Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161503856, 9783161511455, 3161503856

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

47

Kristin Moen Saxegaard

Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth

Mohr Siebeck

Kristin Moen Saxegaard, born 1967; 1993 Cand. Teol; 2008 Ordained minister in the Church of Norway; 2008 PhD in Old Testament Theology.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151145-5 ISBN 978-3-16-150385-6 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For my parents, Ingrid Karoline and Per Moen

Preface This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, submitted and defended at MF Norwegian School of Theology in 2008. I want to thank my supervisors, Professor Karl William Weyde and Professor Kåre Berge, for supporting me in my studies, and the doctoral committee, Professor Yair Zakovitch, Associate Professor Blazenka Zeuer and Professor Corinna Körting, for their careful interaction with my work. My thanks also go to all the members of the Nordic-German Network for Old Testament Studies, OTSEM, for their feedback and the pleasure of their collegiality during the years I was working on my dissertation. I especially want to thank those who have supported me in preparing the manuscript for publication. My thanks go to Corrina Körting, Brett Ward and Crystal Williams for proofreading and to Eirin Hoel Hauge, Lars Moe, Fredrik Saxegaard and Maria Saxegaard for technical support. I also want to express my gratitude to the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Professor Bernd Janowski, Professor Mark S. Smith, and Professor Hermann Spieckermann for accepting this work for publication, and to Tanja Mix for all her careful help during the period of preparation. Kristin Moen Saxegaard, Oslo/Ås, June 2nd 2010.

Table of Contents Technical Information............................................................................ XV

Part I: Introduction.………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: The Problem…………..…………………………………………….....3 1.1 Character Studies ............................................................................3 1.2 Approaching the Characters ............................................................4 1.3 Disposition .....................................................................................6 Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections ......................................................8 2.1 Biblical Narratology .......................................................................8 2.2 The Act of Reading.......................................................................10 2.2.1 The Implied Reader ..............................................................10 2.2.2 Reading between Texts .........................................................12 2.3 Characters.....................................................................................14 2.3.1 What is a Character? .............................................................14 2.3.2 Character Types....................................................................16 2.3.3 Characterization....................................................................18 2.3.4 Point of View .......................................................................19 2.4 Personal Names as Character Description .....................................22 2.4.1 The Meaning of Personal Names...........................................22 2.4.1.1 The Study of Personal Names .......................................22 2.4.1.2 From Etymology to Popular Etymology........................23 2.4.1.3 Word Similarities .........................................................25 2.4.1.4 Changing of Names ......................................................28 2.4.2 The Literary Function of Personal Names .............................28 2.4.2.1 Occurrence ...................................................................28 2.4.2.2 Anonymity ...................................................................29 2.4.3 Naming.................................................................................30 2.5 Plot and Narrative Structure..........................................................31 2.5.1 Plots 1 and 2: Fertility ..........................................................32 2.5.2 Plot 3: God’s Role – and Ruth’s............................................34

X

Contents

2.6 Dating...........................................................................................35 2.6.1 References to the Past ...........................................................35 2.6.2 The Genealogy......................................................................36 2.6.3 Purpose as Dating .................................................................38 2.6.4 The Chronology of the Texts ................................................39 2.6.5 Canon ...................................................................................39 2.7 Social and Political Structures.......................................................40 2.7.1 Family Structures..................................................................40 2.7.1.1 Daughter (-in-Law).......................................................41 2.7.1.2 Mother-in-Law .............................................................42 2.7.1.3 The Levirate Institution ................................................42 2.7.1.4 The Widow...................................................................43 2.7.2 Ideological Context...............................................................44 2.7.2.1 Foreigners in the Old Testament Literature ...................44 2.7.2.2 Intermarriage in Ezra and Nehemiah.............................45 2.7.2.3 Intermarriage in the Chronicles.....................................47 2.8 Genre............................................................................................47 2.8.1 Narrative Fiction and the References to Memory ..................49 2.8.2 Family and Birth Narrative ...................................................50 2.8.3 Polemic Literature ................................................................51 2.9 Summary ......................................................................................52

Part II: Character Analysis ........................................................ 55 Chapter 3: Minor Characters...................................................................57 3.1 ..................................................................................................57 3.1.1 Occurrences of  .................................................................57 3.1.2 From Anonymity to Identification.........................................58 3.2 Elimelech......................................................................................61 3.2.1 The Name ...................................................................61 3.2.2 Naming Elimelech ................................................................62 3.2.2.1 The Ephrathite ..............................................................62 3.2.2.2 Naomi’s Husband .........................................................63 3.2.3 Elimelech’s Role in the Plot..................................................63 3.2.4 The Name Elimelech as Marker on God................................65 3.3 Mahlon and Chilion ......................................................................65 3.3.1 The Names  and  ......................................................65 3.3.2 Naming Mahlon and Chilion.................................................67 3.3.3 Chilion and Mahlon’s Roles in the Plot.................................67 3.4 Orpah............................................................................................67 3.4.1 The Name  .....................................................................67

Contents

XI

3.4.2 Naming Orpah ......................................................................68 3.4.3 Orpah’s Role in the Plot........................................................69 3.5 Peloni Almoni...............................................................................69 3.5.1 Anonymity............................................................................69 3.5.2 Mr So-and-So’s Role in the Plot ...........................................70 3.6 Obed .............................................................................................71 3.6.1 The Name   ......................................................................71 3.6.2 Naming Obed........................................................................71 3.6.3 Obed’s Role in the Plot – and in the Narrative ......................72 3.6.4 Obed and the Genealogy .......................................................72 3.7 Summary ......................................................................................73 Chapter 4: Naomi ....................................................................................75 4.1. Naomi’s Names ...........................................................................75 4.1.1 – the Pleasant .................................................................75 4.1.1.1 Naomi as Indirect Wordplay .........................................76 4.1.1.2 Occurrences..................................................................77 4.1.2  – the Bitter......................................................................78 4.1.2.1 Meaning and Occurrence ..............................................78 4.1.2.2 Changing Naomi’s Name..............................................78 4.2 Naming Naomi..............................................................................79 4.2.1 The Wife ..............................................................................80 4.2.2 The Mother-in-Law...............................................................81 4.3 Naomi’s Actions ...........................................................................82 4.3.1 Naomi and Her Daughters-in-law..........................................82 4.3.2 Naomi and Ruth....................................................................84 4.3.3 Naomi and God.....................................................................86 4.3.3.1 The Translation of  ...............................................87 4.3.3.2 Theology of Complaint .................................................90 4.3.3.3 Is Naomi a Job? ............................................................93 4.3.3.4 Summary ......................................................................95 4.3.4 Naomi’s Transformation .......................................................95 4.3.4.1 Naomi’s Modest Answer ..............................................95 4.3.4.2 Naomi’s Awakening .....................................................96 4.3.4.3 Naomi’s Plan ................................................................97 4.3.5 The Nurse .............................................................................99 4.3.5.1 Being a Nurse ...............................................................99 4.3.5.2 Naomi’s Silence .........................................................101 4.4 Summary ....................................................................................103

XII

Contents

Chapter 5: Ruth .....................................................................................105 5.1 The Name   ..............................................................................106 5.1.1 Meaning .............................................................................106 5.1.2 Occurrences ........................................................................106 5.1.3 The Name Ruth outside the Narrative .................................107 5.2 Naming Ruth ..............................................................................110 5.2.1 The Moabite .......................................................................110 5.2.1.1 Moabite as Intertextual Reference...............................113 5.2.2 The Daughter(-in-Law) .......................................................116 5.2.2.1 Your Daughter-in-Law who Loves You ......................117 5.2.2.2 Who is More to You than Seven Sons.........................119 5.2.2.3 Daughter.....................................................................120 5.2.3 The Namings of Ruth as related to Boaz .............................121 5.2.3.1 Young Girl .................................................................121 5.2.3.2 Maidservant................................................................122 5.2.3.3 Handmaid ...................................................................123 5.2.3.4 Worthy Woman ..........................................................124 5.2.4 The Late Man’s Wife ..........................................................125 5.2.5 I Am ..............................................................................125 5.2.6 Who Are You?....................................................................126 5.2.7 Summary ............................................................................128 5.3 Ruth’s Action..............................................................................129 5.3.1 Clinging to Naomi ..............................................................129 5.3.2 Is Ruth a Proselyte? ............................................................130 5.3.2.1 Houses........................................................................134 5.3.3 Ruth and Boaz ....................................................................138 5.3.3.1 At the Harvest Field....................................................138 5.3.3.2 At the Threshing Floor ...............................................139 5.3.4 Motherhood ........................................................................140 5.4 Summary ....................................................................................141 Chapter 6: Boaz .....................................................................................143 6.1 The name ...............................................................................144 6.1.1 Meaning .............................................................................144 6.1.1.1 The Temple Pillar .......................................................144 6.1.1.2 The Significance of Boaz’ Name ................................145 6.1.2 Occurrences ........................................................................146 6.1.2.1 Two Introductions ......................................................146 6.1.2.2 The Seventh Name of the Genealogy ..........................146 6.2 Naming Boaz ..............................................................................147 6.2.1 An Acquaintance of Might and Honour...............................147

Contents

XIII

6.2.1.1 Acquaintance or Relative of Her Husband’s?..............147 6.2.1.2 A Man of Might and Honour ......................................149 6.2.2 Boaz, the Redeemer ............................................................149 6.2.2.1 Among Our Redeemers...............................................151 6.2.2.2 You Are a Redeemer ..................................................152 6.2.2.3 I Am No Redeemer.....................................................153 6.2.2.4 Naomi’s Redeemer in the End ....................................154 6.3 Boaz’ Actions .............................................................................154 6.3.1 The Redemtion of Ruth by Boaz .........................................155 6.3.1.1 Boaz, the Merry..........................................................155 6.3.1.2 Secret Night Scene .....................................................156 6.3.1.3 Boaz’ Plan ..................................................................157 6.3.1.4 Who acquires Whom? Textual Criticism of Ruth 4:5 ..158 6.3.1.5 Boaz the Trickster ......................................................161 6.3.1.6 Preserving Mahlon’s Name.........................................163 6.3.1.7 Boaz’ Interest in Ruth.................................................164 6.3.2 Boaz and Yahweh ...............................................................166 6.3.2.1 Bringing Yahweh’s Blessing ......................................166 6.3.2.2 Replacing Yahweh with Boaz .....................................167 6.3.2.3 From Boaz’ Wings to Yahweh’s .................................169 6.4 Summary ....................................................................................170 Chapter 7: God ......................................................................................171 7.1. God’s Names .............................................................................171 7.1.1 Yahweh ..............................................................................171 7.1.2 Shaddai...............................................................................173 7.2 Naming Yahweh .........................................................................175 7.2.1 Elohim................................................................................175 7.2.1.1 From Orpah’s god to Naomi’s ....................................176 7.2.1.2 Yahweh, Israel’s God .................................................178 7.3 Yahweh’s Actions.......................................................................179 7.3.1 God the Bringer of Bread....................................................180 7.3.2 God the Prosecutor and Judge .............................................181 7.3.3 Blessings in the Name of Yahweh.......................................181 7.3.4 Yahweh, the Conceiver .......................................................182 7.3.4.1 Pregnancy and God’s Blessing....................................183 7.3.4.2 The Pregnancy of Ruth ...............................................184 7.3.5 Hesed..................................................................................186 7.3.5.1 Meanings of  ..........................................................186 7.3.5.2 Hesed in Ruth .............................................................187 7.3.6 The Silence of God .............................................................190 7.3.6.1 The Absence of God in its Old Testament Context......190

XIV

Contents

7.3.6.2 God’s Silence in Ruth.................................................193 7.4. Summary ...................................................................................194

Part III: Conclusion................................................................. 197 Chapter 8: God’s Hesed in a Moabite ....................................................199 8.1 Summaries ..................................................................................199 8.2 Foreign Identity ..........................................................................200 8.2.1 Foreign Presence in the Book of Ruth .................................201 8.3 God’s Silence..............................................................................205 8.3.1 God’s Silence from the Characters’ Points of View ............205 8.3.2 God’s Hesed, and Ruth’s ....................................................207 8.4 High Fidelity...............................................................................208 Bibliography ..........................................................................................211 Index of References ...............................................................................227 Index of Modern Authors .......................................................................237 Index of Subjects ...................................................................................239

Technical Information The translations of the Book of Ruth are my own, while references to other biblical texts are from the NRSV, unless otherwise indicated. Biblical names are written according to the NRSV, while names of biblical books are abbreviated according to The SBL Handbook of Style. Omissions in a quotation are marked with ellipses “…”, while insertions are marked with brackets “[ ]”.

List of Abbreviations Bibel2000 D92 HALOT JPS LUT LXX MT NB88 NO78/85 NRSV OSB THAT ThWAT ThWNT

Bibelkommisionens översättning (Swedish translation) Bibelen (Danish translation) The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Hebrew-English Tanakh Die Lutherbibel Septuaginta, the Greek version The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible Bibelen: Den Hellige Skrift (Norwegian translation) Bibelen (Norwegian translation) New Revised Standard Version (of the English Bible) The Oxford Study Bible Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament

Part I

Introduction And as imagination bodies forth, the forms of thing unknown, the poet’s pen turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name. William Shakespeare, A Midsummer-Night’s Dream, Act V Scene I.

Chapter One

The Problem 1.1 Character Studies There are few stories, experiences or emotions in human life which are not already described through biblical characters. The fall of Adam and Eve, Cain’s fratricide of Abel, Noah’s watching God’s anger, Sarah’s having a child through Hagar: these are only the first examples in a long list of characters who describe faith and life, not necessarily the way it should be, but the way it is. With allusions to them found in both the New Testament and the Quran, as well as in art, literature, and film, the Old Testament’s characters have a central place in Western and Middle Eastern religion and culture. It is therefore puzzling that many of the biblical commentaries and much of the Christian tradition in churches and children’s education, to a large extent, describe the characters rather one-dimensionally. Abraham is the one strong in faith, Moses the leader, Hannah the grateful, and David the repentant sinner. Such descriptions make the characters more ideal and less human, and thus difficult to identify with. Ruth is another typical example of a one-dimensional character. She is mostly described as a faithful, obedient and self-sacrificing daughter-inlaw, showing fidelity to Naomi, rescuing her from hunger and giving her a descendant who turns out to be the ancestor of David the king.1 In the Norwegian Christian song tradition she is pictured as the “good and thoughtful one (and Daniel was the bravest son),” or she is even described as a missionary, seeking souls left in the field. I find Ruth’s identity to be more complex than this: Ruth is a Moabite, a foreigner. She also dresses up and offers herself to a drunken Boaz at night, calling herself “your handmaid”. These traits are otherwise regarded as unacceptable within the broader literature of the OT, and therefore make her identity much more ambiguous than her traditional portrayal would suggest. In this book, I

1

Cf. Dass, Trende (1811); Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913) 65; Gerleman, Rut (1965) 5–6.

4

Part 1: Introduction

seek to show how complexity might be read into the OT characters, as exemplified by the characters in Ruth.2 There are several reasons for choosing Ruth as textual material for a book on character studies. As a narrative,3 Ruth is a classic. Thus, Hermann Gunkel collects support from Herder and Goethe to characterize Ruth as “das lieblichste kleine Ganze, dass uns in der Bibel episch und idyllisch überliefert worden ist.”4 As a biblical text, Ruth is not among the most central, but is more of a hidden treasure between the larger story of pre-monarchic heroes, telling of fidelity where the surrounding narratives focus on war and rape.5 The story of Ruth is also a women’s story, focusing on the situation of women in the OT society.6 I have chosen Ruth for all these reasons. However, I also find the reasons mentioned above stand in the way of the reading of Ruth. The narrative and the characters are often interpreted as too idyllic, too insignificant, and too inclined to women’s perspectives, making an independent reading difficult. A reading focusing on the complexity of the characters may open up some new dimensions in the narrative that tell its dramatic story in an understated way, in which no single, final interpretations can ever be reached.

1.2 Approaching the Characters When seeking to find and describe a character’s identity, it is obvious that the character’s actions are of significance. Good deeds make good characters. The way the character is introduced in the narrative, however, with a particular focus on the carachter’s personal name, has not been taken into account in the same way. My thesis is that the complexities of the character are to be found in the comparison between the character’s presentation and actions. It is not surprising that personal names are mentioned when a character is presented, and the Old Testament contains a countless number of personal names. Still, one does not need to search for long to discover that 2 To differ between the name of the character and the name of the book, I use “Ruth” on the character and the italicized “Ruth” on The book of Ruth. 3 To clarify my terminology, narrative is the genre, see Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 5; text is the narrative’s written terms, while story is the content about which the narrative tells. 4 Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913) 65. 5 Cf. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 29, 65; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 68–69; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 46, 52–53, 55. 6 See, for example Brenner, Feminist Companion (1993a); LaCocque, The Feminine Unconventional (1990) 84–116; Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible (2002) 238–263; Lapsley, Whispering the Word (2005) 89–108.

Chapter 1: The Problem

5

names in the Bible play a much more important role than just that of separating character A from character B.7 Most of the Hebrew names have an etymological, or more interestingly, a popular etymological meaning. The meanings of the names in Ruth are often overstated, such as Mahlon, which may mean “sterile”8 or “weak”,9 or Orpah which may mean “neck”, and consequently, “the one who turns her back”.10 These names can hardly be understood as authentic proper names given to children at birth, but rather be read as literary constructs describing the characters’ most significant traits and identifications, and further, understood as commentaries on the characters’ roles in the narrative. In addition to meaning, the occurrence and use of the names are important for the interpretation of the characters. For almost every character in Ruth there is a name, even for the minor ones. The more often a name is repeated, the more central is the character to the plot. Personal names may also be connected to, or replaced by, different namings,11 like “Ruth the Moabite”, “Naomi, Ruth’s mother-in-law” or “Boaz our relative”. The meaning of these namings often overshadows the personal name, and may also relate the character to others, so that the reader sees the character from a distant point of view. When the same naming is constantly repeated, it is appropriate to ask if there is a hidden agenda within this specific naming. Several studies have been made of biblical names and name symbolism,12 and most of the commentaries on Ruth give suggestions about different meanings of the names in Ruth.13 However, the names and namings have not been particularly included in the character analysis. A closer study of the relationship between the characters’ actions on the one hand, and the presentations through name and namings on the other, will bring nuances that may open a more complex understanding of the characters in Ruth. When reading the characters as presented above, we find that each character has its specific voice, raising different topics in the story: Naomi 7

Cf. Docherty, Reading (Absent) Character (1983) 43–86, on the significance of proper names of fictional characters in modern literature. 8 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 18. 9 Odelain and Sèguineau, Dictionary (1982) 250. 10 Odelain and Sèguineau, Dictionary (1982) 290; Block, Ruth (1999) 628. 11 The term “naming” is borrowed from Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 59. See 2.4.3 Naming. 12 See Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928); Böhl, “Wortspiele” (1953); Barr, “The Symbolism of Names” (1969); Hess, Studies (1993); Fabry, “sem” (1994); Liwak, “Name” (1994). 13 See Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 38; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 52–56; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 88–89, 94, 134; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 42–44, 54; Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 2–3, 5, 25; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 39–41; and others.

6

Part 1: Introduction

proclaims her bitterness; Boaz is merry; Ruth stresses that she is a foreigner; and Yahweh is silent. Thus, the character studies have theological implications. This theological aspect is the second focus of this book. I will seek to demonstrate how a close reading of biblical characters generates theological themes. Such an approach to theology rarely brings any direct answer to the question it raises, neither does it point in only one direction. Instead, the biblical characters stand as examples of how certain problems are dealt with in the literature and within its historical context, and the modern reader may even recognize in them the accurate portrayal of life. Two issues in particular are the focus of the characters in Ruth. Namely, the problem of being a foreigner and the question of God’s silence. None of the characters brings any clear answers to these issues. Nevertheless, the interaction between the different characters’ voices elaborates multiple and nuanced perspectives which may contribute to a new approach and may also offer some alternative answers to these issues in the broader context of the Old Testament.

1.3 Disposition The book is divided into three parts. In Part I I have already given a short introduction of the problem (chapter 1); further, I make some methodological clarifications and also give remark on the introduction to Ruth (chapter 2). Part II is an analysis of the characters in Ruth. Chapter 3 is a study of the term  and the minor characters, while chapters 4 to 7 are studies of the main characters Naomi, Ruth, Boaz and God. Each analysis is made using a similar pattern, starting with the character presentations consisting of the personal name(s), and further, different namings connected to the character. The next step in the analysis is to emphasize the actions of the character, and to compare the character presentations with these actions, seeking to find whether there is harmony or contradiction between the different approaches to the character. I will also study the character through the point of view of the narrator, who represents the “standard” of the narration.14 The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that through all these perspectives, the complexity of the characters is enhanced. In Part III, I draw upon the conclusions of the analysis in Part II with the intention of describing the specific perspectives the main characters bring to the narrative of Ruth. I will demonstrate how the characters’ views 14

Cf. 2.3.4 Point of View.

Chapter 1: The Problem

7

evoke different perspectives on the themes of foreign presence and God’s silence, and link some general ideas which the narrative of Ruth may bring to these questions.

Chapter 2

Methodological Reflections When studying biblical characters, a suitable approach may be found within the area of biblical narratology. Biblical narratology uses literary methods similar to narratology in general, and I will study the characters with this literary approach. A central part of the character descriptions in Ruth are personal names. I will therefore make use of an approach that belongs to the field of popular etymology of personal names, delimited, however, by onomastic studies. Since the material comprises ancient texts, and has the status of a holy text containing revelation history, biblical narratology also needs to incorporate certain historical considerations, such as the dating, social structures and genre of the text. Biblical narratology also requires a hermeneutical approach that discusses the role of the reader. In the following I will present the different methodological approaches and hermeneutical questions that are relevant for this work, and use some narrative examples to show how they are useful in my study.

2.1 Biblical Narratology The first call for attention to be given to literary aspects in biblical exegesis was probably Gunkel’s commentary on Genesis.1 Then, about sixty years later, the more fundamental and broader literary approaches to biblical narratives emerged2 as a part of the new literary criticism.3 Robert

1

See Gunkel, Genesis (1917) VII–LVI. For a presentation of the research history on this field, see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981) 15–16, who lifts up Good, Irony (1981), as the only “book–length study in English by a professional Bible scholar” made before 1970, and Bar-Efrat, The Art of Biblical Story (1979), which was “the first serious book-length introduction in any language to the distinctive poetics of biblical narrative.” However, this book is written in Hebrew, and did not get any international influence. See also Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 10–14. 3 With “(new) literary criticism” See Clines and Exum, “The New Literary Criticism” (1993) 12. Cf. also Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 11–13. 2

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

9

Alter was a pioneer, and his book The Art of Biblical Narrative4 has become a classic within the field of “Bible and Literature”.5 For the reading of biblical narratives, this Bible and Literature approach requires the definition of terms such as “narrator”, “plot”, “time”, “character” etc., as well as the close and holistic readings of the Biblical texts. It focuss on the artistic qualities of the text, partly inspired by the Midrashic tradition.6 Narrative theory and the historical approach are not particularly the focus of this reading, and the connection to a broader narrative discourse in general is also minimal.7 Later approaches to narrative reading have shown more awareness of the broader narratological discourse.8 Jean Louise Ska, influenced by Seymour Chatman, discusses the situation of the author and the reader,9 while David M. Gunn and Donna Noland Fewell focus on the relationship between reader and meaning, using several literary theorists in their studies.10 Important studies from this decade are the works of Yairah Amit and Amelia Devin Freedman.11 They both maintain close and artistic readings of the biblical narratives, similar to the Bible and Literature scholars; particularly Adele Berlin. At the same time, they incorporate theoretical questions that cannot be avoided when interpreting narratives. My analysis of the characters in Ruth is influenced by the Bible and Literature tradition. I especially follow Berlin and Shimon Bar-Efrat, whom I find particularly aesthetically nuanced in their reading of biblical characters. However, I also share Amit’s and Freedman’s need to combine this 4

See also his studies in: Alter and Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible (1987); Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (1990); Alter, The World of Biblical Literature (1992). 5 See also Good, Irony (1981); Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983); Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (1985); Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989). Most of these works were published in the Bible and Literature Series, which was within Sheffield’s JSOTSuppl Series. 6 Cf. the critique by Gunn, “Robert Alter” (1984) 114, who claims that Alter’s approach only fits the most artistic texts of the Hebrew Bible, and thus wonders if the book should rather be called “Narrative at its Most Artful”. 7 See the detailed presentation of Alter, Berlin, Bar-Efrat, and Sternberg in Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 7. 8 See for example Barton, Reading the Old Testament (1984); Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative (1986); Ska, Our Fathers have Told Us (1990); Gunn and Fewell, Narrative (1993). See also the edited studies by Schwartz, The Book and the Text (1990); House, Beyond Form Criticism (1992); Exum and Clines, The New Literary Critisism (1993). 9 Ska, Our Fathers have Told Us (1990), 39–43; Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 147–151. 10 Gunn and Fewell, Narrative (1993) 189–205; See also the broad bibliography. 11 Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001); Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005).

10

Part 1: Introduction

approach with questions that are raised through literary criticism, especially the question about the role of the reader. In addition I try to answer Freedman’s criticism that this method lacks historical connections. Thus I seek to combine literary analysis with classical exegetical approaches such as dating, text-critical questions and textual remarks in the Hebrew text, and also offer reflections upon social and political structures in the text.

2.2 The Act of Reading The most significant difference between the historical-critical methods and narratological approaches is the change in point of view, from seeking to reconstruct the author or editor’s point of view behind the text to focusing on the reader’s interpretations in front of it.12 As will be demonstrated in the following, most of my methodological approaches presuppose a reader’s view. Indirect shaping of characters has to be revealed by the reader; popular etymology depends upon the reader’s phonetic ear and ability to make associations, and intertextuality is “a gleam in the eye of a modern reader,” to quote Michael Fishbane.13 The act of reading and the designations of the role of the reader is a subject in itself. Readings may be done by an intended ideal reader – almost a reconstruction of the author; an implied reader, taking the role of an audience who actively follows the plot and fills in the gaps; or the reader might be the unwilling critical one, asking questions of the text that criticize and challenge the whole concept. This study emphasizes the implied reader, as it has its focus on the narrative. 2.2.1 The Implied Reader The implied reader may be illustrated by Chatman’s well-known model of “the whole narrative-communication situation”, focusing on the difference between readers inside and outside the narrative:

12 For more thorough reflections on this field, see Frye, Fearful Symmetry (1947) 427–28; Iser, The Act of Reading (1978), 28–38; Fowler, “Who is ‘the Reader’” (1985) Stordalen, “Det eksegetiske objekt” (1990) 265–269; Harris, Dictionary (1992) 266–271; Clines and Exum, “The New Literary Criticism” (1993); McKenzie and Haynes, To Each Its Own Meaning (1993) 197–207; Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 43–47, and others. 13 Fishbane, “Biblical Intertextuality” (2000) 44.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

11

Narrative text Real author

Implied author – (Narrator) – (Narratee) – Implied reader

Real reader14

According to Chatman, the real reader is “the flesh-and-bones you or I sitting in our living rooms reading … accidental to the narrative.”15 The narratee, when it occurs, is a character inside the narrative to which the narrative is told. He or she is not a transferee of meaning, but might function as a “device by which the implied author informs the real reader how to perform as implied reader.”16 In between the real reader and the narratee Chatman places the implied reader. Like the narratee, the implied reader is a part of the narrative. This place, however, is to be played by the real reader. The real reader thus moves from his or her position outside the narrative, enters the role of the implied reader, which is immanent to the text, to get the right Weltanschauung and is able to create a plausible meaning of the narrative. “When I enter the fictional contract I add another self: I become an implied reader,” Chatman explains.17 While Chatman’s model stresses the role which the real reader needs to enter, Wolfgang Iser focuses on both the role and the reading process.18 The concept of the implied reader is based upon two aspects, he claims. The first is similar to Chatman’s: that “the implied reader as a concept has its roots firmly planted in the structure of the text,”19 and is not to be identified with the real reader. The second aspect, which is more emphasized by Iser than by Chatman, is that the implied reading is “a structured act”.20 “Generally, the role prescribed by the text will be the stronger, but the reader’s own disposition will never disappear totally; it will tend instead to form the background to and a frame of reference for the act of grasping and comprehending.”21 For this study, the model of the implied reader is useful. When “entering” a role in the text, I give priority to a close reading of the textual structures in the narrative in order to follow the hints and remarks in the plot and to discover the nuances and artistic qualities of the narrative. The “narratee” is not always possible to identify, as it may change from scene to scene. The women in Bethlehem, giving response to the events in the 14

Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 151. Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 150. 16 Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 150. 17 Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 150. 18 Actually, Iser was the first scholar to use the term implied reader, or, originally, der Implizite Leser. See Iser, Der implizite Leser (1972). 19 Iser, The Act of Reading (1978) 34. 20 Iser, The Act of Reading (1978) 35. 21 Iser, The Act of Reading (1978) 37. 15

12

Part 1: Introduction

narrative, may be understood as narratees (Ruth 1:19; 4:14–15), and also Boaz, in chapters 2 and 3, responding to Ruth’s questions. When Ruth asks Boaz why he has shown favour to her when she is a foreigner (Ruth 2:10) or she asks him to be a redeemer (Ruth 3:9), the questions are raised to Boaz and, at the same time, challenge the reader. And still, even if I intend to be “immanent” to the text, and not focus on the reading process to the extent that reader-response criticism does, my reading is still coloured by my own historical and individual circumstances. I may do this within the perspective of the implied reading, since “the structure of the text allows for different ways of fulfilment.”22 2.2.2 Reading between Texts May Yahweh make the woman that comes into your house like Rachel and Leah. (Ruth 4:11)

   

 

  

Intertextuality is a term derived from literary science,23 but is also well established within biblical research as a way of describing the traditional, as well as the newer, methods of the act of reading between texts.24 Thus it involves studies of author-intended inner-biblical interpretations, called “allusions”, “influence”, or “echo”,25 but also readings that place the biblical text in dialogue with any relevant literature, without referring to a specific context or distinguishing between earlier or later texts.26 The major difference between these two approaches lies in the understanding of how to produce meaning. In studies of allusions and influence, the author is the producer, while in the studies of intertextuality from a synchronously point of view, the author’s intentions are irrelevant and the production of meaning lies either on the text itself, or on the reader.27 Because Ruth is among the latest texts in the Old Testament, the problems of chronology and the difference between allusion and intertextuality are seldom raised. Still, the different approaches bring different understandings to the act of reading, and a clarification is necessary. 22

Iser, The Act of Reading (1978) 37. See Barthes, Image – Music – Text (1977) 148; Kristeva, Desire in Language (1980) 65–66. 24 See Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 87–118, for a presentation of the whole spectrum. Cf. also Fewell, Reading between Texts (1992). 25 See Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture (1998) 6–31; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 281–291; Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis” (1986); Frymer-Kensky, “Reading Rahab” (1997); Weyde, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation” (2005) 290–300; and others. 26 See for example Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 3, 69–73; Brenner, “Looking at Esther” (1995). 27 See Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture (1998) 7. 23

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

13

Michael Fishbane’s emphasis on “thematic coherence” 28 is useful as a general description of the different intertextual occurrences in Ruth. This approach focuses on coherence at all levels, turning the attention away from the author, or a given chronology between the different texts, and towards the reader as the producer of meaning.29 More concretely, Kirsten Nielsen points at the different approaches to intertextuality that actually are in use when reading a biblical text.30 Her approach incorporates both the author’s and the reader’s intentions, for the reason that “exegesis involves not only a responsibility towards the possible intentions of ‘an original author’ or ‘editor,’ but also a willingness to include meanings that were not intended but which arise in the dialogue with later texts.”31 Accordingly, Nielsen does not suggest any ultimate choice between either “influence” or “intertextuality”, but plays on different approaches, depending on which texts are to be read together. What is important is that “it must be possible to follow the reading path in question, and for me as interpreter to show how I have moved from one text to another. As an exegete I must be able to explain which concepts in the text before me I have categorized as markers, and why I have included precisely these intertexts.”32

Her statement is described through four different levels, or “phases”, of intertextuality, with which I will imply to the reading of Ruth. The first phase is to see themes or terms as obviously “author-intended markers.” The large number of personal names is one such author-intended remarks. Personal names explicitly mentioned in Ruth are Rachel and Leah (Ruth 4:11), drawing attention to Jacob’s wives and their building of Israel’s house (Gen 29–35); Tamar and Judah (Ruth 4:12) focusing on the narrative in Gen 38; David (Ruth 4:17), leading to 1 Sam 16, as well as to the institution of the monarchy and Messianic theology; and the genealogy from Perez to David (Ruth 4:18–22), linking the Ruth-narrative to the larger genealogy in 1 Chron 2:1–15. More indirectly, the name of the place Moab (Ruth 1:1), points towards the birth of Moab (Gen 19:31–38).33 Ruth also

28 Fishbane, “Biblical Intertextuality” (2000) 42. The article differs from Fishbane’s previous work on this field, where he uses a more inner-biblical approach. See note above. 29 As literary examples of such an approach, see Nielsen, Satan (1996); Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative (1992); Fewell, Reading between Texts (1992). 30 Nielsen, “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible” (2000). See also Nielsen, “Intertextuality and Biblical Scholarship” (1990); Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 11–12. 31 Nielsen, “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible” (2000) 31. 32 Nielsen, “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible” (2000) 30. 33 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 41–42. Cf. also Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure” (1982).

14

Part 1: Introduction

indirectly refers to different legal texts, such as Lev 19:9; Deut 24:19; and 25:1–10. The second phase is to let the Canonical contexts be decisive for the interpretations of the narrative.34 The phrase “more than seven sons” (Ruth 4:15) has its only OT parallel in 1 Sam 1:8, pronounced by Elkanah. In the same way, the introduction to Ruth, “Once, in those days when the Judges ruled,” (Ruth 1:1), may be understood as a parallel to the introduction of Judg 19, “In those days when there was no king in Israel,” (Judg 19:1). Further, there are OT narratives containing themes similar to those in Ruth, such as famine, childbirth, death, foreignhood and God’s silence, which are relevant to emphasize within a canonical reading. Thirdly, Nielsen demonstrates how New Testament texts may influence the reading of OT texts. The New Testament brings an intertextual link to Ruth in Matt 1:3–6. Here, Ruth’s name is mentioned, together with the women Tamar, Rahab, Uriah’s wife and Mary. This text is the only biblical text outside Ruth referring to Ruth’s name. The study of the four OT women in the genealogy of Jesus is therefore of a certain interest, raising the question of what these four women might have in common, and how the interpretation of Matt 1:3–5 may interpret the Ruth-narrative. At last Nielsen points out that as exegetes we bring “a personal baggage of texts” into our reading of the Bible. This is an approach lying beneath all the readings. The reader is, after all, the one who discovers the relevant intertexts. This level does not occur as a particular approach in this study, but comes out in the way I find coherence within the biblical material, in my choice of model for reading approaches, and, more indirectly, in the way I identify with the characters.

2.3 Characters Within the field of narratology, the study of characters is central. Without a character, as for example, David, there is no progress and hardly any motive left in the Books of Samuel. Below, I will illustrate different methods of character analysis, exemplified by studies made by different scholars of biblical narratology. 2.3.1 What is a Character? In her book Narratology, Mieke Bal defines characters as “anthropomorphic figures the narrative tells us about”.35 Thus she distinguishes the 34 35

Nielsen, “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible” (2000) 20–22. Bal, Narratology (1997) 114.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

15

character from the actor which “covers a larger area than a more specific term could do. In other words, a dog, a machine, could act as an actor.”36 In this work, I borrow her definition. In addition to this definition, there is a fundamental question linked to character studies which goes beyond the clarifications of terminology: What actually is a character, which is to say, in what way may we relate literary characters to real life human beings? Michael V. Fox answers this question by describing the characters “as if they were real”, stressing the words as if. 37 As readers we react to and speak about characters as if they were real people, “[w]e can even imagine them leading lives outside the events narrated in the text. … [Nevertheless, they] have no ‘core’ or ‘essence’ apart from the various things said about them.”38 Also Chatman describes how literary characters are bound to the text: “Characters use language to argue, to make love, to carry on business, to rhapsodize, to cogitate, to promise, to make commitments, to lie, and so on, always within the boundaries of the world of the story.”39 In addition, the narrator’s omniscience makes the reader know the character much more definitely, directly, and immediately than our discrete, limited contacts with real persons allow.40 At the same time, Chatman stresses how the relationship between the character and the reader goes beyond the textual boundaries. The character “traits” are codes which are familiar to the reader from the “trait-codes in the real world”, and thus the reader may read out characters similarly to how it reads real people.41 John A. Darr claims that the reader often sees more than merely a literary construction as he or she comes to “know” characters in literature in much the same way that we get to know others in real life. “Our knowledge … allows us to anticipate how that person will react in a particular situation or environment.”42 36

Bal, Narratology (1997) 114. Fox, Character and Ideology (1991) 6. 38 Fox, Character and Ideology (1991) 6. Cf. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927) 68. 39 Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 166. See also Darr, On Character Building (1992) 47, who describes the character as a “totally verbal experience” in contrast to human beings who communicate with “body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, touch, and so forth.” 40 Cf. Darr, On Character Building (1992) 47. 41 Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 125–126. See also p 111, where he argues against the Aristotle and Formalistic conception claiming that “character are products of plots, that their status is ‘functional,’ that they are, in short, participants or actants rather than personages, that it is erroneous to consider them as real beings. Narrative theory, they say, must avoid psychological essences; aspects of character can only be ‘functions’.” 42 Darr, On Character Building (1992) 46. See also Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 118. 37

16

Part 1: Introduction

The fact that characters are bound to the text, and at the same time are recognizable and easy for the reader to identify with, is a challenge when reading narratives such as Ruth. It is tempting to turn the characters into our own inventions, and perhaps make them different from how they were created. When the Midrash Rabbah describes Ruth as “forty years of age … [but] that she looked like a girl of fourteen,”43 or John Keats describes Ruth, “when, sick for home, she stood in tears amid the alien corn,”44 it probably says more about the reader’s creative mind than about the narrative’s description of the character. To avoid the individual interpretations within research it is important that the character interpretations seem plausible and possible to follow. The methodological approaches must therefore be clear. Another challenge in character analysis arises when God becomes a character. Describing God within the configuration of a character challenges the distinction between “literary” and “real”, “immanent” and “transcendent”. God is often set aside in studies of biblical characters, but God in the OT narratives “is not the philosopher’s omni-God, all knowing, all powerful, and all present.”45 He is rather to be compared with the human characters. Such an approach may shed new light on the character “God”, and may challenge a more determined, dogmatic picture of God’s identity. 2.3.2 Character Types Classifying characters is useful when describing the different characters’ function in the plot. E.M. Forster was the first to divide characters into “flat” and “round” characters, describing the flat as “constructed round a single idea or quality: when there is more than one factor in them, we get the beginning of the curve towards the round.”46 The round character is complex, capable of change and development. The test of whether the character is flat or round “is whether it is capable of surprising in a convincing way. If it never surprises, it is a flat,” Forster claims.47 Forster’s description of the two character types has become a standard.48 Berlin uses them in her study, though somewhat differently than Forster. 43

Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 52. Gittings, Selected Poems of Keats (1966. Reprinted 1972). 45 See Gunn and Fewell, Narrative (1993) 28; Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 32. 46 Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927) 93. 47 Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927) 106. See also Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 132. 48 Even Chatman, who criticises many of Forster’s theories, finds the distinction between “round” and “flat” character convenient. See Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 132. 44

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

17

She expands them into three: “agent”, “type” and “full-fledged character”, and argues that there is no real line separating these three types and one might think of them as points on a continuum. “The difference is the degree of characterization rather than the kind of characterization.”49 Berlin’s type is more or less similar to Forster’s flat character. It is not an individual, but represents a certain kind of character “who has a limited and stereotyped range of traits”.50 Agents serve as functionaries in the narrative. “They are not important for themselves, and nothing of themselves, their feelings, etc., is relevant to the reader. … They are there for the effect that they have on the plot or its characters … to contrast with or provoke responses from the characters.”51 Generally, they are minor characters. Berlin’s full-fledged character comes close to Forster’s round. It is the character “about whom we know more than is necessary for the plot. … They are realistically portrayed; their emotions and motivations are either made explicit or are left to be discerned by the reader from hints provided in the narrative. We feel that we know them, understand them, and can, to a large extent, identify with them.”52

Berlin illustrates her different character types, by referring, among others, to Bathsheba, who is both an agent and a full-fledged character, depending on which narrative is read. In 1 Sam 11 Bathsheba is an agent, yet despite that she has an important role in the narrative, being the object of David’s interest. Her name is mentioned only once, and she plays an active role only when she announces her pregnancy. In the rest of the story she is placed in the background.53 In 1 Kgs 1, on the other hand, she is a fullfledged character, although here, David is occupied with another young girl. She comes to David’s bed while Abishag is lying there, and begs for her son’s right to inherit the throne. Her name is mentioned five times, and through her speech we find traits of a mother humiliating herself for her son. “She is a ‘real’ person.”54 In Ruth, Naomi and Boaz are clearly full-fledged characters, while Elimelech, Chilion, Mahlon, Orpah, Peloni Almoni and Obed are clearly 49

Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 32. See also Josef Ewen in Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 72, arguing (in Hebrew) for many intermediate graduations between “flat” and “round.” Amit herself follows Berlin’s classifications. See Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 72–74. 50 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 32. 51 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 32. 52 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 31–32. 53 As Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 26, remarks on the effect of making Bathsheba an agent in this story, describing it as “crucial events in the life of any woman, yet are we not told how they affected Bathsheba.” 54 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 27.

18

Part 1: Introduction

agents. The character type of Ruth is not that obvious. She may have traits of the “type”, but may also be a full-fledged character. Berlin’s description of “degree of characterization”55 is therefore appropriate to use on Ruth.56 What character type is God? Amit claims that God is never full-fledged, since he never develops. Because the biblical text is Holy Scripture, there is often a distance between the divine and human spheres, which avoids the describing of God. As a result, God is mostly understood as a type, or an agent, “always behind the scenes”.57 Within a literary study, such a view of God’s character is insufficient. Biblical narratology is a reading of texts, not of established theology. My question regarding the study of God in Ruth is whether God is a character at all. Is God “an anthropomorphic figure” according to Bal’s definition above? 58 I will not discuss the theological implications of God as an “anthropomorphic figure”, but only remark that the descriptions of God, such as having a hand (Ruth 1:13) and being a judge (Ruth 1:20-21), belong to the area of antropomorphic qualilties. Accordingly, Bal’s definition is useful on God in this text. What I will discuss is God’s literary role as a character in the narrative. What role has God; is he an active part or does he only occur indirectly by the other characters’ announcements; and further, what does these observations mean for the understanding of God’s presence or absence in Ruth. Classifying the characters in Ruth will be a central part of the character studies. I follow Berlin’s classifications in my analysis and will seek to discover the qualities that make the specific character an agent, type, or full-fledged. The classifications give rise to differences between the main and the minor characters in Ruth. The agents will be similar to the minor characters, the full-fledged will be similar to the main, while the types are more in between these categories. As will be demonstrated, I give priority to the full-fledged characters and the types, of whom the full-fledged are those most natural to identify with. 2.3.3 Characterization What is typical for biblical narratives is their modest way of describing characters. When descriptions occur, they are rarely accidental but are important commentaries on the plot.59 “[I]t is not for nothing that we are told that Bathsheba was beautiful, or Esau hairy, or Eglon fat,”60 Berlin 55 56

Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 32. See Brenner, “Naomi and Ruth” (1983) 388, for alternative interpretations of

Ruth. 57 58 59 60

Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 73. See 2.3.1 What is a Character? Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 49. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 34.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

19

writes. However, also in these characteristics only the essential is told, while details are left out: “We may know that Bathsheba was beautiful, but we have no idea what she looked like.” 61 Bar-Efrat presents two main categories of character descriptions in biblical literature: the direct and the indirect shaping of characters. The direct shapings of characters are the concrete descriptions of physical or external appearance, facial expressions or clothes as exemplified above, but also presentations of inner personality traits or mental states. Direct shapings of characters are important in the way that they provide explicit information about the character. Unfortunately it occurs rather rarely. More frequent, however, is the indirect shaping. This shaping, though, is not that easy to discover. “Indirect characterization requires a mental effort on the part of the reader, thereby increasing the active participation in the narrative events.”62 Bar-Efrat demonstrates three ways of discovering the indirect shaping of characters: through speech, action, and presentation of minor characters. All these ways are well represented in Ruth. The narrative consists of a number of speeches made by Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, each of which gives the character its own, independent voices, that “reflects and exposes the speaker”.63 The main characters’ actions, being mourning, blessing or gleaning, naturally affects the personalities of the characters. Further, the minor characters serve as a “background against which the personalities of the main ones stand out”.64 Orpah is clearly the shadow of Ruth; Peloni Almoni is obviously the opposite of Boaz. Since there are few direct shapings of the characters in Ruth, the indirect shapings become of significant importance in my analysis. There is also a fourth indirect shaping of characters which will be demonstrated below. That is point of view. 2.3.4 Point of View “It is impossible to discuss character without reference to point of view,” Berlin claims.65 To her, this literary concept is a central way of approach-

61

Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 34. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 64. Conf. also Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 74. 63 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 64. 64 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 86. 65 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 43. 62

20

Part 1: Introduction

ing character studies.66 Her understanding is based on Chatman’s,67 although used more generally. Berlin uses several indicators to describe the character’s point of view.68 One is naming.69 She describes how Tamar is named “brother’s wife” (Gen 38:8, 9) when seen through the eyes of Onan, and “daughter-in-law” (Gen 38:11, 24), when seen from Judah’s point of view. The different namings are connected to Tamar’s name, and are to be understood as character descriptions.70 However, the namings also stress the point of view through which the story is seen. Using Berlin’s approach, we find that the sentence “his wife’s name was Naomi” (Ruth 1:2), in addition to introducing Naomi’s name, points to Elimelech as the head of the family. Similarly, the phrase “then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died,” (Ruth 1:3) describes Elimelech’s death, but also focuses on Naomi and her loss. The points of view thus bring information both about the character who is the subject, but also about the one whose view it is seen through. Through the presentation of Naomi, Elimelech becomes a respectable man. Through the description of Elimelech’s death we find a widow in distress. Indirect characteristics, such as Naomi’s distress, lead to another indicator for point of view, described by Berlin as the character’s inner life. The character’s inner life is rarely mentioned directly, but is presented as the narrator describes how one character reacts towards another. “Thus, in just a word or two, the narrator gives the reader a window into the mental or 66 Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 29, commends Berlin for discussing point of view, “because these subjects have not often been addressed as explicitly or as fully on the other literary studies of HB narrative.” 67 Chatman, Story and Discourse (1978) 151–152, distinguishes point of view in “at least three senses:” the literal, through which eyes the events of the narrative are seen; the figurative, which is the perspective of ideology and conceptual system (Weltanschauung); and transferred, the perspective of someone’s interest, welfare, or well being. He also describes “point of view” as “one of the most troublesome of critical terms,” due to its plurisignification. Still he finds it valuable. Bal, Narratology (1997) 143–144, on the contrary, describes the term as “unclear” as it does not “make a distinction between, on the one hand, the vision through which the elements are presented and, on the other, the identity of the voice that is verbalizing that vision.” She prefers to use the term “focalization”, which is “a new term for a not completely new concept.” Genette, Narrative Discourse (1980) 185ff, complicates the picture even more, using both “point of view” and “focalization,” though differently from Bal. 68 Other indicators to point of view made by Berlin are “the term  ”, the use of “Circumstantial clauses” and “Alternative expressions.” See Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 62–64, 72–73. These are not relevant for the analysis of Ruth, and therefore not described here. 69 See Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 59. 70 See more on this function of naming in 2.4.3 Naming.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

21

emotional state of a character, and the reader can thereby see parts of the story through the eyes of that character.”71 2 Sam 11:2 is a classic example of such a glimpse: when David recognizes that the bathing Bathsheba is beautiful, the reader gets a glimpse into the head of a man who is falling in love. In Ruth 3:14, we have a glimpse of Boaz’ inner life as well: “He said to himself: it must not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.” Boaz’ concern is about Ruth’s welfare; however, behind this thought we might see a glimpse of an embarrassed Boaz who needs to cover up the situation. The reader does not get any further information, but the insight into Boaz’ point of view gives the impression that he is emotionally involved. A third, and perhaps the most important, indicator of point of view is the relationship between narration on the one hand and direct discourse on the other. Berlin points out that “direct speech … is the most dramatic way of conveying the characters’ internal psychological and ideological points of view. … Through the combination of direct discourse and narration two points of view are presented. … The reader then has enough information to appreciate the [character’s] point of view, but can see beyond it to the larger picture.” 72

The narration is generally told by the narrator from his/her broader and distant point of view,73 while direct discourses are genuine reports from the characters inside the narrative. The combination of these often shows that there is “a small but significant dissonance between the objective report and terms in which the character restates the facts,” quoting Alter.74 The dissonance might be made by using alternative expressions when the discourse and the narration describe the same event. But even when there are verbal similarities, the narrator’s and the character’s points of view might be different. The narrator’s voice is a voice outside the plot, and this has the potential to reflect upon the character’s identity from a clarifying distance. This may be exemplified through the narrative of Amnon and Tamar, where both the narrator and Amnon himself point out that “Amnon loved Tamar” (2 Sam 13:4). What is not clear is whether the narrator agrees with Amnon, or if s/he is ironically, indirectly saying: “Amnon

71

Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 61. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 64–65. 73 Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 17–23, and his description of the omniscient narrator. 74 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981) 77. 72

22

Part 1: Introduction

thought he loved Tamar but, as the outcome of the story shows, this can hardly be called love.”75 The narrative of Ruth contains several direct discourses, and the relationship between discourse and narration becomes very important. One example of dissonance is found when Naomi claims that she has returned “empty” to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:19–21), but the narrator, ignoring Naomi’s complaints, points to Naomi’s having Ruth by her side and that she returns at the beginning of the barley harvest (Ruth 1:22). Giving the narrator the analytical role, this must be understood as a correction of Naomi’s point of view.

2.4 Personal Names as Character Description As previously claimed, the personal name is a significant part of the presentation of the characters, in Ruth as well as in the OT narratives in general. Every individual character in Ruth has a name; even the anonymous one is “named” anonym. In the following I will describe the way I understand and use the personal names as a character description. 2.4.1 The Meaning of Personal Names Old Testament personal names are peculiar, since they mean something.76 Adam and Eve, meaning “earth” and “life”, are obviously names chosen for their significances. The often occurring explaining of a newborn child’s name, and the remembrance of the name of the dead, indicates a close connection between name and identity in the Old Testament. Rachel cries out a name to Benoni the moment she dies (Gen 35:18), and the Levirate Law describes in detail how to prevent the dead man’s name from being “blotted out of Israel” (Deut 25:5–6). Personal names are therefore of special interest when analyzing characters in a Hebrew narrative. 2.4.1.1 The Study of Personal Names The study of biblical personal names has a long tradition. In 1896, G. Buchanan Gray gave an almost complete presentation of OT personal

75

Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 64. In fact, almost every personal name has an original meaning. However, modern parents mostly name their children for aesthetic reasons, in combination with naming them after relatives, being inspired by literature, or following actual trends. Only rarely is a child named because of the name’s meaning. Cf. Barr, “The Symbolism of Names” (1969) 11–12. 76

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

23

names, though with the exception of the names in Ruth.77 In 1928, Martin Noth published Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemittischen Namengebung,78 which has become a standard work in this field. Among the first commentaries on Ruth referring to the personal names is that of A. Bertholet.79 Since then, there has been a broad agreement that the names in Ruth are meant to be understood as markers in the texts. Gillis Gerleman remarks:“[Der] Erzähler verwendet kein Wort auf eine Charakterisierung der vier Auswanderer. Nur ihre Namen werden genannt.” He lists different possible implications of the different names, but does not use these observations to further characterize the characters.80 Edward F. Campbell refers to etymology, although he is careful in using the names as interpretation.81 Jack Sasson discusses the names more thoroughly in his philological commentary, emphasizing the plurality when it comes to possible meanings of names,82 while Nielsen sees the names as markers to the themes in her approach.83 The exceptions are Jan de Waard and Eugene A. Nida, who argue “that [the names] should be treated simply as proper names and not as symbolic designations,”84 and Frederic W. Bush, who claims that the names “need not detain us long, for our author makes no play on the meaning, with the exception of Naomi.”85 2.4.1.2 From Etymology to Popular Etymology In 1961, James Barr published his book Semantics of Biblical Language,86 in which he made a crass confrontation with what, in his opinion, was a much too naïve belief in traditional exegesis as instrument for insight in a biblical way of thinking. As a part of this critique, he raised questions about the role of etymology as a meaningful contributor. He criticized etymological studies for seeking to reconstruct one basic meaning of a term without paying attention to the fact that terms have usually developed 77

Gray, Hebrew Proper Names (1896). Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928). Zadok, Anthroponomy (1988), is a later updating of Gray and Noth, but he concentrates on the categorising of names, instead of etymological explanations. 79 Bertholet, Die Fünf Megillot (1898); See also Nowach, Richter, Ruth (1902). 80 Gerleman, Rut (1965) 14. 81 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 52–56. 82 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 17–18, 20, 40–42. 83 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 42, 54. Cf. also the commentaries of Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 88–91, 94, 134–35; Block, Ruth (1999) 624; Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 2–5, 24–25. 84 de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 7. 85 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 63. 86 Barr, The Semantics (1961). 78

24

Part 1: Introduction

their implications throughout different linguistic stages, and further, that terms may change their meanings within different contexts.87 Accordingly, there are many possible meanings for a term, not one. Barr also criticized historical etymological methods for being based to a great extent on hypotheses it is not possible to confirm. When it comes to OT studies, and especially OT names of persons and places, Barr claimed that these names are not based upon historical, but clearly popular etymological features.88 Barr’s book evoked much reaction.89 In later research, though, his critique is taken into account.90 His objections are fundamental, and cannot be ignored. This has led to the fact that commentaries on Ruth after the 1970s have generally made a wider variety of suggestions in their discourses of the meaning of a personal name.91 With Barr, the focus within the etymological studies changed from searching for the “original” meaning, to looking for what Barr calls transparency: “to see through [a term] to some kind of reason why it has its meaning.”92 From transparency, it is not far to popular etymology. Popular etymology does not claim any sort of verification or objectivity, but has its foci on the traditions, and, above all, on the associations. According to Barr, the biblical texts are based upon popular etymology, especially when it comes to names. Biblical etymology of names is therefore a play on word-similarity, based on associations instead of linguistic root analysis. The etymology made by the biblical authors “was more a 87

Cf. Tångberg, “Linguistics” (1974) 165–67. Barr, The Semantics (1961) 108. He refers to Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928), as an example of such misunderstanding. 89 His opponents accused Barr of being polemical and partly making caricatures, especially of ThWNT, without suggesting alternative approaches to the etymological studies. Among the main critics was Childs, “The Semantics of Biblical Language” (1961). On the other hand, Tångberg, “Lingvistikk og teologi” (1971) English translation in Tångberg, “Linguistics” (1974) supported Barr. His article is a thorough analysis of Barr`s etymological critique, where he gives credit to Barr for starting the debate, but also endorses much of his critique. Cf. also Balentine, “James Barr’s Quest” (1994), describing the debate which arose in the wake of Barr’s book, and Barr, “Etymology” (1974) where he elaborates his critical stands. 90 See the introduction to THAT I. V, where Jenni and Westermann claim that during the last ten years, there is a certain agreement that “beim Fragen nach der Bedeutung einer Vokabel (und insbesondere nach der theologischen Bedeutung) jede methodische Engführung zu vermeiden ist, und daß nur ein abgewogenes Ins-Spiel-Bringen möglichst vieler und verschiedenartiger Zugänge zu einem überzeugenden Resultat führen kann.” 91 See Sasson, Ruth (1989) 20–21; Block, Ruth (1999) 628; and others. 92 Barr, “Etymology” (1974) 21, uses the German word “Handschuhe” as example, containing hand and shoe, which is an excellent description of a glove. But the terms “hand” and “shoe” are not transparent. The explanation ends with no further reconstruction, and is therefore not etymology in proper use. 88

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

25

kind of poetry, conceit and even humour than something comparable with what we today call linguistic study.”93 2.4.1.3 Word Similarities “Play on word-similarities” is to put together and compare two similar terms that stand relatively close together, often within the same sentence. The terms might be literally identical, or the similarities can also be on a more phonetic level, defined by Sasson as “visual” and “oral wordplay”.94 The classical example of a personal name connected to wordplay is Nabal: For as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and fully is with him. (1 Sam 25:25)



  

   

This is an explicitly announced wordplay, pronounced by Abigail, Nabal’s wife. Abigail explains the meaning of her husband’s name and connects it directly to his identity. Such direct wordplays are rather usual in the OT narratives.95 Still, most of the OT personal names are mentioned without any wordplay. 96 Thus we may question whether these “wordplay-less” names should be understood as if they were referring to a descriptive term after all, as an indirect wordplay. Is it relevant to ask for a meaning, equivalent to wordplay, on names that are mentioned without any further explanation? Bush claims that there is no point in looking for explanations for all personal names. When the author does not make any point about the meaning of a name through wordplay, the etymology of the name sheds no light on the story. 97 Moshe Garsiel is of another opinion. He describes how the biblical literature operates with its own form of homiletics which he calls    (Midrashic name derivation). This sort of interpretation infuses the names with meaning based on sound or semantic potential. The 93

“Etymology” (1974) 26. See also Barr, The Semantics (1961) 109. Cf. also Garsiel, Biblical Names (1991) 17–18, who describes biblical writers as ”far more pliable both in their morphological and in their semantic rules. The biblical writers were committed to literary considerations rather than to linguistic ones.” 94 See Sasson, “The Interpreter’s Dictionary” (1962) 968–969. Cf. also Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 88, referrig to “Israelite ears.” 95 As for example with the name of Eve (Gen 3:20), Cain (Gen 4:1), Ishmael (Gen 16:11), and the sons of Leah (Gen 29:32–35; 30:18–20). Together with the wordplay, there is often an explanation of how or why the name fits so well with the character or the situation. See Böhl, “Wortspiele” (1953) where he gives a presentation of names connected to direct wordplay. 96 Barr, “The Symbolism of Names” (1969) 16. 97 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 63, 65.

