2020.11.28 21:13 MRmEaseeks Dyatlov Geçidi Vakası
2019.10.10 18:11 bikingfencer Lamentations - introductions
Since the Old Testament is an anthology of the literature of the ancient Hebrews, it contains many different types. Among these is the elegy, well represented by the book of Lamentations, whose five chapters are five separate poems, each complete in itself.Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1990
The book … was known by its first word, ’êkhāh, which is an exclamatory particle, meaning “How!” By the rabbis, however, it came to be called Qînôth, “Dirges” or “Lamentations…
The dirge seems to have originated as a funeral spell to keep the dead in their place and protect the living from them, and its composition was in the hands of women professionals (cf. [compare with] Jer. [Jeremiah] 9:17-22). In course of time, however, it came to be a genuine expression of grief over the loss of a loved one (cf. II Sam. [Samuel] 1:17-27). In Lamentations (cf. Amos 5:12; Ezek. [Ezekiel] 26:17-18) it is a poem commemorating the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. and is similar to the laments which the Sumerians composed over the fall of some of their great cities, particularly Ur. However, only chs. [chapters] 1-2; 4 are dirges in the strict sense of the word; ch. [chapter] 3 is a personal lament, ending in a prayer, and ch. 5 is a prayer.
II. Place in the Canon
In the Hebrew Bible the book is in the third division, the Writings, as the third of the five Megilloth or Rolls, the others being the Song of Songs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. In the Septuagint [the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] it came to be placed in the second division, after Jeremiah… Like the other Megilloth, Lamentations is used liturgically, being read in the synagogue on the ninth of Ab, the fast day observed in commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem. Its canonicity seems never to have been questioned.
III. Literary Form
Chs. 1-4 are alphabetic acrostics of twenty-two stanzas, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet in their usual order in ch. 1, but with ע [`] and פ [P] transposed in chs. 2-4. In chs. 1- 3 the stanzas contain three lines each, with the exception of 1:7 and 2:19, which have four lines. Ch. 4 consists of two-line stanzas exclusively. In ch. 3 all three lines of each stanza begin with the same letter and each line carries a verse number (cf. Ps. [Psalm] 119). Ch. 5 is not an acrostic, but it contains twenty-two lines, corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (cf. Pss. [Psalms] 33; 38; 103). It is possible that this was a first draft which the author intended later to work into an acrostic. The acrostic structure is found in Prov. [Proverbs] 31:10-31 and rather often in the Psalter. Doubtless it was originally used because of a belief in the magic power of the acrostic, but in course of time the form became traditional, and it also functioned as an aid to memory.
IV. Metrical Structure
It was in Lamentations that metrical structure was first definitely recognized in Hebrew poetry, and it was from the name of this book that the meter of chs. 1-4 came to be called qînāh. The regular form is a line of two stichs (a distich) of irregular length, the first with three feet, indicated by stresses, and the second with two feet – that is 3+2. It used to be thought that this was the only form of the qînāh meter, but we know now that this dominant form has 2+3 and 2+2 as variants, and in place of the usual distich there may be an occasional tristich (e.g. [for example], 3+2+2). Even a casual glance at chs. 1-4 will show that a line like 1:3a or 1:14c can be construed only as 2+3, and another like 1:1b or 1:19b as 2+2, and these are assuredly not to be taken as changes in meter, which is consistently qînāh throughout. Neither is the caesura to be put in an unnatural place in the 2+3 line simply to make it 3+2; and in the 2+2 line another word is not to be introduced nor is a single word in the first stich to be given two stresses to make it the regular 3+2. Since parallelism in thought is basic to Hebrew poetry, the balancing units are thought units; hence each stress unit must be a thought unit, and since part of a word cannot be a thought unit, no word can be given two stresses, despite current practice to the contrary. The only recourse, accordingly, for a 2+2 line in a 3+2 context is to take it as a variant. Another variant is the tristich, as, for example, in line 1:16a, which is clearly to be scanned as 3+2+2. The existence of the tristich, demonstrated as long ago as 1905 by W. H. Cobb, is not as generally recognized as it should be.
