all her friends, and persecuted by enemies, has lost all her glory, and, finding no comforter in her misery, pines in want and disesteem. In the second half (vers. 12-22), the city herself is introduced, weeping, and giving expression to her sorrow over the evil determined against her because of her sins. Both portions are closely connected. On the one hand, we find, even in vers. 9 and 11, tones of lamentation, like sighs from the city, coming into the description of her misery, and preparing the way for the introduction of her lamentation in vers. 12-22; on the other hand, her sin is mentioned even so early as in vers. 5 and 8 as the cause of her misfortune, and the transition thus indicated from complaint to the confession of guilt found in the second part. This transition is made in ver. 17 by means of a kind of meditation on the cheerless and helpless condition of the city. The second half of the poem is thereby divided into two equal portions, and in such a manner that, while in the former of these (vers. 12-16) it is complaint that prevails, and the thought of guilt comes forward only in ver. 14, in the latter (vers. 18-22) the confession of God's justice and of sin in the speaker becomes most prominent; and the repeated mention of misery and oppression rises into an entreaty for deliverance from the misery, and the hope that the Lord will requite all evil on the

Vers. 1-11. Doleful consideration and description of the dishonour that has befallen Jerusalem. In these verses the prophet, in the name of the godly, pours out his heart before the Lord. The dreadful turn that things have taken is briefly declared in ver. 1 in two clauses, which set forth the fall of Jerusalem from its former glory into the depths of disgrace and misery, in such a way that the verse contains the subject unfolded in the description that follows. We have deviated from the Masoretic pointing, and arranged the verse into three members, as in the succeeding verses, which nearly throughout form tristichs, and have been divided into two halves by means of the Athnach; but we agree with the remark of Gerlach, " that, according to the sense, OtA rUVil and not ™^X3 nrrn is the proper antithesis to CTi-D "n:n." Wtf is here, as in ii. 1, iv. 1, 2, an expression of complaint mingled with astonishment; so in Jer. xlviii. 17, Isa. i. 21. " She sits solitary" (cf. J or. xv. 17) is intensified by " she has become like a widow." Her sitting alone is a token of deep sorrow (cf. Neb. i. 4), and, as applied to a city, is a figure of desolation; cf. Isa. xxvii. 10. Here, however, the former reference is the main one; for Jerusalem is personified as a woman, and, with regard to its numerous population, is viewed as the mother of a great multitude of children. *n?1 is a form of the construct state, lengthened by Yod compaginisj found thrice in this verse, and also in Isa. i. 21, elegiac composition; such forms are used, in general, only in poetry that preserves and affects the antique style, and reproduces its peculiar ring.1 According to the twofold meaning of 2~\ (much and great), VIST) in the first clause designates the multiplicity, multitude of the population; in the

1 On the different views regarding the origin and meaning of this Yod compaginis, cf. Fr. W. M. Philippi, Wesen u. Ursprung dn Status const r. mi Hebr. S. 1)6 ff. This writer (S. 152 IT.) takes it to be the remnant of a primitive Semitic noun-inflexion, which has been preserved only in a number of composite proper names oi ancient origin [e.g. p*nT37D etc.]; in the words 3X, HS, and on, in which it has become fused with the third

radical into a long vowel; and elsewhere only between two words standing in the construct relation [see Ges. § 90; Ewald, § 211].

»nd, the greatness or dignity of the position that Jerusalem assumed among the nations, corresponding to the nfanipa W^, u i princess among the provinces.'1 n$*?9, from I*! (properly, the circuit of judgment or jurisdiction), is the technical expression for the provinces of the empires in A^ia (cf. Esth. i. 1, 22, etc.), and hence, after the exile, was used of Judah, Ezra ii. 1, Neh. vii. 6, ami in 1 Kings xx. 17 of the districts In the kingdom of Israel. Here, however, Mb*1BT1 are not the Circuits or districts of Judah (Thenius), but the provinces of the heathen nations rendered subject to the kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon (corresponding to D^3«?), as in Eccles. ii. 8.. Jerusalem was formerly a princess among the provinces, during the flourishing period of the.Jewish kingdom under David and Solomon. The writer keeps this time before his mind, in order to depict the contrast between the past and present. The city that once ruled over nations and provinces has now become but dependent on others. CD (the derivation of which is disputed) does not mean soccage or tribute, but the one who gives soccage service, a soccager; see on Ex. i. 11 and 1 Kings iv. G. The words, "The princess has become a soccager," signify nothing more than, "She who once ruled over peoples and countries has now fallen into abject servitude,'' and are not (with Thenius) to be held as lt referring to the fact that the remnant that has been left behind, or those also of the former inhabitants of the city who have returned home, have been set to harder labour by the conquerors." "When we find the same writer inferring from this, that these wrords presuppose a state of matters in which the country round Jerusalem has been for some time previously under the oppression of Chaldean officers, and moreover holding the opinion that the words a how she sits..." could only have been wTritten by one who had for a considerable period been looking on Jerusalem in its desolate condition, we can only wTonder at such an utter want of power to understand poetic language. — Ver. 2. In this sorrow of hers she has not a single comforter, since all her friends from whom she could expect consolation have become faithless to her, and turned enemies, ^in 133, " weeping she weeps," i.e. she weeps very much, or bitterly, not continually (Meier); the inf. abs. before the verb does not express the continuation, but the intensity of night," not "on into the night" (Ewald). The weeping by night does not exclude, but includes, weeping by day; cf. ii. 18 f. Night is mentioned as the time when grief and sorrow are wont to give place to sleep. When tears do not cease to flow even during the night, the sorrow must be overwhelming. The following clause, "and her tears are upon her cheek,', serves merely to intensify, and must not be placed (with Thenius) in antithesis to what precedes: " while her sorrow shows itself most violently during the loneliness of the night, her cheeks are yet always wet with tears (even during the day)." But the greatness of this sorrow of heart is due to the fact that she has no comforter — a thought which is repeated in vers. 9, 16, 17, and 21. For her friends are faithless, and have become enemies. "Lovers" and "friends" are the nations witli which Jerusalem made alliances, especially Egypt (cf. Jer. ii. 36 f.); then the smaller nations round about, — Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Phoenicians, with which Zedekiah had conspired against the king of Babylon, Jer. xxvii. 3. Testimony is giren in J cxxxvii. 7 to the hostile dealing on the part of the Edomites against Judah at the destruction of Jerusalem; and Ezekiel (chap. xxv. 3, 6) charges the Ammonites and Tyrians with having shown malicious delight over the fall of Jerusalem; but the hostility of the Moabites is evident from the inimical behaviour of their King Baalis towards Judah, mentioned in Jer. xl. 14.

