Footnotes

1. Lamentations 1:9 tn Heb “uncleanness.” The noun טֻמְאָה (tumʾah, “uncleanness”) refers in general to the state of ritual uncleanness and specifically to (1) sexual uncleanness (Num 5:19); (2) filthy material (Ezek 24:11; 2 Chr 29:16); (3) ritual uncleanness (Lev 16:16, 19; Ezek 22:15; 24:13; 36:25, 29; 39:24; Zech 13:2); (4) menstrual uncleanness (Lev 15:25, 26, 30; 18:19; Ezek 36:17); and (5) polluted meat (Judg 13:7, 14). Here, Jerusalem is personified as a woman whose menstrual uncleanness has soiled even her own clothes; this is a picture of the consequences of the sin of Jerusalem: uncleanness = her sin, and soiling her own clothes = consequences of sin. The poet may also be mixing metaphors, allowing various images (of shame) to circulate in the hearer’s mind, including rape and public exposure. By not again mentioning sin directly (a topic relatively infrequent in this book), the poet lays a general acknowledgment of sin in 1:8 alongside an exceptionally vivid picture of the horrific circumstances that have come to be. This is no simplistic explanation that sin merits such inhumane treatment. Instead 1:9 insists that no matter the legal implications of being guilty, the Lord should be motivated to aid Jerusalem (and therefore her people) because her obscene reality is so revolting.
2. Lamentations 1:9 tn Heb “her uncleanness is in her skirts.”
3. Lamentations 1:9 tn Heb “her skirts.” This term is a synecdoche of specific (skirts) for general (clothing).
4. Lamentations 1:9 tn The basic meaning of זָכַר (zakhar) is “to remember, call to mind” (HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר). Although it is often used in reference to recollection of past events or consideration of present situations, it also may mean “to consider, think about” the future outcome of conduct (e.g., Isa 47:7) (BDB 270 s.v. 5). The same term is used in Lam 1:7a.
5. Lamentations 1:9 tn Heb “she did not consider her end.” The noun אַחֲרִית (ʾakharit, “end”) here refers to an outcome or the consequences of an action; in light of 1:8, here it is the consequence of sin or immoral behavior (Num 23:10; 24:20; Deut 32:20, 29; Job 8:7; Pss 37:37; 73:17; Prov 14:12; 23:32; 25:8; Eccl 7:8; Isa 46:10; 47:7; Jer 5:31; 17:11; Dan 12:8).
6. Lamentations 1:9 tc The MT reads וַתֵּרֶד (vattered), vav (ו) consecutive + Qal preterite third person feminine singular from יָרַד (yarad, “to go down”). Symmachus has καὶ κατήχθη (kai katēchthē, “and she was brought down”) and Vulgate deposita est, passive forms that might reflect וַתּוּרַד (vatturad, vav consecutive + Pual preterite third person feminine singular from from יָרַד [yarad, “to go down”]). External evidence favors the MT (supported by all other ancient versions and medieval Hebrew mss); none of the other ancient versions preserve/reflect a passive form. Symmachus is known to have departed from a wooden literal translation (characteristic of Aquila) in favor of smooth and elegant Greek style. The second edition of the Latin Vulgate drew on Symmachus; thus, it is not an independent witness to the passive reading, but merely a secondary witness reflecting Symmachus. The MT is undoubtedly the original reading. tn Heb “and she came down in an astonishing way,” or “and she was brought down in an astonishing way.”
7. Lamentations 1:9 tn The noun פֶּלֶא (peleʾ) means not only “miracle, wonder” (BDB 810 s.v.) but “something unusual, astonishing” (HALOT 928 s.v.). The plural פְּלָאִים (p^elaʾim, lit., “astonishments”) is an example of the plural of intensity: “very astonishing.” The noun functions as an adverbial accusative of manner; the nature of her descent shocks and astounds. Rendering פְּלָאִים וַתֵּרֶד (vattered p^elaʾim) as “she has come down marvelously” (cf. BDB 810 s.v. 1 and KJV, ASV) is hardly appropriate; it is better to nuance it as “in an astonishing way” (HALOT 928 s.v. 3) or simply as “was astonishing.”
8. Lamentations 1:9 tn The words “she cried” do not appear in the Hebrew. They are added to indicate that personified Jerusalem is speaking.
9. Lamentations 1:9 tc The MT reads עָנְיִי (ʿonyi, “my affliction”) as reflected in all the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) and the medieval Hebrew mss. The Bohairic version and Ambrosius, however, read “her affliction,” which led the BHS editors to suggest a Vorlage of עָנְיָהּ (ʿonyah, “her affliction”). External evidence strongly favors the MT reading. The third person feminine singular textual variant probably arose out of an attempt to harmonize this form with all the other third person feminine singular forms in 1:1-11a. The MT is undoubtedly the original reading.
10. Lamentations 1:9 tn Heb “an enemy.” While it is understood that the enemy is Jerusalem’s, not using the pronoun in Hebrew leaves room to imply to God that the enemy is not only Jerusalem’s but also God’s.