26

Part 1: Introduction

meaning of the name is established in relation to past events, or future incidents of which the reader needs to discover him/herself.98 Garsiel understands the name Ruth to be connected to the term   (abundance, saturation), as an allusion to Boaz’ instruction to Ruth: “if you get thirsty, go to the vessels and drink from what the young men have drawn.” (Ruth 2:9). The allusion is present, Garsiel claims, despite the fact that   does not occur in the text.99 Another scholar who emphasizes wordplay is Richard S. Hess.100 He follows Barr’s deconstruction of etymological wordplay and defines wordplay as “any explicit or implied association between etymology of a personal name and identical or similar sounding Hebrew words”.101 He demonstrates how Cain’s name is attached to Eve’s explanation (Gen: 4:1), while Abel has no explicit wordplay in his text, “but one need not stretch the imagination too far to find in its Hebrew root, hebel, ‘fleeting, transitory,’ the short-lived name bearer who died without descendants to continue his name.”102 Hess’ and Garsiel’s approaches serve as a pattern for several OT personal names. One example is to be found in the Book of Job, where Job, after great agony, is crowned with blessing and wealth, and the names of his three new daughters are mentioned in particular; Jemimah, Keziah and Keren-happuch (Job 42:14), translated into English as “Turtledove”, “Cassia” and “Mascara”.103 None of these names is connected to any explanatory wordplay. In the next verse, however, the girls are described as the most beautiful women in the country, corresponding well to the meaning of the names.104 According to Noth, names such as those of the daughters of Job are to be interpreted as an expression of the parents’ joy. 105 The names definitely confirm that Job’s joy has returned. In Ruth, the personal names are indirect wordplay as well. The name Mara is juxtaposed with the almost identical term  , implicating “bitter” (Ruth 1:20) and is an explicit association. The name Naomi is not connected to any wordplay, but the context clearly signals that the name plays 98 Garsiel, Biblical Names (1991) 19. See also Garsiel, “Puns” (1991) Garsiel, “Homiletic Name-derivation” (1993). 99 Garsiel, Biblical Names (1991) 252. Cf. also Gordis, “Personal Names in Ruth” (1986) 298. 100 Hess, Studies (1993); Hess, “Issues” (1998). 101 Hess, “Issues” (1998) 175. 102 Hess, “Issues” (1998) 176. For further examples, see also Hess, “Issues” (1998) 177; Barstad, “rahab” (1989). 103 Odelain and Sèguineau, Dictionary (1982) 235, 81, 255. 104 See Habel, The Book of Job (1975) 231, for further commentaries. 105 Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 230, 231, 223 translates the names “Taube,” “Kassia” and “Schminkbüchse.”

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

27

on a “similar sounding Hebrew word” using Hess’ definition (Ruth 1:20– 21). Likewise, the name Orpah may be understood as an indirect wordplay. There are no comments on Orpah’s name in the narrative, neither as a visual wordplay, nor indirectly referred to in the plot.106 Nevertheless; the name may very well be understood as a play on words as the name  might be associated with the term, meaning “neck”. Interpreting names through indirect word-plays is not easy, however. The name may sound similar to several terms which could be played on or with which associations could be made, and moreover, even if the association is clear, it might lead to different interpretations. In addition to context, point of view is decisive for which associations to choose. An example of the latter point is given by Frank Zimmermann. In his study of the names Moab and Ben-Ammi (Gen 19:37–38), he describes how Moab, meaning “desire”, may be interpreted differently. From a Moabite point of view it could mean “pleasant place”. For a Hebrew, however, “desire” is rather understood as a leitmotif for the narrative of Moab’s birth, where “ab” in Moab is an indirect reference to the fact that Moab’s father also is his grandfather.107 Likewise, the name Ben-Ammi might lead to two different interpretations. Zimmermann points to the positive loaded derivation “son of my people”, though a more adequate derivation is “cousin”, standing as a delicate conclusion to the story of the birth of Lot’s sons.108 Again, the name Orpah is a good example. According to the context, the meaning “neck” is relevant; however, it might also be associated with “cloud”, “perfume/aroma”, or “a handful of water”.109 If choosing the meaning “neck”, the interpretation is still not clear. “Neck” might be understood as “stiff-necked”, alluding to Orpah leaving her mother-in-law. On the other hand, it could also awake associations in sensual matters, being a part of the woman’s body, like the Song of Songs describes the woman’s neck, using the term   (Song 1:10; 4:4). Orpah is therefore an open name, until she turns her neck and leaves her mother-in-law. Then the right meaning occurs, and the alternatives become irrelevant.110 106

See Sasson, “The Interpreter’s Dictionary” (1962) 968. Zimmermann, “Folk Etymology” (1966) 320. 108 Zimmermann, “Folk Etymology” (1966) 320. Ben-Ammi has the same father as his mother, and is therefore his mother’s brother. However, he is also his father’s brother-in-law, since the father is also his mothers “husband.” As son of his brother-inlaw, his father is also his uncle, and accordingly he becomes a cousin to himself! 109 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 20. 110 This is contrary to Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 73–74, who claims that “because she has this name … she will remain her whole life ‘the one who turns her neck,’ until history will finally allow her to do what is expected from her.” See more on the name Orpah in 3.4 Orpah. 107

28

Part 1: Introduction

2.4.1.4 Changing of Names Changing someone’s personal name is a well known theme in the OT literature. Abram and Sarai attain new names as Yahweh makes a covenant with Abraham, promising him heirs (Gen 17:5). Jacob attains his new name after fighting with Yahweh (Gen 32:28), Benoni receives a new name right after his birth (Gen 35:18),111 and Joseph gets his new name from Pharaoh (Gen 41:45).112 Normally, when narratives dwell with the issue of name changing, the emphasis lies on the new name, containing a specific meaning significant to the plot. The new name brings better qualities upon the one who carries the name than the original name used to bring.113 In Ruth, there is a name change with a particular meaning as well. Contrary to the examples mentioned above, however, Naomi does not get her new name from outside, but makes the name change herself. And with Naomi’s names, it is the first that remains significant. 2.4.2 The Literary Function of Personal Names As a consequence of the critique of classic historical etymology, a more literary approach to personal names has emerged, and the function of the personal name within the narrative has come into focus. Names do more than give a description of a character – they also place and evaluate the character’s role in the narrative. 2.4.2.1 Occurrence Not surprisingly, the frequency with which a personal name occurs throughout the narrative is decisive for the character’s role in the plot: main characters are mentioned often, minor characters less often.114 Each time a character’s name is mentioned, the character’s presence is stressed. The number of occurrences indicates which character is in the centre of the

111

Benjamin’s name is not a typical example of this issue, but serves as an example of how the changing of a name may describe the whole destiny of a character. The names    (son of my sorrow) and   (son of my right hand/ good hand) illustrate how Rachel, desperately longing for a child (Gen 30:1), predicts her own death, and dies as she finally gets her second son (Gen 35:16–20). 112 See de Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961) 46. 113 Cf. Abraham, “Name Variations of Esau’s Wives” (1997), and his description of how Esau changes the name of his wives to soften his parents. 114 See the example in 2.3.2 Character Types, where Bathsheba is a full-fledged character in 1 Kgs 1, mentioned by name five times (1 Kgs 1: 11, 15, 16, 28, 31), while in 2 Sam 11 she is effectively kept as an agent, mentioned with name only once.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

29

narrative, and who is playing the role of agents. Counting the frequency of a personal name is therefore an easy way to gain a picture of the character’s status in the narrative. In Ruth, Naomi is the personal name mentioned most frequently: 22 times in all. This is more than God’s names, which are mentioned 21 times, and Boaz, which is mentioned 20 times. For a rather short narrative, these rates are high. In the case of Naomi and Boaz, the names are not only referred to as part of an event, but also introduced twice each (Ruth 1:2, 19–21; 2:1, 19), bringing high degrees of attention to the characters. The name Ruth is mentioned 14 times. Despite this, Ruth is the most active character throughout the narrative. This discrepancy is interesting for a closer study of Ruth and her role. Other characters’ names are rarely mentioned. Orpah’s name is mentioned twice, Chilion three times, Mahlon four, and the proper redeemer’s name is not mentioned at all. These numbers fit well with the general understanding of the characters’ roles as agents in the narrative. 2.4.2.2 Anonymity Absence of a name leads to anonymity. This is the situation for Ruth’s proper redeemer, who is only called , or “Mr So-and-So”.115 According to Meir Sternberg, nameless characters are characters without any real role in the narrative, being presented through the plot as mere institutional or collective figures. It is only when a character becomes important to the narrative, when we really need to know them, that the name is introduced. Thus, David is called “one of the sons of Jesse” or “the youngest”, until the moment when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon David and he is anointed king. Then he is mentioned by name by the narrator (1 Sam 16:1–13). Anonymity may also be understood as a way of making a moral evaluation of characters. This is illustrated by the story of the Levite and his wife (Judg 19). In this narrative, no names are mentioned, either of the man, the wife, the father-in-law, the host or the offenders. Phyllis Trible sees the anonymity of the characters as a way of making the brutal atmosphere throughout the story even more intense, by protecting the men’s identity, and keeping them as aliens to the reader.116 Keeping both the molesters and the molested anonymous might also be a way of protecting the reader from

115

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 105–106. Cf. Trible, Texts of Terror (1984) 65–87. See also Bar-Efrat, “Aestetic as the key” (2005) 6–7. 116

30

Part 1: Introduction

becoming too involved in the story. “To remain nameless is to remain faceless,” Sternberg points out.117 In Ruth, almost every character is mentioned by name. Even Chilion, who is presented once in 1:2 and dies in 1:5, is referred to by his name. According to Sternberg’s criteria for naming characters, one should expect that Chilion’s name would not be mentioned. In the Ruth narrative, the situation is the opposite. It is remarkable that the proper redeemer’s name is not mentioned in a story where most of the characters have a personal name. This man’s namelessness is emphasised even more as he is given an anonymous title, , Mr So-and-So. Following Bar-Efrat, who sees anonymity as a method of character evaluation, this lack of personal name should evoke negative attention. 2.4.3 Naming Personal names are often added to a specific characteristic, or placed within a genitive structure connected to another character. Sometimes the additions even replace the personal name. There is no standard term used to define such characteristics or additions. Hagia H. Witzenrath uses “appositive”.118 I follow Berlin who uses the term “naming”, which she defines as “locution besides, or in addition to, [a character’s] name, often consisting of a term indicating familiar relationship.”119 I have already described the significance of namings related to point of view.120 In the following, I will focus on the aspect of naming as a personal description. The field of naming emphasizes at least three issues important for the study of characters. Firstly: namings leads the attention away from the personal name. The meaning of the naming is mostly easy to find, and therefore tones down the less obvious significance of the name. Namings might even replace the character’s name. When the name “Bathsheba” is replaced with “the woman” or “Uriah’s wife” (2 Sam 22:5, 26), the identity of Bathsheba is automatically set aside for the advantages of focusing on a sexual object and the property of Uriah, and her character becomes the anonymous. In Ruth, Elimelech’s name is toned down as he is called “Naomi’s husband” (Ruth 1:3). Becoming another character’s property, he goes from main to minor character from the one verse to the next. Secondly, even if a naming may lead to a reduction of the character’s status, the naming itself often provides information about the character that makes the character easier to characterize and identify. In the case of Ruth, 117 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (1985) 330. See also references to Docherty, Reading (Absent) Character (1983) 43–86. 118 Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut (1975) 14. 119 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 59. 120 See 2.3.4 Point of View.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

31

this is clearly the case, as the meaning of the name is difficult to find, whereas her several namings describe her from different perspectives. Especially when namings occur frequently, as the namings “Moabite woman” and “daughter-in-law” do, they are worth noticing. These terms are mentioned too many times in the narrative only to function as information about where Ruth comes from, and to whom she belongs. Studying these namings will therefore be important contributions to the identification of the Ruth character. Thirdly, namings often relate a character to a particular family, as with Elimelech’s being called “Naomi’s husband” (Ruth 1:3). However, these connections are not only clarifications of relationships, but focus the plot as well. When Elimelech is called Naomi’s husband, the main character of the plot also changes. David J.A. Clines describes how different “nameform” in the same character may focus the tension in the plot. Using Michal as model, he demonstrates how the narrator, by shifting between calling her daughter of Saul (x bat y) and wife of David (x isha y), illustrates which side of the conflict she supports, and also which man is claiming her as his property and thus is the leading character in the conflict between Saul and David.121 In 1 Sam 18–20, the namings thus interpret the character X, the different characters Y, and the conflict of the plot as well.

2.5 Plot and Narrative Structure “If the characters are the soul of the narrative, the plot is the body,” BarEfrat claims.122 Even if plot is an old term, used already by Aristotle,123 and is an obvious part of any literary analysis, the focus on the plot in the Ruth-commentaries is rather modest, probably due to the fact that the theme of plot is “an enormously complex subject in itself”, quoting Adele Berlin.124 However, in making use of the plot in the analysis in Ruth, it is 121

Clines, “X Ben Y” (1972). In 1 Sam 18:20, the phrase “Saul’s daughter Michal … loved David” emphasizes that Michal stands in sharp contrast to her own father, who hates David. In 1 Sam 18:27 Michal is named Saul’s daughter again, this time to confirm the family relationship between the son- and father-in-law. Then, in 19:11, Michal again is called the “wife of David,” helping David to flee from her father. The narrative of Michal ends with David’s naked dance in front of the Ark of the Covenant. Here, Michal is referred to as “the daughter of Saul,” a discreet but clear signal of the distance which has arisen between Michal and David. 122 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 93. For other characteristics, see Gunn and Fewell, Narrative (1993) 101; Ska, Our Fathers have Told Us (1990) 17–38. 123 Aristotele, Poetics (1995) 49. 124 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 101, avoids dealing with any elements of plot, “this being an enormously complex subject in itself,” Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 1–5; and

32

Part 1: Introduction

necessary to give a brief presentation. I follow Ska’s plot model on “unified plot”,125 and apply it to Ruth. 2.5.1 Plots 1 and 2: Fertility The main plot in Ruth might be read on different levels, as three parallel plots feeding each other. Plot 1 is presented in the first sentence of the narrative; there was a famine in the land. (Ruth 1:1)

 

This introduction marks the starting point of the story, called “exposition” in Ska’s presentation. The famine makes Elimelech and his family go from Bethlehem to Moab. The irony in the first sentence of the narrative emphasizes plot 1, as the famine is introduced together with the name Bethlehem, meaning “house of bread”. Then plot 2 starts, as Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion die. The woman was left alone without her two sons and her husband. (Ruth 1:5)

  

  

Plot 2 also presents another “famine”, though here the famine is the loss of family, and even more, the loss of possible offspring and heirs. In this way, plot 2 reiterates plot 1, intensifying the theme of infertility. We are now at the most distressing part of the story, without any view to possible solutions. The narrative is established. Ska calls this point “the inciting moment”. In Ruth 1:6 we find the first “preparatory scene” of plot 1. Naomi receives the news about bread in Bethlehem. The introduction brings the first glimpse of solution to the story, and is followed by the next scene, where Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem. Here, the scene between Naomi and Ruth is activated when Ruth insists on following her mother-in-law the whole way home (Ruth 1:8–18). The narrator’s commentary, interrupting the arrival in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:22), might be read as a preparatory scene to both plot 1 and plot 2. Naomi is not left all alone, even if she might think so herself, and there is even hope concerning food:

Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) xxi–xxiii, both describes the structure of Ruth, though without using the term “plot”. Matthews, Ruth (2004) 207, 218 refers to “a processional” or “distinctive pattern” of Ruth, but does not give much attention to it. 125 Ska, Our Fathers have Told Us (1990) 20–30.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections Naomi came back, and Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law was with her.

….. They came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest. (Ruth 1:22)

33

      

         

In chapter two, plot 1 accelerates to the “climax”, where Boaz invites Ruth for a meal, and he commands his servants to leave some extra grain on the field (Ruth 2:14–16). The “denouement” follows as Ruth gleans until the evening and brings grain and food home to Naomi (Ruth 2:17–18). The “conclusion” to plot 1 is made in the end of chapter two, when the narrator describes Ruth’s continuing to bring food to Naomi. And she kept close to the young women of Boaz, gleaning until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law. (Ruth 2:23)

     

     

Chapter two also takes plot 2 a step further. In two preparatory scenes the reader is informed that Boaz is a relative of Naomi’s family (Ruth 2:1, 20). This information leads the plot towards the climax and “turning point”, where Ruth goes to Boaz on the threshing floor, asking him to be her redeemer. Spread your wing over your handmaid, for you are a redeemer (Ruth 3:9)

 



Ruth’s proposal makes Boaz the active player in the narrative. Boaz is willing to marry Ruth. There is only one problem: Boaz is not the nearest man of kin (Ruth 3:12–13). Ska describes how some biblical narratives have a double climax. This is the case in plot 2. From the first climax, the narrative needs to go via another preparatory scene, making the tension even higher when Boaz challenges the proper redeemer at the city gate (Ruth 4:1–8). The scene ends with a second climax, in which the anonymous redeemer disclaims his responsibilities for Ruth, and Boaz may proclaim: And Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, I acquire to be my wife to raise the name of the dead on his inheritance. (Ruth 4:10)

         

 

After this, the story moves to its denouement, where Boaz takes Ruth home, Yahweh lets Ruth conceive, and she bears a child, who is put in Naomi’s arms (Ruth 4:13–16). The final conclusion is given by the women of Bethlehem, proclaiming:

34

Part 1: Introduction

      

A son is born to Naomi! And they called his name Obed. (Ruth 4:17)

Naomi’s loss of family has turned to happiness. The further genealogy might be read as a conclusion and an epilogue, pointing to David as the final heir of Naomi. Reading plots 1 and 2 together, infertility, and the victory over infertility, is the clear theme of the Ruth-narrative,126 and a natural conesquence of Ruth’s being a family-narrative. 2.5.2 Plot 3: God’s Role – and Ruth’s In between plots 1 and 2, there is another plot, referring to fertility in a divine sense. Fertility and God’s blessing are strongly connected in all the OT literature. Thus the plot in Ruth might be read as a story about God’s blessing, and of God’s hidden presence in the narrative. Reading Ruth from this perspective, plot 3 may have its “inciting moment” when Elimelech leaves Bethlehem to go to Moab (Ruth 1:1). Elimelech leaves Yahweh. Lacking Yahweh’s presence, the men in the family die and no children are born. Then, God’s hesed is called upon as a wish and a question: May Yahweh bring hesed to you, as you did to the dead and to me. (Ruth 1:8)

 

    

Will God respond? The preparatory scenes are exposed by Naomi, when she hears about God (Ruth 1:6), when she wishes God to bring hesed (Ruth 1:8), and when she complains about God’s treatment of her (Ruth 1:13, 20–21), but also when Ruth commits herself to Naomi’s god (Ruth 1:16). When Boaz arrives in the narrative, the focus on God gains a new dimension, connected with the invocation of God’s blessing (Ruth 2:4, 12, 20; 3:10; 4:11–12). The “turning point” of the narrative is when Naomi’s mourning turns to hope as she sees hesed through the presence of Boaz: Blessed be him by Yahweh, who has not forsaken his hesed from the living nor the dead. (Ruth 2:20)127



 

     

In Ruth 4:13 we reach the climax: God finally acts. And Yahweh let her conceive (Ruth 4:13)

126 127

  

  

Cf. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 13. For the syntax of this sentence, see 6.3.2.2 Replacing Yahweh with Boaz.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

35

The conclusion pointing to David (Ruth 4:17–22) confirms the presence of God, as the story reveals God’s plan through the birth of a coming king. The line concerning God’s role runs parallel with the role of Ruth. God is expected to do hesed like Ruth (Ruth 1:8), and Ruth is the main actor when it comes to God’s blessing. She is the one finding food (Ruth 2), and she is the one bearing the child (Ruth 3:6–4:13). God’s only direct action is, actually, literally embodied in Ruth (Ruth 4:13). The question of whether God will bring hesed must therefore be read together with the three questions about the identity of Ruth (Ruth 2:5; 3:9, 16).

2.6 Dating Dating Ruth seems to be a never-ending story. The theories about its dating are divided, from including Ruth within the oldest part of the OT literature, to dating it as late as the Third Century. The rabbinic tradition saw Ruth within the authorship of Samuel, Julius Wellhausen placed the book in the Fourth Century, while scholars in recent time have reintroduced a preexilic dating.128 A usual argument for dating Ruth within the time of the Monarchy is that the syntax is classical Hebrew. Against this, it has been argued that the syntax is a copy of the classical Patriarchal literature.129 Phrases of so-called Arameisms have been opened to other explanations.130 In the last 30 years commentaries on Ruth have been more modest in their suggestions,131 partly as a consequence of the fact that dating of texts is of less importance within narratology and intertextuality. 132 In the following I will give a short outline of the reasons why I prefer a Persian dating of Ruth. 2.6.1 References to the Past Starting with the narrative’s own references to history, the introduction “Once, in those days when the judges ruled” (Ruth 1:1),133 the commentary “in those days” (Ruth 4:7), and the genealogy of David in the end of the 128 Cf. Bentzen, Inledning til Det Gamle Testamente (1941) 158–59, for a presentation of different traditional views to the dating of Ruth. 129 For a thorough treatment of this question whether Ruth is pre- or post-exilic, see Campbell, Ruth (1975) 23–28; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 23–35; Gow, The Book of Ruth (1992) 183–206; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 18–30; Block, Ruth (1999) 590–98. 130 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 243–45; Emmerson, “Ruth” (2001) 192. 131 See Sasson, Ruth (1989) 251–52; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 28–29. 132 See 2.1 Biblical Narratology. 133 See 3.1.2 From Anonymity to Identification, on text-critical remarks on this phrase.

36

Part 1: Introduction

narrative (Ruth 4:17–22), all refer to a time to which there is no longer any connection. There is a significant period of time between the narrative itself and the events it tells about. It is, however, difficult to give a more precise dating from these references. The reference to “the judges” might be understood differently, depended on how the phrase is understood. A Deuteronomistic reading would understand the time of the judges ambivalently, similar to the comment in Judg 21:25; a later reading would interpret the pre-monarchic time positively, looking back to a time where God, and not the king, was king of Israel.134 Ruth 4:7 is generally understood as influenced by priestly thinking.135 On top of these discussions, many scholars see the references to the past as secondary, and thus of minor interest for the dating of the narrative.136 2.6.2 The Genealogy When trying to sort out the chronology between the story and the genealogy of Ruth, further arguments about the question of dating come to the open. I will argue that the genealogy of Ruth is approximately as old as the genealogy of 1 Chron 2, and further, that the narrative of Ruth is newer than the genealogy, and not vice versa, as scholars have traditionally proposed.137 First, the similarities between the genealogy of Ruth and that of 1 Chron 2:5–15 are clear. The list in 1 Chron 2 is more detailed than in Ruth, but the names and the order of the names are the same. This indicates that they probably have a common origin. Erich Zenger claims there is an “Abhängigkeit von 1. Chron 2” in the Ruth-genealogy, and dates it as late as the Second Century. 138 Irmtraud Fischer, on the other hand, claims that the analogies must be found in the    of Genesis, and not in Chronicles.139 I do not, as opposed to Fischer, see the need to choose between Genesis 134

Cf. 3.2 Elimelech. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 27, uses Ruth 1:1 as argument for an earlier dating of the origin story. 135 See Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 27–28. 136 Cf. Gerleman, Rut (1965) 6; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 29; Fischer, Rut (2001) 66–72. 137 See for example Eissfeld, Einleitung (1956) 589; Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 28; Gerleman, Rut (1965) 38; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 172; Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut (1975) 26–38; Loretz, “Das Verhältnis zwischen Rut-Story and David-Genealogie” (1977); Zenger, Das Buch Ruth (1992) 10 and the review in Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 13. See also Sasson, Ruth (1989) 179–187 and his broad discussion on the relationship of the genealogy to the tale. 138 Zenger, Das Buch Ruth (1992) 10, 28. He further argues that David in Ruth is similar to David in the Chonricles and not the Deuteronomistics, because of the Messianic aspect. See also Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 22–23. 139 Fischer, Rut (2001) 72.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

37

and Chronicles. The genealogy of Ruth might very well have the same function as the genealogies in Genesis,140 even if the text has its origin in Chronicles, or is closely related to Chronicles. Accordingly, the genealogy of Ruth is probably post-exilic. The details in the genealogy of 1 Chron 2 provide further information about how the chronology between 1 Chron 2 and Ruth should be understood. In 1 Chron 2:17, David’s brother-in-law, Jeter the Ishmaelite, is mentioned especially, and additionally, Sheshan’s son-in-law, the Egyptian slave, appears in 2 Chron 2:34–35. These commentaries on foreigners are asides to the general presentation of the genealogy, “almost an afterthought” according to Sara Japhet.141 As both a significant relative of David and a foreigner like those just referred to, one could expect that Ruth would also be mentioned in this list. But Ruth does not occur in 1 Chron 2. This may indicate that those who wrote the genealogy of 1 Chron 2 did not know about Ruth, because the story of Ruth did not exist at the time. If so, the Ruth-story must be later than the genealogy of 1 Chron 2. 142 A third observation, suggesting that the Ruth-story is built on the Ruthgenealogy, is to be found when looking at the specific names mentioned in the narrative and those listed in the genealogy which follows it. Perez, particularly, is an interesting name here, being the name with which the genealogy starts. He also occurs in Ruth 4:12, where he, together with Tamar and Judah, connects the Ruth-story to the narrative of Tamar.143 Nielsen asks why the genealogy starts with Perez and not Judah, which would be more obvious.144 The reason, she claims, is that the genealogy was already fixed when the story was created. To have Boaz placed as number seven and David as number ten, which are central places in a genealogy,145 the list had to start with Perez. If the genealogy was created after the narrative was written, one probably would have made Judah the ancestor instead of listing unimportant names like Ram or Amminadab. When using the fixed list from 1 Chron 2, however, there was no alternative. It is most plausible therefore that the narrative is later than the genealogy of Ruth, and must be dated to post-exilic times later than 1 Chron 2.

See my references to Genesis and the   in 2.8 Genre. Japhet, The Ideology (1989) 348. 142 See also Brenner, “Naomi and Ruth” (1983) 391, who presents a third alternative, that the origin of the Ruth-narrative is that “once upon the time, there existed two (oral?) tales.” 143 See Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 13–17. 144 Nielsen, “Stamtavle og Fortælling” (1994). See also Sasson, “Generation, Seventh” (1962a) 355; Morris, Ruth (1968) 316; Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure” (1982) 435. 145 Cf. 3.6 Obed. 140 141

38

Part 1: Introduction

Fourth, the last name of the genealogy (Ruth 4:22) is also to be found as the final word of the Ruth-narrative (Ruth 4:17).146 The presence of David in the narrative is a confirmation of the successful marriage of Boaz and Ruth, as well as confirming God’s hesed and presence. Seen in the narrative as a commentary to the genealogy, however, the story of David’s ancestors strengthens and elaborates David’s position in the broader OT context. Thus, the genealogy may be compared to the way in which the    in Genesis are the origin of the patriarchal narratives. 2.6.3 Purpose as Dating One approach to dating is to look at possible reasons as to why the narrative was written. As just mentioned, the need of a moral legitimacy of the Davidic Monarchy may have been the most common explanation.147 Others have argued that the purpose of Ruth is to criticize Ezra and Nehemiah and their condemnation of mixed marriage.148 This latter statement presupposes a dating to Persian time.149 Due to its genre, I do not understand Ruth as a directly political text.150 On the other hand, I find the polemical links to Ezra and his praxis to be rather clear. For instance, the name “Moabite”, describing Ruth as being a foreigner,151 is used exaggeratedly many times on Ruth, and this despite that she is the widow of an Ephraimite, lives in Bethlehem, apparently knows the Israelite law, and ends up marrying the landlord Boaz.152 Due to this polemics in the narrative I find it plausible to place Ruth within Persian period, close to Ezra and Nehemiah.

146

This occurrence is suggested as secondary, see the discussion in Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut (1975) 24–26; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 178. Nonetheless, the incorporation of David fits well to the opening phrase of the narrative, stretching out the line from the time of the judges and towards the monarchy. 147 See a short review in Farmer, “The Book of Ruth: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections” (1998) 894–95. 148 This will be elaborated in 2.7 Social and Political Structures, below. 149 See early scholars as Weiser, Einleitung (1939) 251, or Gerleman, Rut (1965) 6; but also Levinson, “Paradoxes of Canon” (2003) 19–20; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 2. 150 See 2.8 Genre. 151 See 5.2.1 The Maobite. 152 Other interpretations to the focus on Moab are made by Bertholet, Die Fünf Megillot (1898) 51–51, describing Ruth as a story defending David’s travel to Moab; Gerleman, Rut (1965) 7, calling the Ruth-story a “Judaisierung der Moabiterin Rut”; or Gordis, “Love, Marriage and Business” (1974) 245, claiming that mixed marriage was no longer a problem in the 4. Century. The topic of intermarriage will be continued in the further analysis in Part II.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

39

2.6.4 The Chronology of the Texts On a textual level, the chronology of the OT material is relevant for the question of dating. The references to characters from the Genesis material (Ruth 1:1, 4:11–12), as well as indirect references to laws referred to in the Pentateuch153 (Ruth 1:11–13; 2:2, 20; 3:9; 4:1–10), are all indications that Ruth alludes to these as earlier texts. Accordingly, Ruth post-dates Genesis. The assumed sources to Genesis, however, are questiones in themselves.154 A further problem is the matter of chronology of law and narrative. I follow Campbell, who argues against the understanding of “law-in-action”, a reading which compares the contents of the narrative and the law, and dates the narrative late or early based upon the understanding, either that the narrative knows and accordingly follows the law; or the opposite, that the narrative differs from the law because the law did not exist at the time the narrative was written.155 According to Campbell, there is hardly any direct line between laws and narratives. Practice was probably not changed because of the law, but they lived side by side. When the narratives differ from the law, it only illustrates that the OT society was more complex than the laws express. An interesting observation on chronology between texts is that there are no references to Ruth in other OT texts. Except for the occurrences of Boaz’ and Obed’s names in 1 Chron 2, no characters or events are mentioned. These do not appear until Matt 1, which is certainly from a later date. I see this as another indication of the fact that, because of its late origin, the story of Ruth was unknown to the literary milieu when the main OT corpus was written. 2.6.5 Canon At last, Ruth is placed differently in the MT and the LXX canon. This topic includes several problems. I will point only to one aspect relevant for the dating.156 The general understanding is that Ruth originated among the Writings in Tanak,157 but when LXX was written, Ruth was placed within the early

153

For pragmatically reasons I sometimes call the laws collected in the Pentateuch “Pentateuchal law,” without hinting to any Pentateuchal or Deutheronomistic tradition. 154 See commentaries from Rad, Genesis (1991) 24–31; till Mayes, “Historiography” (2002) 73–77. 155 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 27. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 27, is an example of such a reading. 156 For a recent survey to this field, see Dearman and Pussman, “Putting Ruth in Her Place” (2005). 157 More on this, see Campbell, Ruth (1975) 33–34.

40

Part 1: Introduction

Prophets, where it belongs chronologically.158 Not only the chronology, though, but also certain themes and terms, connect Ruth to Judg 19–21, as the use of  (Judg 20:40; Ruth 2:4; 4:1), “to take wives” (Judg 21:23; Ruth 1:4), drinking and be merry (Judg 19:6, 22; Ruth 3:7), and to 1 Sam 1, as the theme of childlessness and giving birth to an Israelite hero and the term “more than x sons” (Ruth 4:15; 1 Sam 1:8). At the same time, there are similarities between Ruth and parts of the Wisdom Literature, such as the Book of Job and the Psalms, due to common themes such as addressing or complaining to God.159 Anticipating a Persian dating, it makes sense to understand that Ruth, being a rather new text with less authority connected to its canonical place, could be placed in different parts of the MT and LXX canons, and even be placed differently within the MT canon, depending on which part of the narrative was the focus.

2.7 Social and Political Structures The narrative of Ruth is described within the framework of the family structures and ideologies. Dating the book to Persian times, we are in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah and their concern for purity in the cult, as in marriage and everyday life. The Israelite law, as it is referred in the Pentateuch, concerning foreigners and widows (Lev 19:9; 23:22; Deut 24:19– 22), Moabites and intermarriage (Deut 23:2–6), and also levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10), give a picture of, or at least a commentary on, the social and political structure of this period. Below, I will give a presentation of the social framework of Ruth, to the extent I have found it necessary for the analysis. My intention is not to give a survey of ancient history or religion, but to point at some perspectives given through the OT literary context. 2.7.1 Family Structures The OT society is hierarchically structured. A family or “house” consists of parents, their sons and daughters-in-law, and the children of those. Despite the organisation of extended families, an average family in ancient Israel probably did not consist of much more than ten to twelve members, 158 Fischer, “A ‘Feminist’ Commentary to the Torah?” (1999) 34, argues that the different canonical placements indicates that Ruth was written at a time when the Pentateuch and a great deal of the Deuteronomistic History was completed. 159 These themes will be particularly discussed in 4.3.3.2 Theology of Complain, and 7.3.6.2 God’s Silence in Ruth.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

41

due to the high rate of infant mortality. Lawrence E. Stager estimates an infant mortality entailing “six births of which perhaps two children survived.”160 Several families compose a “clan”, while a group of clans form a “tribe”.161 This family structure is a condition for the levirate law, which is central in Ruth. In the Ruth-narrative, several family categories are referred to, such as “wife”, “son(s)”, “husband”, “mother-in-law”, “daughter(s)-in-law”, “daughter(s)”, “widow”, and “redeemer”. I will give a presentation of the family roles most central in Ruth. 2.7.1.1 Daughter (-in-Law) The family-institution does only include young daughters. As soon as a daughter is married she moves to her husband’s family and becomes a , a “daughter-in-law”. The term may also mean “bride”. In Ruth, however, “daughter-in-law” should be used, since it always is associated to Naomi.162 Contrary to the words of Gen 2:24, it normally is the woman who leaves her mother and father and becomes a member of her husband’s family (Gen 24; 38; Judg 19). As long as there are men in the family, the daughter-in-law is dedicated to this new clan, being wife, daughter-in-law and mother.163 There are few OT narratives about children and, accordingly, only a few narratives about daughters. Daughters are together with their mothers in the house,164 but there are few narratives about mother-daughter relationships. The little notice about Rebekah’s mother trying to delay the farewell-scene (Gen 24: 55), is one exception. In this narrative, as well as in Ruth and the Song of Songs, the phrase “mother’s house” occurs (Gen 24:28; Ruth 1:8; Song 3:4; 8:2), as an alternative to “father’s house”, hinting about intimacy within the mother-daughter relationship.165 Father-daughter relationships, on the other hand, are more elaborated. The narrative material clearly describes how fathers control their daughters and decide their destinies, being Lot, Bethuel, Laban, Jephthah, the man 160 Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel” (1985) 18. Cf. also King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (2001) 41. 161 de Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961) 8. For a broader study of the ancient Near Eastern Family institution, see Toorn, Family Religion (1996) 204; Dearman, “The Family” (1998); King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (2001) 39–40. 162 See Körting, “Bride” (Forthcomming); 5.2.2 The Daughter(-in-law). 163 Epstein, Marriage Laws (1968) 77; Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 59; Anderson, Women, Ideology and Violence (2004) 47. 164 Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 27. 165 See 5.3.2.1 Houses.

42

Part 1: Introduction

from Gibeah, or Saul. (Gen 19:8; 24:50; 29:19–30; Judg 11:34–35; 19:24; 1 Sam 18:17–21).166 The only exception from this pattern is the story of Lot’s daughters, where the roles are turned upside down and the daughters control their father (Gen 19:31–38). In Judg 11 it is stressed that Jephthah loves his only daughter; the other narratives are silent about the kind of relationship. 2.7.1.2 Mother-in-Law There are few mothers-in-law in the Old Testament. Naomi is called   /

  (Ruth1:14; 2:11, 18, 19(2x), 23; 3:1, 6, 16, 17). Outside Ruth, the term occurs only in Mic 7:6. Here a conflict between daughter- and mother-in-law is described:   . The description is placed within a list of word-pairs covering most of the relationships which prevailed in a household: son and father; daughter and mother; daughter-in-law and mother-in-law.167 Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman describe the lists as reflecting the “authority structure as well as the living arrangements. … [which were] divided into two sections: males and females.”168 The list of family related word-pairs also signals that family conflicts are rather common.169 Except for the references in Ruth and the Book of Micah, mothers-inlaw are not mentioned in the Old Testament, they are not even described indirectly.170 Thus, it is difficult to give a broader description of the mother-in-law, except that this role is insignificant in the Old Testament. 2.7.1.3 The Levirate Institution In-law relations lead to the topic of levirate marriage. According to Deut 25:5–10, brothers “who reside together” are obligated to marry the sister-

166

Cf. Bronner, “The Invisible Relationship” (1999) 182–190. Son-in-law relations are not mentioned here, probably as a consequence of the fact that the bride’s parents belong to another household. See Andersen and Freedman, Micah (2000) 573. Still, there are clear descriptions of conflicts between sons- and father-inlaw, like Jacob-Laban or David-Saul. 168 Andersen and Freedman, Micah (2000) 572–73. They also refer to Ps 123:2 as example of a gender divided household. 169 Andersen and Freedman, Micah (2000) 573–74, refer to ancient literature outside the OT, as the Erra Epic, The Cuthean Legend of Naram Sin, the Akkadian Surphu and the Egyptian Hallo, to illustrate similar lists of family-related conflicts. For other interpretations of these lists, see Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible (1992) 103. 170 This opposed to as for instance Laban and Saul, who are fathers-in-law, even if they not are named with the specific term. The NT refers to one mother-in-law, which is Simon’s (Luk 4:38–39). 167

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

43

in-law if the brother dies without having fathered any heirs. According to Gen 38, it seems to be the father-in-law’s duty to enforce this law. The motivation for the levirate institution is to save the dead man’s name by letting the first born son he gets with his sister-in-law become the deceased’s heir. However, this practice must be understood as a protection for the woman as well. Acquiring a new husband in this way, she maintains her position and security within the family, and she still might be able to have offspring and, accordingly, protection in her old age, even if the husband is dead.171 The term  “redeemer”, is used as a description of the one who is obliged to marry the wife of the dead man. However, it is also a broader term referring to laws such as redemption from property (Lev 25:25, 26) and laws for blood vengeance (Num 35:12, 19, 24; Deut 19:12; Josh 20:3, 5, 9; 2 Sam 14:11). Outside the law-texts it also is used as a description of God (Job19:25; Ps 19:15; 78:35; Isa 41:14; 43:14; 44:6, 23, 24; 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 52:9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 63:16; Jer 50:34). There are discussions within the research on Ruth concerning the relationship between the  practice and the levirate institution. The question is whether they originally belong to the same tradition, or whether they refer to two different areas within the family institutions. As will be demonstrated in the analysis of Boaz, the relation between law and practice may be difficult to define.172 2.7.1.4 Widow The OT  “widow” is among “the marginalized”,173 it is a woman whose husband is dead, and who has neither any children nor closely related men in the family to support her and take care of her through a levirate marriage.174 The OT literature describes widows in miserable ways. They are mourning (2 Sam 14) and poor (1 Kgs 17; 2 Kgs 4), and with the similarly low 171

For thorough descriptions of the levirate institution, see Stamples, “Notes on Ruth 3:20 and 3:12” (1937); Meek, “Translating the Hebrew Bible” (1960), 332–334; Epstein, Marriage Laws (1968) 77–144; de Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961) 37–38; Thompson, “Legal Problems” (1968); Beattie, “Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice” (1974); Gordis, “Love, Marriage and Business” (1974); Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974); Beattie, “Ruth III” (1978); Beattie, “Redemption in Ruth, and Related Matters” (1978); Sasson, “Guellah in Ruth” (1978); Sasson, “Ruth III: A Response” (1978); Hubbard, “The Goel in Ancient Israel” (1991); King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (2001) 56–57; Matthews, Ruth (2004) 235; and others. 172 See 6.2.2 Boaz, the Redeemer. 173 Anderson, Women, Ideology and Violence (2004) 54. 174 Anderson, Women, Ideology and Violence (2004) 54, note 21; Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 134; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 132–33.

44

Part 1: Introduction

status and few rights as have immigrants and orphans (Lev 19:9–19; Deut 24:19–22). The fact that the law concerning widows’ rights exists at all is an indicator of how sad the situation for the ancient widow really was. The story of the wise woman from Tekoa, who cried to the King David that her situation would be unbearable if she lost her only son, illustrates the tragedy of becoming a widow in this specific sense of the term (2 Sam 14:4–11). Also the Tamar-narrative describes the desperate situation of a young widow. Tamar’s risky action almost costs her her life when she tries to find her own way out of widowhood (Gen 38:24). 2.7.2 Ideological Context In addition to the family structure, the social and political context described in the laws in the Pentateuch, but also in post-exilic texts such as Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the Chronicles, is of importance to the reading of Ruth. 2.7.2.1 Foreigners in the Old Testament Literature The Pentateuchal Law speaks with two voices when it comes to foreigners. On the one side, the law protects the aliens in Israel (Exod 12:17; 22:21; 23:9, 12; Lev 19:10, 33–34; 23:22; Num 9:14; 15:14; Deut 10:18–19; 24:14, 17, 19–22; 27:19). The reason for this protection is that God loves the stranger (Deut 10:18), but most of all, the Israelites must remember that “you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:34; Deut 10:19; 24:18, 22), and that it was God “who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod 20:2).175 Thus the aliens are allowed to live in Israel, and there even are certain juridical laws giving the aliens rights and protection. Sometimes, foreigners may even be a blessing to Israel. Strangers such as Melchizedek, Jethro, Balaam and the Shebean Queen all bless the Israelites (Gen 14:19; Exod 4:18; Num 24:3–9; 1 Kgs 10:9), and Job from Uz is the most righteous man before God (Job 1:1, 22; 2:10). The prophetic literature describes “nations” who seek and obey God (Isa 11:10; 49:22; 61:9; Ezek 37:28; 39:7, 21; Mal 1:11). The problems pile up when foreigners start mingling with Israelites in the assembly or even marriage. The same Pentateuchal law forbids Ammonites, Moabites or any descendants to enter the assembly of God (Deut 23:3), and it forbids children born in mixed marriage to enter the assembly. “Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:2). This resistance against inter175

Cf. Spieckermann, Gottes Liebe zu Israel (2001) 85–89; Lindström, “Slavmoral” (2005).

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

45

marriage is reflected in the narrative material when Abraham makes his servant swear that he “will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites” (Gen 24:3).176 It is also seen when Esau marries Hittite women, which “made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah” (Gen 26:35),177 and when Solomon’s love for foreign women “turned away his heart” (1 Kg 11:1–3). The negative attitude is partly explained as a way to protect the Israelites from serving other gods (Num 25:1–2; 1King 11:7–8). 2.7.2.2 Intermarriage in Ezra and Nehemiah Intermarriage is questioned in the post-exilic literature, and especially Ezra and Nehemiah elaborate this problem.178 Their attitude towards foreigners is clear. Ezra the priest prohibits intermarriage and describes how he forced Jewish men to send away their foreign wives and their children; this was to avoid their having “all their property … forfeited, and they themselves [being] banned from the congregation of the exiles” (Ezra 10:8). Likewise, Nehemiah curses Jews who have married “women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. … I contended with them and cursed them, and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God. … Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign” (Neh 13:23, 25, 30). Their way of interpreting the law allows no divergence.179 People who resisted were punished by the forfeiting of property, banning, beating or even exile (Ezr 10:8; Neh 13:25, 28). All this was done to preserve the unity and purity of the congregation of God.180 Scholars give different evaluations of Ezra and Nehemiah’s eagerness. H.G.M. Williamson describes the two last chapters of Ezra’s solution to the problem of mixed marriage to be “among the least attractive parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, if not of the whole OT.”181 Daniel Smith-Christopher, on the other side, focuses on Ezra’s attempt to preserve purity of the community and maintain its economic holdings without threat of foreigners inheriting land, and he criticizes emotional commentaries who read Ezra and

176

See also Matthews, Ruth (2004) 210. Cf. the article on Abraham, “Name Variations of Esau’s Wives” (1997) who claims that Esau changes the names on his wives, trying to rebuild the relationship with his parents. 178 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988) 39–41, 60–69; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 21. 179 Cf. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 21. 180 For a thorough study of the foreign women in Ezra and Nehemiah, see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988); Smith, “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society” (1991); Eskenazi and Judd, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis” (1994); Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis” (1994). 181 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (1985) 159. 177

46

Part 1: Introduction

Nehemiah through “democratic, and perhaps romantic, idealism.”182 The Judahite community was a low status minority, and the law should make it difficult for males to “marry up”, to exchange their low status of exiles for participation in aristocratic society. Clines points out that Ezra was no “self-appointed reformer”,183 and that it were the men themselves who had broken the law who made the decision of accomplishment (Ezra 10:14). “Is there not still, however, a strong ‘racialist’ motive behind the divorce of foreign wives?” Clines asks.184 The commentaries are careful to this point. F. Charles Fensham claims it had “nothing to do with racism”,185 and Tamara C. Eskenazi and Eleanore P. Judd point out that “foreign women” were not only women of foreign nations, but also Judahites who had not been in exile or did not belong to a particular ethnic and socio-economic line from the returnees; or Judahites whose family developed religious practices and beliefs different from Ezra’s Judaism.186 Robert North, on the other hand, calls Ezra’s law where God’s rights outweigh all human consideration “fanaticism”.187 It is obvious that the attitude towards mixed marriage in Ezra and Nehemiah must be understood against the background of a minority in crisis. There is no doubt that unfaithfulness to God is the main focus of Ezra, and not racism (Ezra 9:4). Still, it is difficult to deny Ezra’s ranking between   “the holy seed” and    “the people of the lands” (Ezra 9:2). With such a distinction, foreign women could never be included. Clines points out that those who had married foreign wives must have agreed with Ezra, that divorce “was lesser evil than to break the law of God,” and he calls attention to the dilemma in imposing modern moral standard upon an alien age.188 Nevertheless, the personal tragedies in Ezra’s prohibition on mixed marriage cannot be ignored. In addition to split family bonds of husband and wife, and father and children, the economic and social prospects for a divorced foreign woman and her children must have been practically nil. From a modern reader’s point of view, Ezra’s prohibitions are a challenge, also in the way they are presented within the Old Testament as praiseworthy and normative.189 182

Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis” (1994) 243–44, 260; Cf. also Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (1982) 124, 44; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (1984) 116. 183 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (1984) 117. Cf. also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 114–123. 184 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (1984) 117. 185 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (1982) 124. 186 Eskenazi and Judd, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis” (1994) 268–270. 187 North, “The Chronicler” (1968) 433. 188 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (1984) 118. 189 Cf. North, “The Chronicler” (1968) 433.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

47

2.7.2.3 Intermarriage in the Chronicles The post-exilic literature has some nuances. Japhet describes how the Chronicles legitimate the proselyte and his worship of Yahweh, and defines a  in Israel as “a member of a foreign people who has joined the people of Israel, adopting their religion, and thus lost his foreign identity.”190 Accordingly, the prohibitions towards aliens in the Old Testament do not concern a former alien who has converted to the Israelite religion. The positive attitude towards foreigners is to be found when the Chronicles comment upon intermarriage as well. In the genealogies, far more intermarriages are mentioned than in Samuel-Kings. For example, Jacob’s wives are absent from the genealogy, while three of his daughters-in-law are mentioned: Judah’s Canaanite wife Bath-shua (1 Chron 2:3); Tamar, who apparently also was a Canaanite (1 Chron 2:4); and Manasseh’s Aramean concubine (1 Chron 7:14). We may assume that Jacob had several daughters-in-law, however, only these three women are mentioned. Further, David’s sister Abigail is mentioned with her husband Jeter, an Ishmaelite (1 Chron 2:17). Japhet stresses that the way Jeter is presented, “almost [as] an afterthought … strikes a somewhat incongruous note; the Chronicler must have included it in order to make the point that one of David’s relatives was a foreigner.”191 Accordingly, the Chronicler’s view to intermarriage is that marriage transforms the foreigner into an Israelite, and the offspring of the marriage are, consequently, Israelites. “Everyone who lives there, whatever his origins, is part of the people of Israel.”192 Japhet admits, though, that this attitude of the Chronicles probably is “unusual for its period, where the extreme outlook of Ezra-Nehemiah is the normative standard.”193 Using her observations, however, we may assume that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there also were critical voices. There seems even to have been a discussion going on about how to deal with the problem of foreigners, and especially those who were married into Israelite clans. This conflict is an interesting background for the story of Ruth.

2.8 Genre The term genre is used differently in different literary traditions. Within form-criticism it is identified with finding the formal elements of a text; 190 191 192 193

Japhet, Japhet, Japhet, Japhet,

The Ideology (1989) 346. The Ideology (1989) 348. See also p. 349 for further examples. The Ideology (1989) 350–51. The Ideology (1989) 350.

48

Part 1: Introduction

within literary analysis it is used to unify related literature. According to Northrop Frye, “[t]he purpose of criticism by genres is not so much to classify as to clarify such traditions and affinities, thereby bringing out a large number of literary relationships that would not be noticed as long as there were no context established for them.”194 I will describe the genre of Ruth from both perspectives, focusing on the latter. It is a common understanding that Ruth is a piece of a literary masterwork.195 Gunkel used the term novella of Ruth, as “eine neue Gattung …, die im Interesse der Charakterschilderung soweit ausgesponnen [ist].”196 This term has followed the book since then, however not without controversy. Campbell and W. Lee Humphreys argue for the term “short story”, because of its length, but also because “the short story reveals the nature of a character or a situation, while a novel [and the novella] develops characters or situations.”197 According to Humphreys, Jonah, Ruth and Daniel are examples of such characters not developed. I find such a distinguishing between characters difficult. It may be the truth that Ruth is revealed rather than developed throughout the narrative; she is still a complex character, though, “capable of surprising in a convincing way,” using the definition of Forster’s “round character”.198 And obviously Naomi is a full-fledged character.199 An alternative suggestion is made by Sternberg, calling Ruth an “autobiography”, which lies close to what he further describes as “etiological tale”.200 I find that making the formal definitions too limited and too precise seems neither possible, nor useful.201 I therefore remain with Gunkel’s classical characterization of Ruth as a novella.202 More than describing genre formally, I find the question on how the narrative is to be read to be important. Which kind of novella is Ruth? In which group of narratives does it belong?

194

Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (1957/1990) 247–248. See Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913) 65; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 3. 196 Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913) 85. 197 Humphreys, “Novella” (1985) 84–85; see also Campbell, “The Hebrew Short Story” (1974). 198 Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927) 106. See 2.3.2 Character Types. Cf. also 5. Ruth. 199 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 13–32; See also 4. Naomi. 200 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (1985) 41, 60. 201 Cf. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 197, 203–14, criticizing what he calls “an exercise of classification.” He adopts Vladimir Propp’s approach to formalistic analysis of folktales, analyzing Ruth on the basis of this pattern; however, he avoids “calling Ruth a folktale.” 202 Cf. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 15. 195

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

49

2.8.1 Narrative Fiction and the References to Memory Humphreys describes short stories and novellas as pieces of prose fiction that seek to give an accurate depiction of life. But unlike the historical recorded narrative, the short stories and novellas “depict not so much what happened as what happens in life. … It is the truth we find, even if it did not happen.”203 These words fit well as description of Ruth. The human crises, as famine and infertility, are more realistically told than the details about geography and law practise seem reliable. However, despite the fact that Ruth is written fiction, the narrative is somehow linked to history, as it, after all, refers to the given laws, and tells a story from former times. Alter therefore calls Ruth “historicized fiction”, explaining the term by describing how the understanding of the interpretation of Ruth develops: “Ruth, Naomi and Boaz are fictional inventions, probably based on no more than names, if that, preserved in national memory. In the brief span of this narrative, they exhibit in speech and action traits of character that make them memorable individuals. … [I]n their plausible individuality they also become exemplary figures, thus earning themselves a place in the national history. … The Book of Ruth, then, which we might place near Genesis toward the pole of design in our imaginary spectrum, is, because of its realistic psychology and its treatment of actual and social institutions, a verisimilar historicized fiction.”204

Terms such as “national memory”, “memorable individuals”, “national history”, and “historicized fiction” are obviously terms distant from any descriptions of history, in the meaning “history of Israel”. Nevertheless, they illustrate how we identify literary fiction through our knowledge and memory of history.205 Mark S. Smith, in his study of Israel’s history, sees the issue from quite another point of view, but also he points out that the historical books refer to the past not as history, but as memory.206 The narratives from Genesis to 2 Kgs, including Ruth, contain an interesting “mixture of historical information and cultural memories”, he claims, and must be understood as “indicators of Israel’s idea about its past.”207 Ruth’s “ideas about the past” are expressed through its introduction. This places the story in the time of the judges, which is definitely in the

203

Humphreys, “Novella” (1985) 83–84. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981) 34. 205 Cf. how for example Sigrid Undset’s historical novels Kristin Lavransdatter and Olav Audunson, which are clearly works of fiction, are to be understood through our knowledge and memory of history. 206 Smith, The Memoirs of God (2004), esp. 7–18 207 Smith, The Memoirs of God (2004) 3. 204

50

Part 1: Introduction

past, before there was a kingdom and a nation of Israel.208 This introduction in Ruth 1:1 has a hint of the fairytale’s “once upon the time”, placing the story beyond time and place.209 Further, the genealogy of Ruth is introduced with a   , similar to those in Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:1; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2, making the “history” of Ruth just as relative as that in Genesis.210 In also referring to ancestors as far back as Perez, the genealogy of Ruth is to be read as a literary construct “widening the horizon from a family matter to an event affecting the whole people,” remarks André LaCocque.211 The most “historic” elements in the narrative of Ruth are probably the descriptions of practices connected to the laws (Ruth 1:11, 13; 2:2, 7–9, 15, 20–21; 3:2, 9–12; 4:1–11). This is especially pronounced in Ruth 4:7, where it refers to a levirate law no longer in use, at least not in the way it is referred to in Ruth. Smith’s description of “cultural memory” might be relevant here, as Ruth confirms and preserves old legal practice. 2.8.2 Family and Birth Narrative Looking at the story, Ruth is clearly a family narrative. The family structure is the framework of the narrative, as well as the family bonds is the theme of the plot. Nielsen compares Ruth to the patriarchal narratives, since it contains “both the particular events that took place when God elected a Moabite woman and the line of descent of which she herself was part and to which she gave life. It is thus a feature of both the patriarchal narratives and Ruth that they do not close around themselves but point forward to new events.” 212

This description points toward the concept of a family and origin-story, in this case, the birth-story of David. For almost every Biblical hero, there is a birth-story, describing his extraordinary birth (Gen 16–21; 25:21–26; 35:16–18; Exod 1–10; Judg 13:2– 25; 1 Sam 1:1–20; 2 Sam 12:24; Matt 1–2; Luke 1:5–2:21). Solomon, Samuel, Samson, Moses, Joseph, Jacob and Isaac have all rather dramatic birth-stories. David has no such story, at least not directly. He appears in 208 Cf. de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 5, translating Ruth 1:1 with “In the days before Israel had a king,” to stress the intention that this narrative is from the time before the monarchy. Cf. also 2.6.1 References to the Past. 209 Cf. Job 1:1 and Esth 1:1. 210 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 182, points out that the genealogy of Ruth is not, strictly speaking, a true   , since it is placed at the end, and not the beginning of the story. For a further study of   , see Stordalen, “Genesis 2,4” (1992) 169–77, and his further references to this field. 211 LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 147. 212 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 6–8.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

51

the biblical narratives first at the age of a young boy (1 Sam 16:11–13). Reading the Old Testament according to the chronology of LXX and the Christian canons, however, the Ruth narrative brings the first introduction of David’s name, before his entrance in 1 Sam 16. It therefore fits well to the pattern of origin/birth stories to interpret that when Ruth gives birth to Obed, she also prepares the ground for David. The “birth-story” of David is therefore to be found several generations before his own birth, in a story where Ruth appears to be the great grand-mother of Israel’s king.213 2.8.3 Polemic Literature Another genre feature worth focusing on is what Amit calls “polemical tendency”. According to Amit, this is a characteristic found in most of the biblical narratives, because the Bible consists of literature not dealing with systematic discussions, but “expressing a variety of ideological struggles which gradually transformed into a force shaping the everyday life of the Israelite.”214 The polemics might be explicitly described, not through fixed expressions such as “‘assimilation’, ‘intermarriage’, ‘monotheism’” etc, but through commentaries, often made by the narrator or by God, whom the reader normally understands as reliable. The polemics might also be hidden, or it might be described implicitly, “when its subject is explicit, but the stance taken therein is expressed by indirect means alone.” 215 This latter stance, according to Amit, is the case in Ruth.216 The Ruth-narrative is carefully told, but still intermarriage is a rather explicit subject in Ruth, as Ruth, named a Moabite eight times in the narrative, marries an Ephraimite. The narrative’s attitude to this matter, however, is not that explicit. According to Athalaya Brenner, Ruth takes no explicit position on the issue, but is, instead, neutral.217 Contrary to this, Amit claims that throughout the narrative, the question “what is wrong with foreign women of the type of Ruth?” is raised in different ways, forcing the reader to rethink the issue of intermarriage.218 The description polemical narrative may therefore be an appropriate genre to use for Ruth. The narrative stresses a specific agenda, but without making the narrative a 213 Cf. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 251. See also Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 42; Brenner, “Naomi and Ruth” (1993b) 81; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 21, 28–29, reading the relation to David as the main purpose of Ruth. 214 Amit, Hidden Polemics (2000) 3. 215 Amit, Hidden Polemics (2000) 57. 216 Amit, Hidden Polemics (2000) 84. 217 Brenner, Ruth and Naomi. Literary, Stylistic and Linguistic Studies in the Book of Ruth. (1988) 72. This book is in Hebrew, and accordingly referred to through Amit, Hidden Polemics (2000) 84. 218 Amit, Hidden Polemics (2000) 86–87.

