Doi: https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-4256.15.463
The geber of Lam 3 in light of
two-time perspective and two literary conventions
El geber de Lam 3 a la luz de la perspectiva de dos tiempos y dos
convenciones literarias
Dariusz Iwanski
Nicolaus
Copernicus University
Recibido:
17/10/2019 Aceptado: 22/12/2019
Abstract
Lam 3 has probably
received the most attention from scholars studying the Book of Lamentations.
One of the most challenging questions concerning this chapter is still the
figure of the geber – the main protagonist. There is a cacophony of
ideas and interpretations offered in this regard. The current paper is an
attempt to simplify the effort of comprehending the figure of the geber
offering a new time perspective and reading it through the lenses of two
conventions: voice and anonymity. They seem to be sufficient for determining
the role of the geber in the poem and possible rhetorical strategy the author
employed here. The paper will also give a survey of the most crucial aspects of
the scholarly debate relevant for the study.
Keywords: Lam 3, the geber, time
perspective, literary conventions, voice, anonymity, Everyman.
Resumen
Lm
3 ha recibido probablemente la mayor atención de los estudiosos del Libro de las Lamentaciones. Una de las preguntas más
desafiantes de este capítulo sigue siendo la figura del geber, el protagonista principal. Hay una cacofonía de
ideas e interpretaciones que se ofrecen al respecto. El presente artículo es un
intento de simplificar el esfuerzo de comprender la figura del geber ofreciendo una nueva perspectiva temporal y
leyéndola a través de las lentes de dos convenciones: la voz y el anonimato.
Parecen ser suficientes para determinar el papel del geber en el poema y la posible estrategia retórica que
el autor empleó. El documento también dará una visión de los aspectos más
cruciales del debate académico relevante para el estudio.
Palabras clave: Lam 3, el geber, perspectiva
temporal, convenciones literarias, voz, anonimato, hombre común.
The
Book of Lamentations continues to puzzle commentators. Its literary structure
and composition, a mysterious cast, the question of authorship, gruesome
metaphors and violent imagery often stigmatizing women are but some of many
issues that stir up a great deal of controversy. Nonetheless, one can note a
renaissance of interest in the Book among contemporary scholars[1]. As far as the studies of particular chapters are
concerned, Lam 3 seems the most examined[2]. However, there is still a list of issues always debated,
and the discussion seems far from ended. Among them, the divergence of opinions
and interpretations concerning the figure of the geber is especially
impressive and overwhelming at the same time. The current paper is an attempt
to simplify the effort of interpreting the dynamics of the geber in the
poem and unravel possible rhetorical strategy present here. For doing so, we
will offer a new time perspective in looking at the geber’s lengthy discourse. Then we are going
to see the protagonist through the lenses of two literary conventions present
in the chapter – voice, and anonymity[3].
I. The protagonist in the context
Lam
3 starts right off with a self-presentation in first person singular: “I am the
man (haggeber) who saw affliction” (Lam 3:1a). This mysterious
self-presentation leaves much room for guessing and is far from conclusive. It
breaks the pattern known from the first two chapters, which started with ’êkāh
(alas) and seems to introduce a new kind of protagonist as well as a new
time perspective.
1. A strong-weak man
The
first line of Lam 3 opens with ’ánî (I) which seems to set a very
personal tone for the whole address. The term geber points toward a male
figure – not just a human being. In the Book of Lamentations, it occurs only in
this chapter (3:1,27,35,39)[4]. One may
argue that since it is only once directly referred to the protagonist himself,
we should not attach any importance to it. However, what matters is the moment
he picks to speak of himself as geber – it is his initial
self-introduction. What comes first, matters most. It stays with the reader and
should be crucial for the whole discourse. The reader will bear this image in
mind throughout the poem.
The
term concerned comes from the Hebrew root gbr, meaning be strong,
have strength, be mighty, prevail over. So, it conveys the idea of physical
strength and power (e.g., Lam 1:16)[5]. H. Kosmala says that the geber is less than gibbor
warrior what is indicated by the fact that the first one is not an
intensive form. The latter is intensive because the middle letter (bet)
there is doubled[6]. If this doubling is enough of a criterion for making a
word intensive, then we should not overlook the fact that in our verse a
doubling of that same kind occurs. The letter gimel gets doubled – as
preceded by the definite article (haggeber). So, at least at this early
stage, the intensification is already there, or at least is alluded to.
BDB
Dictionary does not seem to share Kosmala's reservation
toward seeing in geber a warrior-like figure. The dictionary says that
this noun serves to emphasize how he is different from women, children, and all
unable to carry weapons. It is that last cluster of people that the geber is
supposed to defend[7]. At any rate, it is permissible to see in the figure
from Lam 3, a mighty man, a man of strength - not just an
ordinary male. Only then a terrible paradox becomes apparent – we have here a
mighty man whose strength was once reduced to nothing.
Finally,
we must note that there is a definite article proceeding the term geber. It
has “a demonstrative function: ‘this strong man’”[8]. Moreover, it may be a subtle indication that a
well-known figure, of whom everyone is aware, is entering the stage. It makes
the whole statement sound as if he wanted to say: sapienti sat – you can
figure out who I am. It may also be an allusion to an event of which that
figure was a part or merely an echo of a motif that everyone was familiar with
(e.g., motif of the suffering righteous - Job). It hardly seems an accidental
addition, but no data is allowing us to determine with absolute certainty what
the reason for it was. We may speculate that it was intentionally chosen to add
some dynamics to the figure of the protagonist. Finally, it excludes the
possibility of the word geber being a proper name here since proper
names do not take definite articles in Hebrew.
In
the Psalter, the meaning of geber takes on a more spiritual meaning. It
comes to denote man's intimate relationship with God that results in trust and
fear of the Lord (e.g., Ps 40:5,9-12). That relationship, however, does not
make him immune to suffering. Calamities may fall upon him (88:5[4];
89:49-52[48-51]), but this becomes another opportunity to call upon God for
help (88:2[1]), and finally taste the salvation he grants[9].
We
may conclude then that the term geber is very complex and conveys the
idea of man's strength in at least three ways: physical, moral, as well as
spiritual. As such, it was an ideal reference for the main protagonist of Lam
3. His initial testimony is nothing but a story about a mighty man made
powerless (vv. 1-18), and that contrast is making the whole story even more
intriguing to the reader. It would be in order to dedicate some space to the
way the author describes that personal experience. It seems that its placing in
time is crucial for the rhetoric of the rest of the chapter.
2. Time(s) of affliction.
D.
