Who Was Lamenting and Why? Lamentations and the Sumerian City Laments

Shortly after the first Sumerian City Laments were translated in the early twentieth century, scholars noticed their thematic and phraseological parallels to the Biblical book of Lamentations. The Sumerian City Laments grieve the destruction of central Sumerian cities during the fall of the third dynasty of Ur in 2004 BCE,¹ just as the book of Lamentations grieves the fall of Jerusalem, 1500 years later.² This paper focuses on some of the similarities and differences in Lamentations and the Sumerian City Laments.

Biblical Lamentations

Within the biblical literature of trauma, there are texts that are tied to pain and suffering. Foremost among them is the book of Lamentations (Eicha or “How”).³

A major theme of Lamentations is loneliness.⁴ The word badad (lonely) appears twice in Lamentations: Lonely sits the city, once great with people! (Lam. 1:1); It is good for a man, when young, To bear a yoke; Let him sit alone and be patient, when He has laid it upon him (Lam. 3:27-28).⁵ The image of Jerusalem sitting all alone (badad) focuses attention on the pain of Jerusalem’s desolation, the abandonment of her loved ones, her status within the world, or some combination of these experiences.

To illustrate the city’s pain and loss, the first verse compares Jerusalem to a widow (almana), evoking her vulnerability; the Bible often makes provisions for the special care that society should afford its weaker members, often specifying the widow, the orphan, and the stranger (e.g. Ex. 22:20-23; Deut. 10:18).

The situation of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem is desperate: She weeps bitterly in the night, with tears on her cheeks; among all her lovers she has none to comfort her; all her friends have dealt treacherously with her; they have become her enemies (Lam. 1:2). Judah’s friends and allies not only abandoned her but they also dealt treacherously with her. Faced with the possibility of reprisal for supporting Judah, her allies not only assumed an attitude of indifference but they also became hostile to her situation. Left alone to confront the powerful Babylonian army, Judah’s army was no match against the invading forces.⁶

When Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon burned the temple and destroyed Jerusalem, the initial reaction was one of overwhelming grief and sadness: Alas! Lonely sits the city once great with people! She that was great among nations is become like a widow; The princess among states is become a thrall (Lam. 1:1).

Chapter 3 switches to the first person so Jerusalem is speaking like one who is pursued and abused, beaten by an angry and violent master: I am the man who has known affliction under the rod of His wrath; Me he drove on and on in unrelieved darkness; On none but me He brings down His hand again and again, without cease. He has worn away my flesh and skin; He has shattered my bones (Lam. 3:1-11).

The descriptions of God’s wrath, anger, and His consuming rage, divert attention from the people’s guilt and focus attention on their suffering: children crying for bread, children starving to death, women raped, men abused. The precious children of Zion, once valued as gold, are accounted as earthen pots; those who were reared in purple have embraced refuse heaps; tenderhearted women have cooked their own children (Lam. 4:1-10).

Another female image to depict Judah and Jerusalem who merges into one figure is “the Daughter of Zion.” She is a personification of Jerusalem who appears first as the deity’s beloved Daughter, a spokeswoman for the people’s grief.

Subsequent verses blame the daughter of Zion explicitly for her tragedy. She suffers for the multitude of her transgressions (Lam. 1:5); she has sinned grievously, so she has become a mockery (Lam. 1:8). Her uncleanness was in her skirts; she took no thought of her future (Lam. 1:9). The Daughter of Zion’s uncleanness arises from her adultery and disregard for the future (Lam. 1:9) and has made her “unclean” among her enemies (Lam. 1:17). All who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness (Lam. 1:8). In Ancient Israel, the exposure of the body caused disgrace, and stripping was part of the punishment of unfaithful women (cf. Hosea 2:4-5).

In the second half of chapter 1, the Daughter of Zion explains the disaster that befell the community: the sin and infidelity of the people, not God’s failure, brought tragedy. The daughter of Zion is abused, beaten, and tortured by the one whom she trusted: God caused them on the day of his fierce anger. From on high he sent fire; it went deep into my bones (Lam. 1:12-13). She complains about the way passersby treat her suffering as if it were trivial, urging them: Look and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow (Lam. 1:12). She blames God for trapping her, and she cries for her isolation and the abuse she has received (Lam. 1:13-16). She begs God to avenge her against her enemies and to afflict them as she has been afflicted (Lam. 1:21-22).