52

Part 1: Introduction

political text. No clear answers or critique of Ezra’s practice are given, instead Ruth is placed within the time of the judges, illustrating another time where foreignhood and idolatry is a problem.219 Without seeking to put forward convincing arguments, the story of Ruth brings an example on what may happen when a foreigner enters the society and the clan.

2.9 Summary In this book, three methodological perspectives are involved. The first is biblical narratology, with a specific attention to character analysis. With the model of the implied reader I enter the narrative and try to give a nuanced picture of each character. By finding the character type, the role and the significance of the character within the narrative is easier to describe. By revealing different characterizations, and, especially, indirect shaping of characters, the character traits may be found. Further, when pointing to the narrative’s different points of view, it is possible to see the story, and the other characters, from different perspectives. I also give a presentation of the plots in Ruth, in which the characters play their roles. Plots 1 and 2 draw the lines of infertility, overlapping and feeding each other. Plot 3, questioning God’s presence, is to be found between these lines. The main characters in the narrative are decisive contributors, whose roles make the plots develop: Naomi, in her complaints; Ruth, through her actions; Boaz, in being the redeemer; and God, finally entering the narrative. The characters in the plot embody the ambiguity of the narrative by suggesting different answers to the problems raised in the text. A significant part of the character analysis is the study of the character’s personal name. This leads to the second methodological perspective in the book. The meaning of OT personal names is based on studies of popular etymology, which play on semantic more than original meaning. It builds its derivations on associations and implied wordplays, “yielding what may at the time have appeared as odd, humorous or attractive explanations.”220 The decision about a significant meaning depends to a large extent on the context in which the name has its plot. Etymology in its traditional form is set aside, and the quest for finding one clear answer to a name’s significant meaning is therefore not relevant. Having several possible meanings for a name, the name, and, accordingly, the character bearing the name, is given a more open identity. The specific meaning of the name depends partly on 219 220

Spina, The Faith of the Outsider (2005) 118. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden (2000) 55.

Chapter 2: Methodological Reflections

53

the context; and vice versa, the significance of the name brings meaning to the plot. As we will see in the analysis, there might be contradictions between the meaning of the name and the content of the different namings. These contradictions may contribute to a more complex and richer image of the characters, while at the same time make them more ambiguous and difficult to describe. Being ancient texts, the biblical narratives need to be read within their historical context. The third methodological perspective in this book therefore is the historical approach. The final answer to the dating is not given with this book; however, I find plausible reasons for dating the text to Persian times. Such a dating indicates that within the chronology of the literary context, I place Ruth after Genesis and approximately within the same time as the Book of Job. Historically, I place the text within the same period as the Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.221 The OT family structure and the political context in Persian times are the main components when describing the social and ideological context of Ruth. The dislike of intermarriage appears to be explicit throughout the whole Old Testament, but seems to have reached its most intense period by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Chronicles bring another voice to this issue, and we might suppose a discussion was going on concerning this problem at the rebuilding of the Judean institutions in Persian times. The Ruth-narrative goes right to the heart of this delicate problem, telling the story of a Moabite widow marrying a prominent Israelite. Ruth might be placed within different genres. In terms of the formal criteria it is a narrative,222 and more precisely: a novella. In terms of its content, the narrative is to be placed together with the family-narratives, and within the books containing cultural memory. I see Ruth as a polemic narrative, carefully and elegantly commenting upon the particular situation of foreign marriage. By combining all the genre types, the family-stories and the stories of national memory become a strong, and, at the same time, a contradictory fundation for the polemical narrative to arise.

221 To the discussion about the relationship between the Chronicles and EzraNehemiah here, or the relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah, see standard commentaries as Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988) 41–53; Japhet, “Composition and Chronology” (1994). 222 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 5.

Part II

Character Analysis ”Who are you?” Ruth 3:9

Chapter 3

Minor Characters Most of the characters in Ruth are minor characters and agents.1 In this chapter I will take a closer look at these characters, focusing on their presentation and their presence in the plot. Thus, I also bring a demonstration of my character approach. What makes a character? Some characters’ references might be too limited to be named characters. Berlin claims that Elimelech is not a real character, nor are Mahlon, Chilion, Obed, Tamar and Perez, Rachel and Leah, or anyone mentioned in the genealogy. They are only “proper names without characters”.2 I make a different distinction between “characters” and “names only”. Since Elimelech, Mahlon, Chilion and Obed all belong to the narrative and are closely connected to the plot, I therefore call them “characters”, even if their actions are limited and they only occur in the introducing or the closing scenes. Tamar, Judah, Rachel, Leah and David, on the other hand, are not present as characters in this narrative but only occur as references lent from other narratives where they originally belong. These latter names will not be discussed in particular, but will be referred to as intertextual links. A central term when presenting personal names is . This term is connected to every personal name in Ruth, drawing extra attention to the name. I start this chapter by taking a closer look at .

3.1  3.1.1 Occurrences of  The term  meaning “name” occurs 14 times in Ruth (Ruth 1:2(3x), 4(2x); 2:1, 19; 4:5, 10(2x), 11, 14, 17(2x)). In the rather short text of Ruth, this is a high frequency. 3 1

See 2.3.2 Character Types. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 86. 3 As a comparison, the frequency of  is 9.7 times per 1000 words in Ruth, 1.6 times per 1000 words in Esther, and 0.9 times per 1000 words in Jonah. With the exception of Ruth, Gen and Malachi are the OT texts where occur most often; 7.1 and 7.6 2

58

Part I1: Character Analysis

The etymology of , implying “name” or “child/son”,4 does not require a thorough discussion here. I prefer to focus on the frequent occurrence in Ruth: every personal name is presented together with a . (Ruth 1:2, 4; 2:2, 19). Furthermore,  is used when the dead Mahlon’s name is to be remembered (Ruth 4:5, 10); in the blessings of Boaz and Obed (Ruth 4:11, 14); and twice when the child Obed is named (Ruth 4:17).5 All these references make the term a formal expression.6 The term turns out to be a marker in the text, stressing the introduction of the personal name. 3.1.2 From Anonymity to Identification There is no clear pattern to how Old Testament narratives use personal names. In Genesis, names are mainly introduced through a birth-narrative, where  and a word-play give the name its specific significance. (Gen 4:1–2; 16:11; 21:3–7; 25:25–26; 29:32–35). Older characters are more modestly presented, being introduced both with and without a .7 What seems to be a pattern, however, is that in the presentations made with a , there first is a presentation of the character(s), mentioning the place he/she/they come from; and then comes the presentation of the name, introduced with a . This pattern seems to be used throughout the whole OT narrative material: She had an Egyptian slave-girl whose name was Hagar. (Gen 16:1) Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. (Gen 29:16)

           

       

times per 1000 words respectively. In Malachi, the term implying “name” is only used of God’s name, while in Gen  is connected to several personal names. See also Fabry, “” (1994) 128. 4 See Fabry, “” (1994) 128. 5 These latter occurrences signal that personal names are themes themselves, as honouring the name of the dead (Ruth 4:5, 10); getting an honourable name (Ruth 4:11, 14); or naming a newborn child (Ruth 4:17). See similar topics in Gen 3:20; 4:1; 12:2; 16:11; 17:5, 15; 21:3–7; 25:25–26; 29:32–35; 32:27–28; Exod 2:10; Deut 25:5–10; Judg 13:24; 1 Sam 1:20; 25:25; Isa 7:14; 8:1–4; Hos 1:2–9; Prov 22:1; as well as in the NT. 6 Cf. Fabry, “” (1994) 128. 7 For example, the first presentation of Rebekah is a short; “and look, Rebekah came” (Gen 24:15), while the introduction of Leah and Rachel are more elaborated: “Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel” (Gen 29:16) (my translations).

59

Chapter 3: Minor Characters There was a certain man from Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. (Judg 13:2)

              

  

There was a man in the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah. (Judg 17:1)

  

 

There was once a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job. (Job 1:1)

This pattern is also the main pattern of the character presentations in Ruth. First, the background, with a presentation of time, place and occasion for the plot is described quite thoroughly (Ruth 1:1), while the characters are mentioned anonymously:8 Once, in those days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land.

9

      

The semantics of the phrase 

      is unclear. One might translate the phrase as I have suggested above; “a man went from Bethlehem to Judah …”, but it is also possible to read “a man from Bethlehem in Judah went ...”, making “Bethlehem in Judah” to be a naming of the “man”. The different suggestions infer the possible pattern in the presentation of the character, and therefore need some further discussion. Andersen, The Sentence of Biblical Hebrew (1974) 90, points out that characters are often connected to a place when first presented. This is similar to what we find in the examples from Judg 13:2; 17:1 and Job 1:1 listed above. Andersen is supported by Ruthcommentaries such as those by Sasson, Ruth (1989) 14–15; 14–15; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 83; Block, Ruth (1999) 623, who all translate the phrase “a man from Bethlehem in Judah went …”. With such a translation, the “man” in Ruth 1:1 is not totally anonymous, but connected to a certain place. However, the geographical location of the “man” is repeated in Ruth 1:2, and Andersen’s argument may also stand when choosing the alternative translation. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 49–50, claims that it is the verb which “controls the phrase”, and translates “a man went from Bethlehem to Judah.” This translation is also used by Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 57, who argues that Bethlehem and Judah are the terms to be combined, as an ironic contrast between the “bread-house” Bethlehem and the “enemy” Moab. Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut (1975) 92, translates similarly, calling attention to   asan expression of movement, and that , and express the starting point, goal and end for this movement. I find that the arguments of Campbell, Bush, and Witzenrath bring important nuances to the first scene in Ruth, and I follow their alternative, despite the fact that the biblical examples from Judges and Job mentioned above all point in the opposite direction. The choice of the translation “a man went …”, stresses the contrast between total anonymity in Ruth 1:1 and identification of “the man” in Ruth 1:2. 9 LXX writes       and S , omitting “in those days.” These alternatives do not make any difference to the significance of the translation, and thus I follow the MT. Following the MT, the introduction is similar to the introduction of Esther (Esth 1:1). 8

60

Part I1: Character Analysis



     

10   



A man went from Bethlehem in Judah to immigrate to the land of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. (Ruth 1:1)

Then, in Ruth 1:2, the presentation of the characters’ names occurs. The noun  from v.1 is repeated and placed before the man’s name, and similarly  and  are repeated in front of the names of the wife and the two sons: The name of the man was Elimelech, The name of his wife was Naomi, And the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion. (Ruth 1:2)



            

The pattern from Ruth 1:1–2 is also to be found in Ruth 1:4. The Moabite women are first introduced as wives of Mahlon and Chilion; then their names are mentioned, each presented through a . They took for themselves Moabite wives. The name of the one [was] Orpah, The name of the other Ruth. (Ruth 1:4)

    

      

Ruth 2:1 has a similar presentation, starting with the introduction of a man who is a friend, is mighty, worthy, and of Elimelech’s family; then his name is revealed, together with a . Naomi had an acquaintance11 of her husband’s, a mighty and worthy12 man of Elimelech’s family. His name was Boaz. (Ruth 2:1)

        

What does such a pattern imply? Daniel Block claims that when the narrator temporarily withholds the name of a character, he invites the reader to a momentarily to generalize the problem of the narrative, which is the famine in Judah. The author then interrupts the narrative, revealing the name of the character.13 I find that it is most of all the characters’ identities which are stressed during these first verses. The momentary withholding of the names provokes the reader’s curiosity in the first place, the repetition LXX and S omit before . See the text critical discussion of this term in 6.2.1.1 Acquaintance or Relative to her Husband? 12 See 6.2.1.2 A Man of Might and Honour. 13 Block, Ruth (1999) 624. Studies where this step-by-step presentation is ignored, is Gerleman, Rut (1965) 15, who claims the characters are presented “Anonym und farblos;” or de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 5, 8, 23, who re-write the introductions so that the first and second part of the presentations are incorporated. 10 11

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

61

of the man/woman/sons followed by a  and the name emphasize that the names are significant.

3.2 Elimelech 3.2.1 The Name  Personal names referring to a divinity are quite normal in OT literature.14 The name  is such a name, with the rather clear meaning “God/ My god is king”.15 The name is used five times in Ruth (1:2, 3; 2:1, 3; 4:3). Outside Ruth it does not occur in the MT; in LXX,  has become  , similar to Gen 20:1–21:26 and Judg 8:31–10:1.16 I prefer the MT way of writing, “because of its uniqueness of the name.”17 Campbell, who dates Ruth to the time of the Monarchy, claims Elimelech is an authentic and typical name for its time, a time in which God was given royal titles. Campbell therefore sees no symbolic meaning in the name pertinent to the narrative.18 Claiming a post-Monarchic dating for Ruth,19 I believe the name is archaic and unexpected and, accordingly, brings ideological associations. The Ruth-story is placed in the time of the judges, and the name Elimelech points at a time when God was the king of Israel. 20 Such an interpretation of the name brings expectations both to Gods presence, and to the man who carries this name. Later, I will discuss the role of God.21 Here, I will concentrate on the character. Elimelech signals fear of God, he is, or should be, a God-fearing man. As will be demonstrated, this interpretation is significant for the understanding of the character’s identity.

14

Cf. Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 66–131. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 17, has another understanding of the derivation of the name, as he claims that  and   are the divine names El and Melech and should not be translated at all. 16 The Mss also refers to in Gen 20–21:26 and Judg 8:31. 17 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 17. See also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 52; Block, Ruth (1999) 625. Even if LXX mostly is understood as a normalizing of the name, the LXX version also may carry an interesting intertextual meaning. In Gen 20, Yahweh punishes Abimelech’s wives with infertility because of his behavior. In Ruth, Mahlon and Chilion are punished the same way, maybe because of Elimelech’s journey to Moab. 18 Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names (1988) 81. See also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 52. 19 See 2.6 Dating. 20 Cf. Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 2–3. 21 See 7 God. 15

62

Part I1: Character Analysis

3.2.2 Naming Elimelech 3.2.2.1 The Ephrathite They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. (Ruth 1:2)



 

The name Ephrathite is also a naming for the characters Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion, and is a clear family name linking Elimelech to his clan. The name brings at least three intertextual associations which are relevant to the interpretation. First, Ephrathite is connected to the matriarch Rachel. In Gen 35:19, Rachel dies, and the place where she is buried is mentioned by name twice: “Ephrath, that is Bethlehem,” a description implying strong bonds to this place. When Elimelech is called an Ephrathite from Bethlehem, the message is the same.22 Elimelech’s departure from Bethlehem seems therefore strange. Leaving Bethlehem is leaving the area where he, as the mathriarch, belongs. Secondly, Ephraim is associated with fruitfulness. When Joseph’s son Ephraim is born, his name is used in a wordplay: The second he named Ephraim, ”For God has made me fruitful in the land of my misfortunes.” (Gen 41:52)

      

Considering Elimelech in the light of this wordplay, Elimelech and his family should be a fertile tribe. However, during the scene in which Elimelech appears, the life of Elimelech achieves the opposite of what his family name implies: a famine comes, three people die, and there are no births. When Elimelech dies, his naming remains unrealized. A third intertext is 1 Sam 17, where Jesse is presented as “an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah” (1 Sam 17:12). 1 Sam 17 is clearly an introduction to the David-narrative. Earlier, I have suggested that Ruth may be a “birthstory” of David.23 The use of Ephrathite emphasizes the similarity between these texts. The term Ephrathite also links Jesse and Elimelech directly together, both being Ephrathites and fathers. However, the difference is clear: Jesse is a part of the genealogy at the end of the Ruth-story; Elimelech is not. Summing up, the associations to Ephrathite bring qualifications to the name Elimelech which are all very positive. The problem is that Elimelech seems to be set outside these qualifications. There is a disharmony between Elimelech the Ephrathite on the one hand, and his destiny in the story on the other. 22 23

Cf. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 54–55. See 2.8.2 Family and Birth Narratives.

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

63

3.2.2.2 Naomi’s Husband Then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died. (Ruth 1:3)

 

Identifying a man by his wife’s name is exceptional. The Midrash solves this by comparing Naomi with Jacob, focusing on the sorrow of those who remained.24 de Waard and Nida argue that the phrase “the husband of Naomi” is too repetitious, and therefore omit the phrase in their translation, and only write “Elimelech died”.25 Tod Linafeld, on the other hand, sees a specific intention in this phrase, claiming that this is a way of acknowledging “the shifting focus of the story from the expected story of men to the unexpected story of women.”26 Following Linafeld, my interpretation of Elimelech is rather sad. His story has a very promising start, with an elaborate presentation making him the main character of the narrative. When he suddenly dies, it may seem that the narrative has lost its hero. However, from one sentence to the next, Naomi turns out to be the main character, as the point of view is changed and Elimelech is called “Naomi’s husband”. This changing of family roles pushes Elimelech into the sidelines. Elimelech has been demoted, and moves from main to minor character within three verses. 3.2.3 Elimelech’s Role in the Plot When a personal name refers to a deity, it is the deity which is the focus, and not the character so named, Barr claims.27 Nevertheless, the personal name still has significance for the character’s identity. The name Elimelech is a good example of this. I have already pointed out that Elimelech means fear of God. Elimelech is a God-fearing man, or, at least, his mother, who gave him the name, was God-fearing.28 The question is whether Elimelech fits his name or not. It is difficult to give a detailed description of a character whose main function is to be the deceased husband. Block points at the verb (Ruth 1:3), “to be left over, to remain”, in order to describe how Naomi’s loneli24

Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 30: “The death of a man is felt by none but his wife, as it is said ‘And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died.’ The death of a woman is felt by none but her husband, as it is said, ‘And as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died unto me.’” 25 de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 8. 26 Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 6. 27 Cf. Barr, “The Symbolism of Names” (1969) 20; Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names (1988) 81. 28 In the OT-narratives (Gen 4:1; 29:31–30:22; 35:18; 1 Sam 1:20), it may seem to be the mother who gives the newborn child the name. Cf. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (2001) 42.

64

Part I1: Character Analysis

ness is an indirect critique of Elimelech.29 Bush, on the other hand, points at Elimelech as a  (Ruth 1:1), a “‘resident alien,’ [who is] a position intermediate between a native and a foreigner,”30 indicating that Elimelech did not assimilate to Moabite society and religion.31 I will claim that even if Elimelech is a , and does not turn to the god of Moab, his naming “Eprathite from Bethlehem in Judah” (Ruth 1:2) gives rise to a certain expectation of the character Elimelech. The phrase may be saying that “God is king for those living in Judah”, which fits well with Ruth 1:6, where Naomi “had heard in Moab that Yahweh had visited his people.” Accordingly, Elimelech belongs to Bethlehem in Judah. As an Ephrathite, Elimelech comes from a respectable clan. He has two sons, and he is a landlord (Ruth 4:3). This good fortune might be results of the fear of God. On the other hand, he leaves his clan and his land; he leaves the house of bread, Bethlehem, to go to the desert land of Moab,32 which also is the land of the enemy (Num 22:1–6; Judg 3:12–30; 1 Sam 12:9–10; 2 Kgs 3:7–27). The introduction of Elimelech thus stands as a clear contrast to his travel. Elimelech’s escape to Moab is the opposite of what his name indicates, and is therefore bound for a tragic ending. He does not await God, who according to his name should be his king, and dies as a result of taking his life in his own hands. Leaving Israel because of famine is a well known way of solving problems. Abram leaves Canaan and goes with Sarai to Egypt (Gen 12:10–20), as do Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 26:1–17) and Jacob with his family (Gen 46). Tikva Frymer-Kensky uses Abram as an argument for Elimelech’s travel to Moab. “[H]aving to leave is a sad thing, it is not a sin” she claims. “Famine drove Abraham from the land, and Jacob; and Elisha the prophet counselled his friend the Shunammite woman to escape famine.”33 However, Frymer-Kensky does not reflect upon the crises connected with Abram’s travel. Abram’s way of saving his life in the foreign country brings God’s anger, and can hardly be understood as a model to follow. The Midrash to Ruth claims that Elimelech was punished because of selfishness, only concerned for himself when the famine came, thinking 29

Block, Ruth (1999) 627–28. See also Gen 47:30. Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 63. See also HALOT, 201; Kellermann, “gor” (1973) 983–84; Epstein, Marriage Laws (1968), 197–98, to this and related terms. Cf Exod 2:22; where Moses gives his son the name  Gershom “for I have been an alien residing in a foreign land.” In my translation of Ruth 1:1, I use “immigrate,” see 3.1.2 From Anonymity to Identification. 31 Cf. the discussion of Ruth’s change of god when she enters the borders of Israel. See 5.3.2 Is Ruth a Proselyte? 32 Due to the topography, there should be at least at much famine in Moab as in Israel. Cf. Gerleman, Rut (1965) 14. 33 Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women (2002) 242. 30

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

65

“Now all Israel will come knocking at my door (for help,) each one with his basket.”34 Nielsen is right when she points out that such a reading makes few references to the text, but is a result of “later traditions [which] could not allow such an event to remain unexplained.”35 Still, I find that the aspect of punishment cannot be ignored. I support Robert L. Hubbard when he stresses the question of whether Elimelech only apparently has God as king since he decided to flee the king’s territory because of famine.36 We cannot overlook the irony of this name, and the contradiction between his name and his action. The name Elimelech thus convicts the character. 3.2.4 The Name Elimelech as Marker on God The sudden death of Elimelech introduces a second possible interpretation of the name, focusing on the name as a statement about God. A main question for this book is whether God is present in the narrative or not. The name Elimelech might be read as a first response to this question. The meaning of the name, proclaiming God as king, does not make God an active character in the story; however, it focuses on God as a central theme of the narrative. As will be demonstrated, such an understanding corresponds with other indirect presentations of God in Ruth. When the name Elimelech is used to focus on God, the role of Elimelech the character is reduced. I find such an interpretation coherent to the plot: having God as king, Elimelech should be inhered with authority, yet he is not capable of being head in his own house. Thus he dies as “Naomi’s husband”, and leaves his name to represent another character in the narrative, which is God.

3.3 Mahlon and Chilion The name of his two sons (were) Mahlon and Chilion. (Ruth 1:2)

     

3.3.1 The Names  and   The meanings of these names are rather peculiar. Noth sees the names as clearly constructed names, translating Mahlon with “Schwachheit”, and Chilion with “Schwindsucht”.37 In English, the associations of Mahlon are 34 35 36 37

Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 20–21. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 43. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 88. Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 10–11.

66

Part I1: Character Analysis

“to be sterile”, “weak” or “ill”, and Chilion “to be at the end”, “finished”.38 Campbell, seeking more dynamic meanings of the names as plausible real personal names, claims that Mahlon might imply “little vessel”, but also “destruction”, while Chilion might imply “to be sick”, or, on the other hand, “to be sweet”.39 Campbell’s argument, that the names may imply several things, is worth noticing. It makes the characters more than merely caricatured names. It becomes possible to imagine them as sons of Elimelech and Naomi, without having a predestined fate written on their foreheads. And still, the meanings associated with infertility and death are impossible to ignore. The names occur only a few times in the narrative. Mahlon is mentioned four times (Ruth 1:2, 5; 4:9, 10), Chilion three (Ruth 1:2, 5; 4:9). It is interesting to notice that the names occur together, almost as a word-pair, and also that they have the same phonetic sound. Such similar name-pairs are usually descriptions of biblical brothers. Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain occur in Gen 4:20–22, Uz and Buz in Gen 22:21, and Muppim and Huppim in Gen 46:21. Sasson points out how such rhyming names make them memorisable, “but marginal to the real aim of the narrator.”40 In Ruth, the rhyming names make the characters anonymous, difficult to separate from one another. Biblical brothers and sisters, having more “proper” names, are often distinguished from another when presented. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground,” (Gen 4:2); “Esau was a skilful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents,” (Gen 25:27); “Leah’s eyes were lovely, and Rachel was graceful and beautiful,” (Gen 29:17).41 Mahlon and Chilion are never described as different from one another. The first time they are presented, they are mentioned together, even connected to the same . (Ruth 1:2). This is the opposite of Orpah and Ruth, who are presented with a  each in the following verse. Further, which of the men is marrying Orpah and which is marrying Ruth seems quite incidental. Due to the order of presentations, it actually seems that Mahlon marries Orpah. Not until Ruth 4:10 is the reader informed that Mahlon is the late husband of Ruth. This anonymous presentation makes Mahlon and Chilion rather insignificant characters. Bearing tragic names, they become odd as well, with their only purpose to underline the plot.

38

See Sasson, Ruth (1989) 18–19. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 53. 40 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 18. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 53, also emphasises that such similar names do not need to be unauthentic even if they are memorable. 41 Cf. also Nielsen, Satan (1996) 60–69, giving examples of a narrative pattern of two brothers. 39

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

67

3.3.2 Naming Mahlon and Chilion There are three namings connected to the characters. The first is “Ephrathites”, (Ruth 1:2), already mentioned above. The second is the common naming as Elimelech’s sons (Ruth 1:1–2). Further, Mahlon is named “the dead man” (Ruth 4:10). These namings are precise descriptions of the limited roles they have in the narrative. Being the dead son is Mahlon’s role, a role necessary for the motive of plot 2.42 3.3.3 Chilion and Mahlon’s Roles in the Plot Mahlon and Chilion’s actions are rapidly told. They marry Moabite women (Ruth 1:4), then they die (Ruth 1:5). The question of whether the latter “action” is a consequence of the first can only be suggested. The only commentary on Mahlon and Chilion’s destinies lies in their names. Being sterile and sick, there is nothing but death to accept. However, the aspect of punishment which might be found in Elimelech’s name is not present. In chapter 4, Mahlon is central, being the dead husband. This cannot be called an action, but still it is worth mentioning. All the rhetoric of Boaz in Ruth 4:1–10 is concentrated on Mahlon, and on Boaz’ duty of saving Mahlon’s name through levirate marriage, but nevertheless, Mahlon disappears from the genealogy, and Boaz is the one who appears as Obed’s ancestor.43 Mahlon ends up with an even more minor role than the narrative implies in Ruth 4:1–10, as an agent enlightening the main character Boaz.

3.4 Orpah And they lifted up their voices and cried again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law. (Ruth 1:14)

       

    

3.4.1 The Name  The name Orpah is a narrative in itself. It is often understood as “die Hartnäckige”44 and further, “she who turns her neck towards her mother-inlaw.”45 This interpretation fits very well with the Ruth-story. There is no direct criticism of Orpah when she leaves Naomi on her way to Bethlehem; rather the opposite. Orpah is the one following Naomi’s advice, and the 42 43 44 45

See 2.5.1 The Plots 1 and 2: Fertility. Cf. Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 92–93. Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 11. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 55.

68

Part I1: Character Analysis

farewell is described with tears and cries. However, her name reveals that her action was perfidy. Leaving Naomi is the same as turning her back towards her, metaphorically speaking.46 There are alternative, more open, understandings of the name.  may insinuate neck as a sensual part of the woman’s body, similar to the descriptions in Song 1:10; 4:4, where the term   is used to describe the woman’s neck.  may also imply “cloud” or even “perfume”.47 These alternative meanings are not as illustrative as “neck” in the meaning “turning her neck”; however, as in the case of the names Mahlon and Chilion, the meanings create a nuanced understanding, making the personal name more than an ironic note, as Bal claims that Orpah is.48 According to Bal, Orpah is “subjected to her name, determined by it.” 49 I find, on the contrary, that the scene in Ruth 1:8–14 demonstrates that the character Orpah is not necessarily determined to turn away from her mother-in-law. Naomi needs to argue for a longer time before Orpah is finally obedient and goes, and she goes unwillingly. It is after she has left that the specific meaning of “neck” turns out to be the obvious one. Orpah’s name may fit the idea of the “nick-name”, a name given as a result of specific traits or events.50 I do not see that the Ruth-narrative treats Orpah’s name this way. Because of the detailed presentation of each name in the narrative, it seems clear that all the names are meant to be read as proper names, and with the exception of Naomi, none of the characters has any name but their original. The view to different meanings of the names that make the characters more dynamic, and not only determined into one specific trait or action, seems therefore relevant. 3.4.2 Naming Orpah Orpah and Ruth have three common namings. These are “Moabite women” (Ruth 1:4), “daughters-in-law” (Ruth 1:6, 7, 8), and “daughters” (Ruth 1:11, 12, 13). I will discuss these namings thoroughly when analyzing

46

Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 38–39, is clear in this concern, describing how Orpah’s fate was deserved. On her way back to Moab, she was raped by 100 men and a dog, and then she was killed. Cf. also Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 73–74, describing Orpah as “narrativization of the proper name.” On the other hand, cf. Borgehammar, “Perikoper och predikan” (2001) 46, giving the example of a very positive early Christian interpretation of Orpah and other names in Ruth. 47 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 80. 48 Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 73. 49 Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 74. 50 Cf. examples of such in Barr, “The Symbolism of Names” (1969); Barstad, “rahab” (1989).

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

69

Ruth below,51 so now only point to two aspects with the namings when connected to Orpah. The difference between the narrator’s use of “daughters-in-law” and Naomi’s “daughters” stresses that there is an intimate relationship between Naomi and Orpah. Furthermore, Orpah and Ruth are always mentioned together, by Naomi as well as by the narrator. This signals that, until Orpah leaves the narrative, she is just as closely related to Naomi as Ruth and she has the same qualities as Ruth. 3.4.3 Orpah’s Role in the Plot Orpah’s actions are described in both the past and the present. She has done hesed to Naomi and her late husband (Ruth 1:8).52 Now she obeys her mother-in-law and returns home. Leaving her mother-in-law, with crying and tears, is clearly an unwilling action (Ruth 1:14). Still, Orpah is remembered as the one who left. Orpah’s problem is that, from a narrative point of view, she is of minor interest as a character.53 Her role is to be a model to which Ruth might be compared. She is a typical agent, and will only be referred to in so far as she is of interest for the analysis of Ruth.

3.5 Peloni Almoni He said: Come and sit down here, Mr Soand-So. And he came and sat down. (Ruth 4:1)

        

3.5.1 Anonymity

 is not a name. Outside Ruth, the term only occurs in 1 Sam 21:3 and 2 Kgs 6:8. Here it refers to “a certain place”, a secret place where David and the King of Aram respectively hide their troops in battle. The correct interpretation of should therefore probably be “a certain man”. However, the term is used in direct speech from Boaz to this other man, and functions therefore as a sort of title or nickname. The Ruth-

51

See 5.2 Naming Ruth. On hesed, see 7.3.5 Hesed. 53 From a feminist aspect, as by Miller-McLemore, “Returning to the ‘Mother’s House’” (1991), Orpah is understood as important, representing women caught between the traditional and the radical culture. 52

70

Part I1: Character Analysis

commentaries suggests translations such as “Mr So-and-So”, “Namenlos” “xy” the Hebrew equivalent of “John Doe”, or just “Mr Nobody”.54 Most significantly, through the title , anonymity is named. I have described anonymity earlier as a way of hiding the identity of someone’s character.55 The fact that almost every character in Ruth has a personal name makes the nameless redeemer a stirring contrast. The redeemer’s namelessness becomes even more astonishing with this specific anonymous title. His anonymity is articulated. Following Bar-Efrat, who sees anonymity as a way of disparaging characters, the lack of a personal name for the proper redeemer definitely sheds a negative light on him. To stress that his name is held back on purpose, I use Sasson’s name “Mr Soand-so”. 3.5.2 Mr So-and-So’s Role in the Plot The action of Mr So-and-so can be illustrated through his two direct speeches in chapter four:  

He said: I will redeem. (Ruth 4:4) The redeemer said: I am not able to redeem myself, lest I impair my inheritance. You take my right of redemption yourself, for I am not able to redeem. (Ruth 4:6)

               56

The speeches describe a situation where Mr So-and-so changes his mind. The reason for this change is Boaz’ words in verse 5, where he, after having offered “Naomi’s land” to Mr So-and-so, states that he intends to acquire Ruth the Moabite, the dead man’s wife (Ruth 4:5).57 This is a problem for Mr So-and-so. If Boaz and Ruth get a son, the land of Naomi will pass to this son. And he is obviously not interested in marrying Ruth himself. He already has a family and offspring for his own inheritance. Boaz’ presentations of Ruth as “the Moabite” may also have scared him away. Mr So-and-so’s taking off the sandal has direct connections with the levirate law in Deut 25:9. There, this is described as a symbol of low morality and evasion of the law. The widow of the dead man shall take the sandal, and spit in the redeemer’s face, and proclaim: “This is what is done 54 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 106; Fischer, Rut (2001) 35; Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible (1992) 107. 55 See 2.4.2.2 Anonymity. 56 There is an alternative qere reading  to this verse, which has no decisive significance to the translation. 57 See the discussion of Ruth 4:5 in 6.3.1.4 Who acquires Whom? Textual Criticism of Ruth 4:5.

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

71

to the man who does not build up his brother’s house” (Deut 25:9). In Ruth, no comment is made about Mr So-and-so’s sandal, nor is Ruth there to spit. Still, the intertexual reference is obvious and the scenario from Deut 25 is indirectly activated. Accordingly, Mr So-and-so’s avoiding action makes him a betrayer. This he becomes despite the fact that after the scene in chapter three, all the main characters, and the reader as well, wish Mr So-and-so to renounce his duty. Mr So-and-so’s role is bound to be wrong. However, being an agent, his role is not to promote himself, but to show Boaz in a better light. In this he succeeds.

3.6 Obed The neighbourhood women gave him a name, saying: “A son is born to Naomi!” And they called his name Obed. He became the father of Jesse, David’s father. (Ruth 4:17)

              

 

3.6.1 The Name   The name   occurs three times in Ruth: first, when he is named as a newborn, and twice in the following genealogy (Ruth 4:17, 21–22). The name has a clear meaning, being similar to the term  “servant”, and accordingly implies “subservient to Naomi in her old age” (Ruth 4:15). Sasson points at the relationship between the name Obed meaning “The Labourer” or “Farmer”, which suggests a link to the purchasing of the land belonging to Elimelech (Ruth 4:3–6).58 He also points at the possibility of reading Obed as a shortened form of Obadiah, meaning “follower of Yahweh”.59 3.6.2 Naming Obed The namings of Obed give him a central role in the narrative. In Ruth 4:14 his namings are  “son” and  “redeemer”,60 in Ruth 4:17, he is  “father”. These are namings pointing back to earlier passenges in the narrative, raising the question of whether there will be a son to Naomi again (Ruth 1:5, 11), and whether there will be a redeemer for Naomi’s daugh58

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 183. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 177–78. See also Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 137–38. 60 On the question of who there is to be the proper redeemer, see 6.2.2.4 Naomi’s Redeemer in the End. 59

72

Part I1: Character Analysis

ters-in-law (Ruth 1:11–13; 2:20; 3:1–4, 9, 12–13; 18; 4:1–10). Further, the naming “father” responds to the question about whether there will be a man to rule the family after Elimelech’s death (Ruth 1:3). Obed’s namings thus gather the threads and bring the Ruth-story to a conclusion. 3.6.3 Obed’s Role in the Plot – and in the Narrative Because of his name, Obed’s role is that of the servant, raising the dead Mahlon’s name and serving Naomi in her old age. He is mostly described through other characters’ actions. He is born (Ruth 4:13), he is placed on Naomi’s lap (Ruth 4:16), and he is given a name (Ruth 4:17). Only once does Obed himself act, when he is mentioned in the end of the story as the one who “became the father of Jesse, David’s father” (Ruth 4:17). This verse, having the pattern of a genealogy, confirms that the birth of Obed was a success: he became a grown-up man, able to give Naomi security. What is more, his expected heir is David, a name associated with power, wealth and blessing. These associations shed light backwards to Obed, making Obed the messenger of blessing as well. At the same time it is necessary to stress that this action of Obed lies outside the story of the narrative. As soon as Obed is born, the plot is fulfilled and the narrative tunes down into a “coda”,61 where the Bethlehem women call out: “A son is born to Naomi! And they called his name Obed” (Ruth 4:17). Thus Obed’s begetting a son and a grandson must be read as an elaboration of the final scene containing his own birth, but not as an actual part of the plot. Obed’s role as character within the plot is therefore a minor one. 3.6.4 Obed and the Genealogy After the closing scene elaborated by the short genealogy, a longer genealogy follows the Ruth-story. As mentioned earlier, this genealogy has similarities with 1 Chron 2, and probably has its origin from this complete genealogy of the descendants of Judah (1 Chron 2:1–55), and is probably also the oldest part of the book.62 One might suggest that the narrative of Ruth has arisen out of the genealogy, bringing flesh and blood into this specific part of the list of descendants. From a narrative point of view, however, the genealogy is an epilogue, confirming and consolidating the story. Within this discourse, Obed’s role is unique, standing with one foot in the genealogy and the other in the story, holding the two parts together.

61 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 107–110. Cf. also Chapter 2.5 Plot and Narrative Structure. 62 Cf. the discussion in 2.6 Dating.

Chapter 3: Minor Characters

73

Obed’s role inside the genealogy also deserves a commentary. According to Sasson, the placement of a name within a genealogy is not accidental: central persons usually have the most important places in the list.63 Counting the names from Perez to David, Boaz is the seventh generation, and David the tenth: both are well known as important placements in a genealogy.64 Obed is the eighth. In the context of Ruth, this placement is especially interesting: Eight is more than seven and thus, Obed’s placement corresponds to the words said about Ruth, being “better to you than seven sons” (Ruth 4:15). The words about Ruth will be discussed later.65 However, being the eighth, the phrase also refers to him, placing Obed in the area of Hannah’s praise (1 Sam 2:5), and, above all, together with Jesse’s eighth son, David (1 Sam 16:9–12).66 The placement of Obed in the genealogy is thus a pointed illustration of the decisive role Obed has in the narrative, as the one bringing the plot in Ruth to a solution of blessing and hope. The birth of Obed turns out to be a resolution far beyond Naomi’s expectations.

3.7 Summary When the minor characters in Ruth are read together, a common pattern emerges: that there is an imbalance between the presentations of the characters and their actions in the plot. Except for Peloni Almoni, whose presentation is a topic in itself, every character is presented thoroughly, with a name, a  connected to the name, and also with different namings. These comprehensive presentations make the characters important in the plot. Throughout the narrative, however, it becomes clear that the minor characters are hardly present: Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion die; Orpah turns back; Mr So-and-so backs out; and Obed does not arrive in the story until the last scene. This modest presence of the characters makes them one-dimensional and flat.67 They do not develop, change or surprise. I place them in the role of agents, explained by Berlin as “about whom nothing is known except what is necessary for the plot; the agent is a function of the plot or part of the setting.”68 63

Sasson, “Generation, Seventh” (1962). Sasson, Ruth (1989) 181–84; Nielsen, “Stamtavle og Fortælling” (1994) 86. 65 See 5.2.2.2 “Who is More to You than Seven Sons.” 66 Outside the OT literature, Obed might be associated with the Ugarit poem of king Keret, proclaiming that the king will have “seven, yes, eight sons!” See Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Myths” (1950) 146. 67 Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927) 93. 68 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 32. See also 2.3.2 Character Types. 64

74

Part I1: Character Analysis

For a character study the minor characters are of less importance. For the development of the plot, and most of all, for the understanding of the main characters, they are significant. Orpah is comparable with Ruth; Mr So-and-so with Boaz. Elimelech is apparently the main character of the narrative until Naomi takes his place. He is also important because his name introduces the idea of God in the beginning of the narrative. Elimelech’s relation to God is not very promising. The question to be considered is how the interaction between God and the main characters turns out.

Chapter 4

Naomi Among the main characters in Ruth, Naomi is the principal. She is presented for the first time in Ruth 1:2; we come to know her through her speeches (Ruth 1:8–15, 20–21; 2:2, 19–22; 3:1–4, 16, 18) and we follow her until she sits with the newborn child in her arms (Ruth 4:16). We also come to know Naomi’s inner life: her sorrow, bitterness, resignation, and transformation into hope. Naomi’s identity changes through the narrative: she moves from being Elimelech’s wife to a mourning and bitter widow and resigned mother-in-law; then she becomes an arranger of a seduction and at last a nurse. All these characteristics make her a full-fledged character. One of the most typical features of Naomi’s character is her need to change her name. Going from Naomi to Mara, this feature gives a significant insight into the character’s reaction to her destiny in the story, as well as emphasising the plot. Naomi wishes to be called Mara because she sees that name as an accurate description of her sad situation, although the narrator, who knows the end of the story, does not take Naomi’s complaint into account. “[W]ithin the narrative order,” Bal says, “it is the case that if she has the name of Naomi the sweet, that is because, sooner or later, she will be Naomi the sweet.”1 Naomi turns her bitterness towards God (Ruth 1:13, 20–21). She understands her great loss to be a result of God’s punishment and abandonment. Thus, her complaining questions God’s role in the narrative. Naomi is also closely connected to Ruth. This matter of fact opens for the question concerning the relationship between the two women.

4.1. Naomi’s Names



4.1.1  – the Pleasant His wife’s name was Naomi. (Ruth 1:2)

1

  

Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 74. The text is also to be found in Bal, “Heroism and Proper Names” (1993) 50.

76

Part I1: Character Analysis

4.1.1.1 Naomi as Indirect Wordplay The meaning of the name Naomi may be “good, pleasant, lovely, winsome”,2 derived from the term . As verb it may imply “to be pleasant”; as noun: “grace” or “kindness”.3 Noth takes it to be a nickname, and claims that the name may be a description of the deity, as “Die Gottheit ist Wonne/ Lieblichkeit”.4 Campbell argues that it is uncommon for a female name to be connected to any deity, and considers the name to be similar to several other names based upon on the root .5 Instead of discussing the etymology in detail, which is an uncertain exercise,6 a suggestion of a plausible meaning is to be found in the narrative itself. There is no direct wordplay or commentary connected to the name Naomi, however, Naomi’s speech to the Bethlehem women in Ruth 1:19– 21 lies very close to an explanation. The meaning of the name is obviously important to the story, understood as a harsh contrast to the misery Naomi’s life has become. Do not call me Naomi (Ruth 1:20) Why do you call me Naomi when Yahweh has testified against me 7 and Shaddai has brought calamity upon me? (Ruth 1:21)

      

   

Naomi’s need to change her name assumes that the name Naomi has one explicit meaning, that of “kindness” or “grace”. Furthermore, one has to assume that this meaning is obvious to the reader. Otherwise, Naomi’s words would be meaningless. Such a way of understanding the name Naomi is common within the Ruth-research.8 I would go further, and argue that this way of using the name Naomi may constitute a pattern for understanding the use of personal names in Ruth as a whole. As demonstrated in the former chapter, the etymological associations of several personal names in Ruth fit the plot strikingly well. Ruth 1:20–21 brings a more direct connection between the 2

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 17. HALOT II 705–06. 4 Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 166, 116. For the study of nicknames, cf. 3.4 Orpah. 5 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 53. 6 Cf. 2.4.1.2 From Etymology to Popular Etymology. 7 LXX reads    “has oppressed/humiliated me.” For further discussion of this term, see 4.3.3.1 The translation of  . 8 Even Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 63–64, who in general argues against any etymological or symbolic reading of the personal names in Ruth, since “our author makes no play on their meaning,” admits that the etymology of the name of Naomi “will be used by the narrator in v 22.” 3

Chapter 4: Naomi

77

name and the plot, and might therefore be read as a model for the potential interpretation of all names within the text. The name Naomi makes it “legitimate and promising to speculate,” quoting Barbara Green.9 I would call Naomi an indirect wordplay.10 This understanding is strengthened when seen together with Naomi’s other name, Mara (Ruth 1:20). Mara obviously fits within the pattern of direct wordplay, and juxtaposed with this name, the name Naomi is coloured by this pattern. In addition, Mara may function as an antonym to Naomi, stressing the significance of both names. 4.1.1.2 Occurrences In Ruth 1:3 Elimelech is described as “Naomi’s husband”. From this point on, Naomi is in the centre of the plot. She is the one who takes the long way home to Bethlehem; the daughters-in-law are described as her travelling companions. Further, in chapters 2 and 3, she is the cause of Ruth’s actions. Ruth goes to the harvest field with the intention of bringing food back to Naomi, and on Naomi’s command she dresses up and goes to Boaz in the night. At the end of Chapter 4 she closes the plot, as she takes the child Obed in her arms and becomes his nurse.11 Naomi’s name is mentioned 22 times in the text (Ruth 1:2, 3, 8, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; 2:1, 2, 6, 20(x2), 22; 3:1; 4:3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 17).12 With Naomi in such a superior position, it might appear strange that the book has the name “the Book of Ruth” and not “the Book of Naomi”. Thus there is an incongruity between her position in the story and the fact that another character provides the name of the book. Zefira Gitay claims that this poses a question that cannot be avoided.13 The title stresses the appearance of conflict between Naomi and Ruth, she claims. Naomi disliked the intermarriage between her son and the native Moabite, she was not delighted with the company of her daughter-in-law, and throughout the entire story Naomi never said – “even once” – that her deeds were gracious. “Whoever

9

Green, Field and Seed Symbolism (1980) 49, 51. She also points out that wordplay is used broadly in Ruth, as , in the sense of both “house” and “daughter,”  (friend, relative) and (to know),  (to redeem) and   (to uncover),  (maidservant) and  (clan), etc. 10 See 2.4.1.3 Word Similarities. 11 For more detailed description of Naomi in the plot; see 2.5.1 Plots 1 and 2: Fertility. 12 In comparison, Ruth’s name is mentioned 12 times, and Boaz’ 20 times. 13 Gitay, “Ruth” (1993) 179–86.

78

Part I1: Character Analysis

named the scroll after Ruth read it carefully; and the name choice implies a criticism of Naomi.”14 Gitay’s statement is rather critical, though it might have some value. And it raises decisive questions to the narrative: what is the relation between Naomi and Ruth? If there is a conflict, what is the reason for it?15 And does the narrator comment upon the relationship? These questions are to be considered below. 4.1.2  – the Bitter It is more bitter for me than for you because the hand of Yahweh has turned against me. (Ruth 1:13)



 

She said to them: Do not call me Naomi, call me Mara, because Shaddai has made it bitter for me. (Ruth 1:20)

    16    

4.1.2.1 Meaning and Occurrence The name Mara should obviously be read within a wordplay, as the terms  and  are juxtaposed in the same phrase, connected with a  (Ruth 1:20). Thus, Mara undoubtedly means bitter. It occurs only once in the text as a personal name, when Naomi proclaims her bitterness to the women of Bethlehem. In addition,  occurs as a verb in Ruth 1:13. It is worth stressing that the name Mara and the description “bitter” are terms only used by Naomi herself. This is a feature to be pursued. 4.1.2.2 Changing Naomi’s Name Changing someone’s personal name is a well known practice in the OT literature.17 Normally, the focus lies on the act of name-changing: the background, the character bringing the new name, the purpose of the new name, and so on (Gen 32:24–29). Further, the focus in the rest of the narrative is placed on this new name, whose meaning is often significant in the plot, and which often brings better qualities upon the carrier of the name than the original did (Gen 17:5, 15–16).

14 Gitay, “Ruth” (1993) 186. See Block, Ruth (1999) 588 for other reflections on the fact that the book is named after Ruth. 15 There also is a discussion about Ruth and Naomi having a lesbian relation. This will be commented upon in 5.2.2.1 Your Daughter-in-Law Who Loves You. 16 In some medieval Hebrew manuscripts the term  is used. This does not change the implication of the term, nor does it interrupt the wordplay within the verse. 17 See 2.4.1.4 Changing of Names.

Chapter 4: Naomi

79

The name changing in Ruth from Naomi to Mara does not follow this regular pattern. First of all, Mara brings worse, not better, qualities upon Naomi. What is more, it is not the new name, nor the change, but the refusal of change that is striking here. Naomi changes her name as an expression of her sad situation, but her change is not taken into account. As early as in the next verse, the narrator calls Naomi “Naomi” (Ruth 1:22); neither do any of the other characters name Naomi “Mara”, not even once. Thus the changing of her name, and then the ignoring of this change, becomes a comment about Naomi’s self-understanding. From Naomi’s point of view she is a shattered woman with no expectations for the future. From the narrator’s point of view, however, Naomi has a flawed understanding of her own situation. The narrator knows how the story ends; Naomi does not.18 Bal says that when Naomi’s name is “Pleasant, Lovely, Sweet”, she can not avoid being sweet. Her name “has not lost its predictive force.”19 The practice of not changing Naomi’s name thus expresses the tension between the self-pity of Naomi and the narrative determined by the name. But this sequence also expresses a problem on an existential level: Naomi’s selfunderstanding is ignored; her sorrow and mourning are not taken into consideration. Freedman claims: “this undermines Naomi’s expression of her personal experience of God. She thinks she should be called ‘Mara’ because of all she has suffered at the hands of God, but no one else in the text validates her experience by calling her by the new name that expresses it. Rather, they ignore her account of her experience by continuing to call her ‘Naomi’.” 20

The contradiction between Naomi’s and the narrator’s viewpoints is an effective characterization of Naomi’s character. Naomi is pleasant, and her life will turn sweet. Still, her loss, her bitterness and complaint are realities. Overheard by the narrator, and also by the women in Bethlehem, she is lonely in her grief as well.

4.2 Naming Naomi Naomi is named with two terms: the wife and the mother-in-law. Both namings are descriptions of family roles, relating Naomi to other characters.

18 19 20

See Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 65. Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 74. Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 149.

80

Part I1: Character Analysis

4.2.1 The Wife He, and his wife 21 and his two sons. (Ruth 1:1) The name of his wife was Naomi. (Ruth 1:2)

   

   

The naming “his wife” introduces the plot. The first reference is a part of the general presentation of a man and his family (Ruth 1:1); the second comes in the immediate presentation of the family’s personal names (Ruth 1:2).22 The significance of this naming is common.23 Naomi is a wife, meaning a married woman. In these opening verses, Naomi is always connected to the description “wife”. That places Naomi close to Elimelech, submissive to her husband, as also the two sons are related to their father, not their mother.24 In an OT context this is quite normal: the family structure submits women and children to the man.25 What is unusual is that the roles of Naomi and Elimelech are suddenly changed: Then Elimelech, Naomi’s man, died, and she was left alone, she and her two sons. (Ruth 1:3)

 

   

At the moment Elimelech dies, the naming “wife” is no longer used for Naomi, nor is she called  “widow”. Suddenly, she is not submissive to anyone, but has become the head of the family herself. As an immediate consequence, the sons are related to her (Ruth 1:3). Naomi has gained a leading position, which is unique for an OT woman. The narrator’s change from naming Naomi “wife” to not naming her at all develops Naomi’s character and makes her a full-fledged character.

In general, the term  is translated as “his woman”. See Bird, Missing Persons (1997) 52. As a term connected to the pronoun 

, I find it appropriate to translate  as “his wife”. 22 See 3.1.2 From Anonymity to Identification. 23 With the exception of Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 87, most scholars do not take much notice of this ordinary naming. 24 Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 59–60, focusing on how naming often indicates family relationship, at the same time as it describes the point of view through which the narrative is read. See 2.4.3 Naming. 25 Narratives such as Gen 3:16; 12:10–20; Judg 19:1–30; 2 Sam 3:14–16; 11:1–27 reflect upon this. Cf. also 2.7.1 Family Structures. Although wives also seem to act quite independently inside the family, as the narratives of Sarah (Gen 16:1–6; 21:9–12); Rebecca (Gen 27:5–17); Leah and Rachel (Gen 30:14–16) confirm. 21

81

Chapter 4: Naomi

4.2.2 The Mother-in-Law Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. (Ruth 1:14)

        

This term   /   is used of Naomi ten times in the narrative (Ruth 1:14; 2:11, 18, 19(2x), 23; 3:1, 6, 16, 17). The number of occurrences implies that this term is a significant description of Naomi’s character.26 She is once referred to as the mother-in-law of Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:14); in the rest of the narrative the term refers only to Ruth. Most of the references are made by the narrator, although Boaz also uses the term   (your mother-in-law) as he praises Ruth for being faithful to Naomi (Ruth 2:11), and Ruth uses the term   (to your mother-in-law) once, referring to Boaz’ words on the threshing floor (Ruth 3:17). I have remarked earlier that mothers-in-law are insignificant in the OT narratives, as in the OT literature overall.27 It is therefore difficult to describe Naomi in this role. What I find most instructive is to compare Naomi with the biblical fathers-in-law. The Old Testament features quite a few fathers-in-law. The term   (with 2 masc. sing. suff.) is used ten times, referring to Jethro (Exod 3:1; 4:18; 18:7, 24, 27), and to the father of the unfaithful woman in Gibeah (Judg 19:4, 5, 7, 9). The term   (with 2 fem. sing suff.) is used to describe women’s fathers-in-law; Judah (Gen 38:25) and Eli (1 Sam 4:19, 21). Other narratives deal with fathersin-law without using the term directly. Laban is father-in-law (Gen 29:9– 30; 30:25–31:55), so is Saul (1 Sam 18:17–29; 25:44). According to Gen 38 there seems to be one specific duty connected to fathers-in-law. As head of the clan he is obliged to find a new husband for his daughter-in-law if his married son dies childless. Actually, in the law of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10, it is the brother- and not the fatherin-law who is mentioned.28 Nevertheless it seems clear that a law similar to Deut 25 is used and is understood as a reference to Gen 38. So it is in Ruth. In both narratives, sons of the family die childless, and the father- or mother-in-law struggles with the obligation of giving the widows new husbands (Gen 38:8–11; Ruth 1:11–13). According to the Judah-Tamar narrative, and partly the law of Deut 25, it should be Elimelech, and further, Elimelech’s family, who were responsible for Orpah and Ruth, yet Naomi obviously sees herself responsible for her daughters-in-law in the same way that Judah does, or, should have done, for his. This becomes clear in Naomi’s speech in Ruth 1:11–13, where she refers to her hypothetical new sons. These would not be Elimelech’s sons, and accordingly 26 27 28

Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 87. See 2.7.1.2 Mother-in-Law. For the study of levirate marriage, see 2.7.1.3 The Levirate Institution.

82

Part I1: Character Analysis

they would not be of Elimelech’s clan.29 Naomi’s speech, therefore, does not make sense unless she is understood as head of the family; she has to adopt Elimelech’s role. Naomi has obviously done that, taking the role of the mother-in-law much more seriously than Judah takes his obligetions as father-in-law. In Mic 7:6, the relation between mother- and daughter-in-law is described as a conflict.30 An intertextual reading between Ruth and Micah stresses the possibility, already suggested, of conflict between Naomi and Ruth.