With ver. 3 begins the specific account of the misery over which Jerusalem sorrows so deeply. Judah has gone into exile, but she does not find any rest there among the nations. "Judah" is the population not merely of Jerusalem, but of the whole kingdom, whose deportation is bewailed by Jerusalem as the mother of the whole country. Although VTVS\\ designates the people, and not the country, it is construed as a feminine, because the inhabitants are regarded as the daughter of the land; cf. Ewald, § 174, b [and Gesenius, § 107, 4,^]. 'Hi *#0 has been explained, since J. D. Michaelis, by most modern expositors (Rosenmuller, Maurer, Ewald, Thenius, Nacrelsbach), and previously by Calvin, as referring to the causae of the emigration, "from (because of) misery and much servitude;"

aiul in harmony with this view, rriw nnS has been understood, not of the deportation of Judah into exile, hut of the voluntary emigration oi the fugitives who sought to escape from the power of the Chaldeans by fleeing into foreign countries, partly before and partly after the destruction of Jerusalem. But this interpretation neither agrees with the meaning of the words nor the context. Those fugitives cannot be designat I "Judah," because, however numerous one may think they were, they formed hut a fraction of the inhabitants of Judah: the ilower of the nation had been carried off to Babylon into exile, for which the usual word is ^isX The context also requires us to refer the words to involuntary emigration into exile. For, in comparison with this, the emigration of fugitives to different countries was so unimportant a matter that the writer could not possibly have been silent regarding the deportation of the people, and placed this secondary consideration in the foreground as the cause of the sorrow. *Jtyp is not to be taken in a causal sense, for |B simply denotes the coming out of a certain condition, "out of misery," into which Judah had fallen through the occupation of the country, first by Pharaoh-Neeho, then by the Chaldeans; and rnajj 21 does not mean "much service," but " much labour." For n*ny does not mean " service " ( = nnay), but "labour, work, business," e.g. ^n rnhy, "the service of the king," i,e. the service to be rendered to the king in the shape of work (1 Chron. xxvi. 30), and the labour connected with public worship (1 Chron. ix. 13, xxviii. 14, etc.); here, in connection with ^'y, it means severe labour and toil which the people had to render, partly for the king, that he might get ready the tribute imposed on the country, and partly to defend the country and the capital against those who sought to conquer them. Although Judah had wandered out from a condition of misery and toil into exile, yet even there she found no rest among the nations, just as Moses had already predicted to the faithless nation, Deut. xxviii. 65. All her pursuers find her D11"^? p3j inter angustias (Vulgate). This word denotes u straits," narrow places where escape is impossible (Ps. cxvi. 3, cxviii. 5), or circumstances in life from which no escape can be found. — Ver. 4. Zion (i.e. Jerusalem, as the holy city) is laid waste; feasts and rejoicing have disappeared from it.