Hillers stated that the audience sees the protagonist as “the man who has been
through trouble moving into, then out of, near despair to patient faith and
penitence, thus becoming a model for the nation. It is the high point of the
book, central to it in more than external or formal way”[10]. R. Perry,
similarly to Hillers, claimed “that the man is telling his own story as model
to the community of how their story can be seen in such a way that hope for the
future is recovered. Just as his suffering has embodied theirs, so the
salvation that he has begun to experience can become a foretaste of the future
of the community”[11]. The assumption is that the
suffering the geber is alluding to should be interpreted as the current
anguish of the nation. As a matter of fact, scholars generally believe that the
testimony in vv. 1-18 refers to the ongoing suffering that started with the
fall of Jerusalem[12].
We
tentatively propose an alternative way of looking at it, arguing that the
discourse of the protagonist assumes two-time dimensions in which it operates.
The first of them refers to some unprecedented suffering from the past from
which the protagonist eventually got saved. The second one concerns the current
miserable time of affliction by which the whole nation – the geber included
– is affected. The two are skillfully interwoven to create a dynamic
progression of ideas. When
realizing this our awareness of a rhetorical strategy employed here rises.
For
the first eighteen verses, the geber paints an image of a horrible
suffering he once went through. Given the fact that he is addressing the
audience of compatriots all of whom suffer, what would be the point in bringing
up so much detail if he wanted to refer to the current state of affairs? He
instead tends to share some other tragic experience that happened to him in the
past. Even though the situation he is referring to looked hopeless from his
point of view, Yahweh finally saved him and so the protagonist knows for a fact
that there are no impossible things for him. He is capable of saving the whole
nation. It is, in fact, a starting point for the whole message he would want to
deliver. He needs something substantial to base that message on. What would be
more appropriate than a personally experienced miracle of salvation?
At
least three other hints are pointing toward such an approach to the time
framework in the text. First, in verse 14, the protagonist says he suffered
immensely and was mocked by his nation: “I have become a joke to my people, the
butt of their song all day long”. It is true that the phrase “my people” is not
unanimously accepted by textual critics and commentators. For example, R. Salters
favors an alternative reading, namely: “all nations”[13]. However, MT, as well as LXX, Sym and V have “my
people” so there is good reason to keep it as it is[14]. It is hardly possible that the geber elaborates
on the current situation since his brokenhearted compatriots would not be in
mood for wasting their energy on deriding anyone of their own. Besides, if he
were still “a joke to his people”, how would he expect to become successful in
transmitting any valuable message on to them? How could he perhaps want to call
on them for repentance or point the way to the nation (using Hillers’ terminology)?
Second,
the story ends inconclusively reaching its critical point: pressed to the wall,
the geber finally gave up hope (v.18). If hope dies last, then it should
be the end of the story. However, all of a sudden, the geber sets a
different tone – he is filled with hope (vv. 21,24). That would be hard to
account for unless we realize that – without telling us further details – the geber
meditates on some incredible act of salvation he experienced. There is
again a flashback of the nightmare vividly depicted in vv. 1-18, but now it
contrasts with an experience of Yahweh's faithfulness in vv. 19-24. It cannot
refer to the current state of affairs since that is still in crying need for a
solution. It can only refer back to a personal experience of the geber from
the past that in turn will become an excuse for addressing the nation with the
message of hope at the current time. That experience will be further, and more
directly, alluded to in the final part of the poem (vv. 52-57).
Third,
the salvation granted brings about a change of attitude and contributes to a
higher spiritual maturity of the protagonist. No wonder, then, that what
follows now is a calm wisdom discourse (vv. 25-39). Biblical wisdom, as shared
by sages, is not a theoretical, but rather, practical knowledge – coming from
personal experience and building on the experience of previous generations.
This wisdom talk by the geber may seem out of place given the bitterness
of the initial testimony unless we assume that it is a product of a previous
life-changing experience. He once saw with his own eyes that there is nothing
impossible for Yahweh. Wisdom comes with age and experience. The geber
has gained much wisdom due to that experience of personal tragedy and salvation
following it.
Fourth,
as mentioned above, before the end of the poem, the geber once again
returns to his initial testimony. There is a noticeable change of perspective.
It is no longer a description of “adversity at the hands of Yahweh”[15], but he rather charges some other human beings with
hostile acts against him (vv. 52-54). It is not unusual for the book of
Lamentation, though, to picture God and humans interchangeably as ferocious
enemies[16]. At any rate, it is best to take vv. 52-54 as a summary
of suffering presented in the geber's initial testimony (vv. 1-18). Now,
the protagonist gives it its ending providing details about his attitude in the
time of misery. Namely, he called upon Yahweh and heard a word of consolation
(v. 57) followed by redemption (v. 58)[17]. This pattern may well repeat itself – also on the
national scale[18]. It is what the geber is counting on in the
present time. Based on his personal experience, he wants to talk his
compatriots into the same attitude of almost irrational hope and trust in Yahweh.
What follows is his calling on God for salvation on a national level. Even
though it is kept in first-person singular at this point, “the speaking “I” has
become all-inclusive”[19],
i.e., embracing the whole troubled nation.
Having
set the stage for the operating of the protagonist, we may now pass on to see
how creatively the author fashions the protagonist utilizing two conventions:
voice and anonymity.
II. The geber as a “voice”.
It
seems that the scholarly attention to conventions in the Book of Lamentations
awoke in the seventies of the last century when W. F. Lanahan published his
influential article “The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations”[20].
According to Lanahan behind the scenes, there is an author who introduces
actors of the drama who, in turn, speak out for particular groups of Judean
survivors. Lanahan names those actors “personae” or “voices”. He claimed that the voice(s) is a dominant convention
in Lamentations and further explained that the it is “the mask or
characterization assumed by the poet as the medium through which he perceives
and gives expression to his world”[21].
Speaking
of the “voices” has now become a standard in the contemporary exegetical debate
on Lamentations. Nonetheless, commentators are not unanimous in approaching
this phenomenon. For instance, they differ in determining the exact number of
voices in the book concerned. For Lanahan they were five[22], I.W. Provan spoke of three [23], K.M. Heim argued for at least seven[24]. This plurality of opinions should not intimidate us
because, as E. Boase rightly noted, “defining the number of voices within the
text is of lesser importance than the recognition of their presence”[25].
Nevertheless, in order to make this paper complete, one needs to address the
question of the number of voices in Lam 3.
1. How many voices?
The
first voice that comes to the fore already in the first verse is the geber.