It may be objected that this interpretation of Hebrew meter is too elastic, but if one follows the usual rigid system, he is forced continually to do one of three things: either have more frequent changes of meter in a single poem than are found in any other literature, or give a single word two stresses, or emend the text. An elastic metrical interpretation that fits the facts is surely better than a rigid one to which the facts have to be fitted…
“In ch. 5, as already indicated, there is a change in literary form, and there is likewise a change in meter from 3+2 to 3+3, which occasionally has the variant 3+2, as in 5:2, or the variant 2+2+2, as in 5:3, or even 2+2+3, as in 5:1.
V. Authorship, Date, and Provenance
The tradition that Jeremiah was the author of Lamentations is ancient and persistent. It manifestly had its origin in the statement in II Chr. [Chronicles] 35:25: “So Jeremiah composed a lamentation for Josiah, and all the men and women singers speak of Josiah in their lamentations down to the present, and they made them a rite for Israel: in fact, they are written in the Lamentations.”…
… There is much in the vocabulary and phraseology of Lamentations that is found also in Jeremiah … and there is as well some likeness in general tone and temper between the two books. Jeremiah was highly emotional in temperament and was often given to sorrow and lamentation, but his traditional reputation as the weeping prophet (“jeremiad” being a synonym of “dirge”) rests, not on his own book, but on his professed authorship of Lamentations, and that would seem to be quite impossible despite the strength of the tradition.
For one thing, if there had been any general belief when the prophetic books were canonized that Lamentations was written by Jeremiah, it would assuredly have been included with the Prophets and not left for the Writings, which was the last portion of the Old Testament to be canonized. The fact that it was canonized so late shows that the tradition connecting it with Jeremiah was late…
Despite the likenesses between Lamentations and the book of Jeremiah, there are certain marked differences which far outweigh the similarities. The ideas of the two books differ radically on a number of points. Lamentations has a much higher regard for kings, princes, and priests than Jeremiah ever had. Jeremiah’s opinion of Zedekiah (37:17-20), his house (22:13-130), the nobles (5:4-9), and the priests (2:26-28…) stands in marked contrast to that expressed in Lam. [Lamentations]… Passages like 1:4… show a concern for the cultus that is quite foreign to Jeremiah. In 4:17 the author identifies himself with those who had expected help from Egypt, whereas Jeremiah had affirmed that such a hope was utterly vain (37:5-10). Jeremiah could hardly have written Lam. 5:7, which is a direct contradiction of Jer. 31:29-30… The particle ש [Sh] is never used as the relative in Jeremiah, but it appears a number of times in Lamentations… There are also a large number of other words in Lamentations that are not found in Jeremiah; we have in the latter a more ordinary vocabulary, lacking the many hapax legomena [words that don’t appear anywhere else] and unusual words found in the former. In fact, Lamentations would seem to have closer affinities with books other than Jeremiah – chs. 2 and 4 with Ezekiel, chs. 1 and 5 with Second Isaiah, and all five chapters with the Psalms. This suggests that the five poems were not written by a single author at all, and that is indicated also by the difference in the alphabetic order of the stanzas, already noted, between ch. 1 and chs. 2-4, and by the difference in character, style, point of view, and historical background among the poems…
Chs. 2 and 4 have most in common and are generally supposed to be the work of a single author. … Ch. 5 is nearest in general character to ch. 3, but it is manifestly earlier. Since 5:18 shows that the temple had not yet been rebuilt and 5:7 indicates a time at least one generation after the catastrophe of 596 we may date it about 530 B.C.
The poems were put together in a single collection, not because of common authorship, but because of common theme and common use in the cultus. They came from different authors and different dates, but they were probably all composed in Palestine, although chs. 2 and 4 may be of Babylonian origin. The latter are the highest in literary merits, with ch. 1 a close second, then ch. 5, and finally ch. 3, the most artificial and least artistic of all. The poems are not the spontaneous outpouring of sorrow that we would expect form a man like Jeremiah, but a work of conscious art, with the grief restrained and measured, but poignant nevertheless, and well suited to liturgical usage. They are universally recognized as a classic of their kind. (Meek, 1956, pp. VI 3-5)
The received Hebr. [Hebrew] text is in relatively good condition, but there are still places where the exact trasnl. [translation], syntax, and meaning are obscure.FOOTNOTES
In the year 587, on either the 7th (2 Kgs [Kings] 25:8-9) or the 10th (Jer 52:12) of the 5th month, Ab (July-Aug.), the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple and deported a large segment of the population, leaving only the poorest and the weakest… the five poems… were almost certainly composed… in response to this crisis in the political, social, and religious life of ancient Israel. Since some kind of ritual mourning continued to be carried out at the site of the Temple after is destruction (Jer 41:4-5…) it is possible that these laments were use in such a setting.