4.3 Naomi’s Actions Naomi’s presence in the plot is primarily expressed by direct discourse; only a few times does she actually act. The following analysis will concentrate on how Naomi’s presence fits together with the descriptions made by her names and naming. 4.3.1 Naomi and Her Daughters-in-law Naomi’s first action takes place when she starts walking home to Bethlehem. She has decided to go back to her homeland, since “she had heard in the land of Moab that Yahweh had visited his people and given them bread” (Ruth 1:6). Here, her first speech is expressed: Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law: Go, turn back, each to her mother’s house.31 May Yahweh bring you hesed32 as you brought to the dead and to me. (Ruth 1:8)

 

     

     

The term   is used four times in this sequence on the road. Three times Naomi begs the daughters-in-law to return home (Ruth 1:8, 11, 12), once she tries to persuade Ruth to follow Orpah (Ruth 1:15). These repeated

29

Cf. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974) 137–38. See 2.7.1.2 Mother-in-Law. 31 To the phase “mother’s house,” See 5.3.2.1 Houses. 32 The term   is commonly translated as “goodness,” “kindness,” or “fidelity.” I partly translate the term “fidelity,” and partly transcribe hesed. This, due to Sasson, Ruth (1989) 23, who claims the term is not possible to uniform by the same English word. See also 7.3.5 Hesed, for further discussions. 33 LXX and V suggest the shorter form  of the verb, which has no impact on the understanding of the text. 30

Chapter 4: Naomi

83

appeals give the very strong impression that Naomi really wants the daughters-in-law to go. Why is this so important? The answer most likely lies in Naomi’s understanding of her role as mother-in-law shown above: as the eldest member of the family, and with all the men dead, Naomi sees herself obliged to give Orpah and Ruth new husbands and new homes (Ruth 1:11–13). But even if she is the one who brings this obligation into the open, she is also the one who asks to be spared from it. Begging the daughters-in-law to go home to their mothers’ houses is, even if it is a gentle hint, the same as asking to be relieved. The reason is that she has no sons left to offer (Ruth 1:11). Naomi’s words, that she cannot have any more sons, and if she had, the women would not wait until the sons were old enough to marry, must be understood ironically. Naomi is “overwhelmed with the absolute hopelessness of the situation and seeing no options available,” quoting Donald A. Legget.34 Contrary to Judah, who has the possibility, but decides to hold his son back from his daughter-in-law (Gen 38:11), Naomi is totally lost: she has nothing to offer.35 And still, it happens that there are relatives in the family who do qualify to redeem Naomi’s daughters-in-law (Ruth 2:20; 3:12). Naomi herself presents this possibility the first time Boaz’ name is mentioned to her.36 The scene in the city gate also confirms that there seems to be a common understanding in Bethlehem that the levirate law concerns relatives outside the nearest family when necessary (Ruth 4:1–10). With such an open interpretation of the law, it should not be necessary that the redeemer was as close as a brother-in-law, and Naomi may have known about possible redeemers at the time she begged the daughters-in-law to return in Moab. If these statements are correct, there must be another explanation for her suggesting four times that Orpah and Ruth return. Another look at Gen 38 might shed light on this problem. Here also a childless widow is begged to return home, but in Gen 38 the reader is informed about Judah’s thoughts: “for he feared that he too would die, like his brothers” (Gen 38:11). Judah thinks that Tamar is the cause of his sons’ death. Accordingly, there has to be something wrong with Tamar. The only logical reason is that she is a Canaanite.37 It is not directly said in Gen 38 that Tamar is a Canaanite, but it is built upon the fact that Judah had “went down from his brothers and settled near a certain Adullamite … There 34

Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974) 175. See Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974) 176–77, who describes Ruth to be more like a commentary on Gen 38 than on the levirate law of Deut 25. 36 Cf. Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 76. 37 Speiser, Genesis (1964) 300; Japhet, The Ideology (1989) 346; Dearman, “The Family” (1998). 35

84

Part I1: Character Analysis

Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; he married her and went in to her” (Gen 38:1–2). Living in Adullam, Judah probably found a Canaanite daughter-in-law for his eldest son as well. The picture of Tamar as a non-Israelite fits well with the presentations of Orpah and Ruth, their being Moabites. And moreover; the similarities between Gen 38 and Ruth are also to be found in the way foreign presence is treated as an unspoken problem: Tamar is never named a Canaanite, and the reason Judah fears her can only be inferred. Similarly, Naomi’s barrenness is no real explanation. The true reason to why Naomi sees no hope for her daughters-in-law in Bethlehem is not mentioned, but it can be suggested. My suggestion is that Naomi’s problem is that Orpah and Ruth are Moabites.38 4.3.2 Naomi and Ruth When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she stopped talking to her. (Ruth 1:18)

  

  

Naomi’s discourse ends rather abruptly after Ruth’s speech (Ruth 1:16– 17). When the dialogue culiminates like this, the narrative refuses the reader any insight, and the reader is left to him/herself to wonder what really happened. The scholarly interpretations therefore go in quite different ways. Some read this as if Naomi stopped talking about the particular subject. Others read it as if Naomi stopped talking at all. Block is among the positive or harmonizing readers. He claims that Naomi becomes speechless because she is impressed. “It was the rhetoric and firmness of … [Ruth’s] resolve and determination in her voice that convinced the older woman to back off and stop trying to convince her to return to Moab.”39 de Ward and Nida also deny that Naomi’s silence expresses any conflict, pointing out that “the Hebrew expression ‘she ceased to talk to her’ … does not mean that she refuses to talk to her anymore, but simply that she ceased to urge her return to Moab.” They translated the verse “she said nothing more”.40 38 Cf. Robertson, “The Plot of the Book of Ruth” (1950) 210; Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 27. I will make a thorough study of the term “Moabite” in 5.2.1 The Moabite. 39 Block, Ruth (1999) 643–64. According to this interpretation he translates the verse: “When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.” Cf. also Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 72. 40 de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 19. Similar translations are found in Bible translations such as the Swedish Bibel 2000: “Då Noomi såg att Rut var fast besluten att följa henne talade hon inte mer om saken.” and the German Die Gute Nachricht: “Als Noomi sah daßҏ Rut so fest entschlossen war, gab sie es auf, sie zur Heimkehr zu überre-

Chapter 4: Naomi

85

As already mentioned, Gitay focuses on a conflict. Referring to the painting of Willem Drost (1652–1680), she points at the ambivalence which is portrayed in this scene. In the picture, it is difficult to see whether Naomi raises her hand to Ruth as “a rejection or a blessing”.41 Thus “a tense atmosphere has been created.”42 Also Trible explains Naomi’s silence as a negative reaction, pointing out that Naomi “does not speak again to Ruth in this scene, nor does she speak about her.”43 Fewell and Gunn go even further, claiming that “Naomi is attempting to shake free of Moab and the calamity she associates with that place and its people. Resentment, irritation, frustration, unease may well lie behind her silence. Ruth the Moabite may even menace her future.”44 Linafeld is more careful in his descriptions. He claims that Naomi’s bitterness is “very real, and that she has not yet to the fully grasp the fact of Ruth’s solidarity with her.” 45 I find such a nuanced reading of Ruth 1:18 to cohere better to the limited insight the reader gets in the narrative. It also fits well to the following, where the self-contradiction in Naomi’s talk is difficult to ignore. Naomi and Ruth enter Bethlehem together, but Naomi claims she is all alone. I went away full, but Yahweh has made me turn back empty (Ruth 1:21)

  

  

The narrator, however, makes Ruth’s presence abundantly clear, presenting her with both name and naming: Naomi came back, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law was with her, she who came back with her from the land of Moab. (Ruth 1:22)

     

      

It is impossible not to notice the contrast between Naomi’s words and the narrator’s reflection. It gives the impression that Naomi does not consider Ruth as one to expect anything from; Naomi is apparently not convinced by Ruth’s speech. Still, I find it hard to describe the relationship between Naomi and Ruth definitively. I see the danger of pushing this interpretation too far, reducing the story by only focusing on one particular conflict between the two women. As already described, there are good reasons for den.“ This is opposite to the Lutherbibel translation: “Als sie nun sah, daß sie festen Sinnes war, mit ihr zu gehen, ließ sie ab, ihr zuzureden.” 41 Gitay, “Ruth” (1993) 182, the painting on p. 188. 42 Gitay, “Ruth” (1993) 182. 43 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (1973) 173. 44 Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 74. 45 Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 17.

86

Part I1: Character Analysis

believing that Naomi would prefer to go back to Bethlehem alone. At the same time, there are no specific hints in the text suggesting Naomi’s direct dislike of Ruth. The fact that she calls Ruth and Orpah “my daughters” (Ruth 1:11, 12, 13), that she describes the care the daughters-in-law have given her as hesed, and wishes God’s hesed upon them in return (Ruth 1:8), and that the farewell scene is described with loud cries and tears (Ruth 1:10, 14), are all clear indications of close relationship. It therefore seems that Naomi has no personal negativity towards Ruth; within Bethlehem society, however, she sees neither any benefit, nor a place for her. The narrator is indeed cautious when describing the inner life of the characters.46 I subscribe to C. John Collins’ argument that in Ruth, the cautious and ambiguous nature of the story is intentional. The characters probably know what they mean when they speak or act. They are not necessarily ambiguous. The intended syntactic ambiguity in the story is made on behalf of the narrator to distract the reader. Within this ambiguity the meaning and the theology of the narrative appear.47 Naomi is either speechless and moved or speechless and frustrated over Ruth. Or she is something in between. When the narrator leaves this ambiguity in the open, s/he confirms the complex identity of Naomi. At the same time, the ambiguity inherent in the story invites the reader to always look for new possible reasons for Naomi’s silence. I see good reason for reading Naomi’s silence less sensationally than as the result of cat-fighting. It may rather be read as an expression of her condition, as resignation and great sorrow. Naomi, who used to be a wealthy and secure mother and wife, is now a miserable, childless widow, leaving the graves of her husband and sons to go back to her homeland. No words of promise can change her situation, or affect her way of interpreting her own life. The ignoring of Ruth may just be the disregard of a woman who cannot think of anything but her own sorrow. Naomi’s bitterness is probably not directed towards Ruth after all. It is directed towards God. 4.3.3 Naomi and God Naomi’s accusations of God clearly illustrate that her bitterness goes deeper than being frustrated over having Ruth as a yoke around her neck. Naomi begins her descriptions of God rather openly, as a hope that he will appear to her daughters-in-law: 46

Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 53, 64. See also 2.3.3 Characteri-

zation. 47 Collins, “Ambiguity and Theology” (1993) 100. Collins demonstrates this with an example of Naomi’s description of Boaz/God (Ruth 2:20). See more in 6.3.2.2 Replacing Yahweh with Boaz.

Chapter 4: Naomi May Yahweh bring hesed to you, as you did to the dead and to me. (Ruth 1:8)

87  

    

Quite soon, however, Naomi points out that to her, Yahweh has turned against her: It is more bitter for me than for you, since the hand of Yahweh has turned against me. (Ruth 1:13) Why do you call me Naomi when Yahweh has testified against me and Shaddai has brought calamity upon me? (Ruth 1:21)



      

    

4.3.3.1 The Translation of   The term  is a common Hebrew term in the MT, usually translated as “answer”, “reply”. Used together with the preposition  it may be translated as “to give evidence”, “testify”.48 In HALOT, this latter translation is used in legal actions, as “reply of the opposition”. It may be used both in a defensive and a condemnatory manner, as Gen 30:33, where   implies “witness for”, or Num 35:30; Sam 12:3; 2 Sam 1:16; Mic 6:3 and Ruth 1:21 where it implies “testify against”.49 Where MT writes  , the LXX uses the term   , “has oppressed, humiliated me”. Such a translation brings an interpretation quite different from “testify against”. A closer look is therefore necessary. The main problem with   in Ruth 1:21 lies in the syntax of the sentence. God is the subject of the verb, and accordingly it is God who testifies. E. S. Gerstenberger argues that when Yahweh is the subject of the sentence, the term  may be used as a description of “den Bereich eines Rechtsstreits zwischen Mensch und Gott,”50 using Job 9:16 as an example. Furthermore, he stresses that “in den meisten Fällen, in denen JHWH als Subjekt von anah begegnet, ‘reagiert’ Gott aufgrund menschlicher Initiative. Nur 6mal ist davon die Rede, daß JHWH selber die Initiative ergreift.”51 The criterion to differentiate between  used as “Rechtsstreit” between man and God and  only indicating a mere answer, lies, according to Gerstenberger, in the necessity of assuming a “prozessuale Geschehen” as the only understandable background for the dialogue.

48 49 50 51

HALOT 852. HALOT 852. Gerstenberger,  (1989) 242. Gerstenberger,  (1989) 242.

88

Part I1: Character Analysis

Trying to follow Gerstenberger’s criterion and finding the six references where God takes the initiative is not very easy. He probably refers to Job 23:5; 31:35; 33:13; 38:1; 40:1, 6 and Ruth 1:21.52 Gerstenberger, however, focuses on  only, and does not differentiate between  and   in his analysis. This differentiation is made by Abraham Even-Shoshan.53 He counts the specific phrase   16 times in the MT (Gen 30:33; Exod 20:13; Num 35:30; Deut 5:17; 19:16, 18; 1 Sam 12:13; 2 Sam 1:16; Isa 3:9; 59:12; Jer 14:7; Mic 6:3; Job 15:6; 16:8; Prov 25:18; Ruth 1:21).54 In these references, the subject of the phrase is always a human person, either one who testifies, or the person being testified against. The only exception is Ruth 1:21. Here, God is described as the testifier. Jacob M. Myers uses this observation as an argument for choosing the LXX reading of Ruth 1:21. He claims that the translation “demands a LXX, V and Syriac support. …  in the sense of to ‘testify against’ is used with and the object in 2 Sam 1:16; Isa 3:9; Jer 14:7; Mic 6:3; Hos 5:5; 7:10, but nowhere is Yahweh regarded as testifying against someone.”55 He therefore follows the LXX reading, translating the verse “Because Yahweh has humbled me and Shaddai has afflicted me.”56 Sasson prefers to retain the MT reading, and translates the term as “has witnessed against me”.57 de Ward and Dina read “has condemned me”, which, they claim, “lies near the Hebrew text ‘testify against.’”58 Nevertheless, the legal terminology, pointing to a scene in a judicial court, is missing with this translation. Fewell and Gunn make a point of this terminology, arguing that such language “indicates that her calamity has been some kind of just punishment.” To contradict this, they follow LXX, since “to be afflicted by YHWH suggests that she is an innocent victim.”59 Myers claims that it is impossible to understand God as the subject of the act of testifying against someone, since this never occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. He does not make it quite clear, however, whether his 52

A Rechtsstreit as in Job may also be read as a topic in Jeremiah or the Psalms. On the other hand, see Nielsen, Satan (1996) 59–69, pointing at alternative metaphors for the relation between God and Job. 53 Even-Shoshan, A new Concordance (1990). 54 Even-Shoshan follows the reading according to the Masorah Parva, See Kelly, Mynatt, and Crawford, The Masorah (1998) 127. Accordingly, Exod 20:13 in his list corresponds to Exod 20:16 in the MT. 55 Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form (1955) 22. 56 Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form (1955) 55. 57 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 31. 58 de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 21. 59 Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 121; Block, Ruth (1999) 644, also translates the term with “has afflicted me,” while Matthews, Ruth (2004) 218; Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 19, translate “has dealt harshly with me,” which is near to Myers’ interpretation.

Chapter 4: Naomi

89

hesitation lies in the fact that such an understanding creates a hapax legomenon in the Old Testament, or whether he claims that God’s being testifier is against the nature of God. According to Fewell and Gunn, God cannot testify against Naomi, since Naomi is innocent. I would argue the opposite, that   is rather a description of a testimony against the innocent. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld demonstrates that innocence may actually be the aim by referring to Job 15:6; 1 Sam 12:3 and Mic 6:3. “[T]he reader knows of Job’s innocence,”60 she claims; when Samuel calls upon all Israel to testify against him, “the rhetorical intent is clearly one of declaring his innocence;”61 and when God calls the people to testify, this is “a setting that obviously presumes divine innocence.”62 Sakenfeld’s analysis also leads to Naomi: “Naomi’s statement that God has ‘testified against’ her does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that she herself believed she was guilty of some wrongdoing or offence against God. … It can equally well be argued that rather than implicitly accepting blame, she makes here a defiant, if frustrated and deeply hurt, expression of her innocence. Like the action of God in the life of Job, divine action in the life of Naomi is bitter and yields bitterness precisely because it is so utterly inexplicable.”63

I find Sakenfeld’s analysis convincing; similarly when she suggests that Naomi’s words may even portray the ambivalence between “raging against the unfairness of God, and simply being frustrated by the mystery of their loss and pain.”64 Such an interpretation focuses on Naomi’s point of view only, and thus implies that even if Naomi sees God as a testifier, this is not necessarily equal to God’s factual qualities, neither within the narrative of Ruth as a whole, nor on a theological level.65 The discussion about whether or not it is in God’s nature to testify is therefore irrelevant. Thus, that 

 is used as a description of God in Ruth 1:21 only, might be intended rhetorically, to underline Naomi’s bitterness. Further, Ruth 1:21 is formed as a parallelism: when Yahweh has testified against me and Shaddai has brought calamity upon me? (Ruth 1:21)

60

 

   

Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 136. Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 136. 62 Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 136. Cf. also Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 93. See also Gerleman, Rut (1965) 16–17; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 62, 77; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 122, 126; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 88; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 50, 51; Labuschagne, “antworten” (1984) 339. 63 Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 136. 64 Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 137. 65 This, similar to the presentations of God in Job, according to Gerstenberger’s list above. 61

90

Part I1: Character Analysis

Parallelisms may provide different interpretations. Reading 1:21 as a synonym parallelism, the translation of  would be like the LXX version: “humbled me” or “dealt harshly with me”.66 But it is also possible to read verse 21 as an ascending parallelism, understanding it as a narrative exposition, following God’s legal proceedings step by step: first God testifies, and then he convicts.67 Campbell claims that verse 21 is a poetic parallelism. The MT maintains a tradition “in which the first verb is a Qal of the root ‘nh, commonly ‘to answer.’”68 Giving the verb a juridical flavour, he argues that “if the first verb in this obviously poetic couplet has a legal nuance, so should the second one.”69 He draws the line to Exod 5:22, Num 11:11 and 1 Kgs 17:20, claiming that in all of these passages, “the preposition  hovers poised between God’s decision and his action, between verdict and punishment.”70 I find this a plausible interpretation, and hold on to my reading “testified against”. 4.3.3.2 Theology of Complaint In Naomi’s eyes, God’s hand has “turned against” her (1:13); he has “testified against her” and “brought calamity upon her” (1:21). This implies an understanding of punishment, a “certain guilt” presupposed on the part of Naomi,71 which opens to questions similar to those in the Book of Job. Collins compares Naomi with the friends of Job, “interpreting her hard circumstances as God’s testimony against her sins, and she is apparently bitter because she does not know what sins have provoked him.”72 Nielsen supports the understanding of Naomi’s blamelessness, asking whether Naomi is “yet another example of the innocent sufferer.”73 Following these descriptions, we may conclude that the bitterness of Naomi comes from the juxtaposition she sees between God’s testifying against her, and her own innocence. She knows that she is innocent, and therefore she does not understand why God accuses her. Naomi is placed in juxtaposition with a God she does not know. God has become a stranger. A common understanding of such complaints against God is that the biblical literature demonstrates how human complaint is a natural part of trusting God. Campbell reads Naomi’s complaint from this perspective. 66

See Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form (1955) 41. Cf. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor (1978) 74–81 on God’s role as both prosecutor and judge. 68 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 77. 69 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 77. 70 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 77. 71 de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 21. 72 Collins, “Ambiguity and Theology” (1993) 99. 73 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 52. 67

Chapter 4: Naomi

91

“Not only is complaint tolerated by God, but it can even be the proper stance of a person who takes God seriously! Anyone who ascribes full sovereignty to a just and merciful God may expect to encounter the problem of theodicy, and to wrestle with that problem is no sin, even when it leads to an attempt to put God on trial. Petulant Jonah, earnest Jeremiah, persistent Job – Naomi stands in their company.”74

Ellen van Wolde, on the other hand, describes Naomi’s complaint differently, stressing “how fixated Naomi is upon herself. She uses the word ‘me’ seven times in two verses and ‘I’ once. It’s almost offensive. …Every clause is wholly focused on the first person: ‘I, Naomi have suffered; injustice has been done to me’.”75 Taking Wolde’s observations into account, I will argue that Campbell’s description of the unavoidable complaint addressed to God is not what we find with Naomi. Actually, Naomi does not address God; she complains about him, but her complaints are not directed to him. I therefore find that Naomi’s words are not prayer, and Campbell’s description of Naomi is accordingly too positive. Freedman confirms this impression that Naomi’s complaint is an expression of bitterness, and not prayer. Her analysis demonstrates how the narrative avoids taking into account Naomi’s experience of God. In Ruth there are 21 direct references to God: sixteen are positive or neutral; five can be categorized as negative, and all these come from Naomi (Ruth 1:13, 1:20c, 1:21b, 1:21d, 1:21e). “Thus, Naomi’s is the lone voice in the story criticizing God, and her voice is effectively drowned out by all the voices in the book that praise God.”76 Again, there is a contradiction between Naomi’s and other voices in the narrative. I have already pointed out the fact that Naomi’s change of name into Mara is overlooked. So it is with her complaints: again Naomi is overlooked. It seems that neither the narrator, knowing the end of the story, nor the women of Bethlehem take Naomi’s words seriously. Naomi’s complaint is a definite complaint in which God has turned against Naomi in such a way that Naomi abandons God in return, but her tragedy is not taken into account. That the narrator ignores her may be a consequence of his/her knowing better. For Naomi, however, being ignored means loneliness. The lonely complaints of Naomi lead the attention to the individual complaints in the Psalms. Fredrik Lindström focuses on how suffering in the Psalms is caused by the experience of God’s absence. In Ps 13, “YHWH’s absence is apparently the most important component in the interpretation of suffering;”77 in Ps 22 the sufferer leads his complaints 74 75 76 77

Campbell, Ruth (1975) 83. Wolde, Ruth and Naomi (1998) 14. Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 149. Lindström, Suffering and Sin (1994) 97.

92

Part I1: Character Analysis

against God, not in complaint against himself or in prayer for forgiveness. “[T]he absence of God is experienced as an irrational occurrence.”78 At the same time, though, Ps 22 is a prayer to “my God” (Ps 22:1). 79 The Psalms belong to a cultic context as prayer literature proclaiming God’s presence despite the experience of absence.80 Accordingly, the sufferer expects God to be present despite his absence. “The divine hiddenness is the basic problem,” at the same time as “[t]he question concerning God “Why?” … is genuine,” Lindström concludes.81 Lindström’s descriptions of the individual complaint Psalms are comparable with my reading of Naomi’s complaints. As in the Psalms, the question concerning “why” lies in the open when Naomi accuses God of having testified against her and being her judge (Ruth 1:21). God has turned against her, and her bitterness is an expression of her failure to understand why (Ruth 1:20). However, there is also a small but significant difference between Naomi’s complaint and the psalmist’s. Even if the sufferer in the Psalms has experienced God’s absence, he addresses his complaints directly to God, speaking to God in second person. Claus Westermann emphasizes the dialogue between man and God to be at the very core of all the OT laments, and brings forth several examples to illustrate his point: The narrative of Exodus opens with a cry of distress over the oppression in Egypt: “then we cried to the Lord” (Deut 26:7).82 Job “clings to God against God.”83 So does Jeremiah, though with regards to him. “God is silent. God does nothing.”84 With Naomi it is different. She only describes God, as if she does not expect to be heard in her accusations. It seems that to Naomi, the absence of God is complete. Lindström refers to God’s hiddenness.85 Despite the experience of God’s absence, the complaints in the Psalms are prayers, and accordingly expect God to respond to the accusations of absence and appear. Lindström argues for a distinction between the terminologies “complaint psalms” and “laments:”

78

Lindström, Suffering and Sin (1994) 96–97. Lindström, Det sårbara livet (1998) 65. 80 See Lindström, Suffering and Sin (1994) 51–59, 95–96, 433. 81 Lindström, Suffering and Sin (1994) 455. 82 Westermann, “The Role of the Lament” (1974) 23. See also Patrick, “Job’s Adress of God” (1979) 269. 83 Westermann, “The Role of the Lament” (1974) 32. 84 Westermann, “The Role of the Lament” (1974) 35. Westermann also criticises Western Christendom for not paying enough attention to the theology of lament. Thus, “the lament has been totally excluded from man’s relationship with God, with the result that it has completely disappeared above all from prayer and worship.” See p. 25, 33–34. 85 Lindström, Suffering and Sin (1994) 454. 79

Chapter 4: Naomi

93

“Concerning the choice between complaint and lament, it can be a plus to stop before the first-named, if we thereby intend a psalm which was ‘articulated when the final blow had not yet fallen, when there still was time to argue a case before Yahweh.’86 Consequently, laments become by this distinction identical in function to ‘dirge,’ i.e., a genre whose situational context is characterized by mourning.” 87

Taking into account how the story of Naomi ends – with a child who becomes the ancestor of David – we might say that in Ruth also, God is just hiding. Yet the description of Naomi, giving her complaints without addressing them directly to God, indicates that to Naomi, God does not hide. Naomi experiences God as absent; her husband and two sons are dead; the time to argue has run out. Transferring Lindström’s definitions of the Psalms to Ruth, I therefore would call Naomi’s complaints “laments”. 4.3.3.3 Is Naomi a Job? Naomi’s situation has some striking similarities with Job, the OT prototype of the sufferer. As with Job, the story of Naomi goes from describing wellsituated characters (Ruth 1:1, 2; Job 1:1–5) to describing the same characters losing all their goods in life. Naomi becomes a barren, childless widow; Job loses all his children, is inflicted by loathsome sores, and with a potsherd with which to scrape himself, he sits among the ashes. (Ruth 1:3–5; Job 1:13–2:9). Both of them complain that

 (Ruth 1:13) or

 (Job 19:21) has turned against them, both of them accuse  of making them  (Ruth 1:20; Job 27:2),88 and both Naomi and Job accuse God of  , testifying against them (Job 23:5, 31:35; 33:13; 38:1; 41:1, 6; Ruth 1:21).89 Finally, at the end of both narratives, their lives turn into joy. Naomi and Job are both blessed with new starts and new children (Ruth 4:13–17; Job 42:10–16). There are still two decisive differences between Naomi and Job. The first is the one just mentioned. Job addresses God; Naomi does not. In the first cycle of speeches, Job addresses God fifty times, even if he sees him as an enemy. LaCocque tunes down the presence of God in these speeches, pointing at how the “proper name of God is replaced by substitutes such as El, Eloah, Elohim, El Shaddai – until YHWH speaks at the end.” 90 However, God is still addressed. In Job 18–29 there is a passage where Job

86 87 88 89 90

Gerstenberger, Psalms (1988) 11. Lindström, Suffering and Sin (1994) 55. Cf. Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 135–36. Gerstenberger, Psalms (1988) 242. See the discussion of the term  below. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 92.

94

Part I1: Character Analysis

does not speak to God, 91 but then, Job addresses God again: “now my eyes have seen you” (Job 42:5). We may therefore indicate that Job, despite his complaints, expects that God is hiding, but that he hopes that God might appear after all. Naomi’s laments, on the other hand, are made in resignation. She speaks as if she does not believe in a God that listens. Seen from the two characters’ points of view, it may seem as if Naomi is even more in distress than Job. On the other hand, from the more distant perspective of the narrative, there is a favourable quality connected to Naomi that Job lacks: There is no doubt that Job is left to himself. His children are dead, his wife ridicules him,92 and his friends are unable to help. But for Naomi there remains hope; she has Ruth by her side. Naomi came back, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law was with her. (Ruth 1:22)

     

 

Naomi fails to see the redemption in her daughter-in-law and calls herself Mara. However, there is a contradiction between Naomi’s opinion and the narrative’s as such. Frymer-Kensky describes Naomi’s bitterness as a sort of misunderstanding by Naomi herself: “Naomi has no doubts: God has decreed her suffering. But she does not really understand God or her own situation. Even if God was the cause of her manlessness, God is not her enemy. And the proof, which she does not yet see, is that manlessness is not emptiness. Naomi has not returned empty; Ruth has chosen to join her and they came to Bethlehem.” 93

There is an irony in the situation, pointing at Naomi’s complaints of her emptiness, while Ruth, who will bring about an end to Naomi’s emptiness, stands there, apparently unnoticed.94 With this trait of irony in the scene in the end of chapter 1, the narrator makes it clear that Naomi is not alone. Furthermore, s/he also demonstrates that Naomi’s having Ruth by her side is not merely a question of solidarity and companionship. It is far more promising: They came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest. (Ruth 1:22)

91

      

See Patrick, “Job’s Adress of God” (1979); Gowan, Theology in Exodus (1994) 10–11. Cf. also Neher, The Exile of the Word (1981) 29, pointing out that also in most of the Joseph-narrative (Gen 37:1– 46:2) God is absent from Joseph. 92 Lindström, Det sårbara livet (1998) 90, even wonders if Job’s wife is kept alive to make Job’s afflictions worse. Wolde, Mr and Mrs Job (1991) 146–47, on the other hand, argues in the favour of Mrs Job. 93 Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women (2002) 242. 94 Cf. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 84.

Chapter 4: Naomi

95

Whereas Naomi is filled with sorrow and self-pity when regarding her own life, the narrator sees a future. The barley harvest is easily associated with food and fertility. And as we may already sense, and will soon experience, fertility is not only a sign of fertile soil; it is a symbol for human fertility as well. Therefore, Naomi is no Job. Job’s life does not change until God appears (Job 38:1–41:25; 42:5–6). To Naomi the redemption is right by her side all the time. This, the narrator knows. Naomi, however, needs to experience it. 4.3.3.4 Summary So far, we may sum up that Naomi is a lamenting widow who sees God as absent in her life. However, Naomi, having Ruth by her side, is no Job. Her experience of God’s absence does not correspond with the narrator’s. A question to be followed is therefore whether God is absent to Naomi through the entire narrative or if he appears to her in the end. The narrative leads to David, which sets the story in the broader context of the Heilsgeschichte, confirming that God is present after all. However, David is not a part of Naomi’s story. So what are Naomi’s experiences of God throughout the narrative? 4.3.4 Naomi’s Transformation 4.3.4.1 Naomi’s Modest Answer By the time we arrive at Naomi’s deepest grief (Ruth 1:21), two preparatory scenes are presented, pointing forward to possible solutions: Ruth is with her, and the barley harvest is about to begin (Ruth 1:22).95 The narrative is gently navigating from distress to hope. Nonetheless, Naomi’s grief is not changed. When Ruth asks for permission to go to the harvest field and glean, Naomi answers only: Go, my daughter. (Ruth 2:2)



Fewell and Gunn demonstrate that this answer might be read as an echo of her “insistences earlier on the journey: ‘Go! Return (Ruth 1:8) … Return! (Ruth 1:11) … Return! Go! (Ruth 1:12) … Return! (Ruth 1:16).’”96 Naomi uses the same words as before, making her emotional condition the same as it was in the former chapter. Another significant trait of Naomi here is her passivity at this stage of the plot. As head of what is left of the family, Naomi is supposed to guide Ruth in her actions. Here we see the opposite. Ruth takes the initiative, 95 96

See 2.5 Plot and Narrative Structure. Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 76.

96

Part I1: Character Analysis

Naomi only consents to her deeds. One could expect that Naomi gave Ruth some recommendations on where to go, or warned her about dangerous situations in the field. 97 As we shall see, Naomi knows about Boaz, at least when she is reminded of him (Ruth 2:20); she also knows of the possibility of unwelcome attention in the field (Ruth 2:22). Still, Naomi does not give any information to Ruth. Fewell and Gunn question Naomi’s silence towards Ruth in this scene, asking: “Why did not Naomi warn Ruth before she left in the morning? Why now [afterwards,] the sudden concern? Because Ruth has become her bread-winner?”98 Thus, they indirectly claim that Naomi is not concerned about Ruth until she sees her benefit. I find such a reading too harsh. Naomi’s silence is remarkable, although there are no hints in the text suggesting that Naomi is a calculating woman. I rather prefer Trible’s description of Naomi, saying: “Slowly the bitterness of an old woman is being transformed.”99 4.3.4.2 Naomi’s Awakening The change in Naomi from bitterness to hope takes place between 2:18 and 2:19. From being passive and, most of all, silent, Naomi now is the one who takes the initiative: She speaks positively of God, and she establishes a preparatory scene as she introduces the redeemer: Naomi said to her daughter-in-law: Blessed be he by Yahweh

…..

And Naomi said to her: The man is near to us, he is among our redeemers. (Ruth 2:20).

 



     

    

There are two reasons for Naomi’s transformation, both of them related to the double plot of the narrative: the infertility of the soil and the infertility among the human beings. First, the fact that Ruth returns from the field to Naomi with food draws her into talking.

97

Cf. Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 105; de Waard, Biblia Hebraica Quinta (2004). See also the story of Dinah (Gen 34), which illustrates the dangerous situation for a girl alone in the field, and Deut 22:25–27 which comments upon the problem. 98 Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 76. Fewell and Gunn’s critique of Naomi is criticized in Coxon, “Was Naomi A Scold?” (1989) and further answered in Fewell and Gunn, “Is Coxon A Scold?” (1989). 99 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (1973) 179.

Chapter 4: Naomi The mother-in-law said to her: Where did you glean today and where have you worked? Blessed be the one of Yahweh who took notice of you. (Ruth 2:19)

97

              

Fewell and Gunn’s words that Naomi does not see anything in Ruth until she finds in her a “bread-winner”,100 could be suggested here. I would rather say that the bitter Naomi does not see anything in anyone until she catches a glimpse of hope, when  “she saw”, and when Ruth ! 

“gave to her”. and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. Then she took out and gave her what was left over after she had been satisfied herself. (Ruth 2:18)

    



     



Linafeld stresses the description of Ruth who “took out” the leftovers of the prepared food: “The portion of prepared food makes clear to Naomi that something more than just gleaning had been taking place.”101 Following his observation, we may say that the sight of gleaned corn awakens Naomi, while the prepared bread makes her talk and even bless the one who took care of Ruth. Secondly, the food, which was the answer to plot 1, also takes plot 2 a step further. As soon as Naomi sees the food and is introduced to Boaz’ name, she sees in him a redeemer. Nielsen demonstrates how the use of blessing in Ruth 2:20 is similar to the words of Abraham’s servant, “when after meeting Rebecca he exclaims in gratitude ‘Praised be Yahweh, my master Abraham’s God, for not failing in his goodness and loyalty to my master’ (Gen 24:27).”102 An intertextual reading of Ruth and Gen 24 thus suggests that Naomi’s role is comparable to Abraham’s servant, and that Naomi’s blessings may be understood as a marker of a forthcoming engagement. Naomi, who used to be bitter and fatigued, has turned out to be one who has regained strength and initiative. 4.3.4.3 Naomi’s Plan The following verses are a continuation of Naomi’s awakening in Ruth 2:19–22. Naomi has a plan. She wants Ruth to wash, anoint and dress and 100

Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 75–76. Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 40. 102 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 63. The praise of Abraham’s servant is clearly a response to Yahweh’s action. (As in Exod 18:10). In Ruth, however, it is unclear whether it is Yahweh or Boaz who is the subject of the action. See 6.3.2 Boaz and Yahweh. 101

98

Part I1: Character Analysis

go to Boaz in the night. The spoken reason for this is that Naomi wants to give Ruth a home: Naomi, her mother-in-law said to her: My daughter, should I not103 find a place for you so it might go well with you. (Ruth 3:1)

       

For the first time in the narrative Naomi offers Ruth assistance. Earlier she has either been silent or at least reserved. Hubbard calls Naomi’s plan “clever”,104 Linafeld thinks it is “bold”,105 Fewell and Gunn call it “dangerous and deceptive”.106 Going out in the night is risky for a woman;107 going to the threshing floor even worse.108 “[H]ow might she be perceived by men there?” Fewell and Gunn ask.109 I find this perspective an important framework of this scene. Making marriage arrangements is a man’s world. With the exception of the narratives of Lot’s daughters (Gen 19:30–38), Tamar (Gen 38:1–30) and Ruth, the initiatives and engagements are always made by men in the Old Testament.110 I have already pointed out how Naomi acts in her role as mother-in-law with the obligations expected of the father-in-law.111 Here, she acts like a father, making an arrangement for the daughter.112 Her strategy, however, is rather tricky. Naomi’s instructions are that Ruth shall go quietly to the man, then “he will tell you what to do” (Ruth 3:4). This is 103 The translation of    varies in the commentaries. I follow Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 145, who keeps the term  visible. He argues that the aspect of obligation in the meaning of the verb is implicit when he uses a “rhetorical question which expects a strongly affirmative response, ‘Of course!’” Against such translation, see de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 47; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 197. 104 Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 196. 105 Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 47. 106 Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 99. 107 Song 5:7 describes what happened to the woman who was going in the streets at night: “Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle, those sentinels of the walls.” 108 Hos 9:1 associates the threshing floor with prostitution: “You have loved a prostitute’s pay on all threshing floors.” 109 Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 105. 110 On the other hand, examples of stories where men propose are many: Abraham’s servant comes to Bethuel and Laban (Gen 24); Jacob asks Laban for Rachel, however Laban brings him Leah (Gen 29: 15–30); Hamor invites Jacob to be in-laws (Gen 34:6– 10); the man of Levi comes for his wife at the house of his father-in-law (Judg 19); Saul offers his eldest daughter Merab to David, but regrets it and gives him Michal instead (1 Sam 18:17–21). 111 See 4.2.2 The Mother-in-Law. 112 de Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961) 29–30; Berquist, “Role Dedifferentation” (1993) 31.

Chapter 4: Naomi

99

probably a strategy similar to Laban’s. Leah was apparently told not to speak to Jacob during the wedding and wedding-night. Otherwise he would recognize the identity of the bride.113 Naomi oversteps the role acceptable for women. Her “matchmaking is a male role,” Jon L. Bergquist claims.114 But her actions within the man’s world are still limited. As soon as there is a man to take the leading role, Naomi’s plan is to step aside. Boaz is the one to decide “what to do.” D.R.G. Beattie gives a precise description of Naomi’s strategy, saying: “Naomi conceived the plan of putting the idea into Boaz’ head by putting Ruth into his bed.”115 Her plan is indeed both risky and clever. After the plan has been settled, Naomi withdraws from the centre of the action. Except for the dialogue with Ruth the next morning (Ruth 3:17), we hear nothing from Naomi until she takes the child Obed in her arms. Naomi’s active period in the narrative is accordingly rather short. As we will see, her bitterness and silence are soon replaced by another silence. 4.3.5 The Nurse 4.3.5.1 Being a Nurse Naomi took the child and laid him in her arms. And she became to him like a nurse. (Ruth 4:16)

  

        

In the last scene in Ruth, Naomi has a minor but decisive role. She takes the newborn child in her arms. This action brings forth at least three different associations. First, the term  is a description of intimacy and close relationship.116 Children are described as lying on their mothers  , being breast-fed (I Kgs 3:20; Job 3:12) or when dying (1 Kgs 17:19), men and women lie in each others  as a description of sexual intimacy (Gen 16:5; 1 Kgs 1:2). The term   is also used to describe God as a caring shepherd (Isa 40:11).117 By these comparisons, Naomi clearly is intimately related to Obed. She is no longer lonely and bitter, but caring and lovable, a clear contrast to her earlier cries of emptiness (Ruth 1:21).118 113

Klagsbrun, “Ruth and Naomi, Rachel and Leah” (1994) 268–69, on the other hand, suggests that Leah and Rachel collude in deceiving Jacob. “Loved by him, but not necessarily loving him back, Rachel knew that by helping Leah she could save her older sister from the shame of not marrying first.” 114 Berquist, “Role Dedifferentation” (1993) 31. See also de Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961) 29–30. 115 Beattie, “Ruth III” (1978) 43. 116 Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 269 translates this term “breast;” Sasson, Ruth (1989) uses the term “bosom.” 117 See André, “ ” (1977) 914. 118 Cf. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 274.

100

Part I1: Character Analysis

Secondly, taking the child in her arms also may be understood as a response upon God’s blessing. It is a general understanding in the Old Testament that childbirth is a confirmation of divine blessing,119 and Obed being born is clearly understood as divine action in Ruth (Ruth 4:13). Still, this action of God only affects Naomi indirectly. Her access to the newborn child depends not only on God, but also on Ruth, and Ruth’s urging of not leaving Naomi, but including her, to her new family. This aspect involves the third association, which is the description of Naomi’s having a child born by another woman: A son is born to Naomi! (Ruth 4:17)

 

It is not an unfamiliar topic in the OT narratives that women become mothers through adoption. Sarah gives her maid Hagar to Abraham with the intention of assisting God in fulfilling his promise to Abraham (Gen 16:2–6), and half of Israel’s tribe is born as a result of Leah and Rachel using their maids to have children with their common husband Jacob (Gen 30:1–13).120 Interpreting Naomi as the adoptive mother of Obed is, however, not that obvious. Naomi is called an , which might implicate “nurse”,121 or “wet nurse”122 and which also is translated “foster-mother”,123 similar to what is described in 2 Sam 4:4; 2 Kgs 10:1, 5; Est 2:7. Naomi’s being wet-nurse is not very realistic. Being too old to bear children (Ruth 1:11), we must presume that her qualifications as wet-nurse are reduced as well.124 Nor does the term fit as a description of Naomi as a foster-mother in legal matters, since Naomi already has legal connections to Obed as part of the family. Besides, the child’s parents are not absent.125 Ludwig Köhler interprets Naomi as a “Großmutter” breastfeeding her grandchild,126 Fischer translates the term  with “Adoptivmutter”, but in her analysis she also uses the term “Kinderfrau”.127 I find Aage Bentzen’s interpretation sympa119

Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 77–82. See also 7.3.4.1 Pregnancy and God’s Blessing. 120 Cf. also de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 76, referring to the Mesopotamian and Hurrian law in the second millennium B.C. 121 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 162; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 140, 143. 122 HALOT 64. 123 Oxford Study Bible, NRSV, NO78/85; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 157; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 269. 124 LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 143 however, claims that “metaphorically” Naomi has become “a new woman” and is capable of nursing a child as a mother would. He also uses the verb “adopts” when he describes Naomi relationship to Obed. 125 Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 274. See also Sasson, Ruth (1989) 157, 159. 126 Köhler, “Die Adoptionsform von Rt 4,16” (1909) 313–14. 127 Fischer, Rut (2001) 250. The suggestion made by Wright, “The Mother-maid” (1986) 64–66, who compares Ruth with the pattern of the Greek myths and sees Naomi as

Chapter 4: Naomi

101

thetic, as he describes Naomi sitting with her grandson in her arms, surrounded by the neighbourhood women’s friendly jokes about Naomi having a “son”.128 I also follow de Waard and Nida who claim that  literally means “to nurse” but is to be understood as “take care of.”129 Even if there is no real adoption in Ruth, one certain point within the adoption scenes in the Genesis narratives is comparable to the Ruth-story. The narratives of Sarah, Hagar, Leah and Rachel describe a rather tense situation. Sarah is becoming jealous of Hagar and sends her away (Gen 16:6; 21:10). Rachel is jealous of Leah despite the fact that she is Jacob’s favourite wife, and she cries to Jacob because of her own barrenness (Gen 30:1). She sends her maid to Jacob to have children born on her knees (Gen 30:3–8), but is not satisfied until she finally has sons of her own (Gen 30:22–24), which, ironically, causes her death (Gen 35:16–20). Similarly to the women of Genesis, the relationship between Naomi and Ruth may also be characterized by “dimensions of jealousy and resentment that come when other women bear children for the barren,” quoting Fewell and Gunn.130 The Ruth-narrative does not give any direct description of such a relationship. Neither Naomi nor Ruth play any particular role in the last scene of the narrative; Naomi is silent and Ruth is not present at all. Only the Bethlehem women speak, and their words are praises to God, to Ruth and to Obed. And still, because of the silence of the two women, the commentaries from the intertexts in Genesis are not denied. The answer lies open to the reader to be reflected upon. 4.3.5.2 Naomi’s Silence As recently mentioned, the last direct speech in the Ruth-narrative comes from the neighbourhood women. They praise God “who has not left you without a redeemer today” (Ruth 4:14),131 they praise Ruth “who is more to you than seven sons” (Ruth 4:15), and they praise the child, saying “a son is born to Naomi!” (Ruth 4:17). Naomi herself does not speak. Except for taking Obed in her arms, she does not make any comment upon her new situation. Naomi, who used to proclaim her bitterness to the women (Ruth 1:20), is silent about her joy. In the beginning of the story, Naomi the proper mother of Obed, born through an incestuous union between Boaz and Ruth, is in my opinion too far from the intentional description of Ruth 4:16–17. 128 Bentzen, Inledning til Det Gamle Testamente (1941) 157, ”omgivet af sine naboerskers venlige spøg med sin sønnesøn i armen.” 129 de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 76. “… as if he were her own,” New Living Translation adds. 130 Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 107. 131 See 6.2.2.4 Naomi’s Redeemer in the End, for the question about who this redeemer might be.

102

Part I1: Character Analysis

also was silent (Ruth 1:18, 20).132 Why this silence, once again? The reader may wonder whether Naomi really is what her name means: pleasant, or happy. As in the real world, silence is not always a reflection of a bad mood or of ungraciousness. According to LaCoque this latter silence provides an occasion to notice that the silences of Naomi in Ruth 1:18 and 4:16 do not necessarily call for a negative interpretation.133 Yet still, when reading the massive praise of the Bethlehem women, we may ask whether Naomi’s own voice is overrun by well meaning women, as Job is overrun by the comfort of his good friends. Freedman demonstrates such an interpretation, stressing that “[t]o the narrator and the women, therefore, Ruth is more valuable than Naomi’s lost relatives. Here the text of Ruth again discounts Naomi’s report of her own experience of God, by showing her to be as ‘full’ as, if not ‘fuller’ than, when she left Bethlehem.”134 I find good reasons for reading the final description of Naomi as a woman who is content, but not directly happy. She has become more than she hoped for, as she came to find bread in Bethlehem but also found a descendant for the family and a redeemer for her old age. The act of taking the child in her arms confirms her appreciation of that. Sakenfeld points out that Naomi is surrounded by “divine faithfulness”, but still we must “not imagine that Boaz, Ruth, and Obed could just replace Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon.”135 I would go further, and claim that Naomi’s experience of “divine faithfulness”, or fidelity, might not be that obvious to Naomi as Sakenfeld says. Naomi speaks clearly about divine action in her loss, but there are no hints in the narrative of Naomi seeing God’s hesed in Ruth, Boaz and Obed.136 I have pointed out two reasons as to why Naomi is no Job.137 As the story of Naomi closes, I see a third reason. In the end of the narrative of Job, Job sees God. “With the hearing of the ear I had heard of you, but now my eyes have seen you” (Job 42:5). This, Job says in praises, even if the sight has made Job suffer. Dermot Cox claims that Job, through suffering, has learned and grown. His experience of God “added a new, hitherto undreamed of dimension … and this sends him back to the world of reality

132

Cf. Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988), pointing out four passages of silence in Ruth. 133 LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 144; Campbell, “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth” (1990) 72. They both say it partly as a critique of Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 80–82. 134 Freedman, “Naomi’s Experience” (2003) 34. 135 Sakenfeld, Ruth (1999) 143. 136 See 7.3.5 Hesed, for further reflections. 137 See 4.3.3.3 Is Naomi a Job?

Chapter 4: Naomi

103

with a new perspective that makes him more capable to understand life.”138 Naomi never expresses any sight of God. It is therefore difficult to conclude what her experiences have made her understand of God: whether she has experienced God’s blessing, or whether she has abandoned the absent God and not understood the surroundings of human welfare as divine hesed. The story of Ruth ends as Naomi’s name implies: pleasantly, and pleasance is confirmed in David as the crown of the genealogy. There is, however, no connection between the narrative’s point of view and Naomi’s. Naomi’s condition remains open. Her voice is muted at the end of the narrative and the reader will never know whether Naomi understands herself as a Naomi again or if she still is a Mara. This ambiguity, however, may not only be left with the reader but with Naomi herself: does she see herself as pleasant in the end, does she remain bitter, or is she rather something in between? Her silence when she holds the newborn child in her arms and hears the praises of the women of Bethlehem may imply that Naomi does not know what to say and therefore is unable to respond. Fewell and Gunn’s characterisation is probably the best, using both her names at the same time, as they call her “bittersweet”.139

4.4 Summary Naomi’s character is complex. Her names and namings illustrate an ambiguous character, being Naomi, pleasant, but also Mara, bitter. She starts as a husband’s wife but soon she acquires more obligations than a motherin-law necessarily should have. Naomi cries out about God in laments, at the same time as the narrator and the women of Bethlehem praise God and Ruth who have saved her. One remarkable characteristic of Naomi is her silence. She is silent when Ruth promises to stay by her side and not let “anything but death divide between me and you!” (Ruth 1:17) and she is silent when the women of Bethlehem praise Ruth for being “better to you than seven sons” (Ruth 1:15). This silence leaves an aura of ambiguity around Naomi and her relationship to Ruth. I see no reason in reading a catfight into the narrative; instead I find that Naomi, in her self-pity, just does not take much notice of Ruth. 138 Cox, Man’s Anger (1990) 137. Cf. also the story of Moses in the wilderness (Num 11:11) or Elijah with the widow of Zarephath (I Kgs 17:8–24), being sufferers who experience God’s presence in the end, and thus praise him (1 Kgs 17:24). See Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 139. 139 Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 107.

104

Part I1: Character Analysis

Naomi also ends up silent towards God. She claims that God has testified and condemned her (Ruth 1:21); although she also speaks positively of God, wishing his blessing upon Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:8), and Boaz (Ruth 2:20). She never directs any of her speeches towards God, though, and she never confirms the women of Bethlehem when they praise God at the end of the story (Ruth 4:14). This raises the question of whether Naomi has abandoned God because of her experiencing that God has abandoned her. The narrative does not give a clear answer, but keeps the possibility open. I have asked if Naomi was a Job, and pointed at reasons as to why she is not, after all. Different from Job, she is not alone. She has Ruth. But also different from Job, she never addresses God, and she does not express any understanding of God at the end of the story. It is therefore impossible for the reader to know whether Naomi sees herself as one who has become  (pleasant) again, or whether she has remained (bitter). Probably, she is something in between. Naomi’s identity remains ambiguous.

Chapter 5

Ruth The character who bears the name of the book is mysterious. Throughout the narrative Ruth appears as a brave, never-complaining, hard-working and sacrificing woman. She is presented as a Moabite woman who marries one of Naomi’s sons (Ruth 1:4), she follows Naomi on her way back to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:7, 19, 22), goes to the barley harvest (Ruth 2:3–18), seeks Boaz at the threshing floor (Ruth 3:6–15), and finally she becomes Boaz’ wife and delivers a son (Ruth 4:13). No wonder the tradition has understood her as the incarnation of the good wife, described in Prov 31.1 At the same time, Ruth’s inner life and traits are not very accessible to the reader. Except for her direct speech in Ruth 1:16–17, her discourses are mostly short replies to Naomi or Boaz. In addition, the name “Ruth” has no obvious meaning, and her identity is also asked for three times during the narrative (Ruth 2:5; 3:9, 16). Thus, the significance of Ruth’s identity is a topic that should be examined. While no meaning of Ruth’s name is provided, there are several namings attached to her. These namings carry connotations of her being a foreigner and subservient, and stand in contrast to her actions, which signal strength and knowledge about the Isralite law. The contradiction between how she is presented and her actions in the narrative is a challenge to the reader when trying to describe her identity. Finding Ruth’s character type is not as straightforward as with Naomi. The way she occurs as an ideal helper of Naomi brings her close to the “type”. On the other hand, she develops from being an anonymous foreigner (Ruth 1:22; 2:6) to becoming the mother of David’s ancestor (4:15).2 This development points towards the full-fledged character. All these uncertainties will be elaborated in the following.

1

See Davis and Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? (2003) 83–84 comparing Ruth with “the valorous woman” in Prov 31:10–31. 2 Ska, Our Fathers have Told Us (1990) 86, mentions Ruth as en example of the “heroine” or “protagonist, pointing at the role of bringing the events go forward. The protagonist’s “actions are decisive or he is the one most affected by what happens,” but the definition of the character type is still open.

106

Part I1: Character Analysis

5.1 The Name   The name of the other was Ruth. (Ruth 1:4)

   

5.1.1 Meaning The name   has no clear meaning. Traditionally, “friend” or “female companion” have been suggested.3 Philologically associated suggestions are “to see”, “to tremble”, “to satiate”, “satiation/ refreshment”, or “replenishing”, (from the verb ).4 However, all these suggestions have rather loose etymological connections, understood by Block as “tempting but wishful thinking”.5 Gerleman claims that Ruth’s name, and Orpah’s, are Moabite names, and therefore difficult to explain,6 while John Gray reads the names as “fiction rather than history”,7 and therefore sees them as less interesting. This uncertainty about Ruth’s name is interesting. It is remarkable that it is so hard to find any plausible meaning for this name while all the other names in the narrative have rather obvious meanings which are significant for the plot. The fact that Ruth is also the given name to the whole narrative makes the absent meaning even more striking. Several of the suggestions above fit well with the plot; however, as the one suggestion excludes the other, they all become uncertain. I therefore follow Noth, who claims that the name of Ruth remains “undurchsichtig”,8 perhaps even with purpose. Understanding Ruth’s name as an unclear name, the character’s identity is kept hidden from the reader, at least for a while. When compared with all the clear meanings of the names in Ruth generally, the uncertainty about Ruth’s name is a first hint of her mysterious identity which is revealed in the unfolding of the story. 5.1.2 Occurrences Besides being “undurchsichtig”, Ruth’s name is used far less often than the names of the other main characters. Naomi’s name occurs 22 times; Boaz’ 20. Ruth’s name only occurs 12 times. Only once is the name spoken by a 3

Odelain and Sèguineau, Dictionary (1982) 322. Gray, Ruth (1986) 375; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 94; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 21; Moore, “Ruth the Moabite” (1998) 212. 5 Block, Ruth (1999) 587. 6 Gerleman, Rut (1965) 15. 7 Gray, Ruth (1986) 375. 8 Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 10. 4

Chapter 5: Ruth

107

character, which is by Ruth herself (Ruth 3:9), and mostly, the name is combined with a naming. Five times the name stands without a naming, each of them placed at central stages in the elaboration of the character. The first time is when the name is introduced in the narrative as one of two Moabite women (Ruth 1:4);9 the second when Orpah and Ruth react differently to Naomi’s urging, and Ruth becomes a distinct character acting independently from Orpah (Ruth 1:14). The third time is at the introduction of Ruth’s first direct speech where she declares her mission to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16); and the fourth, when Boaz speaks to Ruth for the first time (Ruth 2:8). Finally, Ruth’s name is mentioned alone when the narrator describes Boaz’ taking Ruth home as his wife and her identity changes when she goes from being a widow to becoming a wife (Ruth 4:13). These occurrences where Ruth’s name stands alone are not focused on specifically in the commentaries on Ruth;10 nonetheless, they may be read as markers in the story, pointing to central events where Ruth is involved. Ruth’s character is clearly elaborated upon from reference to reference, starting as one of two Moabite women and ending as Boaz’ wife. Ruth’s name is mentioned another seven times, as part of longer namings. In each of those the personal name is overshadowed by different namings which introduce specific topics. In the case of the name Ruth, this change of focus is striking, since the name is difficult to define in the first place. As we will see in the following, Ruth’s many namings both describe and conceal her identity. 5.1.3 The Name Ruth outside the Narrative There are no references in the Old Testament to Ruth’s name outside the narrative, but once, Ruth is mentioned in the New Testament. Boaz [was] the father of Obed by Ruth. (Matt 1:5)

         

The genealogy of Matthew clearly has the function of linking Jesus Christ to former religious and political Israelite leaders, to demonstrate that he is the proper Messiah.11 However, his family tree is quite interesting.12 The 9

See 3.1.2 From Anonymity to Identification, where I describe how Block, Ruth (1999) 624, makes a point of the presentation of the name only, while Gerleman, Rut (1965) 15, and de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 5, 8, ignore this in their translations. 10 de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 16 clearly miss the certain references in the texts when they claim it is necessary to “specify the participants” and thus use “Ruth” as a replacement for “she” or “her” several times. 11 Albright and Mann, Matthew (1971) 5.