il The ways of Zion " are neither the streets of Jerusalem (Rosenmiiller), which are called ntolt, nor the highways or main roads leading to Zion from different directions (Thenius, who erroneously assumes that the temple, which was situated on Moriah, together with its fore-courts, could only be reached through Zion), but the roads or highways leading to Jerusalem. These are "mourning," i.e., in plain language, desolate, deserted, because there are no longer any going up to Jerusalem to observe the feasts. For this same reason the gates of Zion (i.e. the city gates) are also in ruins, because there is no longer any one going out and in through them, and men no longer assemble there. The reason why the priests and the virgins are here conjoined as representatives of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is, that lamentation is made over the cessation of the religious feasts. The virgins are here considered as those who enlivened the national festivals by playing, singing, and dancing: Jer. xxxi. 13; Ps. Ixviii. 20; Judg. xxi. 19, 21; Ex. xv. 20. rto (Xiphal of W) is used here, as in Zeph, ii. 13, of sorrow over the cessation of the festivals. Following the arbitrary rendering, ayofievoi, of the LXX., Ewald would alter the word in the text into ntaTO, u carried captive." But there is no necessity for this: he does not observe that this rendering does not harmonize with the parallelism of the clauses, and that anj means to drive away, but not to lead captive.1 rnj, "and she (Zion) herself" is in bitterness (cf. Ruth i. 13, 20), i.e. she feels bitter sorrow. In vers. 6, 7, are mentioned the causes of this grief. — Ver. 5. Her adversaries or oppressors, in relation to her, have become the head (and Judah thus the tail), as was threatened, Deut. xxviii. 44; whereas, according to ver. 13 in that same address of Mosesj the reverse was intended. Pier enemies, knowing that their power is supreme, and that Judah has been completely vanquished, are quite at ease, secure (fe, cf. Jer. xii. 1). This unhappy fate Zion has brought on herself through the multitude of her own transgressions. Her children (pfyv, children of tender age) are driven away by the enemy like a flock. The comparison to a flock of lambs is indicated by \Jb{\ But d has not merely Lost what she loves most (the tender children), but all her glory; bo that own her princes, enfeebled by hun. annot escape the pursuers, who overtake them and make them prisoners. Like deer that find no pasture, they tlee exhausted before the pursuer. £^^D has been rendered ok *yiui by the LXX., and ut arietea by the Vulgate; hence Kalkschmidt, Bottcher (AehrenL S. 94), and Thenius would read E^N2, against which Rosenmiiller has remarked: y rm, nam hirci won sunt fugacia animalia, sed cervu Raschi had already indicated the point of the comparison in the words, (jtiibut nulla vires sunt ad effugiendum, fame eorum rubvrc debilitate. The objections raised against C^\\%3 as the correct reading are founded on the erroneous supposition that the subject treated of is the carrying away of the princes into exile; and that for the princes, in contrast with the young, no more suitable emblem could be chosen than the ram. But *0Vl does not mean "the driver,*' him who leads or drives the captives into exile, but u the pursuer," who runs after the fugitive and seeks to catch him. The words treat of the capture of the princes: the flight of the king and his princes at the taking of Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv. 3 f.) hovered before the writer's mind. For such a subject, the comparison of the fugitive princes to starved or badly fed rams is inappropriate; but it is suitable enough to compare them with harts which had lost all power to run, because they had been unable to find any pasture, and C^'^r1 (without strength, i.e. in weakness) are pursued and caught.

The loss of all her magnificence (ver. 7) brings to the remembrance of the sorrowing city, in her trouble, the former days of her now departed glory. " Jerusalem " is not the totality of those who are carried away (Thenius), but the city personified as the daughter of Zion (cf. ver. 6). " The days of her affliction," etc., is not the direct object of a remembers," as Pareau and Kalkschmidt assume, with the LXX.; the object is " all her pleasant things." If " the days of her affliction " were also intended to be the object, u all her pleasant things " would be preceded by the copula 1, which Pareau indeed supplies, but arbitrarily. Moreover, the combination of the days of misery with the glory of bygone days is inappropriate, because Jerusalem feels her present misery directly, and does not need first to call them to remembrance. " The days of her affliction," etc., is the accusative of duration. Living through the times of her adversity, Jerusalem thinks of former happy times, and this remembrance increases her sorrow. DHnD occurs only here, in iii. 19 and in Isa. lviii. 7: in meaning it is connected with TO, vagari, and signifies roaming,— not voluntary, but compulsory— rejection, persecution; while the adjective Dnrm, found in Isaiah, is, as regards its form, taken from T)0, which is cognate with m OTDHD or D^BTO (ver. 11, KetJtib) is perhaps used in a more general sense than D^DITID, ii. 4 and i. 11 (Qeri)> and signifies what is costly, splendid, viz. gracious gifts, both of a temporal and spiritual kind, which Israel formerly possessed, while D^ono signifies costly treasures. " The days of old" are the times of Moses and Joshua, of David and Solomon. In the words, " when her people fell/' etc., the days of misery are more exactly specified. The suffix in m*n refers to Jerusalem. WW are the foes into whose power Jerusalem fell helplessly, not specially the escorts of those who were carried away (Thenius). They made a mockery of her DTOw'b. This word is air. Aey. It is not identical in meaning with rnnrj;, sahbata (Vulgate, Luther, etc.), though connected with it; nor does it signify di letionss, destructions (Gesenius), but cessations. This last rendering, however, is not to be taken according to the explanation of Rosenrotiller: quod cessasset omnis ilk decor, qui nominatus este ante, principals et prosper rerum status; but rather as L. Capellus in his noit. crit. expresses it: quod nunc terra ejus deserta jacet nee colitur et quasi ccssat et feriatur, though he does not quite exhaust the meaning. As Gerlach rightly remarks, the expression is "evidently used with reference to the threatenings given in the law, Lev. xxvi. 34, 35, that the land would observe its Sabbaths, — that it will keep them during the whole period of the desolation, when Israel is in the land of his enemies." We must not, however, restrict the reference merely to the uncultivated state of the fields, but extend it so that it shall be applied to cessation from all kinds of employment, even those connected with the worship of God, which were necessary for the hallowing of the Sabbath. The mockery of enemies doea not apply to the Jewish celebration of the

