Ratapan 2:1
Konteksא (Alef)
2:1 Alas! 1 The Lord 2 has covered
Daughter Zion 3 with his anger. 4
He has thrown down the splendor of Israel
from heaven to earth;
he did not protect 5 his temple 6
when he displayed his anger. 7
Ratapan 2:3
Konteksג (Gimel)
2:3 In fierce anger 8 he destroyed 9
the whole army 10 of Israel.
He withdrew his right hand 11
as the enemy attacked. 12
He was like a raging fire in the land of Jacob; 13
it consumed everything around it. 14
Ratapan 2:21-22
Konteksש (Sin/Shin)
2:21 The young boys and old men
lie dead on the ground in the streets.
My young women 15 and my young men
have fallen by the sword.
You killed them when you were angry; 16
you slaughtered them without mercy. 17
ת (Tav)
2:22 As if it were a feast day, you call 18
enemies 19 to terrify me 20 on every side. 21
On the day of the Lord’s anger
no one escaped or survived.
My enemy has finished off
[2:1] 1 tn See the note at 1:1.
[2:1] 2 tc The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (’adonay, “the Lord”) here rather than יהוה (YHWH, “the
[2:1] 3 sn Chapter 2 continues the use of feminine epithets (e.g., “Daughter Zion”), although initially portraying Jerusalem as an object destroyed by the angered enemy, God.
[2:1] 4 tn The verb יָעִיב (ya’iv) is a hapax legomenon (a term that appears only once in Hebrew OT). Most lexicons take it as a denominative verb from the noun עָב (’av, “cloud,” HALOT 773 s.v. II עָב; BDB 728 s.v. עוּב): Hiphil imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עוֹב (’ov) meaning “cover with a cloud, make dark” (HALOT 794 s.v. עוב) or “becloud” (BDB 728 s.v.): “the Lord has covered Daughter Zion with the cloud of His anger.” This approach is followed by many English versions (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV). However, a few scholars relate it to a cognate Arabic verb “to blame, revile” (Ehrlich, Rudolph, Hillers): “the Lord has shamed Daughter Zion in His anger.” Several English versions adopt this (NRSV, NJPS, CEV). The picture of cloud and wrath concurs with the stanza’s connection to “day of the Lord” imagery.
[2:1] 5 tn The common gloss for זָכַר (zakhar) is “remember.” זָכַר (zakhar) entails “bearing something in mind” in a broader sense than the English gloss “remember.” When God “bears someone in mind,” the consequences are beneficial for them. The implication of not regarding his footstool is to not esteem and so not care for or protect it.
[2:1] 6 tn Heb “the footstool of His feet.” The noun הֲדֹם (hadom, “footstool”), always joined with רַגְלַיִם (raglayim, “feet”) is always used figuratively in reference to the dwelling place of God (BDB 213 s.v. הֲדֹם). It usually refers to the
[2:1] 7 tn Heb “in the day of His anger.” As a temporal reference this phrase means “when he displayed his anger.” The Hebrew term “day,” associated with the “day of the Lord” or “day of his wrath” also functions as a title in a technical sense.
[2:3] 8 tc The MT reads אַף (’af, “anger”), while the ancient versions (LXX, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate) reflect אַפּוֹ (’appo, “His anger”). The MT is the more difficult reading syntactically, while the ancient versions are probably smoothing out the text.
[2:3] 9 tn Heb “cut off, scattered.”
[2:3] 10 tn Heb “every horn of Israel.” The term “horn” (קֶרֶן, qeren) normally refers to the horn of a bull, one of the most powerful animals in ancient Israel. This term is often used figuratively as a symbol of strength, usually in reference to the military might of an army (Deut 33:17; 1 Sam 2:1, 10; 2 Sam 22:3; Pss 18:3; 75:11; 89:18, 25; 92:11; 112:9; 1 Chr 25:5; Jer 48:25; Lam 2:3, 17; Ezek 29:21) (BDB 901 s.v. 2), just as warriors are sometimes figuratively described as “bulls.” Cutting off the “horn” is a figurative expression for destroying warriors (Jer 48:25; Ps 75:10 [HT 11]).
[2:3] 11 tn Heb “he caused his right hand to turn back.” The implication in such contexts is that the
[2:3] 12 tn Heb “from the presence of the enemy.” This figurative expression refers to the approach of the attacking army.
[2:3] 13 tn Heb “he burned in Jacob like a flaming fire.”
[2:3] 14 tn Or “He burned against Jacob, like a raging fire consumes all around.”
[2:21] 15 tn Heb “virgins.” The term “virgin” probably functions as a metonymy of association for single young women.
[2:21] 16 tn Heb “in the day of your anger.” The construction בָּיוֹם (bayom, “in the day of…”) is a common Hebrew idiom, meaning “when…” (e.g., Gen 2:4; Lev 7:35; Num 3:1; Deut 4:15; 2 Sam 22:1; Pss 18:1; 138:3; Zech 8:9). This temporal idiom refers to a general time period, but uses the term “day” as a forceful rhetorical device to emphasize the vividness and drama of the event, depicting it as occurring within a single day. In the ancient Near East, military minded kings often referred to a successful campaign as “the day of X” in order to portray themselves as powerful conquerors who, as it were, could inaugurate and complete a victory military campaign within the span of one day.
[2:21] 17 tc The MT reads לֹא חָמָלְתָּ (lo’ khamalta, “You showed no mercy”). However, many medieval Hebrew
[2:22] 18 tn The syntax of the line is awkward. English versions vary considerably in how they render it: “Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about” (KJV), “Thou hast called, as in the day of a solemn assembly, my terrors on every side” (ASV), “You did call as in the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (NASB), “Thou didst invite as to the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (RSV), “As you summon to a feast day, so you summoned against me terrors on every side” (NIV), “You summoned, as on a festival, my neighbors from roundabout” (NJPS), “You invited my enemies to hold a carnival of terror all around me” (TEV), “You invited my enemies like guests for a party” (CEV).
[2:22] 19 tn The term “enemies” is supplied in the translation as a clarification.
[2:22] 20 tn Heb “my terrors” or “my enemies.” The expression מְגוּרַי (mÿguray, “my terrors”) is difficult and may refer to either enemies, the terror associated with facing enemies, or both.
[2:22] 21 tn Heb “surrounding me.”
[2:22] 22 tn The meaning of the verb טָפַח (tafakh) is debated: (1) BDB suggests that it is derived from טָפַה (tafah, “to extend, spread” the hands) and here means “to carry in the palm of one’s hands” (BDB 381 s.v. טָפַה 2). (2) HALOT 378 s.v. II טָפַח suggests that it is derived from the root II טָפַח (tafakh) and means “to give birth to healthy children.” The recent lexicons suggest that it is related to Arabic tafaha “to bring forth fully formed children” and to Akkadian tuppu “to raise children.” The use of this particular term highlights the tragic irony of what the army of Babylon has done: it has destroyed the lives of perfectly healthy children whom the women of Israel had raised.
[2:22] 23 tn This entire line is an accusative noun clause, functioning as the direct object of the following line: “my enemy has destroyed the perfectly healthy children….” Normal word order in Hebrew is: verb + subject + direct object. Here, the accusative direct object clause is moved forward for rhetorical emphasis: those whom the Babylonians killed had been children born perfectly healthy and well raised … what a tragic loss of perfectly good human life!
