Talk:Book of Lamentations

When Was Lamentations Composed?

According to a story in the Babylonian Talmud, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th chapters are those cast into the fire by King Yehoyachin in Jerusalem at the time (that event is recounted is in Jeremiah). Subsequently, Jeremiah authored a 4th chapter, which (for some reason) was placed between the older chapters. According to this, the first four chapters were actually written prophetically, as the Temple in Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. After the destruction, Jeremiah composed the fifth chapter, lamenting the actual destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I regret that at this point, I don't have any sources. They are easy enough to find, though, and I feel this story should make it into the article. 70.23.119.61 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) M. Wolfe

Violation of WP:MOS/WTW

@EdJohnston, same thing, the user is violating WP:MOS/WTW and is refusing to read the policy as this edit shows in this article: [1]. What will the user do once you removed the protection in the this article? Already, the user has made this new account, Tikki-Tembo -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

first of all, stop it. I have read wp:mos. this edit does not violate it in any way. Please interact with the content if you're going to follow me around and complain.if you're going to throw wp:mos eggs at me, back it up. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII and Tikki-Tembo, please use the article talk page to discuss the rationale for the content change, not your concerns about other editors' behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tikki-Tembo, violation of WP:MOS/WTW, WP:EDITORIAL, & WP:LABEL here: [2] "However, conversely" -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"conversely" is not a frowned upon word.Tikki-Tembo (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I was thinking of controversially. Just remove however so it won't violate WP:MOS/WTW -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Full title of this book

This book says that the Book of Lamentations typically follows as the Book of Jeremiah, as Jeremiah is typically seen as its author. Should it also say that, at least in the King James Version of the Bible, it is given the full title of the Lamentations of Jeremiah?Vorbee (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vorbee: In the Christian canon, the book of Lamentations does, indeed, follow the book of Jeremiah. But in the Jewish canon, the Tanakh, the two books are in totally separate sections: Jeremiah in Nevi'im (the Prophets); Lamentations in Ketuvim (the Writings).

The attribution of this book to Jeremiah is one of convention, not one of proven authorship. Indeed, it is quite possible that Lamentations is an anthology of writings by more than one author, and that none of these was Jeremiah.

See also the pattern of names of other books in the Tanakh/Bible. The current title "Book of Lamentations" seems to conform well.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Authorship in the chapter articles still claims Jeremiah

While this article explores the weaknesses of the traditional attribution to Jeremiah, and that almost all modern scholarship rejects this attribution, the articles for each individual chapter still have prominently in the lead "This book contains the elegies of the prophet Jeremiah" (or some variant thereof).

I propose removing such statements from those chapter articles (copy-editing as necessary).

Any further thoughts? Might it be prudent to retain some mention of the authorship, via a link back to somewhere in this article?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that statements taking the text at face value should be removed. Even worse, the source cited for this attribution is the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (1871). Biblical scholarship has chanced a lot in the past 150 years. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I've taken a look. The quick solution would be simply to remove the sentences mentioning Jeremiah, and the refs there to the 1871 commentary. But that would leave the lead of each chapter very denuded.

• Rather than removing it to nothing, it would be better to replace it with something. But what? And from where?
• In each chapter, the 1871 source is used for several cites, not just the one. That suggests that those other uses also could, and should, be more deeply and critically reviewed.

At this stage it seems way beyond my capabilities. I don't even have high school "religious studies"!

The only significant commentary on Lamentations that I possess is the new one (2022, Eerdmans) by John Goldingay, which itself thoroughly cites many other research papers, books and commentaries. I suppose I could try something with that. But it won't be quick, even for the lead sections.

Any thoughts?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. Many Christians and Jews believe Jeremiah authored this, see various denominations stating this: churchofjesuschrist, insight, biblescripture, Chabad. Believers still believe this. Scholars disagree with this traditional belief, but the religious belief is still there and should be mentioned. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What you suggest is against the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." What scholars write is always superior to what "true believers" claim. Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@לילך5: To clarify. This authorship discussion is about within the individual chapter-specific articles: Lamentations 1 etc. For this main article, Book of Lamentations there is a case to made for the notable historical viewpoint about Jeremiah; indeed there is already a paragraph about it. So having already got that in the main article, there seems nothing to be gained by repeating it within the individual chapter articles. Summary: keep Jeremiah in the main article probably more or less as it is now; remove the mention of him in the individual chapter articles. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It belongs there too. user:Dimadick, I am not suggesting we use "true believers" as sources, I brought them up here to show how wide this is. There are reliable sources like [3] and [4] as well as many others that cover the traditional view or belief that Jeremiah being the author. This belief is significant, even if consensus of scholars is that it is the work of a different author or authors, the scholars cover the traditional belief. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The first article you linked does not claim that Jeremiah wrote the book, or even that Jeremiah is not a fictional character. It explicitly says that "the rabbis of the Talmudic period chose to perpetuate and reinforce this idea." (Jeremiah's authorship). The Talmud was written between the 2nd and the 5th century CE, up to 11 centuries following the Book of Lamentations' estimated date of composition in the 6th century BCE. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not claiming Jeremiah wrote it or existed. I am saying that the belief Jeremiah did so is significant among believers and that sources cover this belief. The God article begins with "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence." In my opinion, this article should also state that the traditional belief is that Jeremiah wrote it, but that the consensus of modern scholars is otherwise. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@לילך5: Repeat. To clarify. This authorship discussion is about within the individual chapter-specific articles: Lamentations 1 etc. We all get that there is a notable tradition about Jeremiah authoring the book. And it's there. In the main article. None of us is proposing removing that. But our topic here, rather, is precisely the unnecessary repetition of that claim within the individual chapter-specific articles. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

At last, I have got around to doing this. More work may be needed, as the articles seem to rely heavily on that old Jamieson et al commentary. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)