Sabbath (to which I J rutins refers the words), but to the cessation of the public worship of the Lord, inasmuch as the heathen, by destroying Jerusalem and the temple, fancied they had not only put an end to the worship of the God of the Jews, but also conquered the God of Israel as a helpless national deity, and made a mock of Israel's faith in Jahveh as the only true CJod. — Ver. 8 f. But Jerusalem has brought this unutterable misery on herself through her grievous sins. n^P[? is intensified by the noun ^pn; instead of the inf. abs., as in Jer. xlvi. 5. Jerusalem has sinned grievously, and therefore has become an object of aversion. HT: does not mean efc aci\ov (LXX.), or instabilis (Vulgate); nor is it, with the Chaldee, Raschi, and most of tlie ancient expositors, to be derived from TJ: we must rath r, with modern expositors, regard it as a lengthened form of ITW, which indeed is the reading given in twenty codices of Kennicott. Regarding these forms, cf. Ewald, § 84, a. hid (prop, what one should flee from) signifies in particular the uncleanness of the menstrual discharge in women, Lev. xii. 2, 5, etc.; then the uncleanness of a woman in this condition, Lev. xv. 19, etc.; here it is transferred to Jerusalem, personified as such an unclean woman, and therefore shunned. Tf}9 the Ilipliil of??J (as to the form, cf. Ewald,* § 114, c), occurs only in this passage, and signifies to esteem lightly, the opposite of 1333 to esteem, value highly; hence ivft, "despised," ver. 11, as in Jer. xv. 19. Those who formerly esteemed her — her friends, and those who honoured her, i.e. her allies — now despise her, because they have seen her nakedness. The nakedness of Jerusalem means her sins and vices that have now come to the light. She herself also, through the judgment that has befallen her, has come to see the infamy of her deeds, sighs over them, and turns away for shame, i.e. withdraws from the people so that they may no longer look on her in her shame. In ver. 9 the figure of uncleanness is further developed. Her uncleanness sticks to the hems or skirts of her garment. HKDM is the defilement caused by touching a person or thing Levitically unclean, Lev. v. 3, vii. 21; here, therefore, it means defilement by sins and crimes. This has now been revealed by the judgment, because she did not think of her end. These words point to the warning given in the song of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 29: "If they were wise, they would understand this (that apostasy from the Lord brings heavy punishment after it), they would think of their end," i.e. the evil issue of continued resistance to God's commands. But the words are especially a quotation from Isa. xlvii. 7, where they are used of Babylon, that thought she would always remain mistress, and did not think of the end of her pride; therefore on her also came the sentence, u Come down from thy glory, sit in the dust," Isa. xlvii. 1, cf. Jer. xlviii. 18. Jerusalem has now experienced this also; she has come down wonderfully, or fallen from the height of her glory into the depths of misery and disgrace, where she has none to comfort her, and is constrained to sigh, " O Lord, behold my misery!" These words are to be taken as a sigh from the daughter of Zion, deeply humbled through shame and repentance for her sins. This is required by the whole tenor of the words, and confirmed by a comparison with vers. 11 and 20. D**As is used adverbially; cf. Ewald, § 204, b [Gesenius, § 100, 2, b~]. There is no need for supplying anything after -TO?, cf. Jer. xlviii. 26, 42, Dan. viii. 4, 8, 11, 25, although nvj'i^ originally stood with it, e.a. Joel ii. 20; cf. Ewald, § 122, c [and Gesenius' Lexicon, s.v. 713]. The clause 7W *3, which assigns the reason, refers not merely to the sighing of Jerusalem, but also to the words, " and she came down wonderfully." The boasting of the enemy shows itself in the regardless, arrogant treatment not merely of the people and their property, but also of their holy things. This is specially mentioned in ver. 10. The enemy has spread out his hand over all her jewels (^^HP, the costly treasures of Jerusalem which were plundered), and even forced into the sanctuary of the Lord to spoil it of its treasures and vessels. C. B. Michaelis, Thenius, Gerlach, Nagelsbach, etc., would restrict the meaning of iTiETO to the precious things of the sanctuary; but not only are there no sufficient reasons for this, but the structure of the clauses is against it. Neither does the expression, u all our precious things," in Isa. Ixiv. 10, signify merely the articles used in public worship on which the people had placed their desire; nor are " all her pleasant vessels " merely the sacred vessels of the temple* In the latter passage, the suffix in?'"' fers to

