Lamentations 1:7 Hebrew Translation

Status
Not open for further replies.

LanceJ

Puritan Board Freshman
A question for the Hebraists in the forum:

While attending to study this morning I came across WLC 121:

Q. 121. Why is the word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?

A. The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less light of nature for it, and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; and that Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.

The proof text for the emboldened portion is Lamentations 1:7. I noted that the KJV renders the Hebrew word מִשְׁבַּתֶּֽהָ as "her Sabbaths" but the ESV and other modern translations render it as "her downfall". I understand that the word's root meaning has in mind cessation/rest but it seems that the KJV is following the understanding as cessation from rest ergo "Sabbaths" where as the modern take is rendering it as cessation from existence or ruin. As best as I can tell this appears to be the only place in the MT this form of the word is used. Curious to know (aside from perhaps the context of the passage) what the precedent is for rending the word this way.

The Vulgate appears to follow a similar rendering (i.e KJV) but the Peshitta for example would render it the same way the modern versions do.

As a kicker Calvin says this and (unsurprisingly?) seems to agree with the traditional rendering:

Calvin: It is added, Seen, her have enemies, they laughed at her Sabbath, or at her cessation, which I do not dislike. But they who render it “leisure,” or idleness, either pervert or too much obscure the meaning of the Prophet. In the word “cessation,” there is an irony, for the enemies did not simply laugh at cessation, but did so in mockery, as they took this opportunity to taunt them for their religion. We know that the Sabbaths of the Jews were always hated by the heathens; and they were thereby subjected to many reproaches; for by way of reproach they called the Jews Sabbatharians. And when they wished ignominiously to traduce the whole service of God, as under the law, they named it “Sabbaths.” There is, then, no doubt but that the heathens reproachfully taunted the Jews because they observed the Sabbath; “See, now is the time to worship God.” And we also see that God upbraided the Jews in a similar way by saying, “Until the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths.” (Lev. 26:43) For when the Jews had the opportunity and leisure (when no enemies molested them) to observe the worship of God, they contemptuously profaned the Sabbaths. As, then, God’s worship had been so disgracefully neglected by them, God said, “The land itself shall in your stead keep the Sabbath;” how? it shall not be ploughed, it shall not bring forth fruit. (Lev. 26:34, Lev. 26:35) That cessation was called by God Sabbath, but not without a taunt; for he cuttingly reproved the Jews for having violated the Sabbaths, as was also done by Jeremiah, (Jer. 17:22, Jer. 17:27) It then appears to me probable that taunts were cast by enemies against the Jews, that they might now have a long and a continual Sabbath, while the city was deserted and no one dwelt there. For it would have been cold and unmeaning to say that the enemies laughed at the cessation of it. The Prophet would have no doubt used a different word, if his purpose had been to point out the blasphemy of enemies as to God’s worship. The enemies then saw and laughed at her cessation; but this cessation they called by way of reproach Sabbatharian.

Thanks to all who contribute!
 
Last edited:
This part of 1:7 "When her people fell into the hand of the foe,
and there was none to help her," strongly supports the cessation/downfall rendering of the word. This is my initial gut take. I'm not a hebraist.
 
So the KJV imports a plural concept here for a singular Hebrew verb: it cannot be "at her sabbaths" but as Calvin notes, it would have to be "at her Sabbath". As Calvin further notes, this could equally well be rendered "at her ceasing", since shabat means to cease. I think Calvin is further correct in seeing a play on words (irony) here. There are other Hebrew words that could have been used for ceasing, but this one makes her destruction an ironic "sabbath" in line with Lev 26:43. This is an excellent example of Calvin's expertise as a linguist.

So the modern translations are right in translating it as "her downfall" or "her ruin", but readers miss the wordplay. The KJV retains the connection to Sabbath, but distorts the plain meaning of the word. This is why the work of translation is hard, and preachers need to be competent in the original languages (or, failing that, read Calvin).
 
Upon a cursory reading, the word Sabbath is שָׁבַת. It is a verb. The noun form for the Sabbath day is הַשַּׁבָּת. This is not the word used here. Here it's מִשְׁבָּת. The mem on the beginning of the word turns the verb into a noun form. It's like turning the word "stop" into the noun "stopper." In this case, it would be taking the verb for "cease" and making it a noun like, "what is ceased."

However, the mem in the front can also function as a preposition in other cases. My guess is that's how KJV is reading it, "They mocked 'at' or 'from' or 'on the cause of' her Sabbaths." The problem with this is that a preposition is already there right before: עַל. They mocked עַל her מִשְׁבָּת. The mem should be considered not a preposition but part of the noun form of the word.
 
So the KJV imports a plural concept here for a singular Hebrew verb: it cannot be "at her sabbaths" but as Calvin notes, it would have to be "at her Sabbath". As Calvin further notes, this could equally well be rendered "at her ceasing", since shabat means to cease. I think Calvin is further correct in seeing a play on words (irony) here. There are other Hebrew words that could have been used for ceasing, but this one makes her destruction an ironic "sabbath" in line with Lev 26:43. This is an excellent example of Calvin's expertise as a linguist.

So the modern translations are right in translating it as "her downfall" or "her ruin", but readers miss the wordplay. The KJV retains the connection to Sabbath, but distorts the plain meaning of the word. This is why the work of translation is hard, and preachers need to be competent in the original languages (or, failing that, read Calvin).
This was very helpful. Thank you as always Dr. Duguid!
 
I don’t see my name in your original post anywhere, Lance. For shame!

For shame.
It is indeed a true saying; the venerable S.P. Cornell was indeed insightful, nay, instrumental in aiding a lowly servant such as myself in understanding things too high for me.
 
Last edited:
If it can be taken as a wordplay the opening word "remembers" would be remarkably ironic. She remembers now in her affliction!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top