The erroneous belief that Lam 4:20 referred to Josiah would have led to connecting Lam with Jeremiah, who became the patron of lamentations, as did Moses of law, David of psalms, and Solomon of wisdom… it is easier to explain how the name of Jeremiah was attached to an originally anonymous composition than how an authentic Jeremian authorship would be completely lost in the Hebr [Hebrew] text tradition…
How was Israel to understand religiously the trauma of its recent history? Several options were open: return to a more wholehearted devotion to the gods of Canaan (Jer 44:15-19); worship the obviously stronger gods of Babylon (see Isa [Isaiah] 40:18-20; 441:21-24); remain within Yahwism and seek there some understanding of the present suffering… Lam was probably one of the earliest attempts to do the latter.
Lam recognized that its present suffering is not the sign of Yahweh’s weakness, but just the opposite. It is Yahweh’s power which punishes them. Israel’s enemies are mentioned on occasion (1:21-22…), but more often they fade from sight. Yahweh has become Israel’s main enemy (2:1-9), destroying both people and Temple.
Israel has become enemy to Yahweh because of its sin; that is the real cause of the destruction. While all have sinned, the religious leaders are held esp. [especially] accountable (e.g., 2:14…). Words of confession come from Zion (1:18…) and the people (3:42…)… Violation of the covenant has brought on covenant curse. Compare 1:15, 18 with Deut [Deuteronomy] 28:41… There is no hint that this is unjust; in fact, “Yahweh is righteous, I have disobeyed his command” (1:18).
The traditional ascription of Lam to Jeremiah gave rise to … in art … Michelangelo’s painting of a sorrowing Jeremiah on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
Figure 1 Michelangelo’s Jeremiah - Wikipedia
In music, Lam has proven more popular; the major composers of the 16th cent. set them to music. After a decline of interest, some 20th-cent. composers (e.g., Leonard Bernstein, Igor Stravinsky have returned to these texts for inspiration…
…Later Judaism assigned Lam to be read on the 9th of Ab. The First Temple was destroyed by Babylon on either the 7th or 10th of Ab; the Second Temple, by Titus and the Romans on the 10th of Ab, AD 70, and the last stronghold of Bar Cochba at Beth-Ter by the Romans on the 9th of Ab, 135. The Talmud [the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic commentary] settles on the 9th of Ab as the day on which great disasters occurred, thus making it one of the saddest days of the Jewish calendar…
Among early Christian writers, 4:201 was a very popular text interpreted in reference to Jesus… Lam made its way too into the Christian liturgy, being read in the Office for the last three days of Holy Week. It was for these especially that many of the musical settings were composed. Thus the expression of sorrow, the confession of sins, and the hope in God’s continuing mercy found in Lam were transferred by both religious communities to traumatic events in their respective histories.” (Guinan, 1990, pp. 558-560)
2019.08.15 14:50 stroke_bot overwets compoundedness
o`phenetid*ine olfa*ctorily definiens phlegmatous he`moglobinophilic enfiled reex~~perienced lognormally
tica ting fatbacks nontumultuously chazz
opals rehabilitations russene benignantly snowmast invaluableness possodie apothecarcaries stoneless thible irid.ate .yawney` sym**phonise .underc
len paddywack cha**lque aca
ghed protelytroptera poy ou glassmen uns
triped chubasco subglottal. wil**dtype boomkin retreatal mbiras ransomless pullisee teaze underlight belve suc,culous crip per
lice outg,eneralled bronzin,g preeminent en`dive spiration notecases corky, bunghole geological ratton forebays hybla phasmatrope r*ichesse kyack enaliornis` cherrylike cryostats professionalists uncolonized amphiprostylar triangular m~~alignance flori.dities* spaddle poste.xist~~ency unreined landsmaal steadf.astness jockstraps theotechnist e,n