108

Part I1: Character Analysis

OT women mentioned in the genealogy: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah’s wife, are far from central in the Old Testament.13 Not only the choice of rather insignificant women, but the fact that they “were not shining lights of moral integrity,”14 makes them worth a closer look. NT scholars see three alternative interpretations of the women in Matt 1. One is that Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba are foreigners, but, at the same time, exemplary proselytes. This interpretation fits well with the theology of Matthew, which emphasizes the role of Messiah as universal saviour. 15 From an OT perspective, however, such an interpretation is not that obvious. As will be demonstrated, it is significant that Ruth is a Moabite. Tamar, however, is only indirectly named a Canaanite (Gen 38:2).16 Bathsheba occurs as “the wife of Uriah the Hittite” (2 Sam 11:3), but she is never described as a Hittite herself. When it comes to Rahab, there is no doubt that she is a Canaanite from Jericho (Josh 2:1). However, Joshua never describes Rahab as the wife of Salmon or the mother of Boaz. Matthew may have included her in the genealogy to strengthen the presence of foreigners among Jesus’ ancestors, having the intention to stress that Jesus is the Messiah not only for Israelites but for all nations (Matt 28:19). A main problem with such a reading is that Mary is no foreigner.17 We therefore must ask for other common traits which include all the women and bring more sense to the interpretation. A second common interpretation is that the women all had questionable relationships with men. Tamar distinguishes herself as a prostitute in order to seduce her father-in-law (Gen 38:14–19); Rahab is a professional prostitute (Josh 2:1).18 David is seduced by Bathsheba’s bathing (2 Sam 11:2). Playing a passive role in 2 Sam 11, however, her role as seducer might not

12

Cf. Chazal, “The Women of Jesus’ Family Tree” (1994) 414. Cf. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2002) 133, who points out that the great Jewish mothers: Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, are all kept outside the genealogy. 14 Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy” (1987) 3. 15 Albright and Mann, Matthew (1971) 5; Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium (1986) 9; Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy” (1987); 4 Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2002) 135. 16 See the comment on Tamar’s nationality in 5.3. Naomi and the Daughters-in-law. 17 Mayordomo-Marín, Den Anfang hören (1998) 246–47. This, against Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2002) 135, who admits that the foreignhood “ist also nur bei Rut und Rahab ganz klar, bei Tamar gut und bei Batseba vielleicht möglich. Zu Maria läßt sich kaum eine Beziehung herstellen.” Still he finds this interpretation the most relevant. 18 Cf. Barstad, “rahab” (1989), who argues that the name Rahab is a nick-name; Bird, Missing Persons (1997) 199, and her description of the prostitute’s status as “that of an outcast, … a tolerated but dishonoured member of society.” 13

Chapter 5: Ruth

109

be as obvious as the other women’s.19 As with most of David’s women, Bathsheba acts on David’s command. Nevertheless, the introduction in 2 Sam 11:1 “but David remained in Jerusalem,” might have an intended irony, and Bathsheba’s role may be more complex after all. “It is only a touch. One might miss it,”20 Edwin M. Good remarks, but it could not be the first time she was bathing on the roof since the warrior king David chose to stay at home and not go to war. “Bathsheba may not have been unaware of David’s whereabouts.”21 Ruth, offering herself to the drunken and merry Boaz (Ruth 3:1–9), may easily be understood as a seducer.22 I still find it strange if it is this limited part of Ruth which is focused on in the NT genealogy. Describing the four women as sinners is not consistent with the OT presentations.23 Tamar only claims her rights (Gen 38:26); Rahab and her family are spared and remembered because of her good deeds (Josh 2:12–14); Ruth is blessed for her hesed (Ruth 3:10); and it is David, and not Bathsheba, who is condemned by Nathan (2 Sam 12:7–12). And again, Mary does not share such a trait. Moises Mayordoma-Marín prefers a third interpretation of Matt 1. He describes the four women as examples for a “verzweigte[…] aber am Ende ihr Ziel erreichende[…] Geschichtsführung Gottes”,24 or what Ulrich Luz calls “göttliche[…] Irregularität”.25 Such a reading corresponds better with an OT interpretation, not simply focusing on the adultery, seduction or the prostitution, but rather describing how these women within, or even despite, their possibilities and circumstances work for the purpose of God and his plan. And not least, it makes good sense for our understanding of Mary as Jesus’ ancestress as well. 19

Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 25–26 who uses this story to demonstrate the agent. 20 Good, Irony (1981) 36. 21 Good, Irony (1981) 36. See also Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy” (1987) 4. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2002)133–34 is more careful in his description of Bathsheba. He points out how later texts focusing on David’s sin have toned down Bathsheba’s responsibility. Still, he admits that the fact that Bathsheba is presented as “die des Urija” in Matt1:6 makes her a Sünderinnen “an deren Ehebruch natürlich […] in ersten Linie denken lässt.” 22 See Senior, Matthew (1998) 38. On the other hand, some commentaries on Matthew, as Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium (1986) 8; Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2002) 133, deny such a reading. See also Chazal, “The Women of Jesus’ Family Tree” (1994) 414, putting Mary on the list of women with apparently doubtful reputation. 23 Mayordomo-Marín, Den Anfang hören (1998) 245–46. See also Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading (1991) 63–64. 24 Mayordomo-Marín, Den Anfang hören (1998) 247. 25 Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2002) 134, however, he sees no similarities between Ruth’s marriage, Bathsheba’s betrayal and Mary’s engagement.

110

Part I1: Character Analysis

5.2 Naming Ruth Difficult as Ruth’s name is to understand, even so the namings that characterize her are easy to find. The namings of Ruth are many, and some of them are used frequently. Ruth is called “Ruth, the Moabite, her daughterin-law”, “Ruth, the Moabite”, “Moabite woman”, “Ruth, her daughter-inlaw”, “daughter-in-law”, “daughter”, “Ruth, the Moabite, the wife of the dead man”, “Ruth, Mahlon’s wife”, “foreigner”, “young-girl”, “maidservant”, and “handmaid”. The following analysis will give a presentation of each naming, focusing on different aspects of Ruth’s identity. 5.2.1 The Moabite The term  /  occurs seven times as a naming for Ruth (1:4, 22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10). The occurrences are placed at decisive stages in the narrative; however, they are also significant in the way that within the context they seem to be superfluous information. The first time the term Moabite is used of Ruth is when Chilion and Mahlon marry. Earlier I have illustrated how the first introduction of the characters in Ruth is always separated from the presentation of the characters’ names.26 So it is with Orpah and Ruth. They are presented as “Moabite wives” before their names, connected to a , occur: They took for themselves Moabite wives. (Ruth 1:4)

    

The naming Moabite is at the same time essential and superfluous in this verse. It is essential as it is the only description of the wives. We are not informed about their looks, ages, status or families;27 the only important thing to know is that Ruth and Orpah are Moabites. On the other hand, the naming Moabite is a superfluous description. We are already told that Mahlon and Chilion live in Moab (Ruth 1:1–2), and thus it should be natural that they married Moabites.28 The question is raised about whether the naming should be understood as more than some neutral information about their origins. So Naomi came back, and Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, was with her. (Ruth 1:22)

      

 

See 3.1 . Neusner, Ruth Rabbah (1997) 40, reads Orpah and Ruth as the two daughters of King Eglon of Moab, though without any biblical references. 28 Cf. how Tamar is never named a Canaanite, but is still reckoned to be one, of the reason that Judah lived among Canaanites (Gen 38). 26 27

Chapter 5: Ruth

111

This verse is a summary of the story so far. Ruth is presented as the Moabite, to which this time is added another naming: daughter-in-law. Here also the naming is a superfluous commentary. Repeated in this summary, however, the naming appears as a decisive characterization. Chapter two opens a new scene, and Ruth is named the Moabite, as if she is introduced for the first time: Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi: Let me go to the field and glean among the ears behind someone in whose eyes I will find favour. (Ruth 2:2)

               

In this discourse, Ruth refers indirectly to the Israelite Law which permits the poor, aliens, orphans and widows to go out and glean on the fields (Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 24:19–22).29 When Ruth is named a Moabite here, it raises the question about whether Ruth is one about whom the law is concerned, being a widow like Naomi, or rather, being an alien. There also is an implicit contrast in this verse. Naomi and Ruth are both widows, however, Ruth the Moabite knows and acts according to the law, while Naomi the Israelite remains quiet. This raises question to the relationship between the two women, as it also opens for the question of Ruth becoming a proselyte. All these questions will be discussed further below. The three first occurrences in which Ruth is named Moabite are all used by the narrator. The fourth time the name occurs in a dialogue between Boaz and the servant in charge of the reapers. Here, the question of Ruth’s identity is addressed directly. “To whom does this young-girl belong?” ….. “She is the Moabite young-girl who came with Naomi from the land of Moab.” (Ruth 2:5–6)

    

        

Ruth’s identity is questioned three times in the narrative (Ruth 2:5; 3:9, 16).30 Here, Boaz asks, and Ruth is introduced to him as the Moabite young-girl. The term “young-girl” is a repetition from Boaz’ question to the servant, and the reference to Naomi is the direct answer to Boaz’ question “to whom does this belong?” One could expect that Ruth’s name or her family bonds to Naomi would be mentioned. The naming “Moabite” followed by the clarification “from the land of Moab”, on the other hand, is extra information about Ruth, which the servant apparently considers it 29

These laws stress the obligations of the landowner, referring to him as one God once released from being poor and alien in Egypt. See 2.7.2.1 Foreigners in the Old Testament Literature. 30 See 5.2.6 Who Are You?

112

Part I1: Character Analysis

necessary to provide. It is reasonable to presume that Boaz’ servant has the Israelite law in mind when he describes Ruth as the Moabite young-girl. At the same time, the over-particular and almost stumbling phrase of the servant, 31 that Ruth is a Moabite from the land of Moab, also gives the impression that this is delicate information. The fifth time Ruth is named a Moabite it is, again, used by the narrator. And Ruth the Moabite said: (Ruth 2:21)

    

The reader is, at this stage of the narrative, well informed that Ruth is a Moabite. The verse must rather be understood as a contrast to the former, raising a delicate problem: according to Naomi, there is a possible redeemer after all (Ruth 2:20). What does that indicate when Ruth is a Moabite? As I have suggested earlier, Naomi sees no future for Ruth in Bethlehem. She begs her two daughters-in-law to go back to their “mothers’ houses” to find new husbands. In Bethlehem there is no hope for the two Moabite women.32 Now this understanding of Naomi’s is challenged: Boaz is identified as a redeemer. Is there a hope for Ruth after all, despite her foreign identity? The two last occasions when Ruth is named a Moabite are when Boaz presents her to the proper redeemer, and further proclaims his redemption of the land and of Ruth. Boaz said: In the day you acquire the land of Naomi’s hand, I acquire Ruth the Moabite, the dead man’s wife. (Ruth 4:5) And also Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon I acquire. (Ruth 4:10)

             



      

Boaz’ words may seem like a warning. His mission in the city gate is to deal with his relative about their common late relative’s land and childless

31

Cf. Carasik, “Why the Overseer was Embarrassed” (1995) 493, who argues that the difficult syntax of Ruth 2:7 is a “deliberate device to depict confused and apologetic speech.” As Boaz came to the field and asked about Ruth’s identity, Ruth was about to leave because a situation “of what today we would call sexual harassment” had already taken place. The overseer was so embarrassed that he stumbled over the explanation. In danger of pushing the text too far, the hypothesis of Carasik is interesting, as it explains the gap between Ruth 2:7 and 2:8, why Boaz persuades Ruth to stay on his field after all, and as it fits to the stylistic level of the narrative as such, using difficult language in a narrative which in general is very simple. Such use of complex language as literary device is also proposed as a possible reading of Ruth 4:5. See 6.3 Boaz’ actions. Cf. also Beattie, “A Midrashic Gloss” (1977); and the following response by Hurvitz, “Ruth 2:7 – ‘A Midrashic Gloss’?” (1983). 32 See 4.3.1 Naomi and her Daughters-in-law.

Chapter 5: Ruth

113

wife, in accordance with the levirate law.33 It is therefore natural to name Ruth “the dead man’s wife”, as Boaz does. Naming Ruth a Moabite, however, has no direct connection to the situation in the city gate. Still, Boaz mentions this twice. The first time it seems as a caution towards the other man. The second time it sounds like Boaz sacrifices himself to this duty. Later, I will argue that this is a risky but clever plan of Boaz. In addition to the seven references to “Moabite”, Ruth calls herself a foreigner: And she said to him: Why have I found favour in your eyes, so you have recognised me, when I am a foreigner? (Ruth 2:10)

    

  

With this expression, Ruth confirms what the narrator, Boaz’ servant and Boaz himself indirectly point to when naming Ruth a Moabite. “Moabite” is no neutral reference to a woman from a certain land, belonging to a certain people. Ruth’s words articulate the significance: she is a foreigner. Her comment seems to indicate that she considers herself to be undeserving of Boaz’ kindness. “Or so she believes, perhaps reflecting the views of her Israelite contemporaries,”34 Greg A. King remarks. Ruth’s question, raising doubts about Boaz’ attitude because it should be impossible for a foreigner to find favour in a Bethlehemite’s eyes, must be understood as a commentary on all the indirect hints given through the seven presentations of Ruth the Moabite. 5.2.1.1 Moabite as Intertextual Reference Ruth being named Moabite carries certain intertextual connotations in the Old Testament. Obviously, it is a place. Campbell claims that “for the setting of Ruth, there is nothing intrinsically impossible, climatically or historically, about the portrayal of a Judean family finding a place to sojourn there.”35 Gerleman, on the other hand, points to the inconceivable aspect of the narrative in describing Moab as a place to escape from famine, since Moab’s climate is comparable to Judah’s “die gleiche Regenmenge wie Juda.”36 The famine in Moab therefore needs to be interpreted in “[der] Rolle eines erzählerischen Motivs.”37 I follow Gerleman, and find

33

The relation between Ruth and the levirate law is discussed in 2.7.1.3 The Levirate Institution; 4.2.2 The Mother-in-law and 6.3.1.5 Boaz the Trickster. 34 King, “Ruth 2:1–13” (1998) 184. 35 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 51–52. 36 Gerleman, Rut (1965) 14. 37 Gerleman, Rut (1965) 14.

114

Part I1: Character Analysis

it necessary to look for the significance of Moab in Ruth apart from focusing on a geographical place. Nielsen sees Moab as a clear intertextual marker in the text. She claims that Moab knits the narrative of Ruth to several other texts containing famine and going abroad, but most of all that “the land of Moab in Israelite consciousness has a negative ring.” Moab refers to the narrative of Gen 19, where Moab is born as a result of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughter. “That anything good could come out of Moab therefore requires further explanation.”38 Nielsen describes the link to Moab as an indication that the narrative of Ruth is an ancestor story. 39 In the analysis of the character Ruth, however, I will stress Nielsen’s point that the Moab-intertexts have “a negative ring”. The story of Lot’s daughters is mostly understood as a story of immorality (Lev 18:6).40 Likewise several narratives and characters connected to Moab are described in negative ways: the murder of the fat King Eglon of Moab is bizarre (Judg 3:12–30);41 Israelite men evoke Yahweh’s anger in Shittim, by having sexual relations with the women of Moab, who invited the Israelites to the sacrifices for their gods (Num 25:1–2). Moab is not only a foreign land; it is a military enemy, and several battles with the Moabites are described (Num 22:1–4; Judg 3:12–30; 1 Sam 12:9–10; 2 King 3:4–27). Isaiah condemns Moab (Isa 15–16) and the Deuteronomic Law excludes any Ammonite or Moabite from admission to the assembly of God, because the Moabites refused to help the Israelites coming from Egypt, but pronounced a curse upon them instead (Deut 23:3–4, 6). All these examples clearly express a negative attitude towards Moabites. It is no wonder that many scholars have read Ruth as a narrative defending

38

Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 41. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 41–42. See also Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure” (1982). 40 An interesting observation is that in Lev 18:6–23; 20:10–21; Deut 22:30, where almost every possible sexual relationship is mentioned, incestuous relations between father and daughter lacks. Frymer-Kensky, “Law and Philosophy” (1989) 94, 101, still assumes that sex with one’s daughter was prohibited, based on the fact that unmarried daughters were expected to be virgins. Thus “father-daughter incest was neither expected nor encouraged.” According to Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 227, and Anderson, Women, Ideology and Violence (2004) 45, the law in Deuteronomy is a marriage law, protecting “the integrity of the extended family in a polygamous context by blocking a son’s inheritance of his father’s wives.” Cf. Gen 35:22. Thus, it is not actually a law prohibiting incest as such. Coxon, “Was Naomi A Scold?” (1989) 31, does not read the narrative of Lot’s daughters negatively, as he claims that “[t]he two ancestress of the Moabite people are not ashamed of their actions … they show a brand of pragmatism and initiative matched only by Tamar in Gen 38.” 41 See Good, Irony (1981) 33. 39

Chapter 5: Ruth

115

David’s escape to Moab when he fled from Saul (1 Sam 22:3).42 David had relatives in Moab, since his great-grandmother came from that place. And unlike Moabites in general, she was a good one. Further, Moab is associated with the gods: the Israelites who died in Shittim were punished because they had sacrificed to the Moabite god(s), not because they had sexual relations to the Moabite woman (Num 25:1– 2); When Judg 11:6 describes Israel doing evil in the eyes of God, they are serving the gods of Aram, Sidon, Moab, Ammonites and the Philistines; Solomon’s defeat was caused by the fact that his 1000 wives served their gods, and made Solomon turn his heart after these (1 King 11:1–8); Moabites are sneered at “when he wearies himself upon the high place, when he comes to his sanctuary to pray, he will not prevail” (Isa 16:12). In Ruth, Naomi refers to Orpah and Ruth’s having another god than Yahweh, saying: “See, your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her god.” (Ruth 1:15) Finally, Moab is the land where Moses died and was buried (Deut 34:5). This story may shed positive a light on Moab, but most of all it indicates that being buried in Moab was not a privilege, but a penalty. Because of God’s anger Moses had to die in Moab and did not reach the Promised Land (Num 14:26–35; Deut 34:4). As described earlier, the OT’s view of foreigners is complex. In general, foreigners are not welcome to participate in the assembly; this includes foreigners who have married into an Israelite family. However, the same law stresses that the Israelites used to be foreigners themselves, and thus they are obligated to take care of and protect the foreigner living in the land.43 When it comes to Moabites, on the other hand, the attitude is clear. Every example given above illustrates this “negative ring” connected to Moab. What about Ruth? Ruth’s own words connect “Moab” and “Moabite” to “foreigner” (Ruth 2:10). Combining this observation with the intertextual material just listed, we find that “Ruth the Moabite” is to be associated with immorality, seductive actions, the enemy, and, not to be forgotten, those who obey foreign gods. Being frequently used about Ruth, all these associations must be understood as possible traits of the character. 42

Cf. Gerleman, Rut (1965) 15. Cf. also Nielsen, “Stamtavle og Fortælling” (1994) 92–93. 43 See the presentation of this topic in 2.7.2.1 Foreigners in the Old Testament Literature, with references to Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988) 39–41, 60–69; Japhet, The Ideology (1989); Smith, “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society” (1991); Eskenazi and Judd, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis” (1994); Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis” (1994); Abraham, “Name Variations of Esau’s Wives” (1997); LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 21; Lindström, “Slavmoral” (2005); and others.

116

Part I1: Character Analysis

5.2.2 The Daughter(-in-Law) And the two daughters-in-law were with her. (Ruth 1:7)

  

The term daughter-in-law is a family related description. Significant for this role is that she is bound to the clan in which she is married. She is obliged to participate in the household of her in-laws, where bearing children is her primary duty. She also has the right to remain in the house and even have children if her husband dies (Gen 38:26; Deut 25:5–6).44

/ is used seven times of Ruth. Three times it is used of Orpah and Ruth together (Ruth 1:6, 7, 8), and four times of Ruth alone (Ruth 1:22; 2:20, 22; 4:15). The term is mostly used by the narrator (Ruth 1:6, 7, 8, 22; 2:20, 22), but once the women in Bethlehem call Ruth daughter-in-law (Ruth 4:15). In addition to “daughter-in-law”, the term may mean “bride”. In Ruth, however, “daughter-in-law” should be used, since it always is associated to Naomi.45 The narrator uses the term in two different ways. It expresses that Orpah and Ruth, or Ruth alone, follow Naomi and stand by her side (Ruth 1:6, 7, 22), and it is used to introduce Naomi’s discourses with Orpah and Ruth, or with Ruth only (Ruth 1:8; 2:20, 22). As with the term Moabite, the term is used an extraordinary number of times, and is placed strategically: in the beginning of the narrative (Ruth 1:6, 7, 8), and in the closing sequences at the end of chapters one, two and four (Ruth 1:22; 2:20, 22; 4:15). Thus Ruth’s relationship to Naomi is repeated and maintained in decisive moments of the narrative. The use of daughter-in-law in Ruth 4:15 differs from the other occurrences: For your daughter-in-law who loves you, has borne him, she who is better for you than seven sons. (Ruth 4:15)

 

     

Here, the term is used in a direct speech, spoken by the women in Bethlehem, but directed towards Naomi, and thus relating daughter- and motherin-law together. This time the term daughter-in-law is combined with certain characteristics, more explicit and promising than the other terms given to Ruth. It therefore needs some extra attention.

44

For a closer study, see Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 59–69 Anderson, Women, Ideology and Violence (2004) 47; Meyers, Discovering Eve (1988) 22–128. Cf. also 2.7.1.1 The Daughter(-in-law). 45 See Körting, “Bride” (forthcomming).

Chapter 5: Ruth

117

5.2.2.1 Your Daughter-in-Law who Loves You The characteristics of Ruth’s loving Naomi have made some scholars read Ruth as a lesbian love-story. 46 The reason for such an interpretation is to be found in the occurrence of the terms  (Ruth 1:14) and   (Ruth 4:15), and in Ruth’s speech to Naomi (Ruth 1:16–17). Normally, when  (to cling) is used as a description of human relations, it refers to marriage or sexual relationships between man and wife (Gen 2:24; 34:3; Josh 23:12; 1 King 11:2).47 In Ruth  is used to describe Ruth’s relation to Naomi. She “clung to Naomi” and would not leave her. The following words underline this intimate relationship as Ruth declares: “Where you go, I will go, where you lodge, I will lodge…” (Ruth 1:16–17).48 Ruth 4:15 may be understood as a conclusion of this theme, where Ruth’s love for Naomi has been elaborated throughout the narrative, and the neighbourhood women, being in the role of the narratee,49 respond upon the situation.   (love) as a description of human friendship is rare. When the term is used, it mostly describes familiar relationships such as parent and child50 or husband and wife,51 or else the relationship is of a formal kind, as those between the slave and his master or the king and his people.52 Two exceptions in these categories are Ruth who loves Naomi, and Jonathan who loves David. In the David and Jonathan story there are quite strong indications of homoerotic love. From the first time Jonathan sees David, as he comes towards Saul and Jonathan with the head of the dead Goliath under his arm (1 Sam 17:57–18:3), and until David sings his laments upon Jonathan’s death (2 Sam 1:25–26), Jonathan’s love for David is a central topic.53

46 Goldman, Våra Bibliska Mödrar (1988) 99; Veiteberg, Bibelens Kvinner (1995) 70; Jennings, “YHWH as Erastes” (2001) 36–37. Cf. also the presentation in Wernik, “Will the Real Homosexual” (2005). 47 Though, in Prov 18:24 the term is used to express close friendship. 48 See 5.3.1 Clinging to Naomi for a closer discussion of the term  (Ruth 1:14) and the speech in Ruth 1:16–17. 49 See 2.2 The Act of Reading. 50 Abraham loves Isaac (Gen 22:2); Isaac loves Esau, and Rebekah loves Jacob (Gen 25:28); Jacob loves Joseph and Benjamin (Gen 37:3, 4; 44:20). 51 Isaac loves Rebekah (Gen 24:67); Jacob loves Rachel (Gen 29:18, 20); Shechem loves Dinah (34:3); Elkanah loves Hannah (1 Sam 1:5); Michal loves David (1 Sam 18:20, 28); Ammon loves Tamar (2 Sam 13:1, 4); Solomon loves many foreign women (1 Kgs 11:1); Rehoboam loves Maacah (2 Cron 11:21). 52 Exod 32:5; Deut 15:16; 1 Sam 18:16, 22. Cf. Wallis, “ ” (1973) 111. 53 According to Peleg, “Love at First Sight?” (2005) 182–83, 188, David’s love for Jonathan is much more ambiguous than Jonathan’s love for David.

118

Part I1: Character Analysis

Jonathan’s love is declared several times (1 Sam 19:1; 20:17, 34, 42),54 and as a consequence, Saul accuses Jonathan of being a “son of a perverse and rebellious woman”, choosing the “son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness” (1 Sam 20:30).55 Compared with the David and Jonathan story, the references to a lovestory in Ruth are less obvious. I have previously discussed the relationship between Naomi and Ruth, and presented the possible reading of a conflict between Naomi and Ruth. It seems that Naomi dislikes that Ruth the Moabite follows her the whole way to Bethlehem, though most of all Naomi is described as an old, barren widow, not concerned with anything else than her own sorrow.56 Reading lesbian love into her character seems therefore groundless. Another problem is the narrative’s dominant focus on the relationship between Ruth and Boaz. As we will see below, Boaz’ character is described as much more active and involved than his being merely a producer of possible offspring. He has his own agenda, especially towards Ruth. The only character I find in the narrative who might embody lesbian love is Ruth. But here also the possible lesbian aspects are only fragmentary. It is difficult to read the whole narrative of Ruth through the aspect of lesbian love, in the way that it is possible to read the David and Jonathan story in the light of a homoerotic relationship.57 I rather read 54 Jonathan loves David “as he loved his own soul/life” (1 Sam 18:1; 20:17); his love is compared with Michal’s love for David (1 Sam 18:20, 28; 19:1); Jonathan and David make a covenant (1 Sam 18:3–4; 20:16–17, 42), which might be compared with marriage. 55 Nissinen, Homoeroticism (1998) 55–56, is probably right when he claims that from a historical perspective, David’s and Jonathan’s “mutual love was certainly regarded by the editors as faithful and passionate, but evidently without unseemly allusions to forbidden practises.” He prefers to interpret the story “as an intimate camaraderie of two young soldiers with no sexual involvement.” Also the broader context of the Davidand-Jonathan story challenges a queer reading. David is in general occupied with women (1 Sam 25:1–44; 2 Sam 3:1–5; 11:1–27; 1 Kgs 1:1–4), and the Leviticus law clearly prohibits homosexual practice. Still, within the narrative, I will argue for some clear aspects of homoerotic love. For other studies of the David and Jonathan narrative, see Ackerman, When Heroes Love. (2005), comparing the David and Jonathan with Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh; Peleg, “Love at First Sight?” (2005), reading Jonathan as a woman, as “David’s ‘female bride’”; cf. also Fewell and Gunn, Gender, Power and Promise (1993) 151. 56 See 4.3.2 Naomi and Ruth. 57 Nissinen, Homoeroticism (1998) 37, does not even mention Ruth among his examples of possible homoerotic descriptions in the biblical literature. He claims that “the Hebrew Bible include[s] only … a few narratives that relate in some way to the issue of homoeroticism,” which are Gen 9:20–27; 11:1–9; Judg 19; 1 Sam 18–20; 2 Sam 1:26. Others, as Alpert, “Finding Our Past” (1994), lists several examples of how Ruth is used as reference to lesbian love, as in the Ceremony book; Butler, Ceremonies of the Heart (1990) or the novel by Flagg, Fried Green Tomatoes (1988). Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible (1992) 102, prefers to call this “female bonding.” However, the differences

Chapter 5: Ruth

119

Ruth’s love for Naomi within a family structure, as the daughter-in-law’s extraordinary care for her old mother-in-law. 5.2.2.2 Who is More to You than Seven Sons From an OT view, and in the eyes of Naomi, having one son is good. Having seven sons is something of which “Naomi can only dream,” quoting Michael S. Moore.58 Ruth is described as better than this. With the use of this unattainable comparison, we are close to poetic language.59 There are several examples of such sentences in the Wisdom literature, where two qualities are compared through a   (1 Sam 15:22; Ps 63:3; Prov 8:11; 22:1; Cant 2:1).60 Something less visible, such as obedience, steadfast love, wisdom, a good name, or love, is compared to something obviously good, as sacrifice, life, jewels, great riches, or wine. The comparison raises the first component to a higher level.61 A condition of this process of expansion is that the two components are comparable. If not, the whole comparison becomes ridiculous or even embarrassing. An example of such noncomparable components is to be found in 1 Sam 1:8. Elkanah asks his wife Hannah: “Am I not better to you than ten sons?”62 The narrative never comments upon this question, but it is obvious to the reader that Elkanah has totally overstated his own capacity. Elkanah’s love for Hannah can never replace her need for a son. She continues crying, and Elkanah’s attempt to comfort his wife makes him only a tragicomic figure.

between her reading and queer interpretation are hard to find. See also Wernik, “Will the Real Homosexual” (2005), presenting his list of homoerotic texts in the OT. 58 Moore, “Ruth the Moabite” (1998) 221. 59 See Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form (1955) 26, arguing for “possibilities of a poetic nucleus underlying the book of Ruth.” He points to the “interesting and characteristic constructions” of the syntax in Ruth 4:15 and 1 Sam 1:8 (pp. 21, 25), and demonstrates that Ruth 4:15 may be read as a synonymous parallelism (p. 41). Cf. also de Moor, “The Poetry of the Book of Ruth” (1986) 45–46. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 222, on the other hand, argues against “speak[ing] of the ‘poetry’ of Ruth without embracing an elastic definition of the term.” See also Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut (1975) 107–08, for a broader discussion. 60 There are also   expressions in Eccl, though they are antithetical and therefore irrelevant in this aspect. Moore, “Ruth the Moabite” (1998) 211, 212–217, points to Exod 18:10–11 and Num 25:7, where first Jethro and then Balaam bless Yahweh, for being greater than all the gods/   

 , and making his king higher than Agag/   . The similarity between these examples and Ruth 4:15 lies in the blessing made through a comparative . 61 This process is described more thoroughly in Saxegaard, “More Than Seven Sons” (2001) 270–71. 62 In addition to Ruth, this is the only place in the OT were the phrase “more than x sons” is used.

120

Part I1: Character Analysis

In Ruth, the statement “more than seven sons” is not meant ironically. We need to go back to the first chapter of the narrative to find the reason. In Ruth 1:19 the women in Bethlehem ask “Is this Naomi?” They apparently compare Naomi to the last time they saw her, as a wife with two sons, wealthy enough to leave Bethlehem and seek a new life in Moab. Now, at the end of the narrative, Naomi is wealthier than ever. She lives in the mighty Boaz’ house;63 she has a descendant and is secure in her old age. All this because of Ruth. Ruth has done more for Naomi than her two sons ever did, and this from an initially bad situation (Ruth 1:19). Accordingly, Ruth is clearly better to Naomi than two sons. The choice of “seven” brings the characteristics of Ruth to a new level, where her qualities are expressed through symbolic terms. The number seven is a well used symbol of abundance and perfection in the Biblical literature (as for example Gen 2:2-3; 4:24; 5:31; 7:2, 3, 4, 10; 8:10; 41:2– 4; Exod 12:15–20; Lev 4:6, 17; 16:14; Josh 6:2–4; Matt 18:22).64 Seven sons or more occurs rarely in the OT literature, though with some signifycant references worth mentioning. In her praise, Hannah describes the barren woman who will bear seven sons (1 Sam 2:5).65 Further, Jesse first brings his seven sons to Samuel (1 Sam 16:10), but he happens to have more than seven sons: David is introduced as the eighth (1 Sam 16:11). An intertextual reading between Hannah’s prayer, the Ruth and the David narratives strengthens the significance of all these texts. David’s being the eighth son gives him an immediate importance,66 and Ruth’s being better than seven sons is comparable both to the great David and to those barren women Hannah blesses in her praises.67 5.2.2.3 Daughter More often than being daughter-in-law, Ruth is named daughter. The term occurs 11 times, all of them spoken by another character. Three times Naomi calls Orpah and Ruth daughters (Ruth 1:11, 12, 13), another five times she uses the term of Ruth only (Ruth 2:2, 22; 3:1, 16, 18). Three times Boaz describes Ruth as daughter (Ruth 2:8; 3:10, 11). The term refers to family relations, where the aspects of close relationship (Judg

63

See the characteristics of Boaz in 6.2 Naming Boaz. Cf. Sasson, “Generation, Seventh” (1962) 355. 65 The term “mother of seven” is also used in the Gilgamesh Epic, as a description of the ideal wife. Speiser, “The Epic of Gilgamesh” (1950) 87. 66 A similar expression is to be found in the poem of King Keret: “The woman thou tak’st into thy house, The maid thou bring’st into thy court, Shall bear seven sons unto thee; Yea, eight sons unto thee.” See Ginsberg, “The Legend of King Keret” (1950) 146. 67 See also 3.6 Obed. 64

Chapter 5: Ruth

121

11:34–35), as well as the differences in age and status are significant components.68 Naomi’s use of daughter is easy to interpret. Early in the narrative, the farewell scene between Naomi, Orpah and Ruth is described, and Orpah and Ruth are called “daughters-in-law” by the narrator (Ruth 1:6–7). Naomi does not call them anything until they start crying; “We will go back with you to your people” (Ruth 1:9–10). From this point Naomi starts naming them, and she calls her daughters-in-law “daughters”. The intensity in the narrative accelerates, from presenting ten years of famine and death within five verses, to describing the farewell scene step by step.69 The shift in naming, from the narrator’s “daughters-in-law” to Naomi’s “daughters” elaborates this intensity, as much as it is an answer to the loyalty the young woman shows Naomi. It confirms that the bonds between the women are much more intimate than the formal bonds.70 The meaning of Boaz’ use of daughter is not easy to classify. In Ruth 2:8, Boaz is clearly in the role of the older and wealthier relative, blessing and bringing food to the younger and poor Ruth who is devoted to their common relative (Ruth 2:8–12). In Ruth 3:10, 11, however, the naming is more ambiguous. Again Boaz blesses Ruth and brings her food (Ruth 3:10, 15), although he also praises her for not going to other men and asks her to stay the night (Ruth 3:10–13). Thus Boaz’ own interest in Ruth becomes a part of his motive for blessing her, and a more intimate interpretation of “daughter” seems to play a central role here, not only the hierarchical and formal. When “daughter” is also combined with “woman” within the same verse (Ruth 3:11), the reference to family hierarchy certainly does not fit. As the whole scene on the threshing floor is unclear, so is the understanding of Boaz’ naming of Ruth. We know what is said, though we do not really know what the words indicate. 5.2.3 The Namings of Ruth as related to Boaz 5.2.3.1 Young Girl To whom does this young girl belong? (Ruth 2:5)

   

implies “young/newly married girl”, but it may also be understood as “attendant”, or “wench”. In Ruth 2:6 and 4:12, the suggested translation by 68

See the presentation of the OT-daughter in 2.7.1.1 Daughter(-in-Law). See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 143–165, and his description of “Duration of Time.” 70 Cf. Bronner, “The Invisible Relationship” (1999) 183, describing Ruth as the “unique story in the Bible of two women choosing to be together as mother and daughter even after their formal familial ties has been sundered.” 69

122

Part I1: Character Analysis

HALOT is “young widow”.71 The meaning is rather open, and the different implications depend on the context and on which character the term concerns. In Judg 21:12; 1 King 1:2, 3 and Esth 2:3, 9, 12, 13, the subjects are attractive young virgins; in Deut 22:19 and Judg 19  is a naming of young wives. 2 King 5:2, 4 refers to a servant girl, while Amos 2:7 obviously refers to a prostitute. With the exception of the meaning “servantgirl” (2 King 5:2, 4), most of the implications of hr[n are associated with sexuality, even in the narrative of David and Abishag where the non-sexual activity of David is directly articulated, apparently to illustrate the infirmity of the old king (I King 1). In Ruth, I prefer to understand  as “young girl”, which is a general description. The term occurs three times in the narrative; twice when Boaz asks his servant in charge about the strange young girl working on his field (Ruth 2:5–6), and once when the people in the city gate wish Boaz’ soonto-be wife offspring similar to Leah and Rachel (Ruth 4:11). In both discourses Ruth is unknown to those who describe her. The open naming may refer both to a hard-working servant-girl, a virgin alone at the harvest field, and a young wife capable of bearing children. 5.2.3.2 Maidservant Whereas Boaz’ naming of Ruth is general, Ruth’s presentations of herself to Boaz are more explicit. She said: May I continue to find favour in your eyes, my Lord, for you have comforted me and you have spoken to the heart of your maidservant, and I am not like one of your maidservants. (Ruth 2:13)



              

The implication of is usually “slave-girl” or “maidservant”, and used when “making a self-deprecating introduction into presence of someone holding a higher social position.” The references in HALOT to Hannah (1 Sam 1:18), Abishag (1 Sam 25:27), and the wise woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14:6, 7, 12, 15, 17, 19) are illustrative examples of such an understanding.72 Ruth 2:13 is not mentioned in HALOT, but could very well have been used among the given examples. The similarities with 1 Sam 1:18 and Ruth 2:13 are striking. Both women name themselves maidservants, and both of them call upon “the favour in your eyes” to men who have just brought them in front of Yahweh’s blessing. 71 72

HALOT 707–08. HALOT 1621.

Chapter 5: Ruth She said: May your maidservant continue to find favour in your eyes. (1 Sam 1:18)

123     

In 1 Sam 1, Hannah is clearly subservient to Eli. However, as the wife of a prominent man, an Ephraimite with two wives who every year goes to Shiloh to sacrifice, her social status is far from that of slave-girl. Her words to Eli are rather to be understood as deep gratitude to, and respect for, the priest who has promised her Yahweh’s blessing. I find that this interpretation fits Ruth’s self-presentation to Boaz as well. A   is mainly expected to perform “menial labor”,73 Jack Sasson claims. Ruth’s self-presentation as a maidservant outside the group of Boaz’ maidservants stresses her identity of being an outsider; however, it may also be understood as an invitation to Boaz to take her into his group of workers.74 Having the same qualities as his other maidservants, there should be no reason why Ruth should not work for Boaz. 5.2.3.3 Handmaid I am Ruth, your handmaid. (Ruth 3:9)

 

The translation of  may be “slave”, “maid” and “concubine”, or, according to HALOT’s references to Ruth 3:9 and 2 Sam 6:20, “servant’s slave-girl”.75 Sasson points at the ambiguity of the term in Ruth. It is not clear, he claims, “whether Ruth expected herself to be taken as a bride or merely as a concubine.”76 Comparable women named  in the OT narratives are Hagar, Abraham’s midwife (Gen 21:12), Hannah when praying to the Lord (1 Sam 1:11, 16), and Abigail, who presents herself to King David (1 Sam 25:24 (2x), 25, 28, 31, 41). There are clear similarities between the terms  and . There are no legal distinctions between the terms,77 and they both carry associations of an obedient woman. Ruth uses both terms of herself, as do Hannah (1 Sam 1:16, 18) and Abigail (1 Sam 25:24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 41(2x)). I follow Sasson, who describes  as applying to “females belonging to the

73

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 53. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 54. 75 HALOT 61. 76 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 81. 77 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 123. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 55, claims that the two terms are “ohne erkennbaren Unterschied.” Cf. also Morris, Ruth (1968) 289. Westermann, “” (1984) 187, claims the terms originally described two different classes: “silfa ‘ist das noch unberührte, unfreie Mädchen, vor allem im Dienst der Frau des Hauses’; ama ‘ist die unfreie Frau, sowohl die Nebenfrau des Mannes, wie die unfreie Frau eines unfreien Mannes, eines Sklaven.” However, these understandings do not seem to occur, neither in Ruth, nor in 1 Sam 1; 25. 74

124

Part I1: Character Analysis

lowest rungs of the social ladder …, while amah probably represented women who could become wives or concubines of freemen.”78 As a maidservant, Ruth compares herself to those within the group of Boaz’ workers. When she uses the term handmaid, however, her approach to Boaz is more intimate. Like Abigail, naming herself “your handmaid” six times in front of David, Ruth signals that she is devoted to her master. Sasson characterizes Ruth’s words as a “quite bold” description.79 This nuance of  is strongly stressed when she asks Boaz to cover her with his “wings” or “hem of garment” (Ruth 3:9), and the intimacy is also focused when she connects “your handmaid” with her own personal name. In fact, this is the only time in the whole narrative where Ruth’s name is spoken by a character. This fact draws special attention to the naming handmaid, as it turns out to be the only spoken characteristic connected to the name Ruth. 5.2.3.4 Worthy Woman After Ruth’s self-presentations, Boaz gives her a new name: For all of my people in the city know that you are a worthy woman. (Ruth 3:11)

   

Three times Ruth is named woman, twice by Boaz (Ruth 3:11, 14) and once by the people in the city gate (Ruth 4:10). Until this point of the narrative, Boaz has named Ruth “daughter” (Ruth 2:8; 3:10, 11). Now he calls her woman when speaking to her, and also when talking to himself: it seems that Ruth’s identity has changed in Boaz’ eyes. During the scene at the threshing floor, within the same phrase actually, Boaz changes his namings of Ruth from “daughter” to “worthy woman” (Ruth 3:11). The term   is the same as is used to describe Boaz in Ruth 2:1, where the term is connected to might, strength and family status.80 Used of Ruth, the term sets her on quite a different social level than the widowed foreigner she has been associated with so far. Boaz obviously sees other qualities in Ruth apart from her low social position. Summing up, we may see that through the scenes between Ruth and Boaz, Ruth’s character clearly develops in Boaz’ eyes, from being an anonymous “young girl” (Ruth 2:5), to being presented as having qualities comparable to his maidservants (Ruth 2:13), to Boaz being woken up by the one calling her “his handmaid” (Ruth 3:9). As an immediate response to his sudden awareness of Ruth, Boaz calls her “daughter” (Ruth 3:10, 11), although, during his speech to her, he also calls her “worthy woman” 78 79 80

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 53. Cf. also Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 211. Sasson, “Guellah in Ruth” (1978) 53. See 6.2.1.2 A Man of Might and Honour.

Chapter 5: Ruth

125

(Ruth 3:11). This latter naming heightens her qualities and excludes possible associations of Ruth as slave or prostitute, which might lie implicit in the terms maidservant and handmaid. In the morning, by himself, however, Boaz thinks of her as a “woman” only (Ruth 3:14), which probably carries greater sexual connotation to the character Ruth. 5.2.4 The Late Man’s Wife In the Old Testament, a widow is a woman whose husband is dead, and who has neither children nor closely related relatives who can take care of her (Lev 19:9–19; Deut 24:19–22; 2 Sam 14:4–11; 1 King 17:2; 2 King 4).81 Ruth is never named a widow, but in the two first chapters of the narrative she is still acting in this role. Naomi claims there are no male relatives in the family for Ruth (Ruth 1:11–13), and Ruth uses the widow’s, and the foreigner’s, rights when she goes to the harvest field (Ruth 2:2). As a widow, the picture of Ruth is sad indeed. It makes her a woman of extremely low status, similar to Tamar (Gen 38) and the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 12). Her legal right to glean on a stranger’s field illustrates very well the widow’s critical situation. It is therefore an interesting change in the picture given of Ruth when Boaz calls Elimelech “our relative” (Ruth 4:2), and further names Ruth “the dead man’s wife” (Ruth 4:5) and “Mahlon’s wife” (4:10). He does not name her widow. A widow has no close male relatives and cannot be involved in a levirate marriage. According to Boaz, however, there are at least two possible redeemers for Ruth.82 Boaz’ naming of Ruth as the late husband’s wife is not used as a description of sympathy for the poor lonely woman, but as concern for her husband who died without providing any heir. Mahlon’s name is in danger of being “cut off from his family and from the gate in his town” (Ruth 4:10). This is the reason why Ruth is a topic of discussion among the male relatives in the city gate, but thanks to this, Ruth’s situation is not as hopeless as it would be if she were a widow. 5.2.5 I Am Three times Ruth presents herself, always adressing Boaz. I am a foreigner. (Ruth 2:10) I am Ruth, your handmaid. (Ruth 3:9)

81

    

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 132–33; Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 134. See 2.7.1.4 Widow. 82 See 6.2.2 Boaz the Redeemer, to the question on whether Ruth’s relatives are close enough to be redeemers or not.

126

Part I1: Character Analysis

As already demonstrated,  in Ruth 2:10 is a definition of the term Moab, which stresses and makes a problem of Ruth’s identity as a nonIsraelite. Further, the term  (Ruth 3:9) brings connotations of subservience, devotion and may even hint at prostitution. Ruth’s self-presentation thus focuses on all the problematic elements of Ruth as a foreigner whose social status is far lower than Boaz’.83 In between these usages, Ruth makes it clear that she is not like Boaz’ maidservants. I am not like one of your maidservants. (Ruth 2:13)



     

As I have suggested, Ruth 2:13 may be read as an indirect question about Ruth gaining permission to glean in Boaz’ field. As a self-presentation, though, it stresses her position as a stranger, as well as separating her from the other, subservient, young girls of Boaz. Boaz has given attention to Ruth, despite her not being among his workers from whom he derives benefit. Ruth must have qualities other than a potential profitability which have made Boaz aware of her. Sasson claims that when Ruth introduces herself to Boaz as “I am Ruth your handmaid” (Ruth 3:9) without calling herself “the Moabite”, it indicates that Ruth already “had succeeded in becoming a member of Boaz’ clan.”84 How is that possible? There is a significant transmission from being a foreigner (Ruth 2:10) to offering herself as the landowner’s handmaid (Ruth 3.9). I find that Ruth’s self-presentation as “not among your maidservants” might be an important factor in making this transmission possible. Being an outsider, there are no expectations or obligations connected to Ruth,85 neither positive, nor negative. Showing fidelity to her mother-in-law is therefore beyond all expectations (Ruth 2:11–12). It seems that to Boaz, this fidelity makes Ruth’s foreign role insignificant, and thus it may be easier to move to a position such as that described by Sasson. 5.2.6 Who Are You? Three times in the narrative, Ruth’s identity is stressed in a specific way, as her identity is directly asked for.86 The first time, the question is asked by Boaz of his servant, as Boaz arrives at the harvest field (Ruth 2:5). 83

Cf. HALOT 1621. Sasson, “Guellah in Ruth” (1978) 53. 85 Naomi does not even expect any benefit from her. See 4.3.2 Naomi and Ruth. 86 Hyman, “Questions and Changing Identity” (1984) 196–99, also includes Ruth’s question to Boaz in Ruth 2:10, and accordingly points out four questions “clarifying Ruth’s emerging identity.” 84

127

Chapter 5: Ruth To whom belongs this young girl? (Ruth 2:5)

   

Since this is the first time Boaz sees Ruth, the question must be understood as a simple question about who this young girl is. The answer is as direct as the question; she is the Moabite daughter-in-law of Naomi. The second time Ruth’s identity is asked for is at the threshing floor at night.  

He said: Who are you? (Ruth 3:9)

Again, the question is asked by Boaz, after he has recognized that there is a woman lying by his side. This question may be understood in two different ways. Because of the darkness Boaz cannot see, and he therefore asks the woman to identify herself. The other possibility is that Boaz recognizes Ruth, but needs to know her intentions. A woman coming secretly to the threshing floor at night, making herself known as “a woman” (Ruth 3:8), would easily be associated with a prostitute. His further reply that Ruth is a “worthy woman” (Ruth 3:11) may be understood as an apology or a deflection of the insinuation in his question. Ruth’s answer reflects both nuances in Boaz’ question as she first identifies herself with a name, and then describes her status as Boaz’ maidservant. The last question is posed when Ruth comes back to Naomi the next morning. And she said: Who are you, my daughter? (Ruth 3:16)

 

The question  is literally the same as the one in Ruth 3:9.87 In this context, however, it must be understood differently from the former. It is not a question of identifying a person in the darkness; referring to “my daughter”, Naomi knows who is coming. Ellen F. Davis says: “just because the question is not obvious here, it makes us consider what we now know about who Ruth is.”88 Since the earliest interpretations of Ruth, the question has been understood as a question about what actually happened between Ruth and Boaz that night. The Midrash to Ruth says: “Did she then not recognise her? Yes, but she meant, ‘Are you still a virgin or a married woman?’”89 Sasson suggests an added “now” in his interpretation: “[w]ho are you, now,” to underline that Naomi actually asks “whether Ruth should be considered as a widow of her son Mahlon or whether she has become the wife of

87 88 89

Cf. Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 60; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 105. Davis and Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? (2003) 91. Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 84.

128

Part I1: Character Analysis

Boaz.”90 Davis, on the other hand, describes Ruth as an “independent, bold, and even physically strong” woman.91 I find Davies’ description too vague, lacking any hint of sexual motives. Naomi sent Ruth to the threshing floor with quite obvious intentions, otherwise she would not ask Ruth to wash and perfume (Ruth 3:1–6);92 now she wants to know the result. I therefore follow Green, claiming it is “difficult to argue that the connotation is not suggestive of sexual activity and that such an association is not clearly intended by the storyteller.”93 While the first two questions are clearly answered, the content of Ruth’s answer the third time is kept from the reader. Ruth tells Naomi “all that the man had done for her” (Ruth 3:16). This strengthens the secretive nature of the threshing-floor scene, but it also stresses the question of Ruth’s identity. 94 The three almost similar questions, placed centrally in the narrative, point to the fact that there is more to be said about Ruth. She is more than Boaz’ foreign handmaid with whom he spent the night at the threshingfloor. 5.2.7 Summary Summing up the presentations of Ruth’s namings, it is difficult to find one unified description of the character’s identity. She is simultaneously a foreign Moabite and a faithful daughter-in-law, a seductive handmaid, and a worthy woman. Thus, the narrative gives an ambiguous picture of Ruth’s character, which coheres well with her unidentifiable name. Ruth’s identity is further stressed through her own characteristics as foreigner and handmaid, and also through three questions, each asking for her identity. The uncertainty surrounding Ruth’s characteristics remains when approaching her actions in the plot.

90

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 100. See also Nowach, Richter, Ruth (1902) 196, suggesting the translation “in welcher Lage bist du, wie steht es mit dir?”; Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 57; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 116 paraphrases: “How do things stand with you, my daughter?” which is similar to de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 58. 91 Davis and Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? (2003) 91. 92 Fischer, Rut (2001) 201, connects Ruth’s preparations to the Cult (Exod 30:17– 38). I find, rather, that the intertexts of Esth 2:3, 9, 12 and Song 1:3, 12; 4:10; 5:3 are more relevant as comparison to Naomi’s words. 93 Green, Field and Seed Symbolism (1980) 84. Cf. also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 131; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 224. 94 See Green, Field and Seed Symbolism (1980) 37.

129

Chapter 5: Ruth

5.3 Ruth’s Action 5.3.1 Clinging to Naomi

   

But Ruth clung to her. (Ruth 1:14)

The first description of Ruth’s actions goes right to the core of her role in the narrative. Until this point she has only been presented indirectly, as one of the two who was married to Mahlon or Chilion (Ruth 1:4). Further, she follows Naomi on her way home and cries when Naomi begs her and Orpah to return. Then, in Ruth 1:14, Ruth departs from Orpah, her reaction the opposite of Orpah’s to the words of their mother-in-law. I have already argued against reading Ruth as a story of lesbian love, despite the use of the terms  and   in the text.95 The question, then, is this: what does it indicate, that Ruth “clung to Naomi” and would not leave her? Ruth’s action towards Naomi must be read in the broader context of Ruth 1:9–14. Then she kissed them. [X] And they lifted up their voices and cried. [Y] (Ruth 1:9) And they lifted up their voices and cried again. [Y’] Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. [X’] (Ruth 1:14)

 

 

             

    

   

Bush demonstrates how the narrative sequences in these verses are constructed as a chiasm, X Y Y’ X’. Ruth 1:9: “Then she kissed them” (X), corresponds with Ruth 1:14: “Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung to her” (X’). In between these verses, Ruth 1:9: “And they lifted up their voices and cried” (Y), and Ruth 1:14: “And they lifted up their voices and cried again” (Y’), correspond to each other.96 The chiastic structure underlines that Orpah’s kiss and Ruth’s clinging both are responses to Naomi’s actions. In between this chiasm (Ruth 1:10–13) there is a speech from Naomi, where she begs them to turn and go back, calling her daughters-in-law “daughters” three times within three verses (Ruth 1:11, 12, 13). This speech is probably the reason for Orpah’s and Ruth’s reaction. Orpah’s reaction corresponds to Naomi’s action. Naomi kisses Orpah (Ruth 1:9), and Orpah kisses Naomi in return (Ruth 1:14). It is obvious that the act of kissing in this context is a farewell. By mirroring Naomi’s 95 96

See 5.2.2.1 Your Daughter-in-Law Who Loves You. Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 72. See also Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 30.

130

Part I1: Character Analysis

action, Orpah confirms and obeys Naomi’s words. She is prepared to do what Naomi asks her to do. Ruth reacts differently. She clings to Naomi (Ruth 1:14). As with  (kiss),  (cling) is a term implying intimacy. In this context, though, the terms must be understood almost as antonyms. The kiss is a marker of farewell and separation, while the clinging is a marker of long-lasting presence. Bush’s chiastic structure underlines this contrast. While Ruth 1:14 describes the kiss of Orpah in the syntactical order of verb and personal name,  , Ruth 1:14 describes Ruth’s clinging the opposite way, in the order of personal name and verb,   . This gives another contrasting chiastic structure within the larger chiasm. The opposite order of the terms underlines an opposite evaluation of the actions of Naomi’s two daughters-in-law. Orpah is the obedient one, Ruth the one who defies Naomi’s instructtions. Ruth’s clinging could therefore be read as the way Naomi probably sees Ruth: as “an albatross around her neck”, using the words of Fewell and Gunn.97 However, reading Orpah’s name as a marker of how to understand Orpah’s character, and accordingly as an indirect comment on Ruth, the picture changes. As demonstrated earlier, “Orpah” means “neck” in our context, and is a critique of the way Orpah reacts to Naomi.98 Despite how Orpah just follows Naomi’s instructions, it is her action of leaving which is our final impression of her. Ruth’s opposite action should therefore be the right one. Her clinging is to be decisive for the plot and for Naomi’s happiness as well. The term is still peculiar. The picture of the younger clinging to the older has rather tragicomic undertones. Where one should cling to the stronger husband to be secure, Ruth clings to Naomi. This illustrates the desperate situation of the two women, being in the hopeless situation of two childless widows. It also underlines that it is Ruth who seeks Naomi, not vice versa. The words in Ruth 1:16–17 stress this latter observation. 5.3.2 Is Ruth a Proselyte? And Ruth said: Do not force me to leave you or to turn back from following you! [A] For where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge.[B]

97



        

Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 103. Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 73. See 3.4 Orpah, for a more detailed presentation of Orpah. 98

Chapter 5: Ruth Your people are my people, and your god is my god.99 [C] Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. [B’] May Yahweh do so to me, and so even more, if anything but death divide between me and you. [A’] (Ruth 1:16–17)

131           

      

This speech from Ruth is probably the best known and most referred to sequence in Ruth. Scholars call it a “pledge”,100 “declaration of love”,101 “ein Eid”,102 or “a small poem”.103 It is the longest speech made by any of the characters, and it is the only real speech of Ruth; elsewhere in the narrative she mostly replies to others. From being a minor character walking literally behind Naomi, Ruth now appears as an independent, main character, giving an articulated presentation of herself.104 The speech is built up with short clauses placed in a chiastic system.105 A and A’ establish the frame of the speech, where Ruth elaborates in words the action of clinging (Ruth 1:14). Her point is clear; she will not, in any circumstance, leave Naomi. She even calls upon Yahweh’s damnation to prevent this from happening. Sasson describes these words as having the effect that “Naomi is left with little choice but to accept Ruth’s decision.”106 The level B, B’ is a concretizing of her intention. The phrase “where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge,” expresses that Ruth’s commitment to Naomi is immediate, and that even in death, Ruth will cling to her. The middle point C is the core of the speech, bringing the explanation of why Ruth intends to follow Naomi. “Your people are my people, and your god is my god,” is often read as Ruth’s confession, her proclamation of proselytization, indicating faith in and commitment to Yahweh. 107 Nielsen describes Ruth’s faith by comparing her to Abram, saying:

99

See 7.2 Naming Yahweh, to the discussion concerning capital “G” or minor “g” on

god. 100

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 28. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 49. 102 Fischer, Rut (2001) 143. 103 Davis and Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? (2003) 27. 104 Cf. Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 15–16. 105 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 74. Cf. also Block, Ruth (1999) 640. Cf. also Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 16. 106 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 30. See also Fischer, Rut (2001) 143. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 74, compares Ruth’s oath with the oaths given in Gen 15:7–17 and Jer 34:18–20. 107 See Gerleman, Rut (1965) 20; Morris, Ruth (1968) 260; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 117–18; Wolde, Ruth and Naomi (1998) 24–25; Sakenfeld, Ruth (1999) 32– 101

132

Part I1: Character Analysis

“where Abram leaves with a trust in God’s promise that he will acquire a land and become a great people, Ruth leaves her land without a promise from any God regarding her future. All she has to hold on to is Naomi, who is trying to push her away. And God is silent. Is Ruth’s faith not greater than Abram’s?”108

Nielsen’s description of Ruth’s unconditional response is pointed. However, I probably give a different answer to Nielsen’s rhetorical question than expected. So does Wilhelm Rudolph: “Es handelt sich bei Ruth nicht um eine ‘Bekehrung’, sondern um einen Übertritt zur israelitischen Religion einer Israelitin zulieb,” he claims. 109 It is Ruth’s commitment to Naomi, and not her faith, which is the actual reason for her transition.110 Yair Zakovitch and Victor H. Matthews refer to “assimilation”,111 while LaCocque argues that it is necessary “to emphasize that Ruth remains ‘the Moabite’ almost to the end of the narrative.”112 Thus he strongly questions the extent to which Ruth actually assimilated into Israelite religion after all. Within its context, Ruth’s words about Naomi’s people and god are almost literally identical to Naomi’s request of her: See, your sister-in-law is going back to her people and to her god.113 (Ruth 1:15)

   

   

The only difference of significance between Naomi’s and Ruth’s words is the character focused upon: Naomi refers to Orpah and her people and god, while Ruth refers to Naomi. In both utterances “people” and “god” are general descriptions. With these words Ruth divides herself from Orpah, and turns towards Naomi. As a consequence of this she divides from Orpah’s people and god, whom she has been connected to so far, and turns towards Naomi’s people and god – whoever these might be.114 Ethnic and religious identities are inseparable from the person of Naomi,115 even when

33; Spina, The Faith of the Outsider (2005) 125, and others, arguing for proselyzation in Ruth. 108 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 49. Cf. also Klagsbrun, “Ruth and Naomi, Rachel and Leah” (1994) 266; Lindström, “Guds Långa Näsa” (2001) 4. 109 Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 43. 110 Cf. also Zenger, Das Buch Ruth (1992) 41; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 87; Block, Ruth (1999) 641, Smith, “Your People Shall be My People” (2007) 242–58. 111 Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 97; Matthews, Ruth (2004) 222. 112 LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 52. 113 To the use of “god” in singular, see 7.2.1 Elohim. 114 Cf. Hunter, “How many Gods had Ruth?” (1981) 436, who claims that Ruth had one god, “under whatever name.” Of this reason he also suggests to read Ruth as a “counterweight to the Deuteronomistic polemic against ‘foreign gods’ with which the Hebrew Scriptures resonate.” See also Toorn, Family Religion (1996) 204. 115 Cf. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 52; Adutwum, “Ruth” (1998) 569.