Finally, in chapter 2, she abandons self-recrimination altogether and shouts in outrage at God for killing the young women and men of the city, for slaughtering them without mercy (Lam. 2:21). She discards the role of victim to become God’s adversary, challenging divine “mistreatment” of herself and her people (Lam. 2:20-22). The Daughter of Zion insists that if God really saw the plight of her people, He would do something about it. She demands that He “look” and consider to whom you have done this (Lam. 2:20).

Many scholars have written about the ideas and theology of Lamentations. Hillers emphasizes that although the facts about the fall of Jerusalem are already described in the Bible, Lamentations “supplies the meaning of the facts,” not just the actual fall of the city, but the spiritual significance behind it. Lamentations is also a confirmation of the prophetic judgment on the sin of the people.⁷ Berlin writes that the focus of Lamentations is on the “event itself”: aside from the last few verses, “Lamentations does not look forward and does not look back, does not dwell on what went before or will come after – its gaze is fixed directly on the event itself.”⁸

Sumerian City Laments and Lamentations

The Sumerian City Laments describe the destruction of the city, the mass killing of its inhabitants, and the loss of its central temple. They give special attention to the divine sphere from which the gods order the destruction of the city, as well as the city’s patron gods who beg them to change their decision. The patron gods are forced to abandon their cities prior to, or simultaneously with, the destruction. The patron deities live as deportees in foreign cities, lamenting their devastated shrine. Eventually, after the destruction, they are invited to return and renew their position.

Just as the deportee goddess in the Ur cries: “I am one who can find no rest” (Ur Lament l. 360), an almost identical phrase describes the exiled daughter of Zion: she found no rest (Lam. 1:3). Similarly, the lack of musicians in the destroyed city appears in both: “They are no longer playing for you the šem and ala drums that gladden the heart, nor the tigi” (Ur Lament 356); The old men are gone from the gate, the young men from their music (Lam. 5:14).

Both traditions use the image of pitchers, or potsherds, as a metaphor for dying people: “Its people littered its sides like potsherds” (Ur Lament 211); The precious children of Zion. Once valued as gold – alas, they are accounted as earthen pots (Lam. 4:2). Another example is the “fox in the ruins” image, shared by both: “In the rivers of my city, dust has gathered, foxholes are made therein” (Ur Lament 269); Because of Mount Zion, which lies desolate; Foxes walk over it (Lam. 5:17).

Why Were They Lamenting?

Each civilization has its own set of philosophical and theological assumptions, and each wrestles differently with the challenges of destruction. The over-riding themes in both the Sumerian City Laments and Lamentations concern how to deal with the devastation caused by deities, in what terms divine involvement should be treated, and the possibility of restoring a relationship with a deity who has abandoned his people and city (or demolished them).⁹

In neither Lamentations nor the Sumerian Laments do the people interact directly with the deity bringing destruction, but rather the “discussion” is through an intermediary (the goddesses in the Sumerian Laments and the Daughter of Zion in Lamentations). One possible reason is that in the Sumerian Laments the people never had a relationship with the supreme gods, whereas Lamentations represents the distancing and estrangement of the people from God which caused the destruction. When the people return to Judah, it is not the Daughter of Zion who returns but the people who return to God and the land, as opposed to the gods returning to their shrine.

Sumerian City Laments

In the Sumerian City Laments, the destruction of the city and its temple involve an overall cosmological chaos: the “divine powers” of the city were overturned, and the rites were changed. In Eridu everything was reduced to ruin and confusion. The devastation meant an abrupt loss of the city’s wealth, honor, and fertility, and the collapse of all social institutions: priests abandoned their offices; shepherds burned their pens; men neglected their wives and sons; mothers looked away from their daughters (Ur Lament 232-234). Abnormal climatic phenomena, such as dimmed daylight and blazing fire, were associated with the destruction (Ur Lament 187-192).

According to the Sumerian City Laments, the generators of the destruction were the “great gods,” especially the chief god Enlil. They decided to destroy the city (Sumer and Ur Lament 1-55), and carried out this decision either by themselves or with the help of minor deities and demons.¹⁰

In comparison, ancient Israel did not have the same fear of a population explosion described in contemporaneous Ancient Near Eastern literature (such as the Uruk Lament and the Atrahasis Epic).¹¹ Indeed, biblical texts stress the desirability and importance of children: numerous genealogical lists demonstrate the continued emphasis on the importance of progeny, and God’s blessings bestowed on Israel always included fecundity (Ex. 23:26; Lev. 26:9; Deut. 7:14, 28:11). On the other hand, barrenness was a curse and a punishment (Gen. 30:1; Lev. 20:20-21; Jer. 22:30).