Is he an exclusive soloist in the chapter, or should we expect other voices as
well? Scholars opt for one or two voices present there. For instance, D.R.
Hillers represents the latter group. He states that “the “I” who speaks at the
end (vv. 52–66) is not identical with the “I” of the beginning”[26].
He
further explains that “It may appear inconsistent to make a distinction between
the “I” of the end and the “I” of the beginning of the poem, but it seems
justified when one recalls that someone reading the poem, or a worshiper
hearing it in a service, experiences the poem serially, starting at the
beginning, and is not likely to have the end in mind at the start”[27].
One can hardly deny that the biblical texts have been
used for liturgical purposes and that they were divided into parts so that they
might be read portion after portion. However, it is somewhat beyond proof that
the author had to introduce into the poem another voice just because a
reader/worshiper's memory was selective. Thus one should remain skeptical
toward Hillers’ argumentation.
R.
Perry has a somewhat ambivalent opinion about the number of voices here. Even
though he opts for only one voice throughout Lam 3, he would not exclude a
priori the existence of a second voice in the chapter. Perry is open to a
possibility that vv. 42-47 containing a corporate prayer may be uttered by the
community in response to the protagonist's call to repentance. If so, he
concludes, “then we have a second voice – that of the suffering community”[28].
F.
W. Dobbs-Allsopp, on the contrary, claims that the unknown figure, “a
distinctly male voice”, who appears already in the very first verse of the
chapter is the only voice there[29]. In his opinion neither “generic mixture of the type
evidenced in this poem and Lamentations more generally” nor “the modulation in
voice between singular and plural”, which scholars opting for more than one
single voice here saw as factors supporting their view, cannot stand for a
proof of a plurality of protagonists[30].
It
seems that Dobbs-Allsopp best responded to the question of the number of voices
in Lam 3. For the sake of coherence of the discourse that the chapter contains
it is best to think of only one speaker – voice – here. The dynamics of Lam 3
make perfect sense if we envision the same protagonist operating from the
beginning till the end. Introducing a new protagonist in the end would be like
swapping horses in midstream – i.e. counterproductive for the rhetoric of the
whole discourse and the coherence of the poem. It is somewhat necessary that
the story used as a point of departure (vv. 1-18), continues and is brought to
a positive end (vv. 48-58). Only then one might relate it to the present condition
of the audience; and only then it may become a spark of hope for that very
audience. It would have a significantly less persuasive power if we had here
two protagonists (voices) referring to two different stories of salvation. Such
polyphony would be somewhat confusing for the audience – given its condition.
So, it is somewhat necessary for the voice to be an exclusive one.
2. An individual or a
collective personality?
Once
assumed that there is only one voice in Lam 3, we should further ask how we are
supposed to interpret it? Should we regard the geber as an individual or
rather a collective subject?[31]. Dobbs-Allsopp notices that scholars opting for an
individual here want to see in the geber a person “who is specifically a
representative of the larger community or whose experience is paradigmatic of
and for the larger community”; those willing to argue for a collective figure
here believe that “he is perhaps even another personification of the community”[32].
Given
the remarkable flexibility that the convention of voice permits, none of the
two should be a priori dismissed. If one accepts the voice convention at work
here, one also should understand that a single individual may well stand for a
collective personality. How then shall we determine the status of the geber as
intended by the author? It would be in order to call on some already determined
facts. In the poem, we hear just one single voice (as argued above), the voice
is distinctively male and anonymous. It is all we can read from the text. As
far as the “back end” of the figure is concerned, we may say nothing since we
do not have access to that data. Scholars can only speculate about that, and
some do in a quite creative way.
Among
those opting for the collective interpretation is, for example, A. Berlin, who
believes that he is “the personified voice of the exile”. Her take on the
matter is quite elaborate. She first claims that “the male voice is a
counterpart to the female voice of the city in chapter 1. […] Just as the
imagery in chapter 1 was feminine – the widow, the unfaithful wife, the raped
woman – so here the imagery seems more masculine, invoking the physical
violence against the male body associated with war and exile. […] Taken
together, chapters 1 and 3 give us gendered pictures of a female and male
victim – the city, battered and ruined, that remained behind; and the people,
entrapped and injured, who were conquered and deported. Second, this male
persona is a Job-like figure, crying out in his suffering to a God who refuses
to respond […]. This voice of the nation is, like Job, a literary fiction; but
unlike Job, he is not perfect. His sins – the nation's sins – must figure in
the theodicy. It is not a poem about the suffering of the righteous; it is a
poem about the suffering of the guilty”[33].
There
may be several objections raised against this interpretation; but we should see
at least three. First, it is debatable how accurate is the claim that the
masculinity of the main protagonist seems “invoking the physical violence
against the male body associated with war and exile”. The Book of Lamentations
is rich in imagery of physical violence and brutality, but they are not
exclusively attributed to male figures. A good example here might be
cannibalism pictured in Lam 2:20 and 4:10 - it is mothers eating their children
in the time of famine and siege[34]. Second, to see in the geber a Job-like figure
is not wrong, because at first, he may fit into that picture. Nevertheless, what makes Job a suitable protagonist is
his being perfect. The whole story may develop hanging on this one feature:
Job's perfection. Job is pictured as a perfect yet suffering hero. That is
disturbing the common sense of the audience believing in the principle of
retribution and, hence, intrigues the reader. “The author is at pains to tell
us that Job is perfect; if he were not perfect, the story would have to end
after the first trial”[35].
In other words, his perfection is an essential factor
for the story to be carried on. Berlin says explicitly that the geber –
is not perfect. So the whole analogy does not hold water. Third, one can hardly
claim that the figure of Job represents a more substantial group of mourners –
according to Berlin, the geber does. She believes it is the exiles, but
there is not even a mention of the exile in the text. Nevertheless, the
reference to a biblical wisdom milieu seems very accurate, which we will
address later.
On
the opposite side, we find for example J. Renkema who does not favor a
collective interpretation of the “I” in Lam 3, because it “would simply be a
repetition of Lady Jerusalem's claims from the first two songs […]”[36].
Instead, he follows exegetes opting for “an individual
(literary) interpretation, accepting at the same time that the individual
experience of the devout man has meaning, nonetheless, for the entire people
[…]”[37].
His approach is, however, somewhat confusing. He
argues that “the figure of the geber is both literary and historical at
the same time: literary because he embodies those devout individuals who are
tormented by their experiences, questions, and doubts, and who turn to God amid
their confusion. In this sense, one can speak of a collective personality: the geber,
as he is described in Lam III, represents the people who have been forced to
endure all of this affliction”[38].