Chapter 5: Ruth

133

her relationship to God may be that of the abandoned’s.116 Ruth’s commitment to Naomi therefore includes commitment to the god of Naomi as well.117 Such a reading of Ruth 1:16 implies some kind of change in Ruth’s identity. Still, I find terms such as “conversion” or “proselytization” to be unfitting as descriptions of Ruth’s faith. Even “assimilation” may be too definite, since Ruth remains “the Moabite” throughout the narrative. Charles Simeon describes Ruth as a character whose “views of religion might not be clear: but it is evident that a principle of vital godliness was rooted in her heart.”118 Campbell, refuting that there is a “conversion” by Ruth, claims that Ruth demonstrates “a living out of the way of Yahweh … and this she had been doing already on Moabite soil according to Naomi’s words in 1:8.”119 To this, I find it necessary to stress that also Orpah, who prefers to go back to her Moabite god, is a doer of hesed (Ruth 1:8). These statements therefore raise some significant questions: Is it possible that Ruth, who remains a Moabite without becoming a proselyte, has a heart which is “rooted by godliness”? And may “the way of Yahweh” be revealed by a Moabite, even when living in Moab? The questions are at the core of the understanding of Ruth’s identity, and they articulate a central theme in the narrative. The narrative of Ruth raises different voices on this issue. Naomi’s lack of response to Ruth’s proclamation is probably a signal of resignation. She sees no future for herself, nor for Ruth in Israel. To the narrator, on the other hand, Ruth’s commitment to Naomi is apparently important. S/he stresses that “Ruth, the Moabite, her daughter-in-law was with her,” and connects her to the beginning of the harvest (Ruth 1:22). Still, the narrator never describes Ruth as an assimilated proselyte; rather the opposite. S/he continues to name Ruth a Moabite, and not until Ruth 4:13, where Ruth is married to Boaz, does the naming disappear and Ruth is called “Ruth” only, as if the narrator has finally given up stressing Ruth’s foreign identity. Thus, the narrator illustrates the contradiction in Ruth’s character, being a foreigner, even a Moabite, but doing good deeds. Boaz’ approach towards Ruth represents another attitude towards the problem.

116

See 4.3.3 Naomi and God. Cf. 7.2.1.1 From Orpah’s God to Naomi’s. 118 Morris, Ruth (1968) 260, referring Charles Simeon: Horae Homileticae, III: London (1847). 119 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 82. 117

134

Part I1: Character Analysis

May Yahweh reward you for your deeds. And may you get full reward from Yahweh, Israel’s God, under whose wings you have come for refuge. (Ruth 2:12)





     

   

Whereas the narrator is ambiguous about Ruth’s identity, Boaz is clear. It is a controversial speech, as it is an answer to Ruth, who has just presented herself as a foreigner (Ruth 2:10). Describing Ruth in terms meant for an insider, as one seeking refuge in Israel’s God, Boaz obviously sees no problem with Ruth’s being a foreigner. Boaz’ words indirectly point out that Yahweh, Israel’s God, gives regard to those righteous who are seeking refuge under his wings, foreigner or not. At last, when Boaz proclaims his marriage in the city gate, the men in the city gate answer his proclamation by comparing Ruth with Rachel, Leah and Tamar. The men connect Ruth to the Matriarchs, despite Boaz’ having just named Ruth a Moabite (Ruth 4:5), and they do this without any explanations or reservations. There are examples in the OT narrative material of non-Israelite characters showing “godliness”. Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20), Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod 2:5–10), Zipporah (Exod 4:24–26), Balaam (Num 24:3–25) and the queen of Sabah (1 King 10:1–14) are all characters described as nonIsraelites who bring blessing to the people of God, or rescue them from danger or even God’s anger.120 These characters obey other gods and belong to other people and are certainly not proselytes. Still they serve as means for God’s blessing. Ruth may be placed among these non-Israelites. However, she is more central in Ruth than any of the other foreign characters are in the stories they belong. LaCoque points to how Ruth rather may be compared with OT characters becoming saviours for foreigners, though in the opposite way. Joseph in Egypt saves the Egyptians from famine; Jonah goes to Assyria and says his prophetic oracle to Nineveh: Esther, being the queen of Persia, accomplishes a work of salvation on behalf of the Persians and her own people.121 Ruth is also a saviour in a land which is foreign to her. This turns the picture of “foreign redemption” upside down. It is not Naomi who is supposed to save Ruth (Ruth 1:8–15), but Ruth who is the saviour of Naomi. 5.3.2.1 Houses Another marker which makes the “outsider” Ruth an “insider” is the term houses. Ruth is described as a mother of Israel’s tribe. The Israelite family 120 Cf. Moore, “Ruth the Moabite” (1998), for the study of Melchizedek, Balaam and the queen of Sabah. 121 Cf. LaCoque (1990) 32.

Chapter 5: Ruth

135

structure is normally divided into three levels of social organization: the tribe, the clan or family, and the household.122 The “house” naturally refers to this smallest social unit, meaning those living under the same roof,123 but it may also be “metaphoric for the pseudo-kinship structure the biblical writers have imposed on their understanding of the people of Israel.”124 In Ruth the term  occurs four times (Ruth 1:8, 9; 4:11x2). The first house is “mother’s house”: to your mother’s house. (Ruth 1:8)

 

“Mothers’ house” occurs rarely in the OT; in addition to Ruth, only in Gen 24:28, Cant 3:4 and 8:2. Usually the home is referred to as “father’s house” (Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13; Num 30:17; Deut 22:21; Judg 19:2–3), consisting of two or more nuclear families descending from the same ancestor.125 Leila Leah Bronner describes the texts about “mother’s house” as being “linked to love, wisdom, women’s agency and marriage.”126 Nielsen is more modest in her interpretation, claiming that “mother’s house” in Ruth corresponds to “mother-in-law’s house” which was the alternative for Orpah and Ruth.127 I will suggest “mother’s house” is a description of intimate motherhood. Gen 24 describes a close relationship between daughter and mother; the term is used of Rebekah’s mother who is hesitating about Rebekah’s leaving. Cant 3:4 and the LXX version of Cant 8:2 combine the term   with the phrase “into the chamber where she conceived me”, and thus connect sexual intimacy to motherhood. When using “mother’s house” in Ruth, the intertexts from Gen and Cant sets the scene. Naomi emphasizes to Orpah and Ruth where their place of intimacy and belonging is to be found. As with the story of Rebekah, the term used in Ruth probably points to the house where the girls grew up until they married. This was a Moabite house. The term “mother’s house” thus draws the line backwards and confirms that Ruth belongs to the Moabites.128 Still, Naomi presumes that Yahweh will care for Orpah and Ruth. May Yahweh grant that you will find refuge, each of you in a husband’s house. (Ruth 1:9)

122

  

 

 

See 2.7.1 Family Structures. See Bieritz and Kähler, “Haus” (1985) 479. 124 See Wilson, “The Family” (1985) 302. 125 Wilson, “The Family” (1985) 302. 126 Bronner, “The Invisible Relationship” (1999) 188. 127 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 46. 128 Cf. also Fischer, “A ‘Feminist’ Commentary to the Torah?” (1999) 25; Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 54; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 44–45. To the study of the related term “father’s house,” see Fontaine, “The Sage” (1990) 163. 123

136

Part I1: Character Analysis

With these words, Naomi brings an interesting perspective to the picture of the Moabites, as well as of Yahweh. According to Naomi, Yahweh is capable of protecting Moabites, or at least Orpah and Ruth may find Yahweh’s favour. Ruth, in a new husband’s Moabite house, will be far away from Naomi, her people and her god, but, according to Naomi, she may still be connected to Yahweh’s hesed (Ruth 1:8). Such an understanding offers a new reflection on God which is different from that connected to Elimelech (Ruth 1:2), where he left “God the king” when he left Israel.129 Naomi’s words in Ruth 1:9 indicate that God’s protection does not depend on geography after all, but on hesed. In chapters two and three, house is not a topic directly, but may be understood as laying behind the descriptions of Ruth finding security under the “wings” of Yahweh (Ruth 2:12) and Boaz (Ruth 3:9).130 In chapter four, the “house” is Boaz’ home. May Yahweh grant that this woman who is coming to your house. (Ruth 4:11)

 

    

From this point, the subject “house” grows to having much broader dimensions. The men in the city gate associate Boaz’ house with marriage, descendants, and a future. This is not just a general wish for a happy future; but directly linked to the house of Rachel and Leah, and further, to Tamar: like Rachel and Leah who together built the house of Israel. (Ruth 4:11) like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah. (Ruth 4:12)

      



 

The phrase “the house of Israel” places Ruth among the Matriarchs from the larger OT context, pointing at the line of succession from Jacob and his wives. It is not surprising that Rachel, Leah and Tamar are chosen as comparable women to Ruth. Each of them is mentioned in different occasions in this study already. Like Elimelech, Rachel is connected to the term Ephraim (Gen 35:19), like Ruth, Leah is one who is supposed to enter her night of marriage in silence (Gen 29:25), and, also like Ruth, Tamar is connected by levirate marriage and is a woman who takes care of her own future (Gen 38).131 The Genesis women became Matriarchs in rather unusual ways: Rachel and Leah by competing for the same man; Tamar, being a foreign widow, tricking her father-in-law. When comparing Ruth with Rachel, Leah and Tamar, it becomes clear that “Ruth belongs within 129

See 3.2 Elimelech. See 6.3.2 Boaz and Yahweh. 131 See 3.2.2.1 The Ephrathite; 4.3.4.3 Naomi’s Plan; 2.7.1.3 The Levirate Institution; 5.3.3 Ruth and Boaz. 130

Chapter 5: Ruth

137

an intertextuality of women’s stories that deal with infertility and the triumph over it,” quoting Nielsen.132 Similar to the Genesis women, Ruth is an unusual matriarch. Or it may be the opposite: Ruth is an ordinary matriarch, since OT matriarchs in general are unusual! It is difficult to claim any reason why the Israelite heroines seem to live beyond social expectations and even beyond the Pentateuchal law. Perhaps it is because the social structures, as well as the law, are primarily directed towards men,133 and there are no clear instructions on how to be a matriarch. Or maybe women have to be extraordinary to be mentioned within the Patriarchal narratives. From the mentioning of “the house of Perez” (Ruth 4:12) the narrator goes into detail and lists up the members of his house. Thus, the theme of houses is connected to the ancestor’s line in the genealogy of Perez. At the end of this line, a first, indirect indication of David’s house is given.134 This is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron, Hezron begot Ram, Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahson, Nahson begot Salmon, Salmon begot Boaz, Boaz begot Obed, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David. (Ruth 4:18–22)

      

 

   !

   

 



    

    

  

   

 

The name   is mentioned five times in the narrative, also pointing to houses (Ruth 1:1, 21x2, 22; 4:11). Ruth starts with a famine in “the House of Bread” (Ruth 1:1),135 but Bethlehem is also described as the place where Yahweh gives the people bread (Ruth 1:6). In this way the name Bethlehem connects “houses” to the fertile soil and food, which is a central theme in the plot. In every scene, from the reference to mother’s house (Ruth 1:8) to the building of David’s house (Ruth 4:18, 22), Ruth’s connection to houses may point towards an answer about the narrative’s plot: how to survive, and even find God’s hesed, when the soil and the people are infertile and life is threatened. Davies makes an intertextual reading between Ruth and Ps 127:1, and concludes: “If YHWH does not build a house, then its build132 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 12–13. This is a central theme by Nielsen. See also p. 16–17, 41–42. 133 Cf. Anderson, Women, Ideology and Violence (2004) 36–48, describing laws that apply exclusively to women. 134 See Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 60–61, on different suggestions to the significance of “David und sein Haus.” 135 Cf. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 42.

138

Part I1: Character Analysis

ers strive at it in vain.”136 Such a reading makes Ruth a national story in which Yahweh is the discreet but proper builder. Quite surprisingly, however, is that Ruth the Moabite is the one who acts on behalf of Yahweh. 5.3.3 Ruth and Boaz In chapters one and four, the main characters are respectively Naomi and Boaz. In chapters two and three, the focus lies on the interaction between Ruth and Boaz, encircled by discourses of Ruth and Naomi. The compositions of chapters two and three have much of the same structure. Both chapters start with a woman taking the initiative with an action (Ruth 2:2; 3:1–4), and both actions are directed towards Boaz. Chapter two lasts one day, chapter three one night, and both sequences end with Ruth’s bringing food home to Naomi (Ruth 2:18; 3:17). In both chapters Boaz praises Ruth for her good deeds (Ruth 2:11; 3:10) and the wordplay of Ruth getting refuge under someone’s  (Ruth 2:12) is repeated in Ruth 3:9. In both chapters, Ruth acts according to the laws of the Pentateuch (Lev 19:9–10; Deut 24:19; 25:5–6).137 5.3.3.1 At the Harvest Field Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi: Let me go to the field and glean among the ears behind someone in whose eyes I will find favour. (Ruth 2:2)

           

  

Chapter two describes Ruth as a thoroughly good character. She demonstrates care for her mother-in-law (Ruth 2:2, 18), she follows the law as she goes behind the other gleaners (Ruth 2:3), and Boaz’ servant describes her as a hard-working young girl (Ruth 2:7). She is also brave. Due to Naomi’s resigned behaviour, Ruth is forced to take the risk and go to the field to one she does not know, on her own, and this despite her foreignhood. Going alone to a stranger’s field could be dangerous, especially for a woman (Ruth 2:8–9, 15, 22).138 In this chapter, Ruth’s relation to Boaz is elaborated. I have already discussed Ruth’s discourse with Boaz, focusing on her namings (Ruth 2:9, 13). Here, I will point to a gesture made by Ruth towards Boaz.

136

Davis and Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? (2003) 110. For detailed structures of the chapters in Ruth, see Green, Field and Seed Symbolism (1980) 34–44; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 1–2. 138 Cf. Carasik, “Why the Overseer was Embarrassed” (1995), and the discussion in 5.3. Naomi’s Modest Answer. 137

Chapter 5: Ruth She fell down on her face and bowed to the ground. (Ruth 2:10)

139

    

This is similar to what Abigail does before David. She fell before David on her face and bowed to the ground. (1 Sam 25:23)

     

The consequence of Abigail’s action is that David praises her (1 Sam 25:32–34), and, as soon as Nabal is dead, he marries her (1 Sam 25:39– 42). Similar events happen to Ruth (Ruth 2:11–12; 4:13).139 Abigail is described as smart and beautiful (1 Sam 25:3), and is, according to Berlin, the prototype of the worthy woman protecting her husband, even if he is a fool.140 The descriptions of Ruth as the good daughter-in-law and submissive young girl on Boaz’ field make the comparison with Abigail easy. Ruth is the same kind of woman as Abigail, and Abigail’s qualities of cleverness and beauty are transferred to Ruth. 5.3.3.2 At the Threshing Floor In chapter two Ruth is brave; in chapter three she is daring as well. Dressed as a bride, or perhaps a prostitute, she goes to Boaz in the night. The strategy is apparently similar to those we find behind the actions of Lot’s daughters (Gen 19:32–35), Leah (Gen 29:23) and Tamar (Gen 38:14–15). Like Lot’s daughters, she must wait until the man gets drunk; like Leah, she must not speak;141 and like Tamar, she must make herself unrecognizable. The man shall not know the identity of the woman. Nonetheless, Ruth does not follow Naomi’s instruction. She identifies herself, and she makes a proposal. I am Ruth, your handmaid. Spread your wing over your handmaid, For you are a redeemer (Ruth 3:9)

    



A woman proposing is unique in the OT literature. The narratives of Lot’s daughters and Tamar are those coming closest to such an action. They arrange their opportunity for gaining heirs, though marriage is not a topic in any of these stories.142 By calling Boaz a redeemer, Ruth converts Naomi’s plans and directs Boaz by steering the situation into a public, binding arrangement. Nielsen makes a major point of Ruth’s public ac-

139

Cf. Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 61. See Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 30–31. 141 See my suggestion about Laban’s strategy in 4.3.4.3 Naomi’s Plan. 142 Cf. the structural analysis of the Lot-, Judah and Boaz-stories in Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure” (1982). Cf. also Phillips, “Deception and Shame” (1986). 140

140

Part I1: Character Analysis

tions. Ruth is a “better version of Tamar,” she claims, “she wants marriage.”143 Despite Ruth’s rather direct proposal, her request to Boaz is not quite clear. This is due to the term . In the MT, the consonant of the term is a singular form,144 while the vocalization is dual/plural. Some scholars claim that the singular form is correct, and should be translated “corner of your garment”, referring to Deut 23:1; 27:20; Ezek 16:8, implicating sexual connotations.145 When understood as a plural form, however, it should be translated “wings”, and accordingly refers to Ruth 2:12, where Boaz wishes that Ruth will find refuge under Yahweh’s wings. I follow Campbell, who translates the term with a singular “wing”.146 Thus, he follows the consonant MT text, and at the same time holds the interpretation open with the use of the metaphor alluding to both protection and embrace.147 Ruth needs both protection and offspring, and to find this she offers herself to Boaz, and, at the same time, appeals to his former announced wish that Ruth will find refuge. The rest of the threshing floor scene depends on Boaz, and will be commented upon in the analysis of his character. 5.3.4 Motherhood And she bore a son. (Ruth 4:13)

 

Ruth gives birth to a son and becomes a mother. This brings her into companionship with other OT mothers, which is a well known subject in the Old Testament, being the woman’s most dominant role. “Motherhood was expected and honoured, reflecting social need (Judg 21:16–17) and divine sanction (Gen 1:28). … Rooted in the economic needs of subsistence agriculture and social need of perpetuation of the lineage, the demand of childbearing was rewarded with security and prestige (Deut 5:16; 27:16). As a consequence, women identified children with status (Gen 30:20; 1 Sam 1:2–8).”148

However, motherhood is also a complex subject. Childlessness is a recurrent theme (Gen 16:1; 18:11–15; 19:30–38; 25:21; 30:1; 38; Judg 3:3; 1 143

Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 16–17. Cf. also LXX and S. 145 See this or similar translations in Gerleman, Rut (1965) 29; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 207, 212; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 81; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 164; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 73; Block, Ruth (1999) 688; Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 141; Fischer, Rut (2001) 204; Matthews, Ruth (2004) 231. 146 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 115, 123; Cf also Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (1973) 184. 147 Cf. Korpel, Structure (2001) 146, stressing that the metaphorical term should be used. 148 Bird, Missing Persons (1997) 58. 144

Chapter 5: Ruth

141

Sam 1:2; 2 King 4:14), so are the narratives about women competing about having children (Gen 16:4; 29:31–30:24; 1 Sam 1:2–6; 2:5). Mothers make their favourite sons ancestors (Gen 27:5–17; 1 Kgs 1:11), they are in deep sorrow because of their children (1 Kgs 17:17–20; 2 Kgs 4:27–28; Jer 31:15), they cry in labour (Gen 3:16) and they die in labour (Gen 30:1; 35:16).149 Many narratives about women becoming mothers are first and foremost birth-stories of specific Israelite heroes (Gen 21:1–7; 25:21–26; 30:22–24; Exod 1–2; Judg 13:2–25; 1 Sam 1; 2 Sam 12:24–25). So is the motherhood of Ruth. The narrator connects the birth of Obed directly to the genealogy, pointing at David. Thus the motherhood of Ruth is not only linked to Obed, but also to David, whose mother never is mentioned in the OT narratives.150 Being an Israelite mother definitely connects Ruth to status, honour and God’s blessing.

5.4 Summary A study of Ruth reveals different aspects of the character; her identity is unclear, and, at the same time, it is important. It is unclear in the way that the name is difficult to interpret, and her namings and self-presentations bring quite different sorts of characteristics. On the other hand, the narrative stresses the importance of her identity by having Ruth as a main character and heroine, asking three times for her identity, and letting different characters in the narrative represent different attitudes towards Ruth. In the centre of the questions about Ruth’s identity is the problem of her foreign status. Throughout the narrative it is stressed that Ruth is a Moabite. The narrator overstates this, constantly repeating him/herself, Naomi ignores Ruth (Ruth 1:21), Boaz’ servant focuses on “Moabite” as being Ruth’s specific trait (Ruth 2:6), Boaz uses Ruth’s foreign identity to keep Mr So-and-so away (Ruth 4:4, 10) and Ruth herself questions Boaz’ goodwill to a foreigner (Ruth 2:10). At the same time, Ruth is the one who brings hesed to Naomi and the dead (Ruth 1:8), knows the law (Ruth 2:2) and is compared with Israel’s matriarchs (Ruth 4:11). Through some risky and partly dangerous actions she rescues Naomi and becomes an ancestress. The relationship with Tamar, Rahab and Bathsebah (Matt 1) strengthens this impression. Deeds such as bravery, cleverness and compassion are significant for these women, this despite their difficult situations and social status. 149

See 7.3.4 Yahweh, the Conceiver, about the ambiguity connected to labour and

birth. 150

See 2.8.2 Family and Birth Narratives.

142

Part I1: Character Analysis

For a Moabite to be a model of hesed in Israel is quite extraordinary. It puts her in the group of OT characters who become saviours for foreigners, though in the opposite way. This trait of Ruth leads to a question concerning God. Can God use a foreigner, even a Moabite, to do hesed between Israelites? Ruth is no proselyte. Yet still she is the one who rescues, and becomes the great grand-mother of David in the end. It is hard to decide about Ruth’s character type. The changes of namings from daughter-in-law to daughter, foreigner to handmaid, late man’s wife to wife and mother make her a full-fledged character. At the same time, Ruth’s behaviour is the same throughout the narrative. She does hesed already in Moab; she is brave when she goes with Naomi to Bethlehem and she is brave when she wakes up Boaz at night; she is by Naomi’s side when the women ask “is this Naomi”, and also when they shout “a son is born to Naomi!” I find that it is primarily the other characters that change their minds about Ruth, while Ruth remains the same. I therefore clearly see traits of the type within the full-fledged character of Ruth. Ruth’s saving Naomi is the story of a Moabite saving an Israelite, or an underdog saving the hero. Quite slowly, Naomi understands the qualities of Ruth the Moabite. Being saved is not very easy when it comes from someone least expected. Fewell and Gunn describe this uncomfortable pleasure very pointedly, saying: “Oh, how we hate to be saved by Samaritans!”151

151

Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 107.

Chapter 6

Boaz Boaz is the third main character in Ruth. When he acts, the female characters move back. He is the rich and worthy landowner of Elimelech’s clan (Ruth 2:1–3), he brings food to Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 2:8–16; 3:15), and he solves the problem of childlessness (Ruth 3:10–15; 4:1–13). Naomi describes Boaz as a redeemer and wishes God’s blessing on him (Ruth 2:20). In this speech it is difficult to deduce from the syntax whether it is Boaz or God who is praised by Naomi as the one “who has not forsaken his loyalty from the living nor the dead.” We may ask how this ambiguity influences the understanding of Boaz’ role in comparison to God’s, and vice versa. Not only his actions, but also his name, lead Boaz towards the associations with God’s presence. The left pillar of Solomon’s temple is also named Boaz. This leads to an intertextual reading between Boaz the man and Boaz the pillar. The name is also mentioned in the Ruth genealogy, which is basically the same genealogy as that in 1 Chron 2:11–12. This makes a connection between Ruth and the Chronicles which places Ruth within the larger story of the Old Testament. What character type is Boaz? He is far from being as complex as Naomi, but still I find in him a full-fledged character. His qualities and traits are generally good; he is strong (Ruth 2:1), kind (Ruth 2:4–16), merry (Ruth 3:7), and his actions towards Ruth are proper and gentle (Ruth 3:8–15), however, he might also be a trickster (Ruth 4:1–10).1 As redeemer Boaz brings the solution to the narrative (Ruth 4:13–16), partly acting on behalf of God. It is relevant to ask whether Boaz is a link to God’s presence in the story (Ruth 2:4, 12; 3:10; 4:11–12, 14).

1

See Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters (2000) xv.

144

Part I1: Character Analysis

6.1 The name  6.1.1 Meaning His name was Boaz. (2:1)

  

Boaz is one of the few personal names in Ruth which also occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament.2 The genealogy of 1 Chron 2:11–12 refers to the same character as in Ruth. In 1 Kgs 7:21 and 2 Chron 3:17, however, the name refers to the left pillar in the royal temple of Solomon. The root does not occur elsewhere in the MT and consequently the name has no clear etymology. Noth associates the name with divine characteristics, comparing it to the Arabic barzun, and translates it “von scharfem Geiste”.3 Rudolph also refers to Arabic etymology, and suggests “munter” or “lebhaft”.4 S.L. Sherman and John Briggs Curtis suggest “the potent one”,5 while Campbell and Sasson mainly point to the meaning “in strength” or “in the strength of”,6 referring to the temple pillar. 6.1.1.1 The Temple Pillar In 1 Kgs 7:21 and 2 Chron 3:17, the pillars of Solomon’s temple bear the inscriptions “Jachin” and “Boaz”. R.B.Y. Scott finds the interpretations describing ceremonies “in which the king plays a central part” to be the most relevant.7 He suggests that the name Jachin, the pillar on the south side of the temple, should be derived from the verb  “to establish”, which leads to the inscription: “He will establish [yakin] the throne of David forever.”8 The name Boaz on the north pillar is more difficult to decide. Scott argues that the inscription resembles the language of Ps 21:2, 2

As earlier demonstrated, Obed’s name is listed in the genealogy, the name Elimelech might be compared with Abimelech (Gen 20), and Ruth’s name is to be found in Matt1:5. 3 Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928) 228. 4 Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 48. 5 Shearman and Curtis, “Divine-human Conflicts” (1969) 150. 6 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 90–91; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 41. 7 Scott, “The Pillars” (1939) 145–46. He compares the names with inscriptions of other Canaanite and Assyrian temple pillars, and connects them to biblical references describing the pillars as the place where the king used to present himself (2 Kgs 11:12– 14; 23:1–3). He also draws a line to Otto Eissfeld’s “Thronbesteigung eines Königs ihn der Adoption durch Gott versicherten,” see Eissfeld, Einleitung (1956) 121, where he refers to dynastic inscriptions from Gudea, see Scott, “Jachin and Boaz” (1962) 781, and he uses terminology from other OT oracles (2 Sam 7:12–13.16; 1 Kgs 2:24; Ps 89:3–4; Isa 9:6; etc). 8 Scott, “Jachin and Boaz” (1962) 781. In an earlier article, Scott, “The Pillars” (1939) 148, he argues that Jachin might be derived from Yahweh.

Chapter 6: Boaz

145

or alternatively Ps 74:13, focusing on the strength of Yahweh. He therefore suggests a translation such as “In the strength of [boz]9 of Yahweh shall the king rejoice.”10 In LXX, the name of the left temple pillar referred to in 1 Kgs 7:7 (corresponds with 1 Kgs 7:21 in MT) is . In 2 Chron 3:17, however, the pillar is named  , “strength”. Accordingly, LXX has made a translation of the name in 2 Chron, giving it the same sense as Scott did through his research. Even if Scott represents a period within the research history in which optimistic trust in the reconstruction of ancient and lost material was strong, I find his arguments interesting, and hold on to “strength” as a fitting meaning of Boaz. 6.1.1.2 The Significance of Boaz’ Name Returning from the temple pillar named Boaz and back to Boaz in Ruth, the meaning of the name is significant for the character. There are at least two ways of understanding the meaning “strength” for the character Boaz. One way is the literary. “Strength” signifies that Boaz is strong, an impression which is confirmed by the namings presented together with the name (Ruth 2:1), through the way he interacts with his servants (Ruth 2:4–7, 15– 16), and through his position among the men in the city gate (Ruth 4:1– 12). A second way of interpreting the name is inspired by Bal. She reads the name ironically. Her interpretation of the name Boaz is “powerful/ potent”, but “Boaz the powerful/ potent is, in fact, Boaz the sleeper, the weak, the impotent.”11 On the one hand Boaz is described as the rich, mighty, righteous man whose name is “strength”, although on the other hand he is the old, childless man, who has fallen asleep when Ruth comes to seduce him.12 Because the way Boaz praises Ruth for preferring him over the young men (Ruth 3:10) and is willing to do all that she asks (Ruth 3:11), it seems that Boaz needs Ruth, and not only that Ruth needs Boaz. There is no doubt that Boaz is the “powerful” when he goes to the city gate to prepare the legal marriage. He is the man acting between men. In the relationship between Boaz and Ruth, however, Ruth is the one taking initiative. Boaz’ actions and gifts to Ruth (Ruth 2:14; 3:11–13, 15) are all responses to Ruth’s approaches towards him. The interpretation “strength” for Boaz 9

Scott’s edition. Scott, “Jachin and Boaz” (1962) 781. Cf. Scott, “The Pillars” (1939) 149. Cf. also Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (1956) 139. 11 Bal, Lethal Love (1987) 75. 12 According to Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 75, Boaz was 80 years of age, and Ginzberg, The Legends of the Bible (2001) 519, claims he died the night after the wedding. 10

146

Part I1: Character Analysis

is therefore an ambiguous title for the character, pointing to his problem: behind his might and good reputation he is an elderly man with no heirs. 6.1.2 Occurrences 6.1.2.1 Two Introductions The introduction of Boaz is made thoroughly in Ruth, being introduced once by the narrator to the reader and once by Ruth to Naomi:   

His name was Boaz. (Ruth 2:1)

      

She said: The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz. (Ruth 2:19)

In contrast, Ruth is presented to Boaz without any personal name; only her namings are mentioned (Ruth 2:6). The presentation of Boaz’ “rival” is even more limited, not being named at all (Ruth 4:1).13 The name is mentioned 20 times in the narrative. Considering he is not introduced before chapter two, this is a rather high number of occurrences.14 Thus, the name is a significant description of Boaz’ character, underlining Boaz’ central place in the narrative. 6.1.2.2 The Seventh Name of the Genealogy Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed. (Ruth 4:21)

 

 

  

Boaz is also to be found in the genealogy. As the only main character mentioned there, this makes Boaz the main link between the narrative and the genealogy of Ruth, as well as between the story of Ruth and the larger story of the Old Testament. Earlier I have argued that the genealogy of Ruth is older than its narrative, which means that the story probably has its origin in the names of the genealogy. 15 From a narrative point of view, however, the genealogy needs to be read as “a genealogical appendix”,16 an epilogue telling what happened after the story closed, which also includes the narrative of the larger biblical story.17 13

See 3.5 Peloni Almoni. As a comparison, Naomi’s name is mentioned 22 times and Rut’s 12 times. 15 See the discussion in 2.6 Dating, where my main arguments are those from Nielsen, “Stamtavle og Fortælling” (1994) 81–93, and Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 21–29. 16 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 170. 17 Ruth included in the larger OT story, may be seen from at least two perspectives. Drawing the line backwards, Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure” (1982) 427, 433, reads the narrative as a Heilsgeschichte in miniature, referring to how the conflict between Abraham and Lot is restored by Boaz and Ruth, as descendants of Perez and Moab. Looking 14

147

Chapter 6: Boaz

Boaz’ place in the genealogy, as the number seven in the list of David’s ancestors, is worth a commentary. Nielsen stresses that Boaz’ place in the genealogy is hardly a coincidence, but rather the reason why the genealogy starts with Perez and not Judah.18 The seventh and the tenth names are the most significant in a genealogy. In the genealogy of Ruth, these places belong to Boaz and David. This makes Boaz especially important in the Perez line, and comparable with David. David has no role in Ruth apart from being named twice in the text (Ruth 4:18, 22), and a comparison between Boaz and David must be based on the more general David tradition. As the name Elimelech refers to the divine king, and since the plot in the narrative concerns blessings and expectations of a new child, the Messianic dimension of David is strong in Ruth. Relating Boaz to this dimension, Boaz becomes a part in Yahweh’s design for David’s sacred way to the throne. Such a reading lifts the whole Ruth narrative into the context of Yahweh’s plan, and confirms Yahweh’s active presence in the story.

6.2 Naming Boaz 6.2.1 An Acquaintance of Might and Honour The interaction between the name and the namings of Boaz are quite obvious, as the first presentation of his name is followed by clear characteristics. The presentation of Boaz is made through a parallelism, bringing out several of the man’s characteristics. Naomi had an acquaintance of her husband’s, a man of might and honour of Elimelech’s clan. (Ruth 2:1)

     

6.2.1.1 Acquaintance or Relative of Her Husband’s? The MT presents both a ketib and a qere version of the term , indicating different translations of the text. MT’s ketib version  means friend, while the qere   means relative.19 The term is well attested (2 Kgs

forwards, the genealogical line from Ruth is continued in the genealogy of “the son of David” in Matt1, as another Heilsgeschichte in which both Boaz and Ruth are represented. See Campbell, Ruth (1975) 173; 5.1.3 The Name Ruth outside the Narrative. 18 Nielsen, “Stamtavle og Fortælling” (1994) 81–93. See also Sasson, “Generation, Seventh” (1962); 2.6.2 The Genealogy; 5.2.2.2 Who is More to You Than Seven Sons. 19 See HALOT 550, 555.

148

Part I1: Character Analysis

10:11; Ps 31:12; 55:14; 88:9, 19; Job 19:14);   occurs in Prov 7:4 in addition to our text. In Ruth 3:2 a similar term   is used. Scholars solve this text-critical problem differently. Campbell adopts the ketib version and translates “Naomi had a ‘covenant-brother’ through her husband,”20 which he claims is a translation similar to “close friend”. Sasson follows Campbell’s argument that  is well attested elsewhere, and he also stresses that the qere form’s only parallel is “highly poetic, if not artificial, language [which] does not allow for precise rendering.”21 He therefore uses the ketib  and translates Ruth 2:1 as “an acquaintance of her husband”.22 Hubbard also follows the ketib , arguing that “since it would be redundant for myd to indicate kinship, I prefer the rendering friend.”23 Marjo C.A. Korpel, on the other hand, claims that Campbell’s translation is too closely related to “redeemer”, and therefore “rob[s] the narrative of its clue.”24 She sees a parallel between Ruth 2:1 and Ruth 3:2a, and reads the qere term  . 25 A third explanation is given by Zakovitch. He mixes the interpretations of the qere and ketib reading, and claims that the meaning of the term in Ruth 2:1 is meant to be unclear until the sentence    “aus der Sippe Elimelechs” occurs in the following sentence. “Erst hier wird mitgeteilt, daß der   (‘Bekannte’) ein Verwandter ist; er ist daher dafür prädestiniert, den Besitz Noomis zu lösen, wie aus der Fortsetzung deutlich wird.”26 In his translation of the text he chooses to use “Verwandten”.27 I believe it is useful to link the translation to the issue of kinship.28 Still, I choose the ketib version and read  as a derivation of the verb  “an acquaintance to her husband’s”. This stresses the fact that Naomi knows about Boaz, but it does not tell how she knows him. In the next sentence it is specified that Boaz and Elimelech belong to the same clan. A clan, however, does not need to indicate a very close relationship.29 Following Zakovitch, I emphasize the idea that the relationship between Naomi and Boaz is unclear. This relationship actually turns out to be an important issue in the narrative, since the question of Boaz’ being redeemer turns out 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Campbell, Ruth (1975) 85. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 39. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 39. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 132–33. Korpel, Structure (2001) 91. Korpel, Structure (2001) 98. Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 108. Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 106. Cf. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 53–54; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 100, for such a read-

ing. 29

See the description of the clan in 2.7.1 Family Structures.

Chapter 6: Boaz

149

to be more complicated than Naomi describes to Ruth (Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12). Naming Boaz “acquaintance” fits with the idea, as it tones down the family bonds, although it maintains the impression that Naomi knows Boaz. 6.2.1.2 A Man of Might and Honour The next part of the parallelism in Ruth 2:1 has no text-critical challenges. Still there are different possible translations of    .  , which may be translated as “vigorous”, “mighty”, “influential” or “powerful”, while  may indicate “strong”, “wealthy”, “brave”, as in Ruth 3:11, or “of upper class”.30 de Waard and Nida translate the Hebrew text as “a mighty man of valour”; however, they also read “a rich and influential man”.31 Zakovitch describes the term  with military connotations, as in 1 Sam 16:18; 2 Kgs 5:1, though he also suggests “vermögenden Mann”, according to 2 Kgs 16:20; 24:14.32 Nielsen reads “a wealthy man”,33 which is close to the NRSV’s “a prominent rich man”. Sasson sees some different implications, claiming that the characteristic asserts that Boaz “is not an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Israelite, but a man of substance,”34 and translates the sentence “a property holder”.35 The narrative confirms that Boaz is a rich man, being a landowner with his own servants (Ruth 2), that he is a righteous man of high morals, bringing Yahweh’s blessing to his people and to Ruth (Ruth 2:4, 12) and that he gains respect among other people (Ruth 4:11–12). I therefore find it appropriate to read      as a description of Boaz as a man with both economic and social strength, which gives Boaz a high status. Fewell and Gunn emphasize this status of Boaz, calling him a “pillar of society”.36 Although this is a brilliant interpretation, I see the need for a more literal translation, and choose “a man of might and honour”. 6.2.2 Boaz, the Redeemer The fact that Boaz is a relative of Elimelech, and accordingly also of Naomi and Ruth, is described several times in the narrative. He is called  “near” (Ruth 2:20; 3:12);  “relative” (Ruth 3:2); he is connected to Elimelech’s clan (Ruth 2:1, 4; 4:3); and he is called  “redeemer” 30

HALOT 172, 311. de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 24. 32 Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 108. 33 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 53. 34 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 40. 35 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 38. Cf. also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 85, writing “a man of substance”; and Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 98, “a man of substance and standing.” 36 Fewell and Gunn, “Boaz, Pillar of Society” (1989) 54. 31

150

Part I1: Character Analysis

(Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:14).37  is a rather rare term, with references to specific legal fields, such as redemption of property (Lev 25:25, 26) and laws for blood vengeance (Num 35:12, 19, 24; Deut 19:12; Josh 20:3, 5, 9; 2 Sam 14:11), in addition to levirate marriage.38 It is the latter use which is interesting in Ruth. Several studies have been made on Ruth and levirate marriage.39 I do not intend to have any broad discussion about this topic, but want to concentrate only on Boaz. The narrative clearly connects with the law of levirate marriage, similar to the one described in Deut 25:5–10. The detail with the shoe (Deut 25:9; Ruth 4:7) is a good example of such a similarity, as also the many similarities between the stories of Ruth and Tamar also allude to a common law. When we look more closely at Deut 25, however, the levirate law does not concern Boaz directly. According to Deut 25, the law addresses the brother of the dead husband; it is even presupposed that they “resided together” (Deut 25:5). Accordingly, as a relative but not a brother, neither of Elimelech nor Mahlon, Boaz has no legal obligations towards Naomi or Ruth. One could suggest that the levirate praxis had changed between the time Genesis 38 and the law of Deut 25 had been written and the time of Ruth, and now included all male relatives of the late husband. Looking to the New Testament, however, Matt 22:24 refers to a praxis close to that in Deut 25. This makes a suggested development of the law difficult. The divergence between the text of the law and the story of Ruth rather illustrates an approximate use of the law. This is probably also the reason why Boaz is able to argue with “Mr So-and-so”. In the following I will demonstrate how Naomi (Ruth 2:20), Ruth (Ruth 3:9) and Boaz (Ruth 3:12) refer to  quite differently.

37 It is uncertain whether it is Boaz, Obed or Yahweh who is referred to in 4:14. See the discussion below. 38 Outside the laws  is also used on God as redeemer. See 6.2.2.4 Naomi’s Redeemer in the End. 39 See Stamples, “Notes on Ruth 3:20 and 3:12” (1937) 62–65; Meek, “Translating the Hebrew Bible” (1960) 332–34; Epstein, Marriage Laws (1968) 115; Thompson, “Legal Problems” (1968) 79–99; Beattie, “Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice” (1974) 251–59; Gordis, “Love, Marriage and Business” (1974) 241–64; Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974); Beattie, “Ruth III” (1978) 39–48; Beattie, “Redemption in Ruth, and Related Matters” (1978a) 65–68; Sasson, “Guellah in Ruth” (1978) 52–64; Sasson, “Ruth III: A Response” (1978) 49–51; Hubbard, “The Goel in Ancient Israel” (1991) 3–19; Matthews, Ruth (2004) 235; and others.

Chapter 6: Boaz

151

6.2.2.1 Among Our Redeemers The man is near to us. He is among our redeemers. (Ruth 2:20)

    

 

The term  (among our redeemers) brings a new text-critical challenge. The consonants indicate a singular form, while the MT vocalization has made it a plural, bringing a possible ketib or qere reading of . The singular form is, according to Theophile J. Meek, “undoubtedly” the original.40 The problem is that the prefix , implicating “from” or “among”, presupposes a plural or at least a collective singular. It is possible to understand the form as defectively written, which makes the whole term a plural.41 Since the MT does not raise any problem with the term, it might be reasonable to suggest that the Masoretes understood it defectively and accordingly saw no problem in combining it with plural vocalizations. LXX and some minor manuscripts also understand the term as a plural, probably based on the understanding of the term as a defective plural, or a collective singular. Such a reading makes the preposition  understandable. I therefore follow MT’s version of this term. And still there is a problem. How can “redeemer” be a plural term when there exists only one who is the nearest of kin?42 Some scholars, such as de Waard and Nida, solve the problem by translating the term “one of those responsible for taking care of us.”43 Meek translates the term “next after our next-of-kin”,44 while Leggett claims that Naomi “shows an error in her understanding of the levirate custom” 45 through her speech in Ruth 1:11– 13, and that this lack of understanding is demonstrated in Ruth 2:20 again when she uses the plural “redeemers”. Sasson, on the other hand, defends the use of “redeemers” in plural, claiming that “[w]hile it may very well be that, ultimately, no more than a single individual ends up redeeming a stricken family, it does not follow that the pool of potential redeemers was restricted at the outset to one person.”46 40

Meek, “Translating the Hebrew Bible” (1960) 333; Cf. also Stamples, “Notes on Ruth 3:20 and 3:12” (1937) 63; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 106. 41 See Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 51; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 61; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 131. 42 Cf. Stamples, “Notes on Ruth 3:20 and 3:12” (1937) 63. 43 de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 4–43. A similar translation is made by Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 130. 44 Meek, “Translating the Hebrew Bible” (1960) 333, at the same time he criticizes those who solve the problem by translating “relatives” instead of “redeemers,” claiming that the brilliant author of Ruth could never have written: “The man is a relative of ours; he is one of our relatives.” 45 Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974) 173. 46 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 61.

152

Part I1: Character Analysis

I find Sasson’s argument plausible. I also find Leggett’s understanding of Naomi as one who misunderstands the law to be interesting. Unlike Leggett, however, I would suggest that Naomi’s inaccurate reference to the law is made on purpose. Naomi’s use of the law in Ruth 1:11–13 must be understood ironically rather than literally, as a commentary on her miserable situation in which all the men are dead. When she uses the law imprecisely in Ruth 2:20 again, she opens up the levirate law to include the more distant relative Boaz. Such a reading of Naomi is similar to Berlin’s, who points out how Naomi calls Boaz redeemer in the first place (Ruth 2:20), but when it comes to action, she moderates herself and calls him relative (Ruth 3:1). It is only in speaking to Ruth that she calls Boaz redeemer; she never confronts Boaz with this role.47 It is not difficult to understand that Naomi is tempted to think of Boaz as a redeemer, even if she knows that he is not the proper one. Using the plural phrase “among our redeemers” she covers her wish with an inaccurate expression, at the same time as she carefully suggests the possibility of Boaz’ being a redeemer. 6.2.2.2 You Are a Redeemer For you are a redeemer. (Ruth 3:9)



Ruth also calls Boaz redeemer. In Ruth 3:9 the term is changed from the plural to the singular form. The message is clear: Ruth understands Boaz as her proper redeemer, and the natural consequence should be marriage. Because of the OT family structure,48 it should be quite clear whether or not Naomi had a redeemer in Bethlehem. As I have already argued, Naomi is apparently aware that Boaz is not a proper redeemer; it seems that the women of Bethlehem (Ruth 1:19) and Boaz’ chief servant (Ruth 2:6) also know that Naomi has no male relatives. Ruth, on the other hand, does not necessarily know the whole in-law-family; she might be the only person in Bethlehem who does not know the situation. This ignorance might explain why Ruth speaks so clearly about redemption to Boaz (Ruth 3:9), while Naomi’s advice was only that she should wait for Boaz to decide “what to do” (Ruth 3:5).49

47 48 49

stood.

See Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 90. See 2.7.1 Family Structures. Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 90, claiming that Ruth has misunder-

Chapter 6: Boaz

153

6.2.2.3 I Am No Redeemer Now, to be true, I am no redeemer. (Ruth 3:12)

  

Again, some text-critical considerations are decisive for the translation. Many scholars agree that this sentence is too full of introductory particles. They find the reason for this in a dittography in , and follow the MT’s ketib suggestion of omitting the term .50 So does LXX. Thus the negation in the sentence is left out, and the translation might be similar to the one made by Bush: “Now, truly I am a redeemer.”51 At least two scholars argue differently. Based on the statement that there can be only one redeemer, W.E. Stamples and Meek read the term  as a negative particle, which excludes Boaz from his role as redeemer. Thus Stamples translates: “But now, as a matter of fact, I am really not (your) goel, but you do have a goel, one who is more closely related (to you) than I.”52 Even if I read the term  in Ruth 2:20 differently from Stamples and Meek, as shown above, I find that their translation of Boaz’ words as a denial of his role as proper redeemer to cohere with Naomi’s unclear use of the term. I therefore hold on to the qere MT version of the text, reading every particle of the sentence. With this text-critical choice, Boaz’ role as redeemer gains a quite new perspective. Whereas Naomi has talked about Boaz as one of several possible redeemers, bending the law to fit her own situation (Ruth 2:20), and Ruth, in her ignorance, speaks to Boaz as if he were the proper redeemer (Ruth 3:9), Boaz refuses to be a redeemer at all but refers to another relative (Ruth 3:12). The fact is that Boaz has no obligations towards Ruth, nor does he actually have the opportunity to redeem her. That Boaz is named redeemer at all must be understood as bestowing a favourable title on Boaz. He is not obliged to redeem, and still the two widows put their trust in him. The question in the following is this: Why does Boaz respond positively to the invitation to redeem Ruth when he is not obliged to? Is it because of profit, is it because of high moral principles, or does Boaz have an agenda of his own?

50

See Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 55; Gerleman, Rut (1965) 30; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 125; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 208; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 71; Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 144. 51 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 174. 52 Stamples, “Notes on Ruth 3:20 and 3:12” (1937) 64; See also Meek, “Translating the Hebrew Bible” (1960) 334.

154

Part I1: Character Analysis

6.2.2.4 Naomi’s Redeemer in the End Blessed be Yahweh, who did not leave a goel for you today. May his name be proclaimed in Israel. He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nurse in your old age. (Ruth 4:14–15)

 

            

There is a fourth use of the term  in Ruth. The pronouncement of the redeemer in Ruth 4:14–15 is not quite clear, since the subject of the sentence is not named. It could be natural to think of Boaz, since he is the one named redeemer so far. It could also be Yahweh, whose name is mentioned in the same verse, and who is named a redeemer elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job 19:25; Ps 19:15; 78:35; Isa 41:14; 43:14; 44:6, 24; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7, 26; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 63:16; Jer 50:34). I still believe Obed, the newborn child, to be the one referred to in Ruth 4:14–15. Such a reading fits well with the context. In Ruth 4:13, he is born. In the following verse, Ruth 4:16, the women proclaim: “A son is born to Naomi” and give the boy the name Obed which means “servant”.53 However, the fact that the syntax is unclear, and that Boaz’, Obed’s, and Yahweh’s roles might all be plausible suggestions, makes the role of the redeemer complex. The praises made by the women in Bethlehem are directed towards Obed. However, he is only an infant and Naomi is already an elderly woman. Theologically, Yahweh may be understood as the redeemer, but it all depends on Boaz’ actions.

6.3 Boaz’ Actions From the moment Boaz enters the narrative his role as a main character rapidly develops. In chapter two he is introduced for the first time (Ruth 2:1), and is present through some dialogues. In chapter three he shares the scene together with Ruth, and in chapter four he is in charge of the plot. When compared with the OT narratives in general, it is not surprising that Boaz takes the main role as soon as he enters the scene. What is rare in Ruth is that Boaz’ role is held back in preference of two women in the first chapters.54 Boaz’ actions may be concentrated on two main fields: he is the one bringing God’s blessing into the narrative (Ruth 2:4, 12; 3:10), and he is the redeemer (Ruth 3:13; 4:1–13). As I have already started the discussion 53

See 3.6 Obed. Cf. Berquist, “Role Dedifferentiation” (1993) 25–36, describing how the crises in Ruth forces a “dedifferentiation” of the traditional gender distinctions. 54

Chapter 6: Boaz

155

on Boaz’ role as redeemer, I continue this latter topic concerning Boaz and Ruth. 6.3.1 The Redemtion of Ruth by Boaz The redemption of Ruth is described through two different scenes in the narrative, happening at two different places on two different times of the day. The first event is going on secretly at night, where it is important that nobody notice what is happening, even the reader gets only limited information (Ruth 3:6–15). The second scene happens in daylight, at the most public place in town, the city gate, and the reader is introduced even to the smallest details (Ruth 4:1–12). The scene at night is arranged by Naomi and partly Ruth, the city gate scene is made by Boaz.55 6.3.1.1 Boaz, the Merry Boaz ate and drank, and his heart became merry. (Ruth 3:7)

   

The scene on the threshing-floor starts with a description of Boaz’ mood. Scholars have discussed whether he is drunk with alcohol or not. Zenger claims that this detail of the narrative illustrates that Naomi knows the local traditions well, though he argues against scholars who claim that drinking is “eine metaphorische Anspielung” for sexual relations, as in Gen 19:30–38 or Judith 12:10–13:10.56 Block points out that Boaz was probably “feeling the effects of the wine. But unlike Lot in Genesis 19, there is no reason to interpret this as a drunken stupor.”57 Campbell describes it as a general sense of well-being, “such as occurs at the end of harvest.”58 There is also a common agreement that Boaz’ mood is an optimal precondition for Naomi’s plan to be fulfilled, and that this was presupposed from Naomi’s side.59 Berlin even remarks that when Ruth comes to Boaz after he has fallen asleep she is about to spoil Naomi’s whole plan.

55 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 82, points out that these different settings describe the contrast between men’s and women’s worlds. Men are discussing in daylight, while women are forced to carry out their plans discretely in the dark. As soon as there is a man to take responsibility, the women turn back. Cf. also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 154. 56 Zenger, Das Buch Ruth (1992) 69–70. On the other hand, Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 71, suggests that Boaz had “occupied himself with the words of the Torah” and therefore his heart was good. 57 Block, Ruth (1999) 689. 58 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 121. See also Sasson, Ruth (1989) 73; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 208. 59 See Campbell, Ruth (1975) 121–22; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 161; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 72; Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 51; Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 140; and others.

156

Part I1: Character Analysis

Ruth was supposed to come to Boaz before he fell asleep “just at the time that ‘his heart was good’ and he would be most receptive to Ruth’s visit.”60 I would lift Boaz’ good mood to a level of higher significance. Until this part of the narrative the story has been engraved with sorrow (Ruth 1:5, 9, 14), bitterness (Ruth 1:13, 20–21), resignation (Ruth 1:11–13, 18; 2:2), serious and brave actions (Ruth 1:16–17; 2:11), and hard work (Ruth 2:2, 6–7, 17–18). As the picture of a relaxed and well satisfied Boaz suddenly appears, the whole atmosphere in the narrative changes. Boaz’ life of joy and abundance is quite the opposite of Naomi’s miserable and bitter life. The reader may expect more pleasure to come. 6.3.1.2 Secret Night Scene There is a gap in the story between midnight when Boaz asks Ruth to stay, and the morning when she leaves. It is tempting to ask: What did actually happen?61 Nielsen claims Ruth uncovered herself, and not Boaz, corresponding to the usage in Ezek 16:8, “where Yahweh finds Jerusalem as a naked woman and marries her by spreading the corner of his garment over her.”62 And still Boaz is an unwavering man, representing the law, mentioning the other kinsman-redeemer and proclaiming “as surely as Yahweh lives.”63 The fact that Ruth conceives as soon as she is legally married (Ruth 4:13), is a rejection of any sexual contact between Boaz and Ruth on the threshing floor.64 Anthony Phillips is of a different understanding. He claims that when Boaz awakes half naked, he “imagines that Ruth has done what her ancestress, Lot’s daughter, did before her.”65 To avoid “malicious gossip”, he arranges the redemption of Naomi’s land, which brings him the opportunity to marry Ruth as a part of this deal.66 Sasson remarks that the term  could be understood as “a euphemism for the sexual organs”,67 Boaz’ change of namings on Ruth, from daughter (Ruth 3:10, 11) to woman (Ruth 3:11, 14), is another incitement, reflecting that something has made him see her with new eyes. Fischer asks if Ruth not only “die Frau”, but even “seine Frau geworden [ist]”.68 60

Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 91. See for example the article series made between Beattie and Sasson. See Beattie, “Ruth III” (1978b); Sasson, “Ruth III: A Response” (1978); Sasson, “Guellah in Ruth” (1978); Beattie, “Redemption in Ruth, and Related Matters” (1978). 62 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 73. See also Bibelen (2001). 63 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 78–79. 64 I have this statement from Nielsen. As far as I have seen, it is not published. 65 Phillips, “Deception and Shame” (1986) 14. 66 Phillips, “Deception and Shame” (1986) 15. 67 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 70, as “sandal” may be a euphemism of the female genitalia. See Carmichael, Women, Law and the Genesis Tradition (1979) 74. 68 Fischer, Rut (2001) 218. 61

Chapter 6: Boaz

157

It is not easy to give a clear description of the midnight-affair at the threshing floor. What is clear is that the change of namings is permanent, and Boaz’ intentions with Ruth are clear and permanent as well.69 Brenner points out that “Ruth’s sexuality … is denied neither by Naomi, nor by herself, nor by the narrator,”70 and Haim Chertok points at the discrepancy between the descriptions of the valorous Boaz on the one hand, and the general OT pattern: “No other biblical man of valour occurs – neither Boaz’ forefather, Judah, nor his great-grandson David, nor Abraham nor Moses – who is a champion of sexual restraint.”71 This is probably the closest we get to an answer. I find it fruitful to read the scene as another example of ambiguity in the Ruth narrative. According to Wolde, “[t]he clash between the story line that excludes sex on the threshing floor and the words with sexual overtones causes the ambiguity in the text. This ambiguity is not just in the mind of the reader, but also in the text itself.”72 Naomi knows what happened, as Ruth told her “all the man did to her” (Ruth 3:16). The reader, however, is ignorant. The dialogue between Naomi and Ruth at the end of chapter three seems to make fun of the curious reader, addressing the question back to the reader: what if you were Boaz?73 6.3.1.3 Boaz’ Plan The scene in Ruth 4:1–12 is activated by Ruth’s visit the former night. Boaz goes to the city gate to “settle the matter today,” using Naomi’s words (Ruth 3:18). Taking into account that he has no obligations towards Ruth (Ruth 3:12), his blessings on her (Ruth 3:10), his oath (Ruth 3:11, 13) and food (Ruth 2:14–16; 3:15), make it seem as if Boaz has a personal interest in the marriage. The atmosphere is accordingly tense. Choosing the city gate is risky. The place, and also the rhetoric of Boaz, clearly describe a formal and juristic situation, but paradoxically, Boaz refers to a levirate law in which he has no role. He has to convince the men in the gate about his specific interpretation of the law in order to be reckoned as a legal redeemer. The men, and especially the proper redeemer, should know just as well as Boaz who Naomi’s redeemer is, if there is one at all. Following Sasson, “we should presume, [that] the whole town knew about Naomi’s return … it

69

Cf. May, “Ruth’s visit” (1939). Brenner, “Further Reflections” (1993c) 141. 71 Chertok (1986) 291. 72 Wolde, Ruth and Naomi (1998) 91. 73 Cf. 2.2.1 The Implied Reader, where I point to Boaz as a narratee with whom the implied reader is supposed to identify. 70

158

Part I1: Character Analysis

would be unreasonable to think that ‘Mr So-and-so’ alone was ignorant of these events.”74 The information about Naomi’s owning land is new to the reader and may seem new to the people in the city gate as well.75 It is probably because Boaz needs to bring something new into the discussion that he presents himself as a salesman on behalf of Naomi. Boaz declares that he has an interest in buying the land of Naomi, as the redeemer next to the proper one, if the proper redeemer refuses to buy (Ruth 4:4). With these words Boaz admits his position as the next-in-line-redeemer. The proper redeemer declares his interest, but then, Boaz plays his “trump card”,76 presenting the other side of the deal, which is the Moabite Ruth (Ruth 4:5). 6.3.1.4 Who acquires Whom? Textual Criticism of Ruth 4:5 The day you acquire the land from Naomi’s hand; from Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, I will acquire [marriage]. to raise up the name of the deceased for his inheritance. (Ruth 4:5)

           

     

Some text-critical challenges in Boaz’ discourse make his plan difficult to understand. The first is regarding the term  , which is decisive for the understanding of the redemption of the land. Should  be read as a particle of minor significance for the translation, or does it contain the preposition , suggesting the translation “from Naomi’s hand and from Ruth’s” pointing out that Ruth also owns the land Naomi wants to sell? Alternative proposals have been made about this term.77 The MT writes  , containing the preposition , LXX is similar to this, writing   , and the Targum even writes    , (and from the hand of Ruth). Vulgate translates the term quo-que, meaning “you also buy Ruth”, translated from Hebrew , which replaces  with . 78 Such a phrase lies close to Ruth 4:10  .