Both the Sumerian goddesses and the Daughter of Zion experience the destruction of their cities and have protective roles in relation to the city they represent. They share a concern with the well-being of the most vulnerable: women, children, and the infirm. Both confront male deities and protest the violence against their cities. While the Sumerian goddesses describe the destruction as bodily trauma and advocate for both their cities and themselves, the “advocacy” of the Daughter of Zion is railing against God for the destruction He already wrought.

In the Sumerian Laments, the patron gods of the city, following the formal decision of the divine assembly, were forced to abandon their city and temple. In some cases the patron gods and goddesses attempted to rescue their city by pleading, screaming, and shedding tears before the divine council, but their plea was rejected (Ur Lament 140-151). The goddess then laments her city and shrine (Ur Lament 252-286). While the destruction itself was assigned to the great, fearsome gods, the compassion, the attempts to defend the city, and the final return were ascribed to the accessible and benevolent patron gods of the city.¹²

The Sumerian Laments form a triangle: great gods/patron gods/people; Lamentations forms a different triangle: the God of Israel/foreign nations/God’s people. These triangles reflect two different arenas, each dealing in its own way with divine cruelty.

The Sumerian City Laments suggest several different explanations for the destruction: one passage states that the destruction is inexplicable since the heart of Enlil is “darkened” (Sumer and Ur Lament 456-458); another presents the belief that the end of a reign comes when its appointed duration expires, a cosmic law that cannot be resisted (Uruk Lament 364-369); yet another suggests that the gods decided to destroy the city and kill its inhabitants in order to balance the uncontrolled multiplying of humankind (Uruk Lament 4-5). All these explanations share the basic assumption that the destruction is unrelated to, and unaffected by, human deeds.

The explanation given in Lamentations, by contrast, uses a basic mechanism of divine retribution, and the destruction of the city is related to human deeds: Jerusalem has grievously sinned; therefore she became despised (Lam. 1:8).¹³

Lamentations

The Bible generally describes divine activity in the realm of history, while other Ancient Near Eastern literature focuses on the actions of the gods in the sphere of nature.¹⁴ In Lamentations, it is the terrestrial rather than heavenly or cosmic realm of the destruction, as devastating as it was. The desolation is the consequence of destruction and exile, not of an overall cosmic collapse: Her enemies are now the masters, her foes are at ease… her infants have gone into captivity before the enemy (Lam. 1:5).

The monotheistic world of Lamentations does combine some aspects of God’s role in the sphere of nature and history. The second chapter, for instance, depicts a cruel picture of the Israelite deity as the exclusive destroyer of Jerusalem, who demolishes the city and kills his people by his own hands (Lam. 2:1-5). The divine action in Lamentations 2 is so dominant that it overshadows any potential human involvement. Any prospective restoration will be possible only when the nation recognizes its guilt: Let us search and examine our ways, and turn back to the Lord (Lam. 3:40-42).

Conclusion

In sum, both the Sumerian and the biblical texts mourn the ruin of a major city and its shrines by the hand of a deity or divine council. The devastation is typically carried out by an invading army, portrayed at times as a storm; the goddess of the city (or its equivalent figure) is a major voice who challenges the destruction and mourns the fate of the city; and the laments conclude with the hope of a return and a restored temple. The difference lies in God’s relationship with a predominantly monotheistic Israel: in the Sumerian City Laments the cosmic deities focus on the patron gods, with few references to humans, while in Lamentations God’s only concern is to bring His people back to Him, perhaps using “tough love”: You shall be My people, and I will be your God (Jer. 30:22).

Lamentations ends with a plea of reconciliation: But You, O Lord, are enthroned forever… Take us back, O Lord, to Yourself, and let us come back; Renew our days as of old! (Lam. 5:19-22).

Although Jerusalem was just one of many capital cities destroyed by the Babylonians, its destruction triggered significant changes in the intellectual, cultural, religious, and political identities of the people associated with the city. The bottom line is that the Sumerian Laments don’t have punishment for sin as a possible reason for the destruction, but rather all reasons that are outside of human action (fate). Lamentations emphasizes a faith-based explanation found throughout the Bible: a quid pro quo between covenant obedience and divine favor.