So, on the one hand, he dismisses a collective
interpretation (p. 344), and on the other, he welcomes it – under certain
conditions (p. 351).
Even
though Renkema's opinion on the subject seems confusing, he is right when
joining exegetes who determine the geber as an individual whose
experience is meaningful for the audience. It seems that already in the initial
story the main protagonist is sharing, we find hints pointing toward an
individual interpretation. First, the self-presentation in verse 1 – be it an
echo of self-presentation formulas of kings in royal inscriptions from the
ancient Near East (an individual king speaking of himself cf. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations,
108) or only the emphasis put on the “I” with which the verse opens up -
appears to favor an individual interpretation. In addition, in 3:48, the geber
says to weep over “his people's ruin”. It would be unnatural to have a
group of subjects (supposedly standing behind the figure of the geber)
addressing themselves this way. Thus, for the sake of the correct perspective,
a disparity of subjects is needed[39].
Second,
we believe that the self-presentation if bearing some royal overtones (see
Dobbs-Allsopp) is instead following the pattern of Qohelet's royal fiction.
Here is the time to call upon previously mentioned wisdom motifs noted by
Berlin. She saw in him a Job-like figure – still coming from the wisdom milieu.
That has been addressed as not fully justified; nevertheless, the general
intuition is correct, and should be further developed. We propose to look at
him as a Qohelet-like figure. Qohelet is first pictured as a king and
sage, who, thanks to his royal status, is capable of exploring certain areas of
life that an average person would not (cf. Qoh 1:1 – 2:11). That royal fiction
is then abandoned after chapter 2[40]. What remains is his status as a wise man, whose
teaching is worth giving ear to. No doubt, he is an individual. It would not
make sense if he were a corporate identity. We would rather have a single
teacher speak to us at one time than a body of teachers commonly sharing their
wisdom. A somewhat similar pattern is present in chapter 3. The man is
intentionally introduced with some royal overtones (v. 1) and then sounds like
a sage sharing words of wisdom (vv. 25-39)[41].
There
is a particular audience whom he addresses. The audience is the devastated
nation (previously personified as Lady Zion) driven to the edge. He is hoping
for the nation to follow his lead. It would be inconceivable to have a
personified nation calling on itself to follow. Fourth, M. Stone rightly noted that
the content of Lam 3 may as well support the argument
for seeing in the protagonist and individual: “the poet's concern in this third
chapter has been deliberately focused more upon personal suffering than upon
collective suffering”[42].
So,
it seems best to look upon the geber as an individual. Given that the
convention of voice is at work here, we should address one more problem: is he
a real or fictional man hiding behind the cloud?
3. Historical or fictional?
Authors
who opt for an individual interpretation would see in him either a historical
figure (e.g., Jeremiah, king Jehoiachin, king Zedekiah) or simply abstain from
precise identifications and instead talk about an unnamed but somewhat
characteristic personage (e.g., a devout man, a suffering soldier[43]; “a
prominent inhabitant of Jerusalem residing in Zion”[44])[45].
One especially noticeable
way of referring to him is “Everyman” – a term that has resonated in various
exegetical studies[46].
“Everyman” brings to mind a
medieval English
morality play whose full title is The Summoning of Everyman[47].
The play “portrays a man's struggles, in the face of
death, to raise himself to a state of grace so that he may die a holy death,
secure in the expectation of everlasting life. […] The dramatist is careful to
present Everyman as a representative, not as an individually well-realized
character, so Everyman does not really have a specific past”[48]. As we
argued, the geber does have his past, and that is what he builds on (vv.
1-18). It seems that this very nuance should already make one
careful about naming our protagonist, “Everyman”. However, there is more to it.
Hillers was the first to
introduce the label “Everyman” as referred to the protagonist of Lam 3 into the
modern studies on the Book of Lamentations[49].
In doing so, he does not seem to make any direct
reference to the above mentioned medieval play. The geber's being an
Everyman means for Hillers the following: he is “an individual, not a
collective figure”; “not a specific historical figure, but rather anyone who
has suffered greatly. He is an ‘Everyman’, a figure who represents what any man
may feel when it seems that God is against him. Through this representative
sufferer, the poet points the way to the nation, as he shows the man who has
been through trouble moving into, then out of, near despair to patient faith
and penitence, thus becoming a model for the nation”[50].
So the clue of this term is the protagonist's being “a
representative” of human feelings experienced in the situation when God becomes
an enemy and calamities fall upon him. Dobbs-Allsopp follows the designation
coined by Hillers, but he slightly twists it. He says that “[…] the man of
Lamentations 3 is every bit of Hiller's ‘everyman’, just a regular guy whose
chief distinction – his suffering and the accident of his survival – he shares
in common with the other members of the post-destruction community”[51]. Here
there is no mention of representing common feelings regarding seeing God as an
adversary. Instead, what he seems to emphasize is the geber's being “a
regular guy” – touched by calamities shared in common with his leftover
compatriots. One may question that “chief distinction” since, if he shares it
in common with the rest of the survivors, then what gives him credentials to
address the community? If he is just “a regular guy”, why would anybody want to
listen to him?
Attractive
as it may seem, this interpretation is obscuring the picture. To say that the
geber is a “typical sufferer” or an “Everyman” sounds like a slogan. Can
suffering be measured, stereotyped, or “typical”? Hillers himself shows correct
intuition noting that the geber is pictured as “the man who has been
through trouble moving into, then out of, near despair to patient faith and
penitence, thus becoming a model for the nation”. A “typical sufferer” would
have never had that strength and will to become a model for anyone. He cannot
be either a “regular guy” (as Dobbs-Allsopp wanted) sharing in common with
other Judean survivors “his suffering and the accident of his survival”. On the
contrary, it seems that he must be an extraordinary individual, somebody who
had a record of having had gone through unprecedented suffering as we presented
it in the first paragraph. That terrible experience he had once to cope with
places him above an average sufferer of his time. Only when we consider him an
extraordinary individual, can he become a means for the author “to point the
way to the nation” – using Hillers' own words. The geber uses the
personal experience he dwells on, to help the compatriots move on with their
lives as he once did. It is best then to side with scholars abstaining from
precise identifications, which ultimately turn into pure guessing. Those
identifications are not necessary if one realizes the second convention at work
here, namely: anonymity.
Summing
up, we should say that we have a voice of a male – a very vocal individual. He
is not a corporate personality but a single person with a record of some
tremendous suffering followed by a spectacular act of salvation from Yahweh
that occurred before the national catastrophe of the time. There is nothing in
the text allowing us to determine with precision who that person is. It is
useless to ask whether he is a fictional or historical figure. The voice
convention makes those questions irrelevant. He is as real as we make him.
