Conventional readings of Lamentations invariably appeal to the âcentralâ chapter 3 and its male character, the ר××, as pivotal for the meaning and purpose of Lamentations. Such readings emphasize the sin of humanity and the justice of God and can be broadly described as theodic in character. A number of more recent readings that can be aptly described as antitheodic, however, react against this centralizing tendency, emphasizing instead the protesting voice of Zion in chapters 1 and 2. Neither the ר×× nor Zionâs discourses, however, is as homogeneously theodic or antitheodic as these readings and counter-readings would suggest. Rather, both speakers present elements of penitence and submission to suffering (theodicy), on the one hand, and protest and accusation of God (antitheodicy), on the other.â©
In light of the pervasive influence of the âcentralâ chapter 3 in readings of Lamentations, I focus this paper on the ר××âs discourse. I read Lamentations 3 as the ר××âs internal dialogue as he expresses various understandings of the extreme suffering in which he finds himself. I use Mikhail Bakhtinâs concept of the dialogic interaction between authoritative and internally persuasive discourses as a framework for illustrating the various moods through which the ר×× moves. While the ר×× appeals to authoritative discourses, I conclude that he does not, finally, find the âcentralâ faithful statements, so often appealed to as determinative for meaning, to be internally persuasive.â©
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
For example, House, Lamentations, p. 429.
So Mintz, Ḥurban, p. 33; S.P. Reâemi, âThe Theology of Hope: A Commentary on the Book of Lamentations,â in Amos and Lamentations: Godâs People in Crisis (ITC; Edinburgh: Handsel, 1984), pp. 73-134 (116-17); J. Bracke, Jeremiah 30-52 and Lamentations (WBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p. 188.
See Tigay, Cooper, and Bayer, âLamentations, Book of,â p. 447.
See Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, p. 3.
See Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, p. 3; OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1057; K.M. OâConnor, Lamentations and the Tears of the World (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002), p. 45.
See OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1046; Provan, Lamentations, p. 23.
See Mandolfo, Daughter Zion, p. 72; OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1046.
See OâConnor, Tears of the World, p. 57; Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, pp. 17-18.
Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, p. 25; see also G. Morson and C. Emerson, âExtracts from a Heteroglossary,â in M. Macovski (ed.), Dialogue and Critical Discourse: Language, Culture, Critical Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 266.
See M. Holquist, âGlossary,â in M.M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), pp. 423-34 (427); Levine, âDialogic Discourse of Psalms,â p. 279.
Morson and Emerson, âHeteroglossary,â p. 268, emphasis original.
Bakhtin, âDiscourse in the Novel,â p. 342, emphasis original.
House, Lamentations, p. 414. ××¡× is predicated of Yhwh in Gen. 24:12, 14, 27; 32:11; 39:21; Exod. 15:13; 20:6; 34:6-7; Num. 14:18-19; Deut. 5:10; 7:9, 12; 1 Sam. 20:14; 2 Sam. 2:6; 7:15; 15:20; 22:26, 51; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:23; Isa. 54:8, 10; 55:3; 63:7; Jer. 3:12; 9:23; 16:5; 31:3; 32:18; 33:11; Hos. 2:21; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Mic. 7:18, 20. Reading synchronically, the covenant context of ××¡× resounds. R.B. Salters, however, suggests that linking ××¡× to covenant was a relatively late development, such that âit is perhaps reading too much into this passage to assume that the poet was thinking of the covenantâ (Salters, Lamentations [ICC; New York: T & T Clark, 2010], p. 225; cf. J. Renkema, Lamentations [trans. Brian Doyle; HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 1998], p. 385).
Salters, Lamentations, p. 224; cf. B. Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations with a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text (Studia Theologica Lundensia Series, 21; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963), p. 145; and BHQ, p. 65.
See Mintz, Ḥurban, p. 35; Renkema, Lamentations, p. 383; Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, p. 116; House, Lamentations, p. 413.
See OâConnor, Tears of the World, p. 49; OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1051.
Salters, Lamentations, p. 228.
See Salters, Lamentations, p. 226.
House, Lamentations, p. 415.
Hillers, Lamentations, p. 129; see also Parry, Lamentations, p. 101.
Mintz, Ḥurban, p. 35.
Hillers, Lamentations, p. 6.
OâConnor, Tears of the World, p. 44.
OâConnor, Tears of the World, p. 45.
See Salters, Lamentations, p. 230; E.S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations (FOTL, XV; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 494; Renkema, Lamentations, p. 392.
Tigay, Cooper, and Bayer, âLamentations, Book of,â p. 447.
Tigay, Cooper, and Bayer, âLamentations, Book Of,â p. 447. See also T. Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations (NIBC, 14; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), p. 339.
See Ryken, Jeremiah and Lamentations, p. 757; Mintz, Ḥurban, p. 35.
See Hillers, Lamentations, p. 130.
Parry, Lamentations, p. 114. See Renkema, Lamentations, p. 411; KraÅ¡ovec, âThe Source of Hope,â p. 232. And yet, Lamentations itself is riddled with complaint.
Hillers, Lamentations, p. 130.