Jerusalem; and inasmuch as the burning of all the palaces of the city (fl'rtbO'jK) lias been mentioned immediately before, we are BO much the loss at liberty to restrict ''all her precious to the vessels of the temple, ami must rather, under that expression, include all the precious vessels of the city, i.e. of the palaces and the temple. And Delitzsch has already remarked, on Isa. lxiv. 10, that " under WOne niay be included favourite spots, beautiful buildings, pleasure gardens; ami only the parallelism induces us to think especially of articles used in public worship." But when Thenius, in the passage now before us, brings forward the succeeding words, u for she hath seen," as a proof that by u all her pleasant things " we are to understand especially the vessels and utensils of the temple, he shows that he has not duly considered the contents of the clause introduced by ^ (for). The clause characterizes the enemy's forcing his way into the sanctuary, i.e. the temple of Jerusalem, as an unheard of act of sacrilege, because E^3 were not to enter even into the /Hjj of Jahveh. The subject treated of is not by any means the robbing of the temple — the plundering of its utensils and vessels. The prohibition against the coming, i.e. the receiving of foreigners into the u congregation," is given, Deut. xxiii. 4, with regard, to the Ammonites and Moabites: this neither refers to the jus connubii (Grotius, Rosenmiiller), nor to the civil rights of Jewish citizens (Kalkschmidt), but to reception into religious communion with Israel, the ecclesia of the Old Covenant (mrr?ni?). In Deut. xxiii. 8, the restriction is relaxed in favour of the Edomites and Egyptians, but in Ezek. xliv. 7, 9, in accordance with the ratio legis, extended to all uncircumcised sons of strangers. Hence, in the verse now before us, we must not, with Rosenmiiller and Thenius, restrict the reference of DM3 to the Ammonites and Moabites as accomplices of the Chaldeans in the capture of Jerusalem and the plundering of the temple (2 Kings xxiv. 2); rather the D^2 are identical with those mentioned in the first member of the verse as "W, i.e. the Chaldeans, so called not " because their army was made up of different nationalities, but because the word contains the notice of their being heathens, — profane ones who had forced into the sanctuary " (Gerlach). But if we look at the structure of the clauses, we find that u for she saw," etc., is parallel to "for the enemy hath boasted" of ver. 9; and the clause, "for she saw nations coming," etc., contains a further evidence of the deep humiliation of Jerusalem; so that we may take *3 as showing the last step in a climax, since the connection of the thought is this: For the enemy hath boasted, spreading his hand over all her precious things, — he hath even forced his way into the sanctuary of the Lord. If this is mentioned as the greatest disgrace that could befall Jerusalem, then the spreading out of the hands over the precious things of Jerusalem cannot be understood of the plundering of the temple. The construction *K3 D^ nrifc£1 is in sense exactly similar to the Latin vidit gentes venisse, cf. Ewald, § 281, b; and on the construction wy &A nrrr*, cf. Ewald, § 336, b. ff> foga does not stand for vfjl?? (LXX., Pareau. Rosenmuller), for >nj?n is not the congregation of Judah, but that of Jahveh: and the meaning is: They shall not come to thee, the people of God, into the congregation of the Lord. — Ver. 11. Besides this disgrace, famine also comes on her. All her people, /.,>. the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, sigh after bread, and part with their jewels for food, merely to prolong their life. The participles ^C?*?,?) DVP^?, are not to be translated by preterites; they express a permanent condition of things, and the words are not to be restricted in their reference to the famine daring the sie^e of the city (Jer. xxxvii. 21, xxxviii. (.), lii. 6). Even after it was reduced, the want of provisions may have continued; so that the inhabitants of the city, starved into a surrender, delivered up their most valuable things to those who plundered them, for victuals to be obtained from these enemies. Yet it is not correct to refer the words to the present sad condition of those who were left behind, as distinguished from their condition during the siege and immediately after the taking of the city (Gerlach). This cannot be inferred from the participles. The use of these is fully accounted for by the fact that the writer sets forth, as present, the whole of the misery that came on Jerusalem during the siege, and which did not immediately cease with the capture of the city; he describes it as a state of matters that still continues. As to Dmiono, see on ver. 7. PB3 y&n, " to bring back the soul," the life, Le. by giving food to revive one who is nearly fainting, to keep in his life (=nviw'n); cf, Ruth iv. L5, 1 Sam. \w. L2, and in a spiritual Ben. r. six. 8, \\:ii. 8. In the third member of the verse, the sigh which is uttered as a prayer (ver. 9o) is repeated in an intensified form; and the way is thus prepared for the transition to the lamentation and suppliant request of Jerusalem, which forms the second half of the poem.