III. Anonymity
One
must note right away that anonymity as a convention is not that unusual a
phenomenon in the Bible. We may find excellent examples in biblical wisdom
literature (see “Woman of Valor” from Proverbs [31,10-31] and Qohelet whose
identity is somewhat dimmed) or in Jesus' parables[52]. It would be useless to try to pinpoint the true
identity of the man who is reported talking to himself: “You have plenty of
grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink, and be merry!” (Luke
12:16-20; NIV translation). The anonymous figures are assigned certain roles in
epic and lyric texts as well. That should also be true about the protagonist of
Lam 3. In other words, he is anonymous, and the author deliberately introduced
him as such. Ironically, only if we realize that anonymity, may we assume the
role assigned to him in the text. However, the problem starts right there,
because we may only be guessing what that role might be.
1. Possible reasons for
choosing the convention of anonymity
Just as in the case of Job and
Qoheleth, the geber is more than a character in a story – he is a
“means” for bringing home specific ideas[53].
However, the problem remains: why did the author
choose an anonymous figure over an easily recognizable one – as was done, for
example, by authors of pseudepigraphical writings? There may be several
reasons.
First,
it is in line with the first two chapters where the protagonists are anonymous.
They are voices: narrator and Lady/Daughter Zion. The first designation (narrator)
does not occur in Lam 1 – 2, but scholars often use it as a technical term
referring to the male figure present there who tries to give an objective
picture of the calamities that fell on Judah, the Holy City and the Judeans[54]. The
reader never finds out his name. His identity remains mysterious. The figure of
the narrator meets the criteria of anonymity. Thus in the case of the geber,
we may have a continuation of an earlier adapted convention. In a way, it may
help the reader to focus and provides a smooth passage from one chapter to the
other.
Second, it may be a
groundbreaking effort for introducing a new type of narrator. The main protagonist of Lam 3 is quite different from the previously
mentioned figures. Some scholars see him as a counterpart of Lady Zion[55],
but it seems to make much more sense to look at him as resembling the narrator
from the first two chapters. His take on the whole story is different from the
previous narrator. He must be a different figure then[56].
He never puts on the mask of an impartial reporter as was attempted by the
other narrator[57]. Instead, he tries to make it as personal as possible. Right from the
start, the geber breaks with the mood of the first two chapters. There
we heard the dramatic sigh, “alas!” (Hebr. ‘ekah) as an opening
statement (1:1a; 2:1a). It was hardly neutral in its meaning. On the
contrary, it carried quite a vast array of emotions.
Here we have an opening statement by an individual – “I” (Hebr. ’ănî). He signals that he would rather focus on himself,
or that he has something personal to share. At first, the reader might find him
a megalomaniac. In the face of the disaster, he wants to draw attention to
himself? Only further down in his speech, it becomes obvious that he is not a
self-centered person. One should rather see there an element of his
sophisticated strategy for cheering up his compatriots and boosting their hope
for a better future. By his testimony, he wants to gain their trust and build
his credentials. The protagonist is consciously working his way to the
hearts and minds of his audience. Certain truths are somewhat better conveyed
if spoken from behind the cloud of anonymity. One may refer to an example
coming from the world of modern writers. Elena Ferrante, one of the most important
and successful contemporary Italian writers, firmly refuses to reveal her
identity or make public appearances. Elena Ferrante is her pen name. She wants
to hide behind this pseudonym. “I discovered that there are difficult truths
that are to be written without being anonymous. I have also discovered that
there are truths that prefer to have a face that remains in the shadows because
the things that are said are so personal that to add blood and flesh to them
would mean two things: to give up authenticity of the story or to die of it”[58].
Third, the reason for picking
anonymity over revealed identity may have to do with the condition of the
audience. The morale of the Judean survivors hit “rock bottom”. There was no
one to trust or to be trusted. Bringing into the picture someone well recognized
with a familiar name and identity, one of the leaders who failed as
authorities, would not do any good in this respect. The audience was fed up
with authoritative figures, and tended to blame them for the calamities
experienced (e.g., priests, prophets, elders cf. 2:14; 4:13-16)[59].
Employing a non-anonymous figure who has not yet made a name for himself would
be equally counterproductive. So, the geber is in between. He introduces
himself as if everyone should know who he was (see the definite article
preceding the noun geber) and yet – even though his story sounds
familiar, he is not identified. That leaves room for reading into the text and
the character and consequently engages the reader. This way he becomes much
more intriguing to the audience. An average reader may have the impression that
he or she knows the person speaking from behind the veil due to some details
used in his testimony, but he or she may never be sure since his words do not
permit any certainty as far as his identification is concerned.
Fourth, it may be worth
mentioning Dobbs-Allsopp's observations regarding the lyrical “I” and a
strategy of transitivity, which he finds here. He states that the Book of
Lamentations as lyric poetry replaces character by voice and persona, which results
in its taking “its familiar pronominal form, prototypically realized as an ‘I’
addressing a ‘You’”[60].
It is all for the sake of “ritual transitivity” which works the way that the
reader “entertains the statements made by the poem's speaker, tries them on,
and reexperiences them from the inside, as it were. […] In this manner, the
ritual lyric promotes a transcendence that can begin to envision alternative
realities”.[61] He
further argues that the individual “I” of the verses 1-18 by the end of the poem
becomes an all-inclusive “I”. “Individual auditors are encouraged to try on
this voice and what it says because they have been explicitly included in that
voice”[62].
We agree with this approach up to
a point. It is undeniable that the anonymous lyrical “I” (voice) would help the
reader(s) venting grief which otherwise might be unbearable. It is also most
probably true that the author aims to get the reader involved, but that does
not need to be achieved by replacing character with an anonymous voice. Most
biblical stories, even though not employing anonymous voices, tend to be
engaging for the reader. Finally, we disagree with the implication that the
lyrical “I” here be read as a “communal voice” becoming a reflection of a
common experience. Dobbs-Allsop states: “The ‘man’s’ experience, his suffering
as well as his hopes and longings are our experience, that is, the experience
of the broader community: his voice is our/communal voice”[63].
