There are several passages which militate against Jer.’s authorship. La 2° (‘Her prophets find no vision from the LorD’) might almost be pronounced decisive. In this same verse, more- over, jij is used in a special sense which meets us for the first time in Ezk 12. A number of other instances are cited by Cornill (Hinleit.* 247) where the language shows such a dependence upon Ezekiel (who did not publish his prophecies before B.C. 570), that Jeremiah’s authorship seems out of the question. La 4! does not sound like the language of Jeremiah, who never shared the hopes of those who looked for help to Egypt. La 4°° could hardly be spoken of Zedekiah by one who judged him as Jeremiah did. Chs. 1 and 5 imply an acquaintance with Deutero-Isaiah, while ch. 3 contains echoes of the later psalms and of Job (which probably dates at the earliest from the Exile). In his Job and Solomon, Cheyne adduces the following parallels with the latter book — La 31:9-- 700 198, La 33=Job 30”, La 3!°=Job 10%, La 3 8—Job 7” 1612-38, La 34 ®=Job 30% The dependence of the elegies upon Job is more likely than the converse supposition.
A circumstance that may have some bearing on the question of authorship, is that the order of the letters y and 5 is different in chs. 24 from what it isin ch. 1. Τα the latter the normal order is followed, in the other three chapters » precedes y (a phenomenon which occurs also in the correct text of Ps 34 as well as in Pr 31 [according to the LXXj], probably also in Ps 9f., and, according to Bickell, in Nuh 1; ef. Budde, Klagelieder, 10 1.). Even if we suppose, with Thenius, Ewald, Nigels- bach, and others, that at one time the order of the Heb. alphabet was not definitely fixed, it is
a! Budde points out, however, that the Chronicler does not attribute all five poems to Jeremiah, but apparently only one of them, the other four being assigned to the ‘singing men and singing women’ (Klagelieder, p. 73).
| LAMENTATIONS
LAMP
28
hardly likely that one and the same author wou!d |
have followed different orders in two successive poems. This would indicate, then, that at least ch. 1 is from a different hand from chs. 2-4.
In regard to the linguistic aspect of the ques- ticn, it may be mentioned that Lohr (ZA7'IW, 1894, Heft 1; cf. Driver, LOT® 463) subjects the vocabulary of Jeremiah and of Lamentations to a comparison, the result of which is that while the words common to both are four times as numerous as those found only in Lamentations, yet the latter contains a great many words not found in Jere- miah. These words, moreover, are without ex- ception important, while the common use of words like vy or 13, of course, proves nothing as to com- munity of authorship (¢.g. οὖ for ws, which occurs in La 2™-16 49 518, is unknown to Jer). Many of the above considerations tell not only against Jeremiah’s authorship but against—
VY. THE UNITY OF THE Book.—While there is comparative agreement amongst modern critics that Jeremiah is not the author, there has been much diversity of opinion as to the number of authors whose work is to be traced in the book. W. R. Smith argued strongly that the book is a unity (art. ‘Lamentations’ in Encycl. Brit.*), but the prevailing tendency at present 18 decidedly adverse to this opinion. It is pretty generally agreed that at least ch. 3 is by a different and later hand than the rest of the book. Budde formerly (ZATW, 1882) agreed with Stade, who is content to go this length, and who assigns 1. 2. 4. 5 to a single author. Thenius holds 2 and 4 to be Jeremiah’s, while 1. 3. 5 are assigned each to a separate author. A considerable number of modern critics divide the book into three groups in the following chronological order (2 and 4) (1 and 5) (3). This, which was the scheme of Noéldeke, has gained the adherence of Lohr, Cornill, Wildeboer, and now (Klagelieder, 1898, pp. 74ff.) substantially of Budde.* Another arrangement of the book is that of Cheyne (Jeremiah in ‘Men of the Bible’ series), which also recognizes three groups (1. 2. 4) (3) (5). On this question criticism has not yet spoken the last word.
VI. PLACE AND DATE OF CoMPOSITION.—Upon these two points there are differences of opinion even amongst those who support Jeremiah’s authorship of the book. The treshness of the pictures has often been adduced as an argument for an early date. It may be said, however, that while there is something that appeals to the imagination in the old picture of the faithful prophet sitting down to lament the fate of the city which had turned a deaf ear to his warn- ings, it is a psychological improbability that a man of Jeremiah’s spirit should have turned out acrostic poems, and especially such a laboured work of art as ch. 3 amidst blackened ruins where the fire had hardly cooled, and in streets where the blood had hardly dried. Hence, even if the poems were his, we should have to think of a relatively late date for their composition, when the bitterness of the moment had given place to calm reflection. (With this tallies 5” ‘so long time’). Thenius, who regarded 2 and 4 as genuine productions of Jeremiah, dated the one at about B.C. 581 (prior to the third deportation after the murder of Gedaliah), and the other at a later