words, DZ^X R&j arc difficult to explain. The LXX. have oi wpos vfui^i but the reading ought certainly to be oi w. v. The \ ulgate is, o vos omnes; the Chaldee, adjuro vos omnes. They all seem to have taken &W as an exclamation. Hence Le Clerc and others would read \XO\ but in this case one would require to supply a verb: thus, Le Clerc renders utinam adspiciatis, or, %% O that my cry might reach you!" But these insertions are very suspicious. The same holds true of the explanation offered by J. D. Michaelis in his edition of Lowth on Hebrew Poetry, Lect. xxii.: not vobis^ transeuntes In viat luce acclamu (viz. the closing words of ver. 11): this is decidedly opposed by the mere fact that passers-by certainly could not regard a call addressed to Jahveh as applying to them. Without supplying something or other, the words, as they stand, remain incomprehensible. Nagelsbach would connect them with what follows: " [Look] not to yourselves... but look and see..." But the antithesis, " Look not upon yourselves, but look on me (or on my sorrow)," has no proper meaning. If we compare the kindred thought presented in ver. 18, " Hear, all ye peoples, and behold my sorrow," then D3vK Hi? seems to express an idea corresponding to NJ tfflDB\ But we obtain this result only if we take the words as a question, as if Ni? — Xipn, though not in the sense of an asseveration (which would be unsuitable here, for which reason also Nvn is not used); the question is shown to be such merely by the tone, as in Ex. viii. 22, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. Thus, we might render the sense with Gerlach: Does not (my sighing — or, more generally, my misery — come) to yod? The Syriac, Lowth, Ewald, Thenius, and Vaihinger have taken the words as a question; Ewald, following Prov. viii. 4, would supply N"?pfr?. But such an insertion gives a rendering which