If that was the case, what would be the point in that for the reader? Would
that bring the audience any comfort? Would that serve just the mere
satisfaction that they all suffered equally? One must remain skeptical about
such approach. Instead, the author of the poem insists on the geber’s individuality
and his credentials enabling him to address the audience. They are born out of
a very personal experience which occurred before the current national tragedy –
as we argued in the first paragraph. Turning to the wisdom instruction he
enlarges the picture, showing at the same time his maturity gained by the
previously mentioned experience. Now, in the time of national turmoil he has a
lot to offer, so he calls upon his audience to act, namely repent and turn to
Yahweh for help. Sure enough his personal (individual) testimony of previously
experienced salvation is offered. Moreover, only with that in mind, considering
what he and the rest of his audience are going through, he may identify himself
with the rest of the nation begging Yahweh for salvation – in first-person singular
(vv. 59-66).
Summing up the observations
concerning the convention of anonymity employed in Lam 3 we may say that there
is no value in trying to establish the identity of the geber because
actually it is beyond the purpose of the author. His being an efficient means
for the poem does not depend on the reader's getting to know his true self. It
is the very logic behind the use of the convention of anonymity. The author
creates him as an anonymous figure whom he entrusted with a theological task
which otherwise would be challenging. The convention of anonymity is intriguing
and engaging at the same time. It helps to address significant problems of the
post-destruction community without unnecessary pathos, and avoids hollow
advice. It also extends the array of people who might give ear to the testimony
of the geber. Familiar to many, yet never adequately identified,
intriguing for his unprecedented experience of suffering and salvation,
speaking from the heart and not from books, he may sound credible to the
biggest skeptics.
Summary
Fully aware of the multiplicity
of opinions and approaches regarding the main protagonist of Lam 3, we
attempted to offer one more way looking upon him. First we examined might be
understood for the word geber with which he introduces himself (v.1). The
term geber conveys the idea of a strong male figure, and his strength
has as much physical and moral sense as a spiritual one. The author draws a
picture of a man who once strong, was broken by unexpected and terrible
suffering. That contrast is crucial for the whole discourse. Then we focused on
that discourse which appears multilayered. We argued that it operates in two
time dimensions. In one it takes on the form of a flashback referring to some
past experience of personal tragedy and salvation from Yahweh that came when
hope had died. Then it also touches upon the current national catastrophe that
is affecting the Judean survivors – the geber included. The protagonist
dwells on that experience in order to bring home his message of hope for the
nation. Having once gone through a horrible time of turmoil and having lived
some spectacular salvation, he becomes much more credible in addressing the
suffering of the nation at the current time. This experience from the past gave
him credentials to speak authoritatively – as opposed to the narrator from the
two previous chapters who could not. That is an
asset not everyone can bring to the table at the time of the disaster on a
national scale.
Having
proposed a new time perspective, we went on to examine two crucial conventions
that the author used to fashion the figure of the protagonist, namely voice and
anonymity. First we dealt with the voice convention. We argued
that he was an “exclusive soloist”, a male figure, rather individual than
corporate personality. He is not just an “Everyman” (as Hillers) or “a regular
guy” (as Dobbs-Allsopp), but an extraordinary man who knows the bitterness of
suffering and the excitement of salvation. Finally we saw that it was
counterproductive to determine whether we should regard him as a fictional or
historical figure. The latter does not seem to concern the author.
The author introduces a very individual “voice” – indeed a very
talkative figure. Seeing the figure in the voice convention, we should attempt
to find out who stands behind this figure – i.e,. on whose behalf does the geber
speak. That proved impossible to determine. The fact that the author emphasizes
the protagonist's individuality may be an indication that it expresses a single
approach amid a small minority of the Judean survivors. That must remain
hypothetical, though. However, one can safely assume that the “voice”
convention in Lam 3 serves to – nomen omen – give voice to a positive,
alternative thinking.
The second convention examined above was anonymity. Nothing in the text legitimizes claims about
the so-called “true identity” of the geber. Asking about the identity of the geber
betrays lack of understanding and appreciation for the convention of anonymity
at work here. All the efforts to the contrary were unproductive and missed the
point. The reasons for its use may be different (as outlined above) but it
seems undeniable that we should not be so much interested in discovering the
identity of the protagonist as of his role in the drama. Anonymity is
attractive and intriguing. The figure seems familiar and yet he escapes our
ability to read him like a book. The geber is anonymous and for the sake
of the drama his identity – whether historical or fictional – should remain in
the shadows. The anonymity of the protagonist in Lam 3 is something carefully
crafted by the author. The geber is a skillfully fashioned as an
anonymous figure compelled to defend matters of utmost importance.
The two conventions help the
author to create a very dynamic protagonist. They also contribute
significantly to creating a convincing literary environment within which a
mysterious figure can operate and become a means for articulating a message of
hope.
ReferencEs
Alter, Robert. The Art of
Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Bergant, Dianne. Lamentations.
Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abdngdon Press, 2003.
Berlin, Adele. Lamentations.
The Old Testament Library; Louisville-London: Westminster John Knox Press,
2004.
Berlin, Adele. “On Writing a Commentary on Lamentations”.
En Lamentations in Ancient and Contemporary Cultural Contexts, editado
por Nancy C. Lee, Carleen Mandolfo, 3–11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2008.
Bier, Miriam J. 'Perhaps there is Hope': Reading
Lamentations as a Polyphony of Pain, Penitence, and Protest. The Library of
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 603; London-New York: Bloomsbury T&T
Clark, 2016.
Boase, Elizabeth. The
Fulfilment of Doom? The Dialogic Interaction between the Book of Lamentations
and the Pre-Exilic/Early Exilic Prophetic Literature. Library of Hebrew Bible.
Old Testament Studies 437; New York: T & T Clark, 2006.
Boase, Elizabeth.
“Constructing Meaning in the Face of Suffering: Theodicy in Lamentations”, Vetus
Testamentum 58 (2008), 449-468.
Brown, Francis, Driver Samuel
R., Briggs Charles A., The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon:
With an Appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996).
Bruster, Douglas y Rasmussen, Eric
(ed.), Everyman and Mankind. London-Oxford-New York- New Delhi-Sydney:
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., 2009.
Bosman, Hendrik. “The Function
of (Maternal) Cannibalism in the Book of Lamentations (2:20 & 4:10)”, Scriptura
110.2 (2012), 152-165.
Dobbs-Allsopp, Fred W. Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A
Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible. Biblica et Orientalia
44; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993.
Dobbs-Allsopp, Fred W. Lamentations.
Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching;
Louisville-Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Dobbs-Allsopp, Frederick W. On Biblical Poetry. Oxford-New York:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Fox, Michael V. “Frame-Narrative and
Composition in the Book of Qohelet”, Hebrew Union College Annual 48
(1977) 83-106.