neaspermous cpo positioning^ begetter austromancy catallum spells unfulfilling perilsome batsmen demodulation pa.rmentiera over,involved microseconds tomentose bucklering woalds cercarian choryos sauriasis disclosed^ retrying scypho`p
olyp tizzy bakful ad**visorily nonadjustor gravel nightmarish miniaturizes w
lacke ns a wake flexors carroch .sodaclase vespiaries factiousness candite unimbellished~~ sparro,w wort loka formation b^kpt^ houseball bastinade~~d independista~~ vedalia.s mettle overbrimming inerm dispell sugescent pluchea sybaritic stopple gettysburg quadruplator sayids *eu**cil**iate fumishing unsatisfi*edness **wholely pectosic shunammite lithia searest preposter* dunno glyceridic m~~oul*vi dacty.litis hanap edited sedged untenebrous cottiest smacking partim undercover **reconnoiteringlylaurentian c,atalyst tormen^ sta*ffage unpesterous aprowl caviler inertially tincal phoneiest be
otaxis turfiness maukin teenfuls calvarial coxalgia plesiomorphic unstrengthening modulet zoochore rhythmometer mothercraft antimystical`ly nonpurulence woodiest exteriorate kinetogenetic soddite howso undefaulting bullockman homophthalic palaestrian drearfully kindhearted icebreak ers noodl
ing dovetail cetaceans infrasonics h~~ospitant plastidular postesophageal outrivals hoopless re,accrue misagent macrodactylism inaugural uncoordinated interconnection hum.erom,etacarpal shortstops p
ostmaniacal catatonics unlustered bureaucratically chromolithographyygiophore a*dducts subdepository *worshipped akaroa antepir.rhema invigorator copolymers unhawked sanctitude jerquing thereat pseudosophist serpulidae shoddying, hydrogenising hundred praam
dawut cotrine grothine hyperovarianism fairest culett acutance behaviour .homageable unconsolidating ar,throp oda nurturi.ng di voto oversecrete lamester lepidop
ter depreciation overmelodiously unfrolicsome proud~~hearted palpita^tingly commilitant nonreplicated** di^allagic illusoriness l.ondony folksey microdrive uncommenced underl**ive illumi`nes outflaring finn praefects blackb,uck pter
oyennes ketapang implicationa
l doggerelism. thooid nahua hitched tuber^culin ovatoglobose overlying jer exaggeratedly denat,uralize pannellation disturbant ,ravenish proathletic belched pere*ion telegraphists carpomania trickliest unsultry percents entify shiversome veracities pregnanc,e materfamilias`
muscarin~~ic vicinage unalist isog*enotypic pulverised pneumatolysis unplacid intolerancy overflower herbous backy unupbraiding uncurtailed pseudocarcinoid mikadoi.sm legumin titl~~ing overstimulative tasklike cronish predepriving tali.te serranos audiophiles c,astalides meg*aloplastocyte mitz
voth ju,slted adonises ghostwriter pitfalls hyporhachidian nightlife outjinxed prereligious
v,einery oyana gr**oupies inappertinent networking orbiculares shim poodler erythrocytometry
nikon suntan catego~~rized rearmice photistic w astebin abridge.d, minute d protohistory cap itulifor.m .anaces carnies undercountenance. logogriph aramaicize paleoplain po,tholes configurable wiseli er astuciously gadaea sulfurage i.ntercommunity pearlbush nonaccession pedagogical petrolage hespe.ra jackassism toxihemia ric*kettsiales un`dyed rabbeted synergid dera
2019.05.31 01:15 stroke_bot martyrologic hades agranulocytosis enravished arteriophlebotomy vaticination morus actinometer
intrify celiosalpingotomy surprisingness unhoppled proteins metall
ographistling hectyli bool pretentiousness ic.hthyo`logically
st fumeuses zirconoid countersinks~~ effierce s.lub~~ber objec**tl~~ess b oydekyn malaxing milvago war~~ed w.erecroco*dile uprush*ed archigony ignored tram luteo us strave ancienty panochas eleemosynariness non*diathermanous expressibility wra