In a Bakhtinian framework, âa given proverb is easily seen as monologic: it is âno-manâs-speechââ (Stordalen, âDialogue and Dialogism in Job,â p. 36). The very âprocedure of collecting proverbs into continuous writing forces âmonologicâ utterances to meet and wrestle,â such that âthere is a discernible intent to engage outside discourse by citing itâ (Stordalen, âDialogue and Dialogism in Job,â p. 36, emphasis original). By citing proverbial wisdom here, then, the ר×× engages this outside discourse dialogically, in an attempt to integrate sapiential mores with his experience of suffering.
Renkema, Lamentations, p. 403. Similarly, OâConnor suggests his âsuffering is too deep to be overturned for long by simple theological affirmationâ (Tears of the World, p. 50).
Salters, Lamentations, p. 242.
Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, p. 121.
Parry, Lamentations, p. 103.
See OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1052; Lee, The Singers of Lamentations, p. 180; Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, p. 121.
J. Stiebert, âHuman Suffering and Divine Abuse of Power in Lamentations,â Pacifica 16/2 (2003), pp. 195-215 (199); see also Dobbs-Allsopp, âTragedy, Tradition, and Theology,â pp. 49-50.
Stiebert, âHuman Suffering and Divine Abuse of Power,â p. 203.
See OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1051; Tigay, Cooper, and Bayer, âLamentations,â p. 447; Salters, Lamentations, p. 242.
See Mandolfo, Daughter Zion, pp. 64-65.
House, Lamentations, p. 420; Provan, Lamentations, p. 100; Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, p. 595.
Gordis, Lamentations, p. 185. See also KraÅ¡ovec, âThe Source of Hope,â p. 233; Parry, LaÂmenÂtaÂÂtions, p. 116; Longman, Jeremiah and Lamentations, p. 339; Thomas, âPoetry and Theology,â p. 249; House, Lamentations, p. 421. Berlin agrees that vv. 40-41 suggest the straightforward equation: âIf God is indeed so good and so merciful, and if the people have sinned, the natural next step is that the people must repent and then they will surely be forgivenâ (A. Berlin, Lamentations [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], pp. 95-96). She rightly foreshadows, however, the âsudden joltâ that upsets the assumption in v. 42 (Berlin, Lamentations, p. 96).
So House, Lamentations, p. 421; Parry, Lamentations, p. 116.
Tigay, Cooper, and Bayer, âLamentations, Book Of,â p. 447.
OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1057. See also Dobbs-Allsopp, âTragedy, Tradition, and Theology,â pp. 48-49.
OâConnor, âLamentations,â p. 1053; see also Stiebert, âHuman Suffering and Divine Abuse of Power,â p. 203.
Berlin, Lamentations, p. 96.
Berlin, Lamentations, p. 96.
Berlin, Lamentations, p. 96.
Berlin, Lamentations, p. 96.
See Berlin, Lamentations, p. 95.
See Mintz, Ḥurban, p. 38.
See Mintz, Ḥurban, pp. 38-39.
So House, Lamentations, p. 426; Salters, Lamentations, p. 266.
So Gottlieb, Lamentations, p. 53; I.W. Provan, âPast, Present and Future in Lamentations 3:52-66: The Case for a Precative Perfect Re-examined,â VT 41/2 (1991), pp. 164-75; Gordis, Lamentations, p. 187; E. Boase, The Fulfilment of Doom? The Dialogic Interaction Between the Book of Lamentations and the Pre-Exilic/Early Exilic Prophetic Literature (LHB/OTS, 437; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), p. 194; Hillers, Lamentations, pp. 118-19; Berlin, LamenÂtations, p. 97. See especially Provanâs meticulous examination (Provan, âPast, Present, and Future,â pp. 164-75) and note Parryâs helpful excursus (Parry, Lamentations, pp. 120-24).
Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, p. 127.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 412 | 82 | 19 |
| Full Text Views | 231 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 103 | 18 | 0 |
Conventional readings of Lamentations invariably appeal to the âcentralâ chapter 3 and its male character, the ר××, as pivotal for the meaning and purpose of Lamentations. Such readings emphasize the sin of humanity and the justice of God and can be broadly described as theodic in character. A number of more recent readings that can be aptly described as antitheodic, however, react against this centralizing tendency, emphasizing instead the protesting voice of Zion in chapters 1 and 2. Neither the ר×× nor Zionâs discourses, however, is as homogeneously theodic or antitheodic as these readings and counter-readings would suggest. Rather, both speakers present elements of penitence and submission to suffering (theodicy), on the one hand, and protest and accusation of God (antitheodicy), on the other.â©
In light of the pervasive influence of the âcentralâ chapter 3 in readings of Lamentations, I focus this paper on the ר××âs discourse. I read Lamentations 3 as the ר××âs internal dialogue as he expresses various understandings of the extreme suffering in which he finds himself. I use Mikhail Bakhtinâs concept of the dialogic interaction between authoritative and internally persuasive discourses as a framework for illustrating the various moods through which the ר×× moves. While the ר×× appeals to authoritative discourses, I conclude that he does not, finally, find the âcentralâ faithful statements, so often appealed to as determinative for meaning, to be internally persuasive.â©
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 412 | 82 | 19 |
| Full Text Views | 231 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 103 | 18 | 0 |