Fox, Michael V. A Time to
Tear Down & A Time to Build Up. A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand
Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “Elusive
Lamentations: What Are They About?”, Interpretation 67.2 (2013),
121–132.
Hamilton, Victor P. “rb,G,,”. En New International Dictionary
of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, vol. 1, editado por Willem A.
VanGemeren, 816-817. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1997.
Heim, Knut M. “The Personification of Jerusalem and the Drama of Her Bereavement in Lamentations”. En Zion City of Our God,
editado por Richard S. Hess y Gordon
J.
Wenham,
129–169. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Hillers, Delbert R. Lamentations:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, second, revised edition.
The Anchor Yale Bible 7A; New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 1992.
Iwański, Dariusz. Silenced
by Job. Nativity Series I; Menlo Park, 2006.
Iwanski, Dariusz. The
Dynamics of Job’s Intercession. Analecta Biblica 161; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
2006.
Johnson, Bö. “Form and Message
in Lamentations”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
97.1 (1985) 58–73.
Kosmala, Hans. “rb;G" gābhar; hr"WbG> gebhûrāh; rybig> gebhîr; rABGI gibbôr; rb,G< geber”. En Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Traducido por John T. Willis, vol 2,
editado por Gerhard J. Botterweck y
Helmer Ringgren, 367–382. Grand Rapids, Mi: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1999.
Krüger, Thomas. Qoheleth. A
Commentary. Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.
Lanahan, William F. “The Speaking
Voice in the Book of Lamentations”,
Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), 41–49.
Lester, Guilliatt A. (ed.), Three
Late Medieval Morality Plays: Mankind, Everyman, Mundus et Infants. A New
Mermaids Anthology; London-Oxford-New York-New Delhi-Sydney: Bloomsbury
Publishing Plc., 1981.
Miller, Charles W., “Reading
Voices: Personification, Dialogism, and the Reader of Lamentations 1”, Biblical
Interpretation 9.4 (2001), 393-408.
Miller, Patrick D. They
Cried to the Lord. The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis
MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1994.
Ney, Stephen. “Take good heed
to the ending: the Medieval Everyman and its modern interpreters”, Crux
50.4 (2014), 39-42.
Perry, Robin A. Lamentations.
The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge:
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010.
Renkema, Johan. Lamentations. Traducido por
Brian Doyle. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Peeters-Leuven, 1998.
Salters, Robin B. A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Lamentations. The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments; London- New York: T&T Clark International, 2010.
Stone, Michael S. “Human
Suffering in Lamentations”, Revue Biblique 90.4 (1983), 534-555.
Westermann, Claus. Lamentations.
Issues and Interpretation. Traducido por
Charles Muenchow. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/20/elena-ferrante-author-secret-identity-strega-prize
consultado el 23 de Septiembre de 2019
Dariusz Iwanski
Faculty of Theology
Nicolas Copernicus University
ul. Gagarina 37
87-100 Torun (Poland)
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0001-5444-3219
[1] Within the last three decades, studies
on Lamentations have flourished and showed signs of transition. More than ten
years ago, Adele Berlin, “On Writing a Commentary
on Lamentations”, en Lamentations in
Ancient and Contemporary Cultural Contexts, ed. Nancy C. Lee, Carleen Mandolfo
(Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 43; Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2008), 5, noted that generally speaking the research shifted
from analyzing specific problems to a more global treatment of various aspects
of this literary classic.
[2] Miriam J. Bier, ‘Perhaps there is
Hope’: Reading Lamentations as a Polyphony of Pain, Penitence, and Protest (The
Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 603; London-New York: Bloomsbury
T&T Clark, 2016), 105.
[3] Awareness of the grid of conventions
applied in Lamentations, and Lam 3 in particular, seems essential for the
reading of this work of art. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative
(New York: Basic Books, 1981), 47, stated that thanks to the conventions
“we can recognize significant or simply pleasing patterns of repetition,
symmetry, contrast; we can discriminate between the verisimilar and the
fabulous, pick up directional clues in a narrative work, see what is innovative
and what is deliberately traditional at each nexus of the artistic creation”.
Conventions apply to lyrical texts as well.
[4] On the other hand, one must see that
this is not the only term referring to “man” in Lam 3. Frederick W. Dobbs-Allsopp, On
Biblical Poetry (Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 206,
notes that in the sections 3:19-24,25-39 our protagonist “employs a succession
of terms for “man” or “human being”: geber (vv. 27,35,39), benê-’îš (v.33), and ’ādām (vv. 36,39)”. Nevertheless, when the
protagonist refers to himself, he never uses any other term but geber or nepeš (man, soul, living being,
personality; cf. vv. 17,20,24). The latter further emphasizes the very
personal character of his discourse.
[5] Hans Kosmala, “rb;G" gābhar; hr"WbG> gebhûrāh;
rybig> gebhîr; rABGI gibbôr; rb,G< geber”, en Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, trad. John T. Willis, ed.
Gerhard J. Botterweck y Helmer Ringgren, vol 2, (Grand Rapids, Mi:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 368.
[6] Kosmala, “ rb;G", gābhar”, 373.377.
[7] Francis Brown, “rb,G< geber” en Samuel R. Driver,
Charles A. Briggs, Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon: With an Appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 149–150.
[8] Johan Renkema, Lamentations,
trad. Brian Doyle (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament;
Peeters-Leuven, 1998), 351.
[9] Kosmala, “rb;G" gābhar”, 379. Victor P. Hamilton, “ rb;G,,” en New International Dictionary
of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, vol. 1, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1997), 816. See other examples of its
occurrences in the books of: Job (e.g. 3:3; 4:17; 14:14), Proverbs (e.g. 6:34;
20:24; 28:3), Psalms (e.g. 18:26; 37:23; 89:49), Jeremiah (e.g. 22:30; 30:6;
31:22).
[10] Delbert R. Hillers, Lamentations: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, second, revised edition
(The Anchor Yale Bible 7A; New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 1992),
122.
[11] Robin A. Perry, Lamentations (The
Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), 94.
[12] E.g., Robin B. Salters, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Lamentations (The International Critical
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; London-New
York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 186; Fred W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations
(Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching;
Louisville-Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 109; Dianne Bergant, Lamentations
(Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 82.
[13] Salters, Lamentations, 210.
[14] Hillers, Lamentations, 121,
notes: “[…] the speaker in 3 is explicitly set apart from “my people” (‘ammi,
14) – a point that evidently bothered ancient adherents to the. Collective
theory as well, since the reading is changed to “peoples” […] in the Syriac,
some Greek manuscripts, and also in a Sebir having reference to the Masoretic
Text, and in some Hebrew manuscripts”. Cf. also Bier, ‘Perhaps There is
Hope’, 111.