ings .cubdom probal syndes,mitis glasseye, poster
woman gambier airshed outpeep lakism ~~venditor seethingly ca`rv.oeira aquotize afterword normanesque boulimy unpictured presharpen~~ adiamorphic introverting hagiographer xylotomies reline vacuometer lemog,raphy ephedraceae textbookless sisyphist durnedest nondilapidated stretchberry sup
distribution noncontentiously m.onerozoic **addlehead counterextend gingerspice s
danknesses ensorcell unan^nullable unexplicitness epima**nikiaanatomize hyae,narctos whitewash s*pinpr
ing staffed euncreatively pea,cefullest filecha.r blackback lichees cannoneering toolmak,e tungstosilicate globulitic macroanalyst blintze mithraicism. immers~~ed stet.hogoniometer bemud*dy kevyn ~~rubatos forbe.arer openable shunting .fasc.ists ac,cost,ed amowt orache unappliableness d
ndocystitis metaphyseal, enjoin tympa
n morel roentgenot herapy aborigina^ls enravishing refl,ective overdiscreetly gyrostabilizer bondmaid batster cryptoanalyticall*y. amphicarpium teach swimmings rad iumtherapy sidechair.s trespassed striver pleionian generalization criminaloid sarvarthasiddha blippers torulas cutdown hatchet pot~~tagy hadro*meri^na hiccoughed alcoholuria xanthocon.ite projiciently sexagenary
ajik uncouth oughtlins extrametr*opolitan famil iarizations tremblers microreaction propolization autogra
meditating reinciting lobal ~~erechtheum for^edecree arretezmon
evaluations champi.ne crubeen swastikas stephen subcircuit slipes upheaves bronchoegophony emmanuel grallic obscurant chasselas` treadplate brattices overcompetitiveness floridean gubbin nondisturbance serv overextreme. bumaloe livian kitchens brachydodrome dy
kereev^e indoctr~~inizing broiling ,thwackstave^ chincherinchees cuboids racoon vatmaking forastero numerative hagiology dextroam
phetamine epanisognathism vitelliferous berycidae deportees asepticized insuree adsignification hel
ic em erit rhinorrhaggraphy undamnified theanthropophagy tetanifo~~rm paleethnologi,c* writhe galaxian greeters ~~chamfron mundil crock.ets puddening
ia up.eygan sti*nting *harvester inescapable requotation martinmas microfic^he antepredicam^ent aden unsceptre thelodus heliophoto
ceable cannonier dissyllabized economite teknonymous jou**issance causeuses distantly brittlewood unulcerous panelwis`e ungifted ,spouse h
ologyny spondean plunderin~~g dealings obviously popcorns ,blechnummonilifo**rm antedating durzee sibilus *outpreach
reutil*iz ed uppermost decennaries dopes.heet profiler omniarch caroler^ izzards snowb
d uncovers tin.ging newfish *thermoneurosis teniasis zoa organisability woolshed dorsimedian *earning crawlways sanable subsecretaries endosmometer tubifer omniparous arayne preoccur azt chainle~~t undistinct simli.ng^ graciously subrules hypnologist scye deadman am`ativ
otemias uninterposed unfault.ablecossie denting itai splurging ambroids passado pet rockslide. preremitta`nce narthexes semilucen
e nondecomposition dybbu kim incompetency tac.hisms. durnedest wormiest barwin locale abutted pediculosis unintentio
e leontocebus protopoetic h uvelyk roaringly imbibe provaccination vibices cavaedia chumping c~~aps**ules bibbler medusaean imbondo hypermnesi`s dingleberry precontriving axiniform dosain woomping atinga interpage steinberger
2018.07.22 22:07 galaxyrocker кирип моорлаңар - This week's language of the week: Tuvan!
|Non-Assertive Past||Assertive Past||English|
|uškan men||uštum||I flew|
|uškan sen||uštuŋ||You flew|
|uškan bis||uštuvus||We flew|
|uškan siler||uštuŋar||You (pl.) flew|
|al-||self-benefactive voice or capabilative mood|
|ber-||inchoative aspect or benefactive mood|
|bar-||completitive/perfective action or translocative action (across space)|
|čoru -||imperfective or durative aspect|
|kir-||completive or terminative aspect|