„ both harsh and unjustifiable, although it lies at the foundation of Luther's "I say unto you." Hence we prefer Gerlach's explanation, and accordingly give the free rendering, " Do ye not observe, sc. what has befallen me,— or, my misery?" The words are, in any case, intended to prepare the way for, and thereby render more impressive, the summons addressed to all those passing by to look on and consider her sorrow. 7*9 is passive (Poal): " which is done to me." Since njin has no object, the second itf* does not permit of being taken as parallel with the first, though the Chaldee, Rosenmuller, Kalkschmidt, and others have so regarded it, and translate: " with which Jahveh hath afflicted me." With Ewalcl, Thenius, Gerlach, etc., we must refer it to?: " me whom Jahveh hath afflicted." The expression, "on the day of the burning of His anger," is pretty often found in Jeremiah; see iv. 8, 26, xxv. 37, etc. In vers. 13-15, the misfortunes that have befallen Jerusalem are enumerated in a series of images. " Out from the height (i.e. down from heaven) hath He sent fire into my bones;" nrrn is rendered by Luther, " and let it have the mastery " (Ger. und dasselbige walten hissrn). Thenius explains this as being correct, and accordingly seeks to point the word WJ"}3, while Ewald takes htj to be cognate with nrn, and translates it "made them red-hot;" and Rosenmuller, following N. (J. Schroder, attributes to HTJ, from the Arabic, the meaning collisit, percussit' lapide. All these explanations are not only far-fetched and incapable of lexical vindication, but also unnecessary. The change of vowels, so as to make it the Iliphil, is opposed by the fact that iTTJj in the Iliphil, does not mean to cause to manage, rule, but to tread down, subdue (Isa. xli. 2). In Kal, it means to tread, tread down, and rule, as in Jer. v. 31, where Gesenius and Dietrich erroneously assume the meaning of " striding, going," and accordingly render this passage, "it stalks through them." The lexically substantiated meaning, "subdue, rule, govern, (or, more generally,) overpower," is quite sufficient for the present passage, since HT] is construed not merely with 3, but also with the accusative: the subject is PK, which is also construed as a masc. in Jer. xlviii. 45; and the suffix H3— may either be taken as a neuter, or referred to " my bones," without compelling us to explain it as meaning unum- be explained away allegorically to mean urbea meas munitas (< baldee). A\ hile fire from above penetrated the bones. God from beneath placed nets for the feet which thus wore caueht On this figure, cf. Jer. 1. 24, IIos. vii. 12, etc. The consequence this was that « He turned me back," ita ut progn di pedemque extneare turn possem, tedcapta detinerer (C. B. Michaelis),— not he threw.no down backwards," i.e. made me fall heavily ( l benius). <• ik. hath made me desoiate» (nooi^.not obstJ. >emtem, ptrturbatam, duperatam (Rosenmfiller); the same word is a1Tlie,l to Tamar, 2 Sam. xiii. 20, as one whose happiness in hie has been destroyed. "The whole day (i.e. constantly, uninterruptedly) sick," or ill. The city is regarded as a person whose happiness in life has been destroyed, and whose health has been broken. This miserable condition is represented m ver. 1-1, under another figure, as a yoke laid by God on the F°ple for their sins. Vir?, &r. Xey., is explained by Kimchi as wro in lefpj, compaetum vel colligatum, according to which Ifr would be allied to 1??. This explanation suits the context; on the other hand, neither the interpretation based on the Talmudic ^P, purucit, stimulavit, which is given by Easchi and Aben Ezra nor the interpretations of the LXX., Syriac, and Vulgate' which are founded on the reading 1??:, harmonize with & which must be retained, as is shown by the words ^^v tiy Ewald supposes that tgp was the technical expression "for the harnessing on of the yoke. « The yoke of my transgressions " (not of my chastisements," as Gesenius, EosenmUller, and iwald thmk) means the yoke formed of the sins. The notion of pumshment is not contained in Tf'% but in the imposition of the yoke upon the neck, by which the misdeeds of sinful Jerusalem are laid or, her, as a heavy, depressing burden which she must bear. These sins become interwoven or intertwine themselves (UW), after the manner of intertwined vine-tendrils (O J TR faen. xl. 10; cf. remarks on Job xl. 17), as the Chaldee paraphrase well shows; and, through this interweaving, form the yoke that has come on the neck of the sinful city. Veluti ex contortis funibus aut complicate lignis jugum quoddam constrmtur, ita h. I. prwvaricationis tanquam materia insupporlabilis jugi considerantur (C. B. Michaelis). "J? is used of the imposition of the yoke, as in Num. xix. 2, 1 Sam. vi. 7. The effect of the imposition of this yoke is: " it hath made my strength to stumble (fail)." Pareau, Thenius, Vaihinger, and Niigelsbach assume God as the subject of the verb?W2n; but this neither accords with the current of the description, nor with the emphatic mention of the subject tflK in the clause succeeding this. Inasmuch as, in the first member of the verse, God is not the subject, but the address takes a passive turn, it is only the leading word by that can be the subject of ^V"-n: the yoke of sins which, twined together, have come on the neck, has made the strength stumble, Le. broken it. This effect of the yoke of sins is stated, in the last member, in simple and unfio-urative speech: " the Lord hath given me into the hands of those whom I cannot withstand," i.e. before whom I cannot maintain my ground. On the construction So*K to *T3j cf. Ewald, § 333, b; Gesenius, § 116, 3. D*p is here viewed in the sense of standing fast, maintaining ground, as in Ps. xviii. 39; and, construed with the accusative, it signifies, to withstand any one; its meaning is not 8urgere} which Thenius, following the Vulgate, would prefer: the construction here requires the active meaning of the verb. — In ver. 15 this thought is further carried out. n^D and H7D, "to lift up," is only used in poetry; in Ps. cxix. 118 it takes the Aramaic meaning vilipendere} as if in reference to things that can be lifted easily; here it means tollere, to lift up, take away (LXX. e£r)pe} Vv ibstulit), tear away forcibly, just as both meanings are combined in N;J':: it does not mean to outweigh, or raise with a jerk, — the warriors being regarded as weighty things, that speedily were raised when the Chaldean power was thrown into the scale (Thenius-, and Bottcher in his Aehrenl S. 94). This meaning is not confirmed for the Piel by Job xxviii. 16, 19. "IjtfO KljJ does not mean to summon an assembly, i.e. the multitude of foes (Kasehi, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Neumann), but to proclaim a festival (cf. ii. 22), because in ver. 4 and ii. <] (cf. Lev. xxiii. 4) 1#to denotes the feast-day, and in ver. 21 DV fcOjJ means to proclaim a day. ty means " against me;" for those invited to the feast are the nations that God has invited to destroy the youths, i.e. the young troops of Jerusalem. These celebrate a feast like thai of the vintage at which Jahveh treads tbe wine-press for the daughter ol Judah, because her young men are <■„. off like eluatera o grapes (Jer. vi. 9), and thrown into the wine-press (Joel iv. 13). The last judgment alsoisset forth under this figure, ba. kiii. 2 f.: Rev. *iv. [9,\, xix. K> nl,,T ^^ <(

(for) the virgin of Judah;" her young men are rega'rdedas a mass ol grapes, whose life-sap < blood) is trodden out in the winepress. As to the expression ' r>2 nSn3, M on j01, xiv 17 The »dd hition of the word 'virgin' brings out the contraat between this fate, brought on through the enemy, at God's command, and the peculiar privilege of Judah aa the people of bod, in being fiee from the attacks of enemies" (Gerlach) Ver. It! concludes this seriesof thoughta, since the address urns to the idea presented in ver. 12, and the unprecedented sonow (ver. 12) gives vent to itself in tears. « Because vera. J.. -15, which Jerusalem has experienced. The form rwrta ia like the feminine form n;nb m i>s. cxxviii.;ij ]s;, ^ (..'cf

C-es § 75, Rem. 5. The repetition of « my eye" gives greater emphasis, and ia quite in the style of Jeremiah; cf. iv 19 vi M (tin. 11). xxii. 29, xxiii. 25: the second Wg is not to' be' «punged (Pareau and Thenius), although it is not found in the L.\\, V nJgate, Arabic, and some codices. On D'o mv cf. Jer.,x. 17, xiii. 17, xiv. 17. In these passages stands mm but here D<<?, as the stronger expression: tbe eye flows like water, aa if it were running to the ground in water. Gesenius, in his Thrown,, appositely cites tbe German "sicb die Au-ren.ana dem Kopfe weinen" [with which the English corresponds • • to weep one's eyes out of bis bead"]. Still stronger is the expression in iii. 48. But the sorrow becomes thus°erievoua because the weeping one has none to comfort her; friends who' could comfort her have faithlessly forsaken her (cf. vers 2 9) and her sons are Dn?Bi», i.e. destroyed, not "astonished" (Jer -xvm. lb, xix. 8), but, as in ver. 13, made desolate, i.e. made so unhappy that they cannot bring their mother comfort in her misery. On «g »fe cf. Ver. 11. « Because the enemy hath become strong, i.e. prevailed (133 as in Jer. ix. 2).