[15] Salters, Lamentations, 187.
[16] See e.g., 1:5,22; 2:22. The most vivid
example of God being the enemy is to be found in 2:1-9,17; see also 1:13-15; 4:11;
for humans as enemies see e.g. 1:3,10; 2:16; 4:18-19; 5:8,11-12.
[17] Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the
Lord. The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis MN: Augsburg
Fortress, 1994) 138.
[18] It is not unusual for the psalms of
lament that the psalmist(s) bring up records of some previously experienced
salvation acts – either on a personal or national level (e.g., Ps 22:4-6;
44:2-8; 77:11-20)
[19] Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry,
207.
[20] William F. Lanahan, “The Speaking Voice
in the Book of Lamentations”, Journal of
Biblical Literature 93, (1974), 41–49.
[21] Ibidem, p. 41.
[22] More recently this view is supported for
example by Erhard S. Gerstenberger, “Elusive Lamentations: What Are They About?”, Interpretation 67.2
(2013): 123.
[23] Provan, Lamentations, 6-7, 33-34,
57-58, 80-84, 109-110, 123-124.
[24] Knut M. Heim, “The Personification
of Jerusalem and the Drama of Her Bereavement
in Lamentations”, en Zion City of Our God,
ed. Richard S. Hess y Gordon
J. Wenham
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1999), 167.
[25] Elizabeth Boase, The Fulfilment of
Doom? The Dialogic Interaction between the Book of Lamentations and the
Pre-Exilic/Early Exilic Prophetic Literature (Library of Hebrew Bible. Old
Testament Studies 437; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 205.
[26] Hillers, Lamentations,
64; see also Gerstenberger, “Elusive
Lamentations”, 123-124.
[27] Hillers, Lamentations, 131.
[28] Perry, Lamentations, 92.
[29] Dobbs Allsopp, Lamentations,105.
[30] Dobbs Allsopp, Lamentations,107.
See also Salters, Lamentations, 186.
[31] Salters, Lamentations, 185-186, noted that since the beginning of critical scholarship, there were two
dominant views concerning the identification of haggeber. He had been
viewed as either an individual or collective sufferer.
[32] Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 106.
[33] Adele Berlin, Lamentations (The
Old Testament Library; Louisville-London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004)
84-85.
[34] Hendrik Bosman, “The Function of
(Maternal) Cannibalism in the Book of Lamentations (2:20 & 4:10)”, Scriptura
110.2 (2012), 159-161.
[35] Dariusz Iwański, Silenced by Job
(Nativity Series I; Menlo Park, 2006) 35; see also Dariusz Iwanski, The
Dynamics of Job’s Intercession (Analecta Biblica 161; Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 2006) 72-78.361
[36] Renkema, Lamentations, 344.
[37] Ibidem, 344.
[38] Ibidem, 350-351.
[39] Claus Westermann, Lamentations. Issues
and Interpretation, trad. Charles Muenchow (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994) 69, dismisses a collective interpretation: “because many verses - such as
v. 27 - only make good sense when they are read as referring to a single
individual, and also because the ‘I’ must on several occasions clearly be
distinguished from the people as a whole. The same objection applies to the
thesis that some representative of the community is meant by the ‘I’ of this
chapter (Keil, Ewald, Oettli, Ricciotti, Rinaldi)”.
[40] Thomas Krüger, Qoheleth. A
Commentary (Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004) 39-40; Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear
Down & A Time to Build Up. A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids:
W.B. Eerdmans, 1999) 153.
[41] Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations,
119-122, calls it “sapiential consolation”; Perry, Lamentations, 102,
coins a label for this section: “The Valiant Man Offers General Wise Advice on
Suffering”.
[42] Stone, “Human Suffering”, 551. See also:
Dobbs-Allsop, Lamentations, 110; Bier, ‘Perhaps There is Hope’,
109.
[43] Lanahan, “The Speaking
voice”, 41-49.
[44] Renkema, Lamentations, 350.
[45] For a survey of opinions see Perry, Lamentations,
94-95; Bier, ‘Perhaps There is Hope.’ 106.
[46] Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations,
106-109.
[47] Stephen Ney, “Take good heed to the
ending: the Medieval Everyman and its modern interpreters”, Crux 50.4
(2014) 39-40; Douglas Bruster – Eric Rasmussen (ed.), Everyman and Mankind
(London-Oxford-New York-New Delhi-Sydney: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., 2009) 41.47.49
[48] Guilliatt A. Lester (ed.), Three Late
Medieval Morality Plays: Mankind, Everyman, Mundus et Infants (A New
Mermaids Anthology; London-Oxford-New York-New Delhi-Sydney: Bloomsbury
Publishing Plc.,1981) xxv-xxvi.
[49] Salters, Lamentations, 186, notes
that Hillers introduced the term taking his cue
from Ewald (324) and Keil (403).
[50] Hillers, Lamentations, 122.
[51] Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 109.
See also Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry, 207; Renkema, Lamentations,
351.
[52] Elizabeth Boase, “Constructing
Meaning in the Face of Suffering: Theodicy in Lamentations”, Vetus
Testamentum 58 (2008), 463, observes: “Wisdom-like material is present in
Lam. iii (vv. 25-30; 34-39). The focus of the material is on both the nature of
Yahweh and on the proper stance to be taken in the face of suffering”.
[53] Michael V. Fox, “Frame-Narrative and
Composition in the Book of Qohelet”, Hebrew Union College Annual 48
(1977) 94.
[54] Charles W. Miller, “Reading Voices:
Personification, Dialogism, and the Reader of Lamentations 1”, Biblical
Interpretation 9.4 (2001), 393.
[55] E.g., Berlin, Lamentations, 84.
Renkema, Lamentations, 344, speaks of a possibility of “a certain
identity between both figures”.
[56] Perry, Lamentations, 95-96, says:
“I tentatively suggest that, when reading in context following Poems 1 and 2,
the implied readers will at least entertain the hypothesis that the valiant man
is the narrator of the first two poems”, but he also admits that “it could be
that a third speaker enters the book at this point”.
[57] Fred W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter
of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Biblica et
Orientalia 44; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993) 33.
[58] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/20/elena-ferrante-author-secret-identity-strega-prize
consultado el 23 de Septiembre de 2019
[59] Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 108.
[60] Ibidem, 13.
[61] Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry,
206.
[62] Ibidem, 207.
[63] Ibidem, 207.