74

Sasson, “Guellah in Ruth” (1978) 54. This information raises questions about a widow’s right to inherit after her late husbands, cf. the Book of Judith, and further why Ruth was forced to go to glean on a stranger’s field when Naomi was a landowner. For these questions, see Campbell, Ruth (1975) 157–58; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 211–15; See also 2.7.1 Family Structures. 76 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 115. 77 See de Waard, Biblia Hebraica Quinta (2004) 55. 78 See the discussion on the emendation of   in Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 303–04. Here he demonstrates how some scholars argue that  might be a dittography, induced by the  in the preceding name , or that  should be totally omitted. 75

Chapter 6: Boaz

159

Most scholars and Bible translations read the text as Vulgata.79 One exception is Murray D. Gow, who focuses on the preposition , which “reduces the need for emendation” of the MT, and preserves the important commentary in the MT text, namely that Ruth also has “a legal interest in the transaction.”80 Such a reading might explain why Mr So-and-so changes his mind between the verses 4:4 and 4:6, discovering that Ruth is legally involved in the buy. Gow’s intention of keeping the MT text is important. The problem with his reading is the syntax of the phrase as a whole. If “Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased” belongs to the first part of the sentence, what is the object of  in verse 5:b? The Bible translation JPS solves this problem by separating the namings of Ruth, writing “from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased.” Such a separating of Ruth’s namings does not occur elsewhere in Ruth, where the namings are always kept together.81 In addition, “there is a certain clumsyness to this rendering,” Gow claims, since “wife of the deceased” might refer both to Ruth and to Naomi.82 Gow himself solves the problem by reading  as a corrupt version of  (with 3f. sg. suff) “I acquire her”, similar to LXX. 83 Sasson lists other suggestions on how to put  within a plausible syntax for the rest of the sentence, but concludes that it “might be a too high price to pay,”84 it pushes the text too far. I agree with Sasson, and thus find it necessary to reduce   to a translation of minor significance, as LXX and Vulgate. The second textual problem is the difference between the qere and ketib reading of . Should the qere  “you acquire” be used, or is the ketib  “I acquire” preferable? This problem is widely debated. Both Sasson and Bush discuss it thoroughly, with opposite results.85 Like Bush, most scholars choose the qere form and translate “the day you acquire the land of Naomi’s hand you must also acquire Ruth.”86 Such a reading implies 79

See Campbell, Ruth (1975) 139; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 237; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 190; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 81; Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 151, and others. See also the Bible translations of NRSV, JPS, LUT, Bibel 2000 and NO78/85. 80 Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 309, 311. 81 See Ruth 1:22 “Ruth, the Moabite, her daughter-in-law”; Ruth 2:6 “the Moabite servant-girl”; Ruth 4:10 “Ruth, the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon”; and Ruth 4:15 “Your daughter-in-law who loves you”. 82 Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 303. See also Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 216. 83 Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 311. 84 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 122. 85 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 119–136 and Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 216. See also articles on this specific verse, such as Beattie, “Kethib and Qere” (1971) 490–94; Davies, “Ruth IV 5” (1983) 231–234; Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 302–11. 86 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 190; See also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 139; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 237; Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 304–11; Zakovitch, Rut (1999)

160

Part I1: Character Analysis

that the acquirement is based on the levirate law and that the purchase of land includes the purchase of Ruth. This reading is found in LXX and the Peshitta. There are several reasons for relating Ruth 4:5 to the levirate law. The references to deceased husbands with no heirs, family bonds, a gate and a sandal described in Ruth do obviously play on the law in Deut 25:5–10. But there are also decisive weaknesses in the comparison. The levirate law does not offer the redeemer a question, it commands. In the view of the law, the redemption of Ruth cannot be treated as an issue within some land transaction. In addition, Boaz has no right to command Mr So-and-so to redeem Ruth, since Mr So-and-so, like himself, is not a proper redeemer according to the descriptions in Deut 25.87 The levirate law can therefore not be followed literally. For these reasons, Beattie claims the ketib reading of Ruth 4:5. Boaz’ words about the acuisition of Ruth can not be based on legal praxis, he says, since “if such were the case the redeemer must have known it.”88 Beattie claims that the change in Mr So-and-so’s mind between Ruth 4:4 and 4:6 lies rather in the information that Boaz intends to marry Naomi’s daughter-in-law “to raise up the name of the deceased over his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5), because this announcement indicates that in the future Boaz intends to lay claim to the land on behalf of his and Ruth’s children.89 Bush also admits the distance between the levirate law and the conditions in Ruth. Still he argues for an understanding and a “moral obligation, a family responsibility”,90 and that the qere reading of Ruth 4:5 “meets the facts of the case”.91 151. Also the Bible translations NRSV, JPS, LUT, Bibel 2000 and NO78/85 render such a reading. According to Sasson, Ruth (1989) 125, the qere choice is preferred because a ketib reading would be impropriate, implicating that Boaz and Ruth already “had spoken their vows … With its severe restriction of the freedom of women, this was clearly not an acceptable choice.” 87 Cf. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 134. 88 Beattie, “Kethib and Qere” (1971) 492. An alternative understanding of this point is made by Davies, who claims that the redeemer knew about the obligations connected to the widow, but he thought that the widow he was supposed to acquire was the barren Naomi and not Ruth. See Davies, “Ruth IV 5” (1983) 233. See also Sasson, Ruth (1989) 136; Fewell and Gunn, “Boaz, Pillar of Society” (1989) 52; Green, Field and Seed Symbolism (1980) 30; Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 81, 84, for a ketib reading. See also the translations in D92 “da køber jeg den moabittiske enke Ruth.” 89 Beattie, “Kethib and Qere” (1971) 493. Beattie further assumes that “Boaz has already ‘married’ Ruth the night before” and that it would be “very strange to find one man informing another of his duty to marry a woman with whom he has himself slept on the previous night.” 90 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 225. 91 Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 229.

Chapter 6: Boaz

161

I prefer the ketib reading. In my reading, Boaz first brings forth the information about Naomi’s sale, stressing that he intends to buy should the nearer relative cede. Then, when he introduces Ruth, he apparently takes it for granted that Mr So-and-so is not interested, even if he still is the nearest relative and naturally has the prior right. Such a reading tones down the legal questions stressed in different ways by Beattie and Bush. Instead it illustrates Boaz’ rhetorical way of influencing Mr So-and-so not to consider the acquisition of Ruth. I find LaCocque’s description of Boaz’ discourse illuminating: “One feels that Boaz has just played the trump card. He anticipates his victory so much at this point that he says, ‘I am acquiring’ instead of ‘you are acquiring.’ No Freudian slip could better indicate Boaz’ nervousness and also his feeling to have stymied his opponent.”92

Davies claims that the grammatical ambiguity in Ruth 4:5 might be intended, to slow down the drama which at this point is at the most intense, but also because Boaz is “deliberately befuddling his immediate audience, namely, P‘loni Almoni.”93 Also Fischer hints at “zwei Hintertürchen” let open by the Masoretes: “Sollte in der Nacht vorher auf der Tenne tatsächlich die Ehe vollzogen worden sein, was der Text offen lässt, so ist das ‘erwerbe ich’ die logische Konsequenz daraus.“94 Summing up, the text-critical question in 4:5a is solved by toning down the preposition  in order to keep Ruth’s name and namings together as an object for 4:5b. Such a reading does not include Ruth as a co-owner directly, but the significance of    is still focused through the ketib reading of Ruth 4:5b “I acquire”. Boaz intends to acquire Ruth, and Ruth’s firstborn son will have the right to inherit the land anyway. However, most of all, the choice of the ketib “I acquire” gives a pronounced picture of an eager, stressed, and clever Boaz, befuddling Mr So-and-so, and the reader as well. 6.3.1.5 Boaz the Trickster Boaz’ performance in the city gate is impressive. Fewell and Gunn characterize his speech as a game which is named “PR and he is a master of it.”95 Beattie names it “a scene of dramatic tension”,96 and Sasson calls it “trump 92

LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 130. Davis and Parker, Who Are You, My Daughter? (2003) 100–03. In her book, she introduces three different translations to Ruth 4:5, without preferring one that should be followed. 94 Fischer, Rut (2001) 228–29. 95 Fewell and Gunn, “Boaz, Pillar of Society” (1989) 52. 96 Beattie, “Kethib and Qere” (1971) 491. 93

162

Part I1: Character Analysis

card”, when Boaz announces “in a totally unexpected fashion … before a duly organized legislative body his intention to pledge the first born son of Ruth as Mahlon’s heir.”97 It really is a clever game. With a sufficient amount of juridical argumentation, and a sufficient amount of moral responsibility, Boaz makes his marriage with Ruth occur as an understandable action. In addition, he effectively links the land with Ruth.98 He further sets himself in an especially good position, stressing that he offers himself to marry Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 4:5, 10). Fewell and Gunn remark, rather sarcasmtically, “All hail to Boaz! All hail to the man who for the sake of his brother, living or dead, would marry a Moabite woman!”99 Phillips argues that what Boaz actually does when he places the situation into a legal context, is to avoid shame. Boaz could probably have married Ruth without the confrontation in the city gate, he claims. According to Ruth 3:10, Ruth is free to choose whom she likes, and Boaz is not bound to the levirate law.100 However, Boaz “undoubtedly believes that like Lot’s daughters … Ruth may be pregnant with a child.”101 To protect his reputation from widespread comment and malicious gossip, which would follow a sudden marriage of the rich Boaz with a foreign widow, Boaz puts the whole situation into the context of the levirate law.102 I find Phillips too eager in elaborating Boaz’ shame. The story is too modestly narrated and the reader knows too little about what happened at night to consider such detailed descriptions of Boaz’ inner life. Still, I find parts of his arguments fruitful. Ruth is free to marry whom she likes, “whether poor or rich” (Ruth 3:10). Being a Moabite widow Ruth is hardly a very desirable bride either. I also agree with Phillips when claiming that the levirate law is used with some purpose other than its normal one. Boaz’ rhetoric is probably puzzling by purpose. If this was a signal of shame, however, I would suggest that the reason Boaz is ashamed is that he is emotionally involved. The scenes in chapters two and three demonstrate Boaz’ attention towards Ruth. Now he is willing to enter intermarriage because of Ruth, which, according to the OT framework, is a problem (Gen 26:35; 1 Kgs 11:1–3; Ezra 10:8; Neh 13:23, 25, 30).103 Ruth’s status as a Moabite is at the same time a benefit and a problem. Boaz uses her foreign status to keep Mr So-and-so away; at the same time 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

Sasson, Ruth (1989) 135. Cf. Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 69. Fewell and Gunn, “Boaz, Pillar of Society” (1989) 53. Phillips, “Deception and Shame” (1986) 6. Phillips, “Deception of Shame” (1986) 14. Phillips, “Deception of Shame” (1986) 15–16. See also 2.7.2.2 Intermarriage in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Chapter 6: Boaz

163

he needs an excuse for marrying a foreign woman. For this matter the levirate law is suitable indeed. This kind of action makes Boaz a trickster, the universal hero who brings about change in a situation via “trickery”, using folkloristic terminology described by Susan Niditch.104 According to Niditch, the underdog and the trickster “held special appeal for the Israelite composers who shaped the tales of their ancestral heroes; for throughout its history, Israel has had a peculiar self-image as the underdog and the trickster.” Many OT narratives describe their characters with such traditional traits, such as Jacob and Joseph,105 or Abraham and Isaac in the “wife-as-sister tales” (Gen 12:10–20; 20:1–18; 26:1– 17).106 Ruth is an exception, Niditch claims, being less traditional and more individualistic than the traditional literature.107 Niditch’s description of Ruth fits to some extent with my understanding of the characters in Ruth as having individual roles and bringing different voices to the story. However, I do find the traits of a trickster in Boaz, being the “younger brother”, who, via trickery, manages to make Mr Soand-so take off his sandal and ask Boaz to take on his obligations, but also thereby his honour.108 In this way, Boaz manages to win Ruth, avoid gossip, and even become the one whose name will be proclaimed in Bethlehem (Ruth 4:11). 6.3.1.6 Preserving Mahlon’s Name Also Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s wife, I require to be my wife to raise up the name of the deceased for his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers and the gate of his homeland. (Ruth 4:10)

     

        

     

Boaz’ words in Ruth 4:10 have the clear aim of preserving Mahlon’s name for posterity. But quite ironically, the opposite happens. Earlier I have described how Mahlon falls short when compared to Ruth. He and his brother Chilion fail to give Naomi an heir, while Ruth is far more to Naomi than her two sons.109 Compared to Boaz, Mahlon draws the short 104

Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters (2000) xv. She describes the trickster as a subtype of the underdog, which is “the poor relative, the youngest son, the exile, the soldier in a defeated army – the person, in short, who is least likely of succeeding and yet does.” 105 See the tables in Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters (2000) 73–76. 106 Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters (2000) 23–66, esp. pp 42–43. 107 Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters (2000) xviii. 108 See 3.5 Pelony Almoni, where I compare Mr So-and-so with the “man who will not build up his brother’s family” (Deut 25:9). 109 See 5.2.2.2 Who is More to You than Seven Sons.

164

Part I1: Character Analysis

straw again. Even if Boaz had Mahlon’s name in mind, the people in the city gate show no interest in Mahlon, but wish Boaz to be the one proclaimed in Bethlehem. May you be strong in Ephrathah and have the name proclaimed in Bethlehem. (Ruth 4:11)

       

Furthermore, Mahlon is totally ignored in the genealogy. The line is drawn from Perez to David, via Boaz (Ruth 4:18–21). It is not very surprising that neither Naomi nor Ruth is mentioned, even if women might be present in genealogies.110 Mahlon’s disappearance, however, is striking. According to the levirate law, the first-born son of Boaz and Ruth should belong to him. In the narrative, however, Boaz is listed as the legal father of Obed (Ruth 4:21). The comparison between Mahlon and Boaz is definitely made in Boaz’ favour. Mahlon, the typical agent, remains the one “sick and sterile”.111 He will be forgotten. Boaz, the wealthy, worthy and blessed pillar of society, becomes what his name and namings signal. 6.3.1.7 Boaz’ Interest in Ruth If Boaz’ only interest was to preserve Mahlon’s name, he certainly failed. But, as already suggested, Boaz has another agenda for marrying Ruth. According to Ruth 4:21 and 1 Chron 2:12, the firstborn son of Boaz is Obed.112 Accordingly, Boaz had no heirs until he met Ruth. He had no one to inherit his properties, no one to care for him in his old age, and no one to have his name preserved for posterity the day he died. This is the setting when Boaz praises Ruth at the threshing floor. Your latter hesed is better than the former, by not going after the young men, whether poor or rich. (Ruth 3:10)

            

The words of Boaz could easily be followed by “except me”.113 These are words of a man who, just awoken, tries to solve an amazing situation, while at the same time concealing that he is flattered. Hubbard points out that “young men” in Boaz’ statement refers to “the town’s eligible bache-

110

The longer genealogy in 1 Chron 2, which includes the list form Perez to David, contains several women (1 Chron 2:4, 16, 17, 18, 24, 26, 29, 46, 48, 49). 111 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 18. 112 1 Chron 2:3–15, mentioning more descendants than those listed in the genealogy in Ruth, seems to give a chronological list of every man’s sons, as in the presentation of the sons of Jesse (1 Chron 2:13–15). Boaz has no sons before Obed. 113 See Campbell, Ruth (1975) 131; Gow, “Ruth Quoque” (1990) 305; Gow, The Book of Ruth (1992) 47. See also the discussion in 5.3.3.2 At the Threshing Floor.

Chapter 6: Boaz

165

lors, some of whom had worked with Ruth in Boaz’ field,”114 and further that Ruth “could have married for love (‘poor’) or money (‘rich’), but she chooses family loyalty instead.”115 The fact is that Ruth’s favourable actions towards her mother-in-law are also favourable to Boaz. Boaz, being an elderly childless man,116 is thankful and flattered on his own behalf. Green demonstrates how the text clearly has sexual undertones, describing the threshing floor, the woman’s stealthy approach, Boaz’ sensuous euphoria, the darkness, and the words said by Ruth.117 The passionate tensions are apparent in Boaz’ words as well, as he describes all the men Ruth has chosen not to visit. Boaz’ relationship to Ruth might be described through the three questions concerning Ruth’s identity, 118 all of which are raised in scenes where Boaz is involved. As demonstrated earlier, the first time Boaz asks his servant about Ruth’s identity it is because she is unknown to him (Ruth 2:5– 7). The second time, the question is asked by Boaz when Ruth lies beside him in the dark. He cannot see her and he does not know her intentions (Ruth 3:9). The third time, the question is raised by Naomi, indirectly asking what happened between Ruth and Boaz that night (Ruth 3:16). The questions get narrower each time, as the answers go from pure information to suggesting a close relationship between Boaz and Ruth.119 In addition, Ruth asks a fourth question about Boaz’ extraordinary care for her. Why have I found favour in your eyes so that you recognized me, when I am a foreigner. (Ruth 2:10)

 

  

With these words, Ruth points right to the middle of Boaz’ dilemma; Boaz cares for Ruth, despite her being a foreigner. This question is probably not 114

Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 214. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 214–15. 116 Boaz may very well be an elderly man, because of his wealth and high position in the society (Ruth 2:1), because he calls Ruth “my daughter” (Ruth 2:8; 3:10, 11), that he praises Ruth for not going after the young men (Ruth 3:10), and also because he is described as a relative of Elimelech and therefore could be the same age as Elimelech (Ruth 2:1, 3; 4:3, 9). The Hebrew syntax also has old-fashion language or archaisms in the speeches of Naomi and Boaz, which indicate that they “represent the senior citizens of the story,” See Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form (1955) 20; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 110; Ruth Rabbah claims that Boaz died the day after the wedding. See Ginzberg, The Legends of the Bible (2001) 519. The narrative itself does not comment upon Boaz’ age directly. 117 See Green, Field and Seed Symbolism (1980) 66–67; Gow, The Book of Ruth (1992) 74. 118 See 5.2.6 Who are You? 119 See 5.2.6 Who Are You? for the question of Ruth’s identity. 115

166

Part I1: Character Analysis

asked because she expects an answer. Ruth does not ask out of politeness, but because she is surprised.120 The last description of Ruth’s and Boaz’ relationship involves Yahweh, who finally appears in the narrative. Boaz took Ruth, and she became to him a wife. When he came to her, Yahweh made her conceive. And she bore a son. (Ruth 4:13)

         

      

This development of Boaz, from being aware of Ruth as the foreign girl on the harvest field (Ruth 2:5) to being father of her son (Ruth 4:13), from blessing Ruth who has done “everything” for her mother-in-law (Ruth 2:11–12) to asking her to stay the night (Ruth 3:13), describes a man more and more dedicated to Ruth, a development which strengthens the impression of Boaz as a full-fledged character. Interesting to notice about Boaz is that during the whole threshing floor scene, he never addresses or describes Ruth with her native identity; nor does the narrator. This observation confirms my earlier suggestion that to Boaz, it seems to be no problem that Ruth is a Moabite, except for the fact that this makes him need an excuse to marry a woman with such a low status. This tolerant approach is clearly expressed as he refers to Ruth’s “former loyalty” (Ruth 3:10), which he has described earlier. It has fully been told me everything you have done for your mother-in-law since your husband died. You left your father and your mother and the land where you were born to go to a people you did not know before. (Ruth 2:11)

                 

Boaz describes Ruth as one who has done “everything” for her mother-inlaw, which includes the leaving of her native family. The speech makes it clear that Boaz does not denigrate Ruth for her native origin, quite the reverse: her leaving her land and her own family because of her mother-inlaw makes her a worthy woman (Ruth 3:11). 6.3.2 Boaz and Yahweh 6.3.2.1 Bringing Yahweh’s Blessing Boaz’ approach towards Ruth runs like a passionate thread throughout the narrative. But Boaz also has another role. Whereas the bitter Naomi complains to God, the satisfied Boaz wishes God’s blessing upon those he 120

See Hyman, “Questions and Changing Identity” (1984) 196–97.

Chapter 6: Boaz

167

meets. From the first time Boaz enters the narrative, and in every discourse in which he is involved, the presence of Yahweh is brought into the story. He said to the reapers: May Yahweh be with you. And they answered him: Yahweh bless you. (Ruth 2:4)



  

   

Linafeld describes Boaz’ opening words as only “convention (cf. Judg 6:12; Ps 129:8) and should not be taken as an indication of his great piety or moral character.”121 Hubbard suggests, as Gunkel before him, that the address is a formula “used particularly at harvest time both to greet others and implicitly to request God’s provision of a bountiful crop.”122 Like Linafeld, he wants to tone down Boaz’ piety. “[W]hat is important” Hubbard claims, “is not the piety of the speakers but the presence of the one whose name is voiced.”123 This is probably an appropriate description of the dialogue between Boaz and his servants. And still we cannot avoid noticing the radical new atmosphere which appears in the story as Boaz enters. “Where Naomi limits herself to accepting Ruth’s plan and neither blesses her daughter-in-law nor offers her good advice as to how to conduct herself, Boaz gives the impression of taking an interest in and caring for his servant,” Nielsen says.124 This positive atmosphere grows as Boaz takes more and more part in the story. He pronounces Yahweh’s blessing upon Ruth (Ruth 2:12; 3:10), Naomi and the people in the city gate wish Yahweh’s blessing upon Boaz (Ruth 2:20; 4:11), and finally, when Boaz marries Ruth, Yahweh acts. Two situations in the narrative place a particular focus on Boaz as a spokesman of Yahweh. These are when Naomi praises Boaz after being introduced to his name the first time (Ruth 2:20), and when Ruth addresses back to Boaz the words he told her at the harvest field (Ruth 2:12; 3:9). 6.3.2.2 Replacing Yahweh with Boaz Blessed be him by Yahweh, who has not left his hesed from the living nor the dead. (Ruth 2:20)





       

This blessing pronounced by Naomi has an uncertain syntax which makes the interpretation of the verse ambiguous. Which noun is the pronoun  referring to? Is it “him” namely Boaz, or is it “Yahweh”? Scholars are di-

121 122 123 124

Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 29. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 144; Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913) 71. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 144–45. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 57.

168

Part I1: Character Analysis

vided over the answer.125 LXX and Vulgate, using the conjunctions “ ” or “quoniam”, are unambiguous in their translations, both referring to Boaz. Some modern Bible translations point clearly at one concrete character,126 but most translations maintain the relative pronoun with its two possible references. The phrase “the living and the dead” has played a significant role in this discussion, raising the theological question of whether Yahweh is able to show hesed towards the dead. According to Nelson Gluek, Ruth 2:20 would be the only place in the Hebrew Bible where the hesed of God is mentioned in reference to the dead. He therefore reads Boaz as the one Naomi refers to.127 It is difficult, however, to conclude from the lack of other OT references that it is against God’s nature to be in relationship with the dead.128 The phrase therefore does not categorically exclude Yahweh from being the subject of . Basil A. Rebera raises another theological question in his arguments. Normally in Ruth (Ruth 1:8; 2:12, 19; 3:10; 4:11), it is the “beneficiary that merits the invocation” which is the focus, not the benefactor.129 If  should refer to Yahweh and not Boaz, this would be the only place in Ruth where the invocation was followed by a statement about the benefactor and not the beneficiary. In Ruth 2:19, Naomi has already invoked a blessing on whomever it was who had allowed Ruth to glean. When Ruth tells Naomi that it was at Boaz’ field, Naomi “immediately invokes a second blessing in Ruth 2:20.”130 I find Rebera’s arguments convincing. However, I also follow the idea of making a point of the ambiguity in itself. The two possible readings of Ruth 2:20 are “genuine”, as says Campbell,131 making it difficult to decide 125

See Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962) 50; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 106; Sasson, Ruth (1989) 60; Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 104–107, arguing for Yahweh as subject for  Glueck, Das Wort Hesed (1961) 7; Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz?” (1985) 317–27; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 186–87; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 135; Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 209–10, arguing for Boaz as subject for . 126 See Bibel 2000: “Må Herren välsigna honom,” sade Noomi, “Herren, som i sin trofasthet,” and D92: “Herren velsigne ham, Herren som ikke svigter sin troskap,” both suggesting the Lord as subject for . 127 Glueck, Das Wort Hesed (1961) 7; Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions (1974) 183. 128 See Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 105–06. Cf also Sasson, Ruth (1989) 60; Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz?” (1985) 318, for other commentaries. For further studies of the theme of God’s presence to the dead, see Spronk, Beatific Afterlife (1986) 283–84; Weyde, “Fra Skyggetilværelse” (1991). 129 Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz?” (1985) 323. 130 Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz?” (1985) 324. 131 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 106. See also Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 106, suggesting that the writer is “deliberately ambiguous.”

Chapter 6: Boaz

169

between Boaz and Yahweh as the subject of Naomi’s blessing. Again, solving the ambiguity lies with the reader. Naomi knows who she was referring to, either Yahweh or Boaz; it is to the reader the sentence is unclear.132 In this way, Boaz’ and Yahweh’s roles are combined and compared. Collins uses the ambiguity in Ruth 2:20 to demonstrate how God is present through the characters.133 Human action is influenced by divine action. I find that the ambiguity might also signal a doubt about God’s presence. When praises which are usually used for Yahweh suddenly focus on Boaz, Yahweh’s role turns out to be overshadowed. Naomi finds in Boaz the qualities that Yahweh was supposed to bring her. Looking back to Naomi’s earlier presentations of Yahweh, where she uses Ruth’s and Orpah’s hesed as a model for Yahweh to follow (Ruth 1:8), and further claims that Yahweh has turned his hand against her, testified and brought calamity upon her (Ruth 1:13, 20–21), the natural consequence should be that Naomi does not wait for Yahweh anymore. Ruth 2:20 may be read as a confirmation of this, when Boaz takes Yahweh’s place. 6.3.2.3 From Boaz’ Wings to Yahweh’s In Ruth 3:9, Boaz is confused with Yahweh again. Yahweh, Israel’s God, under whose wings you have come for refuge. (Ruth 2:12) Spread your wing over your handmaid. (Ruth 3:9)

 



      

I have already discussed the term  and its different interpretations, both referring to “wing” (Ruth 2:12) and to “corner of your garment” (Ruth 3:9).134 However, the term  also connects the two characters Yahweh and Boaz. By almost repeating Boaz’ words, Ruth changes the wish for refuge that should be found under Yahweh’s wings into an invitation of protection under the corner of Boaz’ garment. With these words Ruth puts Boaz in Yahweh’s place. This time, the confusion between Boaz and Yahweh is not covered with ambiguity; rather, it is clear. As with Ruth 2:20, it may be read as a description of human and divine action merging into one. Finding protection in Boaz may be a result of Yahweh’s secret design, though it might also be understood as Ruth’s ignoring Yahweh. Moreover, the confusion places some decisive expectations on Boaz. Ruth turns all 132

Collins, “Ambiguity and Theology” (1993) 100. Collins, “Ambiguity and Theology” (1993) 101. Collins refers to Rebera’s article titled “Yahweh or Boaz?” and answers “yes” to his question. 134 See 5.3.3.2 At the Threshing Floor. 133

170

Part I1: Character Analysis

the well-meant wishes with which Boaz used to address God (Ruth 2:12) into concrete expectations of action by Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Ruth’s words force Boaz to take responsibility for his former wishes. In this way, Boaz has become the source of protection, while Yahweh is not asked for.

6.4 Summary The characteristics of Boaz, his being strong, mighty and worthy, fit well with the further descriptions of his actions as good and gentle (Ruth 2:8– 16; 3:15), merry (Ruth 3:7), properly acting (Ruth 3:12–13; 4:1–10), skilful, and smart (Ruth 4:3–8). Whereas Naomi is a complex character and Ruth is mysterious, the correspondence between the presentation and the actions of Boaz makes him a steady pillar of society. Boaz is the male hero, and he is the trickster. Being flattered by Ruth who comes to him at night, he plays a risky game to have Ruth as his legal wife without losing his good reputation, since Ruth is a Moabite, and intermarriage is a problem. There are good reasons to assume that the levirate law of Deut 25 has no direct relevance for the situation described in Ruth. Still, for legal reasons, Boaz makes Mr So-and-so refuse to acquire Ruth on the basis of this law. In this trickery, Boaz reveals himself as a man not only mighty and worthy, but also as an elderly man without any heirs, involved with a foreign woman. Different possible meanings of his name are actualized; he is strong and virile, but also elderly and infertile, sleeping when the woman enters his bed. These mixed qualities of Boaz make him a full-fledged character. He has also the role of a narratee, being the one Ruth directs her questions to, which are questions also meant for the reader. Three male characters are compared with Boaz: Mahlon, who is the dead childless relative, Mr So-and-So, the nameless relative, and David. The two first characters are contrasts to Boaz, placing Boaz in an even better light. The third comparison brings significance to Boaz’ character, and links Boaz and the whole narrative of Ruth to the broader OT context. Boaz’ appearance in the narrative brings the attention towards divinity. He pronounces Yahweh’s blessing (Ruth 2:4, 12) and is blessed himself (Ruth 2:4; 4:11–12). Boaz is also confused with Yahweh (Ruth 2:20) and he seems to take Yahweh’s role (Ruth 3:9). This naturally makes Boaz a good person – but brings uncertainty about the presence of Yahweh. Naomi and Ruth find their security in Boaz. God is not asked for.

Chapter 7

God God is often ignored when literary characters are presented in biblical narratives.1 Since God, from a theological point of view, is transcendent, existing beyond the narrative universe, many scholars do not treat God within literary categories at all. From a narrative point of view, however, he is a character within the narrative, similar to the characters in general, and must be read with the same literary approach. God is “known to us only through the narrator’s mediation,” using Amit’s words.2 This chapter will therefore focus on the character God. A central question when studying God as a character in Ruth is this: is God an active character, or is he only referred to as a deity outside the plot? God is referred to numerous times, both in laments and in praises, but he is described as acting in the plot only once, when he lets Ruth conceive (Ruth 4:13). When trying to define Yahweh’s character type we therefore have to ask whether he is a character at all, or if he should rather be understood only as a name without being a character.3 The answer to this question may bring an answer to Naomi’s question as well: Is Yahweh an imminent God, or has he turned his hand against her permanently? And furthermore; if God is an active character, to whom is he present, and from whom does he hide?

7.1. God’s Names “What is true of proper names in general is all the more true of divine names.” 4

7.1.1 Yahweh

 is a well known and well discussed name, and I leave the significance

of its meaning to others.5 What I will focus on is the reference to Yahweh

1 2 3 4

Cf. Gunn and Fewell, Narrative (1993) 28. Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives (2001) 94. Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 86. Japhet, The Ideology (1989) 12.

172

Part I1: Character Analysis

as the personal name of God.6 God’s having a personal name brings his identity into the open in the narrative, and helps “underscore the status of the deity as a character in the biblical narrative,” quoting Cheryl Exum. 7 The name Yahweh occurs 18 times in the Ruth-narrative (Ruth 1:6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 21x2; 2:4x2, 12x2, 20; 3:10, 13; 4:11, 12, 13, 14). It is mostly used by the characters; Naomi and Boaz pronounce the name respectively six and five times each, while the narrator makes use of it only twice.8 This frequent reference to Yahweh among the characters indicates a setting where God is an expected reference. The narrator’s rare use of Yahweh’s name, on the other hand, brings the impression of a more reticent God. Yahweh may therefore be more of a reference than he is an acting character in Ruth.9 The name Yahweh is most frequently used in two different scenes in the narrative: The first is when Naomi takes farewell of her daughters-in-law and refers to Yahweh’s punishments as the reason why they have to separate (Ruth 1:8, 9, 13, 17, 20–21). The second is when the men in the city gate and the women in the town praise Yahweh and wish Boaz all the best, which is followed by the narrator’s describing Ruth’s pregnancy (Ruth 4:11–14). The descriptions of Yahweh in these scenes, in accusations and praises, illustrate the range of how Yahweh is understood in the story, both containing the laments of Naomi’s and the blessings of Boaz’. Yahweh is not introduced within the same pattern as that used for the other characters in Ruth. There is no preliminary presentation of the divine before a revealing of the name emphasized with a , as is the pattern with every other named character in Ruth.10 Yahweh/Shaddai is therefore not entering the narrative as clearly as the human characters; he just appears, indirectly introduced through the name Elimelech (Ruth 1:2), and then referred to through some rumours. (Ruth 1:6).

5 See Mettinger, In Search of God (1988) 28–49; Smith, The Early History of God (1990) 206–07; Brichto, The Names of God (1998) especially p. 3–34; Lang, The Hebrew God (2002); and others. 6 Cf. Mettinger, In Search of God (1988) 12, differing between “reference” and “sense” of names. 7 Cf. Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative (1992) xiv. For the same reason I follow her use of ‘he’ as a pronoun for the deity. Cf. also the definition of “character” in Bal, Narratology (1997) 114. See 2.3.1 What is a Character? 8 As a comparison; in the narratives of Samson and Jonah, both the same length as Ruth¸ the incidences of Yahweh’s name are higher: 24 times in Judg 13, and 25 times in Jonah. In these narratives, however, Yahweh’s name is mostly used by the narrator. On the other hand, in the narrative of Esther, Yahweh’s name never occurs. 9 This will be discussed further in 7.3 Yahweh’s actions. 10 See 3.1 .

Chapter 7: God

173

7.1.2 Shaddai Twice the term  occurs in the text, as an alternative to the name Yahweh (Ruth 1:20, 21). In Ruth 1:21 Shaddai is placed within a parallelism, as an equal term to Yahweh, which underlines Shaddai as an alternative personal name for God.11 When Yahweh has testified against me And Shaddai has brought calamity upon me. (Ruth 1:21)

 

    

Shaddai is a rare name for God, only used 48 times in the Old Testament. Thirty-one of the occurrences are in Job, the other references are found in the Patriarchal material and in some post-exilic prophetic texts.12 Campbell claims that the name Shaddai belongs to the patriarchal period. When Job uses the term Shaddai rather frequently, he argues the reason is that “the Job book wishes to have its hero placed in patriarchal times and archaizes to help get this across. The late prophetic passages are also archaistic, representative of a nostalgic revival.”13 Campbell doubts that Shaddai should be understood as archaistic in Ruth.14 However, with a post-exilic dating of Ruth such as mine, I find Campbell’s archaistic reading of Shaddai in the Book of Job to be an appropriate model for Shaddai in Ruth as well. Such a reading fits well with other possible archaisms in Ruth, namely the fact that the story is antedated to the time of the judges (Ruth 1:1), and that the speeches of Naomi and Boaz contain early Hebrew verb forms and thus signal a senior status for these two characters.15 From such a viewpoint, Naomi’s use of Shaddai could be understood as archaism.  is usually translated as “Almighty”,16 this based on LXX, who writes “ ” and Vulgate who writes “omnipotens”.17 EtymolSee 4.3.3.1 The Translation of  , to the discussion of the translation of this parallelism. 12 See Niehr and Steins, “” (1993) 1083–84. 13 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 76. 14 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 26. 15 Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form (1955) 10, 17; Campbell, Ruth (1975) 25; See also Freedman and Simon, Midrash (1939) 75, claiming that Boaz was at the age of 80. 16 Shaddai in Ruth 1:20–21 is translated as “the Allmighty” (NRSV); “der Allmächtige” (LUT); “den Allmektige” (NO78/85); “den Väldige” (Bibel 2000). JPS does not translate the name, but uses “Shaddai” directly. 17 Niehr and Steins, “” (1993) 1103. Steins points out how the LXX did not adopt the etymological use, but replaced the divine name with different familiar divine designations “which in the context of Hellenism underscored the universalistic conception of OT faith in God, had considerable theological repercussions.” 11

174

Part I1: Character Analysis

ogically, though, the term may implicate “field”, “mountain”, “breast”, “protective spirit”, or “rescuer”,18 or even “devastator”. 19 I follow Sasson, who prefers not to translate Shaddai at all, “since no satisfactory explanation has, so far, been proposed.”20 A fruitful approach to the name Shaddai is to look at the intertextual significances of the name. Based on the amount of OT-occurrences, Shaddai links Naomi to Job and the story of Ruth to the Patriarchal stories. In Genesis, the occurrences of Shaddai are concentrated in texts containing blessing and offspring (Gen 17:2; 28:3–4; 35:10–12; 48:3–4; 49:22–26).21 A comparison with Ruth stresses that whereas the Patriarchs are promised numerous offspring, Naomi calls upon Shaddai because of her loss. The Genesis narratives emphasize this promise by El Shaddai by describing how Abram (Gen 17:1–5) and Jacob (Gen 32:28–29; 35:10–11) receive new names. Naomi, on the contrary, asks that her name be changed because of what Shaddai has done.22 A comparison between Naomi and the patriarchs makes Naomi’s destiny even more distressing. In a situation where Shaddai is supposed to bless and rescue, and even bring upon her a new name, he becomes Naomi’s antagonist who does not respond, even when she challenges him by not permitting her name to be spoken (Ruth 1:20–21). The strong connection to blessings and offspring in Genesis brings forth the etymological meaning “breast” as a plausible interpretation of Shaddai.23 The connotations of breast, as birth-giving, breastfeeding, and blessing (Gen 49:25), make Naomi’s laments contrasting and bitter. I have earlier pointed to the similarities between Naomi and Job, and stressed the similar understanding of Shaddai within a judicial context in these texts.24 In Job 27:1–6, Job accuses Shaddai of making him bitter, and he swears his own integrity and righteousness before God. In Ruth 1:20– 21, Naomi blames Shaddai for the same reasons. For both Job and Naomi, bitterness towards Shaddai is based on the fact that they do not understand. God is Shaddai the judge, who speaks against Naomi, though she is innocent. Nielsen links Naomi to Job in the way she sees Shaddai as one who “deprives a man of his property and children only to restore everything for See the English terminology in Niehr and Steins, “” (2004) 420–22. Sasson, Ruth (1989) 34. 20 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 34. 21 Shaddai is also called upon when Jacob fears for his own offspring, as he allows his youngest son Benjamin to go to Egypt (Gen 43:13). 22 Cf. Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry” (2003) 133. 23 Niehr and Steins, “” (2004) 422. Such an interpretation makes Shaddai a divine name with clear feminine connotations of God. For a closer study of this topic, see Raurell, Der Mythos (1989) 53–55; Biale, “The God with Breasts” (1982). 24 See 4.3.3.3 Is Naomi a Job? 18 19

Chapter 7: God

175

the best in the end.”25 Following her perspective, Job’s words “Yahweh gives and Yahweh takes away; blessed be the name of Yahweh” (Job 2:21) is a fitting description of Yahweh in Ruth too, focusing on the understanding of Shaddai as “Almighty”. Unfortunately for both Job and Naomi, Yahweh’s almightiness is demonstrated through suffering. Lacoque claims that the fact that God has several names does not make his presence clearer, rather the contrary. Being called by different names, God’s personal name is toned down and Yahweh becomes more of a distant God. Using the name Shaddai might thus be comparable with the descriptions of God in the Book of Job, where Job, seeing God as an enemy, replaces God’s name with “substitutes such as El, Eloah, Elohim, El Shaddai,”26 apparently to signal that God is a God he does not know or, at least, understand.27

7.2 Naming Yahweh 7.2.1 Elohim A third term used of God is  . As with Yahweh and Shaddai, this term could be understood as a personal name for God, though since the term is also used as a general term for divinities in Ruth (Ruth 1:15) and as an elaboration of the name Yahweh (Ruth 2:12), I prefer to define it as a naming.28 There are two problems connected to the translation of  . The first is the fact that the term is mainly translated as a singular when used of Israel’s deity, however, when the term refers to foreign deities, the translation is often a plural. Secondly, the term may be understood as both a common noun and a proper name, rendering both a lower case “g” and a capitalized first letter “G” when translated into English.29 In Ruth, these questions are real, since   is used similarly in Ruth 1:15 and 16, with no textual indications to how these verses should be translated.30 The biblical translations and the commentaries often differ between Orpah’s “gods” 25

Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 51. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 92. 27 Cf. 4.3.3.2 Theology of Complaint. 28 Cf. Josh 22:22; Ps 50:1, where the phrase

    should be translated “Yahweh, God of gods.” See Smith, The Early History of God (1990) 8; Toorn, Family Religion (1996) 221–22. Cf. also 2.4.3 Naming, for the definition of “naming”. 29 Brichto, The Names of God (1998) 4; Lang, The Hebrew God (2002) 204. See Keel, Monotheismus (1980); Müller, “Gott und die Götter” (1980), for a more nuanced presentation of this theme. 30 Cf. Hunter, “How many Gods had Ruth?” (1981) 427. 26

176

Part I1: Character Analysis

and Naomi’s “God”, and thus indirectly bring forth an evaluation of the two deities. These translations therefore need a closer study. 7.2.1.1 From Orpah’s god to Naomi’s See, your sister-in-law has turned to her people and to her god. (Ruth 1:15)

   

  

In Ruth 1:15,   refers to Orpah’s god(s), the god(s) of Moab. There is no consensus among the modern biblical translations about how   should be translated in this verse.31 I follow those who translate Ruth 1:15 with a singular “god”.32 This coheres with the description of Moab’s god elsewhere in the Old Testament, where Moab’s god is described in the singular, called by the personal name Chemosh (Num 21:29; Judg 11:24; 1 Kgs 11:7, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13; Jer 48:7, 46).33 The reference to Orpah’s and, indirectly, Ruth’s god leads to the problem of Ruth’s being a foreigner. When Moabites are described in the OT narratives, the problem is above all their god. The Moabite god leads to idolatry, and Moabite women are known as a tempting link between the Moabite god and the men of Israel (Num 25; 1 Kg 11:1–8). Ruth’s native and religious origin therefore goes to the core of an already established OT problem. The translation of   in Ruth 1:16 gives rise to the second problem mentioned above. Whereas most of the biblical translations, as well as the commentaries, understand   as a personal name,34 I prefer a generic reading. The sentences in Ruth 1:16 are made as a parallelism, where 31

NRSV and JPS write the plural, while LUT and the Scandinavian translations use the singular. 32 Korpel, Structure (2001) 57, claims that “the custom choosing a plural in v. 15aB and a singular in v. 16bD is arbitrary. Two times a plural is unlikely, however, because the whole Book of Ruth mentions only one Israelite deity: YHWH.” Nevertheless, she does not explain why she translates v. 15aB with lower-case “g” and v. 16bD with a capitalized “G.” See the discussion below. 33 The reference “Baal of Peor” (Num 25:3) must be understood as a naming. Smith, The Early History of God (1990) 24, points out that both Moab and Israel served several gods in the early first millennium. However, I do not believe that polytheism is an issue in Ruth, but merely that the narrative points to comparable deities for Ruth. I therefore prefer the same translation in Ruth 1:15 and 1:16. See also Hunter, “How many Gods had Ruth?” (1981) 433. For the opposite reading, see Spina, The Faith of the Outsider (2005) 125. 34 See NRSV, OSB, Bibel 2000, D92, NB88, NO78/85. See also Campbell, Ruth (1975) 62; de Waard and Nida, Handbook (1992) 17; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 70; Block, Ruth (1999) 638; Korpel, Structure (2001) 52; LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 67; Matthews, Ruth (2004) 218. Exceptions from such a reading are Sasson, Ruth (1989) 28; Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) 16. Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 45, 49 is inconsistent, writing a lower case “g” in the translation, but using a capitalized “G” in the commentary.

Chapter 7: God

177

“people” and “god” are described in similar ways. Both “people” and “god” are general terms which do not focus on one specific person among the people of Israel, nor on one specific God. The focus lies on Naomi and her relationships, whoever these might be. Such a reading is similar to the former parallelism “for where you go I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge” (Ruth 1:16), understood as “wherever this might be”. Sasson points out that “the area in which Naomi will rest on her way homeward is not of interest here; but rather the emphasis is on the type of dwelling which will ultimately become her home.”35 Ruth’s fidelity to Naomi is thus total and unconditional: there is no specific area, no specific people, and no specific god. Ruth certainly knows the name of Naomi’s deity, using the name Yahweh in the following oath (Ruth 1:16). Still she refers to him in general terms. Her focus on Naomi’s deity necessarily demands a change of religion, away from the Moabite god of Orpah (Ruth 1:15), but I find her words too unspecific to be a pronouncement of religious commitment or even faith.36 As I have argued earlier, I find that this verse is not an act of proselytization to the God of Israel, but a consequence of following Naomi. Ruth turns to the god to whom Naomi happens to belong.37 Accordingly my translation is: Your people are my people, and your god is my god. (Ruth 1:16)

    

The similar terminology used of both Orpah’s god (Ruth 1:15) and Naomi’s (Ruth 1:16) tones down the difference between the deities. At the same time, the narrative makes it clear that Ruth’s change is for the better, even if it may seem accidental. When Ruth turns to Naomi’s god, the plot takes a new direction. As demonstrated earlier, it is an important preparatory scene of Plot 3, focusing on the relationship between God and Ruth.38 The phrase “your god” may be understood as “Naomi’s God”. Such a phrase carries associations of a personal god, like “Abraham’s God” who “went with his own”.39 This is a contrast to Naomi’s reflections on God in this part of the narrative: Being in Moab herself, Naomi had heard that God was in Bethlehem with his people (Ruth 1:6); she wishes that Ruth 35 Sasson, Ruth (1989) 30. According to Hunter, “How many Gods had Ruth?” (1981) 428, it demonstrates the foreigners’ respect of “the gods of that land,” which further implies that “the god(s) of Moab are as real as the God of Judah.” 36 Cf. Hunter, “How many Gods had Ruth?” (1981) 435. 37 See the discussion in 5.3.2 Is Ruth a Proselyte? where my answer is “no”. 38 Ska, Our Fathers have Told Us (1990) 26. Cf. also 2.5.2 Plot 3: God’s role – and Ruth’s. 39 See Mettinger, In Search of God (1988) 55. Toorn, Family Religion (1996) 3–4, stresses that “personal” should not be understood in a modern individual sense of the word, but within the group of the family.

178

Part I1: Character Analysis

and Orpah may receive Yahweh’s hesed, which has apparently not been present so far (Ruth 1:8); and she accuses Yahweh of having turned his hand against her (Ruth 1:13). When Ruth proclaims she will follow “your god”, she brings expectations of the god for whom Naomi has stopped hoping. 7.2.1.2 Yahweh, Israel’s God May you have full reward from Yahweh, Israel’s God. (Ruth 2:12)



     

The phrase  

 is a more explicit definition of God than the former “your god”.    is placed as a direct naming or title of Yahweh, and locates Yahweh to a geographic place. The phrase is part of a longer speech from Boaz, in which he praises Ruth who has done “all” to her mother-in-law, who has recently left her family and her own land to live among strangers. Therefore she deserves to find refuge in Israel’s God (Ruth 2:11–12). These words of Boaz bring a new insight into a central question in Ruth concerning for whom Yahweh is God. I have already demonstrated that having Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion in mind, who all died in Moab (Ruth 1:3–5), it seems as if being an Israelite is no guarantee for Yahweh’s protection. Leaving Israel is the same as leaving the blessings of God the king.40 Having Naomi in mind, who wishes that Yahweh will bring hesed to Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:8–9), it seems as if Yahweh’s protection might reach over the borders of Israel, and might even concern non-Israelites.41 Boaz’ words bring a third alternative, describing the non-Israelite who crosses the border to seek refuge in Israel’s God (Ruth 2:12). Generally, the term “Yahweh, Israel’s God” is used in descriptions of Israel’s close relationship with Yahweh, and it is referred to in texts that relate to subjects such as people, land, law, cult, monarchy and temple (Josh (14x), Judg (7x), 1 Sam (8x), Kgs (27x), Chron (30x) and Jer (14x)). When Boaz describes Ruth’s seeking Yahweh, Israel’s God, he places her within this relationship of Yahweh and his people. Thus, more than indicating that Yahweh may care for non-Israelites or may even be present outside Israel, Boaz claims that Yahweh is able to make binding relationships with a Moabite woman who comes to Israel.42 This Boaz says with40

See 3.2 Elimelech. See 5.3.2.1 Houses. 42 Cf. Lindström, “Guds Långa Näsa” (2001) 12, claiming the speech of Boaz indicates that when Ruth crosses the border of Israel geographically, she crosses a theological border as well. He compares Ruth, who finds refuge in Israel, with Naaman, who asks for two mule-loads of earth to bring back to his homeland so that he might sacrifice to Yahweh on Israelite soil. (2 Kgs 5:17). 41

Chapter 7: God

179

out knowing anything about Ruth’s attitude towards Yahweh. It is her commitment to Naomi, and her good deeds towards her, which make her qualified for refuge under the wings of Yahweh.

7.3 Yahweh’s Actions “God’s activity in the Ruth book is very much that of the one in the shadows, the one whose manifestation is not by intervention but by a lightly exercised providential control. It is equally correct to say as well that God is the primary actor in the drama. … God is present and active in the Ruth story especially in the way in which the people behave toward one another.”43

These words of Campbell are representative of the main tendency in the commentaries on Ruth, claiming that the story is influenced by God’s actions and presence, at least from 1:6 and onwards.44 Nielsen is more reserved in her description of God’s presence in Ruth, but still she claims that the reader “senses but does not see the divine hand.”45 Tod Linafelt is sceptical about the positive readings of God’s presence in Ruth, and he criticizes those who read the story as “pretty, sentimental, idyllic, charming, beautiful, and delightful,”46 and they make the characters into stereotypes. According to Linafeld, it is human ability and responsibility which is the primary focus in Ruth. The theological reflection of the book is the hope “that God will in turn respond to such [human] initiative and bring to fruition what human actors have worked toward.”47 Linafelt’s critique of much of the traditional exegesis of Ruth is reasonable. Ruth has, to a large extent, been characterized in ways that make the narrative nice but harmless.48 Comments such as these do not reflect the fact that Ruth is a story of women in deep distress, and where Yahweh’s presence is quite limited. It is human action, especially Ruth’s, and not Yahweh who drives the narrative forwards. Yahweh never speaks, or lets 43

Campbell, Ruth (1975) 28–29. See Campbell, Ruth (1975) 29, 65. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 68–69, describes the theology in Ruth as concerning “God’s continuous, hidden all-causality and his cosmic role as rewarder”; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996b) 46, 52–53, 55, repeats almost verbatim, that “God exercises absolute sway over the affairs and actions of his world, human and otherwise.” See also Block, Ruth (1999) 600; Gordis, “Love, Marriage and Business” (1974). 45 Nielsen, Ruth (1997) 30. 46 Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) xiii. 47 Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) xvii. 48 See Halem, Ruth (1804) 4: “Wer das Büchlein liest, läßt nicht ab, bis es ausgelesen ist; fühlt sein Herz erweicht; bewundert, wie fest, fast und schön die dargestellten Personen handeln.”; Dass, Trende (1811); Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913) 65. 44

180

Part I1: Character Analysis

others speak his words, and he acts only once in the entire story (Ruth 4:13). The best impression of Yahweh is to be found in descriptions seen from the other characters’ points of view: Naomi accuses God (Ruth 1:13, 20–21), Boaz praises others in the name of Yahweh (Ruth 2:4, 12; 3:10), and the Bethlehem women (Ruth 4:14) praise Yahweh. Blessed be Yahweh, who did not deny you a kinsman today. (Ruth 4:14)



     

The 18 references to Yahweh’s name in Ruth must be understood as a presentation of his identity. Tryggve Mettinger remarks that there is a clear coherence between God’s personal name and the presence of God per se.49 Such a coherence is often to be found in the OT literature (Exod 20:24; 33:19; 34:5–6; 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 8:29; Ps 20:1; 23:3; Isa 30:27; 48:9; Jer 14:7). The frequent use of God’s name in Ruth must therefore be understood as a way of impelling God in the narrative.50 The question is in which way God is present. Is God an active character, or is he more of a theme? The way the story ends, with the birth of Obed and David completing the genealogy, it becomes clear that God holds “sway over the affairs” of the narrative.51 However, such a presence of God does not make him a character within the plot. It is only the narrator, and perhaps the well informed reader, knowing the end of the story, who may interpret the whole narrative this way. I will examine this question by taking a closer look at the sequences where God is described as an actor in Ruth. 7.3.1 God the Bringer of Bread With the exception of Ruth 1:16, all the references to Yahweh in chapter one come from Naomi. First, Naomi “heard” that Yahweh has given bread to the people in Bethlehem, a rumour that makes Naomi decide to go back to her homeland (Ruth 1:6). This is a rather distant description of Yahweh’s action, being the narrator’s description of what Naomi heard about Yahweh’s doing for others, far away. This does not make God an active character in the narrative. Further, Naomi wishes that Yahweh would show his hesed to Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:8). This wish will be kept alive throughout the following scenes of the narrative.52 At this point, however, it only describes Naomi’s wish, and not Yahweh’s action. 49 Mettinger, In Search of God (1988) 6–8. 11. See also his distinctions between “name and reality”, “name and personality”, and “name and presence”. 50 See 2.3.3 Characterization. 51 Bush, “Ruth 4:17” (1996) 46. 52 Cf. 2.5.2 Plot 3: God’s Role – and Ruth’s.

Chapter 7: God

181

7.3.2 God the Prosecutor and Judge In Ruth 1:13, 20–21, on the other hand, Naomi refers to Yahweh’s action directly. Because the hand of Yahweh has turned against me. (Ruth 1:13)

  

Because Shaddai has dealt very bitterly with me. (Ruth 1:20)

 "

Yahweh has made me turn back empty.

  

…..

Yahweh has testified against me and Shaddai has brought calamity upon me. (Ruth 1:21)

 

    

I have already discussed Naomi’s laments to Yahweh as testifier and punisher,53 and pointed out that Naomi’s sad words about God are not necessarily correct descriptions. Naomi’s point of view is a limited character’s viewpoint, different from the more distant narrator’s. Nevertheless, it is a true description of Yahweh in that it is Naomi’s actual experience of God, and should therefore be taken into account.54 According to Naomi, there is a contrast between Yahweh’s actions towards others and God’s actions towards her. In Ruth 1:6, 8, Yahweh is connected to positive expectations, even if not experienced; Ruth 1:13, 20– 21, on the other hand, are all sad experiences. This gives the impression that Naomi does not deny that God is present, and even may be a merciful God. Nevertheless, to her, Naomi is abandoned by God, as God has become a prosecutor and a judge. 7.3.3 Blessings in the Name of Yahweh In chapter two, Boaz’ divine greetings set the scene. He said to the reapers: May Yahweh be with you. And they answered him: Yahweh bless you. (Ruth 2:4)



  

   

As earlier remarked, Boaz’ greetings do not necessary mean that Boaz calls upon God, the discourse between him and his servants might just be conventions.55 Nevertheless, the words give the narrative a new setting and draw Yahweh into the plot. Therefore, when it occurs that Ruth happened to come to Boaz’ field looking for a place to gather grain, God is recently introduced, and this particular event may be understood as God’s hidden 53 54 55

See 4.3.3 Naomi and God, and 7.1.2 Shaddai. Cf. Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 148. See 6.3.2.1 Bringing Yahweh’s Blessing.