Ver. 17. The complaint regarding the want of comforters is corroborated by the writer, who further developes this thought and gives some proof of it. By this contemplative digression he breaks in on the lamentation of the city, as if the voice of the weeping one were choked with tears; thus he introduces into the complaint a suitable pause, that both serves to divide the lamentation into two, and also brings a turn in its contents. It is in vain that Zion stretches out her hands (3 \thBf to make a spreading out with the hands) for comforters and helpers; there is none she can embrace, for Jahveh has given orders against Jacob, [that] those round about him should act as oppressors. V?2D are the neighbouring nations round about Israel. These are all of hostile disposition, and strive but to increase his misery; cf. ver. 2. Jerusalem has become their abomination (cf. ver. 8), since God, in punishment for sins, has exposed her before the heathen nations (cf. ver. 8). DiTO'SL " between them," the neighbouring nations, who live round about Judah. The thought that Jahveh has decreed the suffering which has come on Jerusalem, is laid to heart by her who makes complaint, so that, in ver. 18, she owns God's justice, and lets herself be roused to ask for pity, vers. 19-22.

Starting with the acknowledgment that Jahveh is righteous, because Jerusalem has opposed His word, the sorrowing one anew (ver. 18, as in ver. 12) calls on the nations to regard her sorrow, which attains its climax when her children, in the bloom of youth, are taken captives by the enemy. But she finds no commiseration among men; for some, her former friends, prove faithless, and her counsellors have perished (ver. 19); therefore she turns to God, making complaint to Him of her great misery (ver. 20), because the rest, her enemies, even rejoice over her misery (ver. 21): she prays that God may punish these. Gerlach has properly remarked, that this conclusion of the chapter shows Jerusalem does not set forth her fate as an example for the warning of the nations, nor desires thereby to obtain commiseration from them in her present state (Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Thenius, Vaihinger); but that the apostrophe addressed to the nations, as well as that to passers-by (ver. 12), is nothing more than a poetic turn, used to express the boundless magnitude of this her sorrow and her suffering On the confession "Bighteous is Jahveh," cf. Jer. xii. 1, De°ut. xxxii. 4, 2 Chrcn. xii. 6, Ps. exix. 37, etc. " Because I have rebelled dnst His mouth'1 (i.e. His words and commandments), therefore I am suffering what 1 have merited. On *fpb n^D, cf. Num. w. 24, 1 Kings xiii. 26. DMpjrfe (without the article, which the Qiri supplies) is a form of expression used in poetry, which often drops the article; moreover, we must here bear in mind, that it is not by any means the idea of the totality of the nations that predominates, hut nations arc addressed merely in indefinite generality: the expression in the text means nations o^ all places and countries. In order to indicate the greatn of her grief, the sorrowing one mentions the carrying into captivity of the young men and virgins, who are a mother's joy and hope. — Ver. 1(.> is not a continuation of the direct address to the nations, to whom she complains of her distress, but merely a complaint to God regarding the sorrow she endure.-. The perfects ^^JiJ, *^B"1, are not preterites, and thus are not io be referred to the past, as if complaint were made that, in the time of need, the lovers of Jerusalem forsook her; they rather indicate accomplished facts, whose consequences reach down to the present time. It was not merely in former times, during the siege, that Jerusalem called to her friends for help; but even now she still calls, that she may be comforted by them, yet all in vain. Her friends have deceived her, i.e. shamefully disappointed her expectations. From those who are connected with her, too, she can expect neither comfort nor counsel. The priests and the elders, as the helpers and advisers of the city, — the former as representing the community before God, and being the medium of His grace, the latter as being leaders in civil matters, — pined away (JJ1|, exspirare; here, to pine away through hunger, and expire). *3 is a temporal particle: u w hen they were seeking for bread" to prolong their life () -'w*n as in ver. 11). The LXX. have added kclI ou% evpov, which Thenius is inclined to regard as a portion of the original text; but it is very evidently a mere conjecture from the context, and becomes superfluous when *3 is taken as a particle of time. — Ver. 20. Since neither comfort nor advice is to be found with men, Jerusalem makes her complaint of need to God the Lord. " See, Jahveh, that I am distressed. My bowels glow." ¥lD"}En, the passive enhancing form, from "i^?? is found, besides, only in ii. 11, where the clause before us is repeated, and in Job xvi. 16, where it is used of the countenance, and can only mean to be glowing red; it is scarcely