[1] Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 334. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush affirm that “Some rabbis also used the name Qinot, meaning ‘funeral dirges’ or ‘lamentations” (Old Testament Survey, 617).

[2] LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 617.

[3] Hill and Walton write, “The despairing tone of the petition for national renewal in the closing lines of the final poem (5:19-22) indicates that the writer apparently knew nothing of Jehoiachin’s discharge from prison and its implications for the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies for covenant restoration in Israel (30--33)” (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 334-35).

[4] The Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, The Targum at Jeremiah 1:1; Talmud B. Bat 15a; LXX and Vulgate headings. The LXX introduction which reads” [AND it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremias [ jIeremiva"] sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said] (The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English Translation; and with Various Readings and Critical Notes, 972). Hill and Walton write, “This association was probably based on a misunderstanding of the statement in 2 Chronicles 35:25 that ‘Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah’“ (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 376-77). But this is not a necessary conclusion.

[5] Ibid., 377.

[6] See Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 374 for a discussion of some of this style.

[7] Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 334.

[8] See the discussion by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 374-75.

[9] Archer writes, “If Jeremiah was not the composer, whoever wrote it must have been a contemporary of his and witnessed the same pitiless destruction meted out to Zion by its Chaldean conquerors” (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 374).

[10] The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses’ Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the “books” [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the “Former” prophetic books by the “Latter” (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

[11] Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

[12] The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

[13] Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above). See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151. This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, “Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

[14] Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Babylon in 587 B.C. and by the Romans in A.D. 70), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

[15] Law = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

History = Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

Poetry = Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

Prophets/Major = Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel

Prophets/Minor = Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For a more extensive overview see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 17-25.

[16] Heater writes, “Remember that the Hebrew alphabet has twenty-two letters beginning with “A” and ending with “T.” Chapters one and two consist of twenty-two stanzas, the first word of each beginning with the appropriate letter of the alphabet. Chapter three also has twenty-two stanzas but each of the three lines of each stanza begins with the appropriate letter. Chapter four goes back to the pattern found in chapters one and two with the exception that it has two-line stanzas rather than three. The fifth chapter has twenty-two stanzas (or lines in this case), the lines do not begin with successive letters of the alphabet.

One possible reason for acrostic poetry may be to aid the memory, but if that were its only purpose, one might expect more Scripture to have been written in that style. It is primarily an alternate style of writing poetry and is thus a piece of artistry” (Homer Heater, Jr., “Notes on the Book of Lamentations,” unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets [Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990], 147).

One bit of significance from this observation is made by Archer concerning chapter three: “The first 18 verses of this chapter express mournful lamentation and portray God as cruelly severe, but then verses 19-39 abruptly change to a mood of hope and praise to God for His faithfulness and compassion. This is certainly the type of ‘discrepancy’ which critics have utilized in other books of the Old Testament to demonstrate a difference in authorship. In this particular chapter, however, no theory of multiple sources is possible, for the whole composition is firmly and inescapably locked together by the acrostic pattern in which it is written. Hence this chapter may be taken as irrefutable proof that it was possible for an ancient Hebrew author quite suddenly to shift from one mood to another and express sentiments that markedly contrast with each other (even though they are not actually contradictory)” (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 375).

[17] Homer Heater, Jr., “Notes on the Book of Lamentations,” unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets [Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990], 148.

[18] Homer Heater, Jr., “Notes on the Book of Lamentations,” unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets [Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990], 148-49.

[19] Hill and Walton write, “The prophets had forewarned Judah of the impending catastrophe for two centuries (cf. 2 Kings 24:3; 21:12). Alas, the repetition of the threat of divine judgment dulled the ears of the people and insulated them against the idea of repentance. Moreover, the delay of Yahweh’s visitation had lulled the nation into a false sense of security (e.g., Jer 6:13- 14; 7:1-4). Lamentations bewails the day, warned of by the prophets, in which Yahweh would become ‘like an enemy,’ destroying Israel ‘without pity’ (Lam. 2:2, 5)” (Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 335).

[20] Charles H. Dyer, “Lamentations,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1207.

[21] Martin writes, “Such parallelism must be more than an amazing coincidence. The author of Lamentations was making the point that the judgment described in Deuteronomy 28 had come upon the nation. Therefore, that judgment, although lamentable, was not surprising. It was the just consequence of the actions which had been performed by the people. It was due to their disobedience” (John A Martin, “An Outline of Lamentations,” unpublished class notes in 304 preexlic and exilic prophets, (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1983), 5-6). See also Charles H. Dyer, “Lamentations,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1209.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 373. Childs writes, “The canonical shaping of the material has not supplied a ‘happy ending’, but it has moved the problem into its proper confessional context from which the community of faith must continue to struggle with it own history before God, as it always has in the past” (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 595-96).

Continuing, Childs writes, “The effect of the canonical process on the book of Lamentations was not one of dehistoricizing the fully time-conditioned response of the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather, the response was brought in to relationship with a dimension of faith which provided a religious context from which to seek meaning in suffering. One  of the results of incorporating the events of the city’s destruction into Israel’s traditional terminology of worship was to establish a semantic bridge between the historical situation of the early sixth century and the language of faith which struggles with divine judgment. For this reason the book of Lamentations serves every successive generation of the suffering faithful for whom history has become unbearable” (Ibid., 196).

Finally he writes, “By failure to take seriously the canonical shape of the book, the actual historical response to the destruction by those who treasured Lamentations as scripture has been overlooked. The major theological issue at stake in the canonical book is the conflict between those who thought that the destruction of Jerusalem had rendered the truth of Israel’s traditional faith in God’s promise meaningless, and those who confessed that in spite of the enormous rupture caused by Israel’s sin, the avenue of God’s renewed mercy, even if withdrawn momentarily, was still open to the faithful as it had been in the past” (Ibid.).