182

Part I1: Character Analysis

design.56 In this way, the presentation of Yahweh through Boaz’ greetings engraves the understanding of the forthcoming scenes. Boaz’ words to Ruth have the same positive effect as those in Ruth 2:4: May you get full reward from Yahweh, Israel’s God, under whose wings you have come for refuge. (Ruth 2:12)



     

   

Boaz’ description of Yahweh in Ruth 2:12 is radically different from the description made by Naomi in 1:19–21. Similarly to Naomi’s words, however, the words of Boaz are descriptions from a character’s point of view, which means that Boaz’ praises of Yahweh are not necessarily better descriptions of God’s actions than Naomi’s laments. In addition, and as earlier demonstrated, Boaz’ words are interpreted rather differently from how Boaz apparently meant them, as Ruth turns the words to concern refuge in him, and not Yahweh (Ruth 3:9).57 With this interpretation of Ruth, a third attitude towards Yahweh is given. Ruth’s position might be described as if Ruth waited for Yahweh, but gave up, and decided on a second solution. It also might be that she, being a Moabite, does not wait for Yahweh at all. Or did Ruth see in the pious Boaz the refuge of Yahweh? The answer seems rather open. What is clear is that Boaz’ wish for Yahweh’s blessing does not manage to establish a particular understanding of Yahweh’s presence in the narrative. 7.3.4 Yahweh, the Conceiver In chapter three, the references to Yahweh are few. Boaz praises Ruth in the name of Yahweh (Ruth 3:10), similarly to his praise of her in Ruth 2:12. But again, there is no response from Ruth about Yahweh’s presence and protection. Then, in chapter four, Yahweh finally acts. Yahweh let her conceive, and she bore a son. (Ruth 4:13)

    

  

So far in the narrative, Yahweh’s action is based on a rumour (Ruth 1:6). Here the narrator is close to events. It is hardly accidental that both Ruth 1:6 and Ruth 4:13 concern fertility, which is a theme throughout Ruth.58 In Ruth 4:13, however, Yahweh’s presence is finally unquestionable. This makes God an active character in the narrative. 56

Cf. Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (1969) 12; Phillips: Deception of Shame (1986) 11. 57 See 6.3.2.3 From Boaz’ Wings to Yahweh’s. 58 See Zakovitch, Rut (1999) 167. Cf. also 2.5 Plot and Narrative Structure.

Chapter 7: God

183

7.3.4.1 Pregnancy and God’s Blessing God’s presence and blessing through pregnancy and childbirth is a well known theme in the OT narratives, 59 and is a central theme in Ruth as well. Pregnancy and delivery are an unmistakably divine blessing, as barrenness, on the other hand, is associated with sin. Giving birth to children, and, above all, sons, is the most important thing an OT married woman can do, bringing prestige as well as security in old age.60 And still, pregnancy and childbirth are complex issues, as a basic phenomenon in real life, and particularly when seen from an ancient OT context. I therefore find it plausible to read some ambiguity into the traditionally self-evident understanding that pregnancy and childbirth are a blessing. First of all, the birth of children is a normal situation. This matter of fact does not undermine the fact that children are blessings from God; however, the normality makes it less remarkable as God’s intervention and it is far from being a theophany. Secondly, the birth of a child does not always occur as a blessing. Pregnancies outside marriage are condemned (Gen 38:24; 2 Sam 11:27; 12:15), and Israel’s enemies have enemyoffspring, children which not are protected from Yahweh’s anger (1 Sam 15:3; 22:19; Ps 137:9; Isa 13:16–18). Thirdly, childbirth is a dangerous task. There are rather few OT stories describing women struggling in childbirth (Gen 35:16–18; 1 Sam 4:19– 20), but we must assume that the rate of death was high in ancient Israel, for both the mother and the child.61 The large amount of rhetoric in the Psalms and the Prophets which uses the pain of childbirth as a common metaphor (Ps 48:7; Isa 13:7–8; 21:3; 26:17; 37:3; 42:14; Jer 4:31; 6:24;

59

Hagar and Sarah, Lot’s daughters and Tamar are all childless women arranging their own conceptions, without awaiting God (Gen 16:1–2; 19:30–38; 38:13–30); Abraham and Sarah laugh at Yahweh’s promise (Gen 17:15–19; 18:11–15), Leah and Rachel compete for Jacob’s favour (29:31–30:24); Abraham is forced to sacrifice his own offspring (Gen 22:1,19); Rachel dies in labour (Gen 35:16–18); Hannah praises God for her child (1 Sam 2:1–10), and David’s first son with Bathsheba is conceived in sin, and dies as a consequence of this (2 Sam11:27; 12:14–18). Yahweh gives offspring to barren women (Gen 15:1–5; 17:4–5, 15–19; 21:1–7; 25:19–22; Judg 13:2–24; 1 Sam 1:1–20); he closes wombs (Gen 20:18; 29:31; 1 Sam 1:5), and opens them (Gen 30:22); he is the one bringing life, and the one who takes it back (1 Sam 2:5–7; Ps 139:13; Isa 42:6; Lam 2:18–22). 60 See Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 70, 77, 79. 61 Meyers, Discovering Eve (1988) 112–13, claims women’s life expectancy “closer to 30,” and Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel” (1985) 18, estimates an infant morality rate entailing “six births of which perhaps two children survive.” Cf. also Toorn, From her Cradle (1994) 82–91; Philip, Menstruation and Childbirth (2006) 98.

184

Part I1: Character Analysis

13:21; 22:23; 30:4–6; 50:43; Mic 4:9–10),62 and also Tobit 4:3–4, confirm this fear connected with childbirth. Gen 3:16 must be understood with this background of the mortal risks involved in childbearing.63 Tarja S. Philip’s comments that birth stories were told to focus on a male hero or the new-born baby, and therefore “women’s experiences during the birth were irrelevant to the plot,”64 seems a likely explanation of why only the happy, but in reality, rare, birth stories are told in the Old Testament. The story of Ruth is such a story. Ruth’s conceiving and the birth of Obed are undoubtedly good news and the climax of the narrative. Still, the fact that childbirth was a situation in which blessing and damnation were two sides of the same issue is a framework, also for the Ruth narrative. From the characters’ points of view, and the reader’s, a blessing so closely connected to death must be understood with some ambiguity. 7.3.4.2 The Pregnancy of Ruth There are three passages in Ruth where divine blessing through conception and pregnancy may be the subject (Ruth 1:4–5; 3:7–14; 4:13). However, there are also uncertainties connected with the interpretations. First, Ruth was married to Mahlon for ten years without having a child (Ruth 1:4–5). According to the general understanding in the Old Testament, childlessness may be understood as the result of someone’s sin, namely Mahlon’s, whose name implies “sterile”, and who had married a Moabite. However, sterility is not always a sign of sin in the Old Testament. Sarah was barren for no specific reason (Gen 16:1),65 and neither did Hannah sin (1 Sam 1:2). Mahlon’s name does not therefore need to be understood as anything but an explanation of why the marriage was childless. The sterility lay with the man; it was not that God had closed Ruth’s womb, as happened with the barrenness of Abimelech’s wife and midwives’ (Gen 20:18), as well as with Rachel (Gen 29:31; 30:22) and Hanna (1 Sam 1:5); neither did the husband turn his back on her, as was probably the situation with Michal (2 Sam 6:20–23).

62 Darr, “Like Warrior, like Woman” (1987) 566, describes the stereotypical similes of the “travailing woman” to be “anguished cries, limp hands, and panic-stricken faces.” For the use of this simile of Yahweh, see Løland, Silent or Salient Gender? (2008) 100– 128. 63 Cf. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961) 42–43; Meyers, Discovering Eve (1988) 113; Dieckmann, “Die Ambivalenz des Gebärens nach Gen 3,16” (2006). 64 Philip, Menstruation and Childbirth (2006) 104. 65 A possible indication of sin might be that her marriage was incestuous (Gen 12:12–13; 20:2), however, there is no such hints in the narratives concerning Sarah’s barrenness elsewhere in Genesis.

Chapter 7: God

185

The second possible situation for blessing through conception is when Ruth lays a whole night “by Boaz’ feet” (Ruth 3:7–14). Lying by someone’s  might be read as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but as remarked earlier, what happened at the threshing floor remains a secret (Ruth 3:16).66 It is therefore difficult to use this scene to decide whether it was Yahweh, keeping his blessings away, or whether it was Boaz, resisting Ruth’s offer, who was the reason why Ruth did not conceive that night. The third scene of a possible blessed conception is easier to interpret. As Boaz’ legal wife, Yahweh blesses Ruth when she enters Boaz’ house, and “Yahweh made her conceive” (Ruth 4:13). Here, the narrative speaks clearly about whose responsibility the pregnancy is. But even here, babies don’t come out of the blue.67 The intervention of Yahweh is a silent one.68 The narrator is clear concerning God’s action in Ruth 4:13, and also when pointing at the genealogy which confirms God’s design throughout the story. The Bethlehem women are clear as well, saying: “Blessed be Yahweh, who has not left you this day without a next-of-kin” (Ruth 4:14). Naomi says nothing, but compared with her complaints to God in chapter one, her silence may be understood as sufficient. Ruth does not comment on God’s action either, and her experience of God’s presence remains in the open. We may conclude that the analysis of the three scenes brings a possible, but not a definite, answer to the question concerning God’s presence through Ruth’s change from being childless to becoming a mother. The answer must also be influenced by the ambiguities connected to pregnancy which are described above, and by the responses made by the different characters. Frymer-Kensky’s words: “God never acts in The Book of Ruth. Nevertheless, God is very present in the character’s minds and they perceive God’s Providence in the working out of their destiny,”69 is a statement which coheres with the analysis done so far. God’s direct action in Ruth is difficult to identify; but the many references to God, both negative and positive, and his role as being responsible for Ruth’s pregnancy, still secure God’s presence in the narrative. Another way of showing “God’s Providence” is through hesed.

66 67 68 69

Cf. 6.3.1.2 Secret Night Scene. Cf. Fewell and Gunn, Compromising (1990) 103. Neher, The Exile of the Word (1981) 22. Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women (2002) 242.

186

Part I1: Character Analysis

7.3.5 Hesed

 is normally connected to the name Yahweh in the Old Testament.70 In general, whether hesed is used in a profane or divine context, it belongs to a pious language, implying a community or a pack based upon loyalty, fidelity and love.71 Glueck claims that hesedhas to do with “Recht-PflichtVerhältnis” between people,72 or between God and the covenant people.73 Of all the 245 references of hesedin the Old Testament, only 63 of them belong to the profane area.74 The references in Ruth belong to this minor group. I will elaborate this statement in the following. Sakenfeld’s description of hesed as a term focusing on morality is interesting for the use in Ruth. She sees a more flexible use of hesed than Glueck’s descriptions of relationships of rights and obligations, and describes hesed as a word receiving individual application “so that there is a distinction drawn between men who practise hesed and those who do not. This individualizing of religious usage sets the stage for the eventual development of the meaning ‘pious acts’,” she claims.75 This is similar to LaCocque, who describes hesed as “that which goes beyond common or legislated morality.” 76 When it comes to God’s hesed, there is a question of its moral aspects again, as hesed holds together “the sovereign freedom of God and his strong commitment to his chosen people.”77 Following these descriptions, I will seek to map out who the doers of hesedare in Ruth. 7.3.5.1 Meanings of 

  is not easy to translate. HALOT suggests translations such as “faithfulness”, “goodness” and “graciousness;”78 THAT uses “Güte;”79 ThWAT

Zobel, “ ” (1982) 60, describeds the occurrences of hesed as “eine breite Palette von Aussagen mit JHWH als Subj. und hæsæd als Obj.” 71 Cf. Campbell, Ruth (1975) 29–30; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 72–73. 72 Glueck, Das Wort Hesed (1961) 1–21. The commentary, which was Glueck’s dissertation from 1926, has become a standard work within the study of hesed. Other significant studies of hesed are Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978). This work is also originally a dissertation; Clark, The Word Hesed (1993) especially pp. 38, 167–68, 186, 200–01, 208, 262, for the studies to Ruth. 73 Glueck, Das Wort Hesed (1961) 21–34. 74 Zobel, “ ” (1982) 50. 75 Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 236. 76 LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 31. 77 Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 238–39. 78 HALOT 336–37. 79 Stoebe, “ ” (1973) 600–01. 70

Chapter 7: God

187

compares hæsed with the Arab term hasada,80 and mostly interprets the term with “die Güte” or “die Güte YHWH’s”.81 In the research of Ruth the suggestions are “Güte”,82 “kindness”,83 “loyalty, reliability, kindness, compassion”,84 “be good to”,85 “fidelity”,86 or as Block proclaims, it is “that quality that moves a person to act for the benefit of another without respect to the advantage it might bring to the one who expresses it.”87 Thus it is a term whose meaning cannot be captured in one English word. I follow Block, and retain the Hebrew transcription hesed in the translations, while I mostly use the term “fidelity” when the meaning of the term needs to be emphasized. 7.3.5.2 Hesed in Ruth In the Old Testament, hesed is generally attributed to Yahweh.88 In Ruth however, the three occurrences of hesed are mainly connected to human characters. The significance of Naomi’s words to Orpah and Ruth implies a twofold use of hesed. The phrase is a wish that Yahweh will bring hesed to Naomi’s daughters-in-law; at the same time it is a statement about Orpah’s and Ruth’s hesed to Naomi and her dead men. May Yahweh bring hesed to you, as you did to the dead and to me. (Ruth 1:8)

 

    

I have earlier demonstrated that Ruth already showed hesed when living in Moab, before she came to Israel and before she gave her oath about clinging to Naomi and her god.89 When looking for the significance of God’s hesed in the phrase, I will stress that even if the verse grammatically has Yahweh as subject, it is Orpah and Ruth who are the proper doers of hesed.

80 Zobel, “ ” (1982) 49. See also Glueck, Das Wort Hesed (1961) 67–68; Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 241–45. 81 Zobel, “dsx” (1982) 58, 59. 82 See Zobel, “ ” (1982) 57–58. 83 Campbell, Ruth (1975) 60, 81. 84 Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (1988) 104. 85 de Waard and Nida, Translator (1973) 12. NRSV uses “kindness” for  in Ruth, while OSB uses “faith” (Ruth 1:8; 2:20), or “devoted” (Ruth 3:10). In Scandinavia, NO78/85 and Bibel 2000 consequently use the term “trofasthet,” while D92 1992 differs between “godhed” (Ruth 1:8), “troskab” (Ruth 2:20), and “trofasthed” (Ruth 3:10). 86 Cf. LaCocque, The Feminine Unconventional (1990) 87. 87 Block, Ruth (1999) 605. See also Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 233. 88 Zobel, “ ” (1982) 60. 89 See 5.3.2 Is Ruth a Proselyte?

188

Part I1: Character Analysis

In her speech, Naomi makes it clear that the two Moabite women have already brought hesed,90 while Yahweh’s hesed is a wish. I find it natural to read Naomi’s words in the light of her following expressions about Yahweh, which are “bitter” (Ruth 1:13, 20). Her best example of hesed is therefore not Yahweh, but Orpah and Ruth. Accordingly, Naomi’s words must be understood in the way that she uses the two Moabite women as models of her wish about Yahweh’s hesed. The words of Naomi are comparable to the words by David in 2 Sam 2:6. Here, David wishes Yahweh’s hesed on those who showed hesed towards Saul by burying him. What is common for Ruth 1:8 and 2 Sam 2:6 is the definite separation between those who have done and those who have received hesed. The doer of hesed deserves hesed in return, but for different reasons it is impossible for the receiver to do the repaying. Instead Yahweh’s hesed is called upon as a reward for human hesed.91 This way of replacing human with divine hesed does not make human and divine hesed the same. They are, however, comparable. Sakenfeld’s description, that Yahweh’s hesed is “great beyond any human expectation”,92 does not therefore fit into the descriptions of hesed in Ruth 1:8 and 2 Sam 2:6; it is rather the contrary. Divine hesed is brought close to the qualities of Orpah’s, Ruth’s (Ruth 1:8) and the men in Gilead’s hesed (2 Sam 2:4), and, moreover, human hesed seems to be a condition for divine hesed to be present, and is also raised as a model of how divine hesed should be practised. Naomi’s wish that Yahweh will bring his hesed is a central preparatory scene of Plot 3, and provokes the question which follows the narrative: will Yahweh bring his hesed, as he is asked to do? Will God’s presence be demonstrated? The question is indirectly repeated by Boaz, as he wishes Ruth to find refuge under Yahweh’s wings (Ruth 2:12), and it is given new dimensions when the term is used later in the narrative: Blessed be him by Yahweh, who neither has left his hesed from the living nor the dead. (Ruth 2:20)





       

The syntactical challenge concerning to whom  refers was earlier discussed. I have argued that Boaz is the subject of , and accordingly for hesed as well, but that the ambiguity in the sentence is significant for the interpretation.93 What could have been a presentation of Yahweh’s hesed, and accordingly an answer to Naomi’s wish, is rather a presentation of 90 This, from the perspective of what Zobel, “ ” (1982) 51, calls “Verhältnis zwischen Verwandten.” 91 Campbell, “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth” (1990) 65. 92 Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 239. 93 See 6.3.3.2 Replacing Yahweh with Boaz.

Chapter 7: God

189

Boaz’ hesed. When drawing the line from Ruth 1:8 to Ruth 2:20, we find that “the living and the dead” (Ruth 2:20) is a clear reference to “the dead and to me” (Ruth 1:8). The only significant difference is the change from “me” to “living”. According to the context, it indicates that both Naomi and Ruth are included in hesed. Ruth 2:20 may therefore be a fulfilment of Naomi’s wish in Ruth 1:8. Ruth has received hesed, not from Yahweh, however, but from Boaz. Once again, hesed is related to human action. At the same time, the unclear syntax of Ruth 2:20 closely aligns the roles of Boaz and Yahweh, and this ambiguity does not easily allow a clear distinction between Boaz and Yahweh. Instead we may read divine traits into Boaz’ actions. The question about God’s hesed and, accordingly, presence is thus answered through the divine traits within human actions. In Ruth 3:10, Ruth is the grammatical subject of hesed: Your latter hesed is better than the former. (Ruth 3:10)

       

Boaz’ words at the threshing floor are his second speech to Ruth, and hesed here is referred to as something that has already been mentioned between the two of them. The “former” hesed probably refers to “all that you did to your mother-in-law” (Ruth 2:10–12), which was his first speech. These words, again, indirectly refer to what Naomi described as Ruth’s hesed in Ruth 1:8. The “latter” hesed is what Ruth does at the threshing floor.94 I have argued that in this speech Boaz sees himself as receiver of Ruth’s hesed. He is surprised and pleased, and asks her to stay the night.95 There is no doubt that hesed is a human action in Ruth 3:10. Still Yahweh’s presence may also be involved here. Ruth 3:10 is Boaz’ response to Ruth’s words in Ruth 3:9. Here, she plays on the word , which refers both to Boaz’ garment, under which she suggests she lay, and to Yahweh’s wings, under which Boaz has earlier wished Ruth to find refuge (Ruth 2:12). With this double reference, Ruth renews Boaz’ wish and reminds Yahweh of what he is expected to do, at the same time as she applies to Boaz to fulfil the wish on his own. Boaz, on his side, evokes the levirate law to obtain a legal relationship to Ruth.96 Ruth’s and Boaz’ references to Yahweh and the law might be personally motivated; nevertheless, the 94

On the contrary, Farmer, “The Book of Ruth: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections” (1998) 929, suggests that the “present” and “latter” hesed might refer to Ruth’s two requests to Boaz in Ruth 3:9, first the question of taking her under his garment, and second to be her goel. 95 See 6.3.1.7 Boaz’ Interest in Ruth. On the other hand, Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed (1978) 43, argues also that this hesed of Ruth is dedicated Naomi, and especially the dead Mahlon, and that Ruth seeks Boaz to fulfil the levirate law. 96 See 6.3.1.3 Boaz’ Plan.

190

Part I1: Character Analysis

personal needs do not remove the importance of Yahweh’s active presence, quite the reverse; the human actions are motivated by the expected action of Yahweh. It is, as Linafeld claims, based on the hope “that God will in return respond to such initiative and bring to fruition what human action have worked toward.”97 There is a broad agreement within the research of Ruth that God is presented through hesed in Ruth.98 When summarizing, I find that hesed used in Ruth does neither directly confirm nor reject Yahweh’s presence in the narrative. The primary doers of hesed are Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:8), Boaz (Ruth 2:20) and Ruth again (Ruth 3:10). The question of whether Yahweh brings his hesed, as suggested in Ruth 1:8, is therefore not directly answered. What is confirmed is that due to the description of Ruth’s and Boaz’ doing hesed, human action is lifted to a higher level, comparable with the divine. It is also clear that hesed is reached within the narrative because of human action. Because of the ambiguity connected with hesed in Ruth, and because of how hesed is generally used in the Old Testament, we may claim that hesed is somehow also a presentation of God in this narrative. When hesed is activated, when Boaz employs hesed in response to Ruth’s, we relate this to God’s presence. At the same time, however, we also expect that God will employ his hesed, specifically, in return.99 7.3.6 The Silence of God The search for God’s role in Ruth has brought few clear answers. It is therefore appropriate to ask this question: what kind of role has God in Ruth? Is he only a name without character,100 absent from the narrative, is he hidden to the characters, or is he silently present in the narrative? I will explore these questions by taking a look at the broader OT literary context, focusing on the topics “God’s hiddenness” and “God’s remembrance”. 7.3.6.1 The Absence of God in its Old Testament Context God’s absence is described and understood differently in different OT narratives. Some of the narratives in which God’s presence is revealed might have a negative shade, as in the narrative of Lot’s daughters (Gen

97

Linafelt and Beal, Ruth (1999) xvii. See for example Campbell, Ruth (1975) 29, 65; Block, Ruth (1999) 600, claiming that Ruth, Naomi and Boaz serve as “models of hesed for all who claim membership in the covenant community”; Gordis, “Love, Marriage and Business” (1974) 241–242. 99 Cf. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 32. 100 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation (1983) 86. 98

Chapter 7: God

191

19),101 Jephthah’s daughter (Judg 11:34–40), or the narrative of the Levite and his wife (Judg 19). In the story of Esther, however, the reader clearly understands which of the characters is a hero, and which are to blame, even if God is never mentioned. In the story of Job, God is absent to most of the time (Job 1–37); to the reader, though, he is present (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6). In the Book of Job, God’s absence is made a definite topic. Twice God is described as one hiding his face (Job 13:24; 34:29).102 The parallelism illustrates how Job sees a connection between God’s hiding his face and his own experience of being God’s enemy: Why do you hide your face, and count me as your enemy? (Job 13:24)

     

Norman C. Habel describes Job 13:24 as an expression of surreptitiousness. “If God had any sense of justice and fair play, he would cease his brutality, show his face in court, and declare his motives.”103 Unlike the prophets, who proclaim that God’s hiddenness is a result of the sin of the whole people, God’s hiding from Job is hiding from an individual, and moreover, Job is an individual not able to discern the reason for God’s action.104 Job’s friend, Elihu, understands God’s hidden face differently. He draws a parallel between God’s hidings and God’s silence. When he is quiet, who can condemn? When he hides his face, who can behold him? (Job 34:29)

 



   

Elihu does not describe God’s hiddenness as a reason for complaint, but as a description of the hidden sovereignty of God, “understood by the wise as a sovereignty that reveals itself in its own time,” similar to Dan 2:22, where Daniel “knows what is in darkness”, quoting Carol A. Newsom. 105 This understanding of God’s hiddenness is quite different from that of Job’s, and thus illustrates the contrasting picture given of God in the Book of Job. 106 101

See Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible (2002) 259–61, who argeues that Lot’s daughters have no bad motives, and Lot himself was not aware of what happened. 102 See the list in Balentine, The Hidden God (1983) 9, where he sorts out 85 OT texts of “hiding with reference to God.” 103 Habel, The Book of Job (1985) 232. 104 Cf. Balentine, The Hidden God (1983) 68. 105 Newsom, The Book of Job (2003) 219. 106 See also Neher, The Exile of the Word (1981) 53, describing God’s hidden face in Isa 8:17; 45:15 as an expression of “the attitude of the man before the metaphysical mystery.”

192

Part I1: Character Analysis

God’s hiddenness is also an issue in the Psalms. There are several examples of complaints similar to those of Job’s, where the innocent worshipper understands God’s hidden face as something God does to him (Ps 13:2; 30:8; 44:25; 69:18; 88:15). Ps 104:29 is different. Here, the presence of God is described as a condition for living, and the hiding of God’s face is thus a threat for the whole creation.107 This understanding based on God as creator does not link God’s presence or hiddenness to any cause at all. This might be comparable to Elihu and his description of the sovereign God. The Exodus narrative brings a third dimension to the understanding of God’s absence in the Old Testament. Whereas the Exodus story as such is a story of Yahweh’s intervention, the first two chapters describe, according to Exod 12:40, four hundred and twenty years of distress. These are years where God is hardly referred to. Omissions are difficult to interpret. Terence E. Fretheim claims that despite the fact that divine activity is unobtrusive in the first part of Exodus, “God works behind the scenes … through the wisdom and courage of five lowly women.”108 Donald E. Gowan is of another opinion. He stresses the absence of God by pointing out how the statement in Exod 2:23–24 is an explicit marker of change in God’s activity.109 God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Exod 2:24)

  

     

Gowan claims that Exod 2:23–24 is a characteristically indirect description of God’s absence. Instead of offering an answer to what God was doing during those years the Israelites suffered under the Egyptians, the Old Testament speaks “of the time when God’s silence is broken, insisting the times of God’s absence do not last forever.”110 I find that Gowan’s approach fits well as a model for several OT narratives, telling about God’s breaking of silence. Gen 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Judg 16:28; 1 Sam 1:19 are similar to Exod 2:23–25, descriptions of   , the remembrance of God, describing how God finally remembers Noah, Abraham, Rachel, Samson and Hannah after a time of mourning or distress. To break the silence, there first must be silence. God’s silence is rarely announced, but using Gowan as a model, we may presume that when the biblical narratives tell about God’s breaking of silence, the passages of time passing between the stories are to be understood as times of a silent 107 108 109 110

See Balentine, The Hidden God (1983) 62, note 47. Fretheim, Exodus (1991) 23, 47. Gowan, Theology in Exodus (1994) 2. Gowan, Theology in Exodus (1994) 4.

Chapter 7: God

193

God. The short note in 1 Sam 3:1 is an explicit illustration of such a reading, as it starts with the time before the narrative begins, and then describes how the narrative arises out of silence:111 The words of Yahweh was rare in those days, visions were not widespread. (1 Sam 3:1)

   

     

7.3.6.2 God’s Silence in Ruth There are no hints that God, as a consequence of his being reminded, starts acting in Ruth; there are no invocations addressed to God,112 and no specific action indicating that God has intervened. Still, the narrative of Ruth fits well with the approach of reading OT narratives as stories about God’s breaking the silence. In Ruth, God is both absent and present. The questions are: when does God appear, and how does he break the silence? As discussed earlier, the name Elimelech is the first reference to the deity in Ruth.113 Because of his sad fate (Ruth 1:1–3), I would claim that Elimelech points to the absent deity. At the end of the narrative, David is the last confirmation of God’s design (Ruth 4:17, 22).114 Between the appearances of these men, God has obviously appeared. Going backwards, we can confirm that the women of Bethlehem clearly see God’s care in the newborn Obed (Ruth 4:14). The repeated blessings connected to Boaz, whether he praises others in the name of Yahweh (Ruth 2:4, 12; 3:10), or is praised himself (Ruth 2:20; 4:11–12), also make situations where God’s presence is expected to be present. I believe that God gradually appears in the story during chapter 1: first, in the periphery of the narrative, as a rumour heard from Bethlehem (Ruth 1:6); then, through the demand about his responding with hesed (Ruth 1:8). God is present when the narrator discreetly refers to God’s design when Naomi and Ruth enter Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (Ruth 1:22), and when he, with a “kind of underplaying of effect”, 115 describes how Ruth by accident happens to glean at Boaz’ harvest field (Ruth 2:3). God’s appearance is, however, a silent entrance, and he remains a silent character throughout the whole story. No discourse with or 111

To this, cf. also Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) 143–165 on duration of time. 112 Cf. Patrick, “Job’s Address of God” (1979) 269, distinguishing between “prayers” which may be expressions both to and about God, and the more specific term ”address of God,” which are “second person singular pronouns referring to God.” 113 See 3.2 Elimelech. 114 See 6.1.2.2 The Seventh Name of the Genealogy. 115 Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (1969) 12.

194

Part I1: Character Analysis

evocation of God confirms any break of silence or direct contact between God and the characters. Even in his only action, God is hidden behind human action (Ruth 4:13). Being a silent character, God’s identity is difficult to define. His hiddenness is more complex than being the hidden hand controlling history, as the commentaries on Ruth often claim.116 As has been demonstrated, Elihu sees in Yahweh’s silence the mystery of God; Job only sees his own distress. Both of these perspectives are relevant in the reading of Ruth. From Naomi’s point of view, God’s silence is comparable to absence, as God has turned his hand against her (Ruth 1:13), and has abandoned her.117 The other characters do not address God as if he were present either. They only make wishes in his names and namings. To these characters God seems more to be a subject outside the narrative than a character inside the story. This observation leads to an understanding like that of Elihu’s, describing God in terms similar to the wisdom literature,118 or like the way Ps 104:29 refers to Yahweh’s presence as the divinity sustaining the creation. André Neher points out that the silence of God in Ruth is ambiguous since it is difficult to decide “whether this absence is the sign of a presence too intense to be clearly expressed, or whether, on the contrary, it suggests the indifference of a God who hopes that men will find their own way out of trouble.”119 This ambiguity is difficult to solve. Due to his only action I find that God is an active character and not only a name. As a character type, I will call God a type, being present and playing a decisive role in the plot by being a designer of the story (Ruth 2:3; 4:18), and by letting Ruth conceive (Ruth 4:13), but otherwise absent and apparently unaffected by the other characters. Thus, I will claim that both of Neher’s suggestions of God are relevant in Ruth: God is silently present, and, at the same time, he leaves the characters to themselves.

7.4. Summary This chapter has raised different questions about God and his role in Ruth. To draw some conclusions, I will first of all claim that God is a character 116 117

See the examples in the introduction to 7.3 Yahweh’s Actions. Freedman, God as Absent Character (2005) 141–43. See also 4.3.3 Naomi and

God. 118 Cf. Stanek, “The Theological Message of the Book of Ruth” (2006) 157, who argues that Ruth, “struggling with the dilemma of human hope for a good future and the reality of suffering and death,” is related to wisdom literature, and accordingly belongs to the Writings, as is confirmed in the Hebrew Bible. 119 Neher, The Exile of the Word (1981) 23.

Chapter 7: God

195

in Ruth. His role, however, is different from that of the other characters in the narrative, as he is mostly referred to by other characters and not specifically presented by the narrator. The characters refer to “Yahweh” 16 times, twice to “Shaddai”, twice to “god”, and once to “God of Israel”; they bless each other in the name of Yahweh (Ruth 1:8, 9; 2:4, 12, 20; 3:10; 4:11–12, 14) and Naomi also complains of Yahweh Shaddai (Ruth 1:13, 20–21). Despite all these references, God is never addressed, and he never speaks. Thus, there is no interaction between God and the other characters. Twice the narrator refers to Yahweh’s actions. The one is a rumour “Naomi had heard” about Yahweh’s providing bread in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:6); the other is a pleasant but far from extraordinary event, when Ruth conceives and delivers a son (Ruth 3:13). Both actions are central to the plot, focusing on fertility both in soil and within humans; they are, however, difficult to use as testimony to God’s presence. Naomi describes God as a judge (Ruth 1:20–21), and Boaz describes him as a refuge (Ruth 2:12), but the descriptions receive no response from God, and thus they remain human proclamations. God’s hesed is wished upon (Ruth 1:8) and the wish is indirectly repeated (Ruth 2:12; 3:9), but God never answers these calls either. Nevertheless, through the actions of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 1:8; 2:(12), 20; 3:10) God is involved. A major question raised in this chapter has been whether God is absent, hidden or silent. God is often described as “one in the shadows”,120 as a characteristic of God’s hidden design in Ruth. I would use the same characteristic, however, to stress the distance between God and the other characters, but also to claim that God is not totally absent in Ruth. Through human action, hesed is demonstrated. And through hesed, which brings expectations of divine presence, God appears in the narrative and is silently present after all. These traits make God a type, being the present God throughout the narrative; however, distant, and difficult to discover by the other characters.

120

Campbell, Ruth (1975) 29.

Part III

Conclusion “Eine ‘Tendenz’ hat die Geschichte überhaupt nicht. Wer aber außer der einfachen Wahrheit vom Lohn der Treue schlechterdings noch eine ‘Lehre’ mitnehmen will, dem möchten wir diese empfehlen, daß Männer gut tun, sich vor schönen und klugen Frauen, die ihren Willen durchsetzen wollen, in Acht zu nehmen.“ Herman Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze (1913), 89.

Chapter 8

God’s Hesed in a Moabite 8.1 Summaries This book opened with the statement that biblical characters are to a large extent described too one-dimensionally. The narrative analysis in Part II followed the pattern of reading each of the characters in Ruth through their names and namings, and further, through their actions and roles in the plot, to demonstrate that there are nuances and complexities within the characters that make them identifiable humans more than unapproachable ideals. I have also shown that each character has its specific voice, stressing certain themes connected to the narrative. Summaries of the main characters have already been given in chapters 4 to 7. Here, I will give a summary of the characters’ main traits. Naomi, the lovely, is a mourning widow who is more focused on her own grief than on looking for qualities in her foreign daughter-in-law. She complains about God who has turned his hand against her, and changes her name to Mara. When she finds Boaz, however, she awakens, and makes a plan to rescue Ruth and herself. In this way she gets a “son” in the newborn Obed. The question of whether she becomes a Naomi again remains, however, in the open. Naomi is a full-fledged character and has the main role in the plot. It is with her loss and redemption the narrative is concerned. Ruth, whose name has an unclear meaning, is the Moabite who does hesed already in Moab. She clings to Naomi and follows her god; although “god” to Ruth is not necessarily Yahweh, but Naomi’s god, whoever this may be. Ruth also gleans on the harvest field and seduces Boaz. All this she does to save her mother-in-law and herself. In the end she is praised for being “better than seven sons”. Her own characterization, however, is that she is a foreigner. Ruth remains a stranger, keeping the more distant trait of a type within the full-fledged character. Still, she inhabits a keyrole in the narrative, as she brings the plot forward to a happy ending. Boaz is the “pillar of society”: wealthy, worthy, and powerful. He introduces Yahweh’s blessings to the narrative, blesses his servants, blesses Ruth the foreigner, and brings food to Naomi. He is merry, and when Ruth comes to him at night he promises to do whatever she wants. With the help

200

Part III: Conclusions

of trickery he makes the whole city gate bless his marriage, and when the son is born he is named the father, and enters the genealogy as the seventh generation. Thus, Boaz is a full-fledged character, and the solution of the plot. However, he also partly plays the role of a narratee, being the one responding to Ruth, and thus represents the ideal reader with which the implied reader may identify. God is in the shadows. God is not absent, but he is silent, never answering laments, proclamations or praises. God is partly present in a rumour Naomi hears about bringing bread to Bethlehem, and he is present when Ruth conceives. Elsewhere, God is present through his names spoken by the other characters, and through hesed, shown by the other characters. This makes God a hidden character in the narrative. God is more of a subject than he is a presently acting character. We may describe him as a type, silently watching the characters. The plot in Ruth evolves around the themes of famine, fertility and blessing. The four main characters are bound to this plot and are, in different ways, decisive for the plot’s solution. The way they solve it, however, involves some specific problems concentrated on the question about the role of the foreigner and the question about God’s silence. These problems are present throughout the narrative, but, different from the plot, they are not made explicit and are not explicitly answered. It is the characters’ different approaches to these themes that nuance, embody and lift the problems up to a level of higher significance. The characters respond differently to the problem of Ruth’s being a foreigner and about the silent God who hardly acts, and who only shows his presence though human hesed. In this last chapter, I will single out the different attitudes towards these issues, link the characters to the narrative, and point to some theological implications the character analysis may have for Ruth as a whole.

8.2 Foreign Identity Ruth is a Moabite. This matter of fact raises a delicate problem since the OT context holds a rather ambivalent attitude towards foreigners in general and Moabites in particular.1 The laws forbid the foreigner, exemplified by the Moabite, to enter the assembly of God (Deut 23:3), and Nehemiah describes his curses against mixed marriage, where Moabites are especially mentioned.

1

See 2.7.2 Ideological Context.

Chapter 8: God’s Hesed in a Moabite

201

In those days also I saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, and half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke the language of various people. And I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.” (Neh 13:23–24).

On the other side, though, the Chronicles seem positive towards mixed marriage, the prophetic literature points to the “nations” who seek and obey God (Isa 11:10; 49:22; 61:9; Ezek 37:28; 39:7, 21; Mal 1:11), and the narrative material points to Melchizedek, Pharaoh’s daughter, Zipporah, Balaam and the Queen of Sheba (Gen 14:19; Exod 4:18; Num 24:3–9; 1 Kgs 10:9), as examples of non-Israelites bringing blessing. According to my dating of Ruth, the book belongs to the same period as the Chronicler. Several scholars, who date Ruth to the post-exilic era, find that the purpose of Ruth is to argue against Ezra and Nehemiah’s prohibitions of mixed marriage.2 It is difficult to claim that Ruth is written as a particularly political critique against the prohibition of mixed marriage, since the focus on the foreigner is too discreetly presented for such a reading, and neither Ezra and Nehemiah, nor any law or practice prohibiting intermarriage, is ever mentioned.3 Still, Ruth undoubtedly plays upon the problem concerning foreigners. The narrative is not placed in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, but in “the time of the judges” (Ruth 1:1). As for the post-exilic texts, the time of the judges is described as another time of crisis for the Israelite people, where struggling with idolatry and national problems are central, where there is a general scepticism towards foreigners, and where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 17:6; 21:25).4 Having this framework of the narrative, Ruth’s identity as a foreigner is stressed, being constantly named a Moabite instead of being called by her name. Rather than provide clear arguments, I would claim that the Ruth narrative brings flesh and blood to the problem which, according to the different attitudes of the Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, and also hinted about within Ezra (Ezra 10:15), seems to have been an ideological discussion in Judah in Persian times. Thus, the historical context confirms the literary topics in Ruth. 8.2.1 Foreign Presence in the Book of Ruth How does the narrative handle the problem of foreign presence? My approach has been to follow each character’s specific voice throughout the

2 3 4

See, for example, Gerleman, Rut (1965) 6. See also 2.6 Dating. See 2.8.3 Polemic Literature. Cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider (2005) 118.

202

Part III: Conclusions

narrative. This has not led to one clear answer, but to several, given through the different character voices in Ruth. The narrator uses the term Moabite for Ruth four times (Ruth 1:4, 22; 2:2, 21). The references are placed in presentations of themes related to Israelite identity, such as the law, family or geography. The first presentation comes when Naomi’s sons marry “Moabite women” (Ruth 1:4). The reader already knows that Naomi’s sons lived in Moab, and it should therefore be no surprise that their wives were Moabites. Still it is mentioned explicitly, though without further comment. Furthermore, the narrator names Ruth a Moabite when she enters Bethlehem (Ruth 1:22), stressing the fact that a Moabite has come to settle in this Israelite town. The third reference is placed immediately after the presentation of the good and righteous Bethlehemite Boaz (Ruth 2:1–2). Here, the use of Moabite also stands as an introduction to what follows, when Ruth asks Naomi for permission to go out and glean, as the Israelite law allows foreigners to do. The fourth time Ruth is described as a Moabite is when Naomi calls Boaz a redeemer (Ruth 2:20). When Ruth responds upon Naomi’s speech, the narrator calls her “Moabite” (Ruth 2:21). Reading these remarks together, it seems that the narrator intends to retain Ruth in the position of a Moabite. Despite the fact that she lives in Bethlehem, uses the law, and is also related to the Ephraimite Boaz, the narrator constantly reminds the reader of the fact that Ruth is a Moabite. In addition, the narrator calls Ruth “daughter-in-law” several times (Ruth 1: 6, 7, 8, 22; 2:20, 22). The two namings together include Ruth among those women Ezra and Nehemiah prohibit from staying in Israel. It is interesting therefore that when Ruth marries Boaz, the narrator finally mentions her with her personal name only (Ruth 4:13). The stigma of being Moabite has disappeared. The agents have much of the same role as the narrator: to underline the plot. Boaz’ chief servant uses “Moabite” as the major characteristic of Ruth when presenting her to Boaz (Ruth 2:6). The Bethlehem women, on the other hand, never focus on Ruth as a Moabite, but name her “your daughter-in-law” (Ruth 4:15). Orpah and Mr So-and-so are silent on this point; however, their reserved actions are a comment on the problem: Orpah’s return could signal that she realizes her crossing the border into Israel would be more problematic for her mother-in-law than leaving her alone. Whether Mr So-and-so regrets his purchase because Ruth is a Moabite is not directly stated; within the context, however, it is a plausible reading (Ruth 4:4–6). The women of Bethlehem occur twice in the narrative, both times together with Naomi and Ruth (Ruth 1:19–21, 4:14–17). Their role is much of the narratee’s, watching and responding to the scenes. Their attitudes to

Chapter 8: God’s Hesed in a Moabite

203

Ruth are contradictory: first they totally ignore her; then they praise her for being better than seven sons. What has made the women’s attitudes change is Ruth’s constant fidelity to Naomi. The foreign daughter-in-law has turned up to replace two Israelite sons. The men in the city gate compare Ruth to Rachel, Leah (Ruth 4:11), and Tamar (Ruth 4:12). The reference to these women clearly brings associations to “mothers of Israel”. Looking more closely at the narratives of these women, they are far from being ideal examples according to the Israelite law. Rachel and Leah are of the same ethnicity as Jacob (Gen 27:46–28:5), but they cheat their father (as he cheats them), and they serve household gods (Gen 31:19). Tamar is a foreigner, probably a Canaanite (Gen 38:6), and she acts like a prostitute (Gen 38:15–19). Nevertheless, they are the builders of Israel’s house. There is a contrast in the references to houses, from Naomi, who begs Ruth to go back to her Moabite “mother’s house” (Ruth 1:8), to the men in the city gate, who make Ruth a builder of Israel’s house. The references to houses thus imply that being a matriarch depends neither on ethnic identity, nor on moral standard according to the law. Elimelech does not relate to Ruth, since he is dead by the time Ruth appears in the narrative. Still, he is an interesting character within the area of foreign identity. Elimelech goes to Moab, to live as a  “residential alien” (Ruth 1:1). But even if  implies that he does not completely assimilate into Moabite society,5 Elimelech leaves God. Thus his name, meaning “God is king”, condemns him. Seeking refuge in Moab, Elimelech shows no trust in God, and Elimelech and his sons die (Ruth 1:3, 5). Being an Ephrathite does not bring any guarantee of God’s protection. The Moabite Orpah reveals quite another picture of God’s providing refuge outside Israel. According to Naomi, she and Ruth have shown hesed in Moab (Ruth 1:8). Hesed is a term which has connotations of Yahweh, and hesed shown in Moab therefore brings references to Yahweh outside the land of Israel. Accordingly, God’s hesed is neither bound to a certain people, nor to a certain land. God and God’s hesed occur among those who seek and do hesed, whether they are Israelites or not. The three main characters open up different views on the subject of foreign presence in Ruth. Naomi’s approach is mostly negative. She sees no future in two Moabite women and begs them to go back to their original families when returning to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:8–15). She does not respond to Ruth’s speech (Ruth 1:18), and she is silent about Ruth when she arrives in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:21). As I have argued, Naomi’s silence is not the result of a dislike of Ruth; there are kissing and tears (Ruth 1:9, 14), and 5

HALOT, 201; Kellermann, “gor” (1973) 983–84; Bush, Ruth, Esther (1996) 63; See 3.2.3 Elimelech’s Role in the Plot.

204

Part III: Conclusions

several times she calls Ruth “my daughter” (Ruth 1:11, 12, 13; 2:2; 3:1, 16, 18). For Naomi, there is just no future in a Moabite, rather the opposite. As an old widow, she has no opportunity to take care of Ruth (Ruth 1:8–13), and to her knowledge, no man in Bethlehem will marry a Moabite, unless he is half drunk and half asleep (Ruth 3:1–4). Boaz’ attitude towards Ruth is the opposite. From the time he is introduced to Ruth he is informed that she is a Moabite (Ruth 2:6). Still he speaks and acts towards her with respect and honour. He wishes her Yahweh’s blessing and describes Ruth with the terms used of a proselyte who has left her family and her land to seek Yahweh, Israel’s God (Ruth 2:12). Boaz takes care of her (Ruth 2:8–9, 14–16), he praises Ruth for her hesed towards him, and calls her a worthy woman (Ruth 3:10–11). He even uses trickery to be her redeemer (Ruth 4:2–6). Two times Boaz calls Ruth a Moabite, probably to keep the proper redeemer away. Thus he indirectly admits that Ruth’s identity may be a problem. To Boaz, however, Ruth’s foreign identity seems to be of no hindrance, neither to himself, nor to God. Ruth herself touches on the theme of foreign presence in two speeches. First, she proclaims to Naomi that “your people are my people and your god is my god” (Ruth 1:16). With this speech, Ruth confirms that her identity has changed as she has turned to Naomi’s people. Ruth has already been married into the Israelite family for ten years, and her proclamation should therefore be superfluous. One might therefore ask if her ten years of marriage do not count as sufficient integration. Then, later, she says to Boaz: “Why have I found favour in your eyes … when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10). She says this, despite the fact that she has recently proclaimed her commitment to Naomi’s people. Again, Ruth defines herself as being on the outside of the community. It seems that nothing can make Ruth an Israelite: no marriage, no departure from her original people, land and god, no actions according to the Israelite law, nor any good deeds. In her own eyes, Ruth remains a foreigner. As demonstrated, the narrative does not solve the question of foreign presence and mixed marriage with one final answer. Through different voices, however, several views are brought to the open. When Ruth asks her question of Boaz, why she might find refuge when she is a foreigner, the question is not addressed to Boaz only, but to all readers who argue like Ezra and Nehemiah. Through the narrative, Ruth demonstrates by her actions that her foreign identity is not necessarily a threat for the Israelite community, but rather a blessing. I will argue further for this below. First we need to take a closer look at God.

Chapter 8: God’s Hesed in a Moabite

205

8.3 God’s Silence A second theme which is raised by the characters is the question of God’s presence. I have argued for God’s being silently present in the shadows in Ruth, and also that the characters show different understandings of God in the narrative. I will point at some consequences of God’s silence. First, I will make a summary of the different characters’ views of God. 8.3.1 God’s Silence from the Characters’ Points of View Starting with the agents, Elimelech is the first to signal the presence of God. The name , “God is King” may be understood as a forshadowing of King David, but also as a comment on God. God is king, though not to Elimelech, who chooses to leave Bethlehem to search for security without the help of God. In Bethlehem, different agents bring different views of God. Boaz’ servants wish Yahweh’s blessing upon their master, saying: “Blessed be you by Yahweh” (Ruth 2:4). These words must be understood as a response to Boaz’ blessing, and do not necessarily signal fear of God. The men in the city gate are more direct in their address to Yahweh, praying that Yahweh will make Ruth a mother of Israel (Ruth 4:11). The Bethlehem women also point to Yahweh and praise him when the son of Ruth is born (Ruth 4:14). The narrator refers to Yahweh twice. First as a description of what Naomi had heard about giving bread in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:6), and secondly as a presentation of Yahweh’s action: “Yahweh let Ruth conceive” (Ruth 4:13). Both these actions are positive descriptions of God, and decisive for the plot. The problem is that these actions do not sufficiently manifest God’s presence in the narrative. The first action is only a rumour; the second is surrounded by human action. Naomi is the character who refers most frequently to God, both in laments and in praises. She accuses Yahweh of having turned his hand against her (Ruth 1:13) and she claims that Yahweh has testified against her and brought calamity upon her (Ruth 1:20–21). The lamentations are never rejected or answered, neither by God nor by any of the other characters. Thus, her accusation of God remains standing. Naomi also wishes Yahweh to bless: when she takes her farewell from her daughters-in-law (Ruth 1:8), and the first time she is introduced to Boaz (Ruth 2:20). However, it is Ruth and Boaz respectively who are benefactors, Yahweh is only the one to whom she directs her wishes. Naomi therefore never confirms Yahweh’s presence positively. It is only when it comes to Yahweh’s abundance that her words are clear. When the Bethlehem women praise Yahweh for giving her a redeemer in the new-

206

Part III: Conclusions

born son (Ruth 4:14), Naomi welcomes the boy by taking him in her arms. However, she does not endorse the praise. To God she is silent. Boaz, the pillar of society and the ideal Israelite, seems to be closely related to God. From the very moment he enters the scene, he brings Yahweh’s presence to the narrative. “May Yahweh be with you” (Ruth 2:4). Further, he wishes that Yahweh will reward Ruth, and describes her as one who has come to seek Yahweh’s refuge (Ruth 2:12). On the threshing floor he wishes Yahweh’s blessing upon Ruth once again (Ruth 3:10), and promises in the name of Yahweh to solve the hindrance to his marriage with her (Ruth 3:13). In Boaz’ vocabulary the name Yahweh occurs quite often, apparently as a reflection of how Boaz understands the presence of Yahweh. There are only a few, more or less indirect, reflections about God from Ruth’s point of view. As I suggested in the analysis, the proclamation from Ruth in Ruth 1:16 does not point to Yahweh when she says “your god is my god”. It points to Naomi’s god, whoever that might be. Ruth is therefore no real proselyte. Furthermore, in the narrative, Ruth acts as if she knows the pentateuchal laws. Knowing these laws might signal fear of God. The laws she uses, however, concern social rights and not religious praxis. Ruth does not demonstrate any commitment to God through these laws. Naomi, Boaz, the men in the city-gate, and the Bethlehem women, all praise Ruth and relate her to Yahweh’s blessings. Ruth herself does not pray, nor bless others in the name of God. She only refers to Yahweh once, when she proclaims that she will never leave Naomi (Ruth 1:17), and she seems to show more trust in human protection through Boaz than in awaiting Yahweh’s redemption (Ruth 2:12; 3:9). Ruth’s relationship to Yahweh is accordingly not expressed very much, neither negatively nor positively, probably because she is a foreigner who has turned to Naomi’s god as a part of clinging to Naomi, and not to God in particular. As already mentioned, God acts twice in the narrative. He never speaks, though, and he is never called upon. The blessings which are wished for several times (Ruth 1:8; 2:4, 12, 20; 3:10; 4:10, 11) may be understood as based on earlier experiences and understandings of God; so may the accusations of being abandoned also be read (Ruth 1:13, 20–21). The characters’ different relationships to God are therefore the best way to describe God’s complexity: to Boaz, God blesses; to Naomi, God has become distant; and to Ruth, he seems of less importance. Because of all these characteristics, God is a subject in the narrative. The questions concerning God’s character, whether he is present or not, whether he blesses or not, and to whom Yahweh is God, remain to some extent open at the end of the narrative. Most of the time, God is silent, and silence is difficult to define. It may be a signal of his absence, or God’s presence may also be too intense

Chapter 8: God’s Hesed in a Moabite

207

to be expressed.6 The ambiguity surrounding God’s role forces the reader to look for alternative references to God. One of these is hesed. 8.3.2 God’s Hesed, and Ruth’s The most concrete picture of Gods’ blessing is connected with the term hesed. Hesed implies kindness, loyalty and fidelity, and is mostly used as a characteristic of God, but is also used in descriptions of human relationships.7 In Ruth, the term hesed occurs three times (Ruth 1:8; 2:20; 3:10), and is referred to indirectly once (Ruth 2:12). Hesed is brought to Naomi (Ruth 1:8; 2:12; 2:20; 3:10), to Ruth (Ruth 2:20) and to Boaz (Ruth 3:10), and may demonstrate divine care for all people seeking refuge under his wings, whether Israelites or not. Even if there is a general tendency of scepticism towards foreigners in the Old Testament, God’s showing hesed to non-Israelites is not exclusive to Ruth. What makes the main difference between the foreigner in Ruth and the OT literature in general is that in Ruth, hesed is not only given to the foreigner Ruth, but also by her. There are minor stories in the Old Testament about foreigners giving blessings to Israelites (Gen 14:19; Exod 4:18; Num 24:3–9; 1 Kgs 10:9). The narrative of Ruth, however, elaborates this more thoroughly. In Ruth, God is never the direct doer of hesed; hesed from God is only described as wishes (Ruth 1:8; (2:12)). Human hesed, though, is confirmed: by Boaz, but most of all by Ruth. This indicates not only that foreigners should be allowed to live in Israel and have a minimum of protection, it turns the picture upside down, saying that God’s hesed, which in Ruth seems to be God’s only real appearance, is to be found in a foreigner, even a Moabite woman (Num 23:1–2; Deut 23:2–8; 1 Kgs 11:1–2; Neh 13:23). Ruth 1:8 emphasizes this specific perspective of hesed. May Yahweh bring hesed to you, as you did to the dead and to me. (Ruth 1:8)

 

    

Naomi’s wish, that Yahweh’s hesed must come to Orpah and Ruth, at the same time as she confirms that hesed is already given by the Moabite women, links God’s hesed and the Moabite’s hesed closely together. In this wish, God’s hesed is even compared and expected to be like that of Orpah and Ruth. The Moabite women accordingly serve as models for how Naomi wants God to act: as with Boaz in Ruth 2:20, Ruth becomes an image of God’s hesed.

6 7

Neher, The Exile of the Word (1981) 23. See 7.3.5 Hesed.

208

Part III: Conclusions

8.4 High Fidelity The picture turned upside down in Ruth gives a new understanding of the foreigner, transforming him or her from being a problem into being a maker of redemption. The reader has already understood this through Ruth’s good deeds in the narrative. The overlap between God’s and Ruth’s hesed is therefore confirmation of what the reader already knows. The new understanding of the foreigner also has consequences for the understanding of God: God’s silence may not indicate that God is distant but that he may be found where least expected. To find God, Naomi has to identify the redemption in Ruth.8 The question concerning the role of the foreigner therefore goes beyond the political discussion about foreigners and intermarriage. Ruth becomes more than a polemical narrative related to a tense discussion in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, but also raises hermeneutical issues regarding the Biblical laws. The way the narrative reflects upon levirate- and inter-marriage has already brought examples of how the laws are flexible in their use. A broader interpretation of the foreigner renders a new understanding of the law as well. When Ruth, the marginalized, is the mediator of God’s hesed, she may also be the mediator of God’s laws. Being “the other” Ruth turns the power of the law upside down, “the foreigner is no longer foreign, the widow is no longer a widow, the sterile woman (or so considered) gives birth,” quoting LaCocque.9 Such an interpretation of the law from below easily resonates with the many stories of underdogs in the OT narratives.10 It is also expressed in the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10), in the sentences in the wisdom literature,11 and in the hermeneutics of some of the parables in the New Testament.12 The parable in Luke 10:25–37 shows how the concept of “neighbour” includes any person who “regard[s] the law as valid and keep[s] it,” whether non-Jews or the priest and Levite.13 Further, it demonstrates, in short, how ignominious it is to be saved by those from whom we do not expect anything good, as for example the Samaritans.14 These aspects are also to be found in Ruth. The narrative of Ruth describes how a foreigner may impart God’s hesed, and it illustrates the difficulty when the poor, widowed foreigner, the outsider, becomes the personification of highest 8 9 10

Cf. Farmer, “The Book of Ruth” (1998) 893. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 27. See also pp. 24–26. Cf. Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters (2000) xv. See also 6.3.1.5 Boaz the Trick-

ster. 11 12 13 14

See 5.2.2.2 “Who is More to You than Seven Sons.” Cf. LaCocque, Ruth (2004) 27. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke. A Commentary on the Greek Text (1978) 446. Fewell and Gunn, “A son is Born to Naomi” (1988) 107. See 5.4 Summary.

Chapter 8: God’s Hesed in a Moabite

209

fidelity. As the OT narratives tell, God is not absent but remembers his people (Gen 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Judg 16:28; 1 Sam 1:19). The silence of God is not broken, though, until God is identified through his fidelity, whether this is embodied in Ruth, in the Good Samaritan, or in the story of Jesus. I opened this book by claiming that we can identify with biblical characters for human life and faith. With whom should we identify in Ruth? The good Christian answer has mostly been that we ought to be like Ruth. My analyses of the main characters, however, have singled out Naomi and Boaz as the full-fledged and better identifiable main characters. Accordingly, the reader is challenged to identify with Boaz and consider whether Ruth would have found favour if she had come to his or her field, asking for food and protection. The reader should also learn an even more difficult lesson, “not just that we ought to be like Ruth but that we are like Naomi.”15 Naomi urges her daughters-in-law to go back to their mothers’ houses because she decides to go to Bethlehem because of a rumour she had only heard about (Ruth 1:6–8). Thus Naomi illustrates how difficult redemption is to find when God’s fidelity is hidden in a foreigner.

15

Farmer, “The Book of Ruth” (1998) 946.

Bibliography Primary Sources and Translations Bibel 2000: Bibelkommissionens översetning. Stockholm: Verbum, 1999. Bibelen. Oslo: Bibelselskapets forlag, 1985. Bibelen: Den Hellige Skrift. Oslo: Norsk Bibel A/S, 1988. Bibelen: Den hellige Skrifts kanoniske Bøger. Autorisert av Hendes Majestæt Dronning Margrathe II. København: Det Danske Bibelselskab, 1992. Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch: Die Gute Nachricht des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1982. Die Bibel nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985. ELLIGER, K. and W. RUDOLPH, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977. Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation. 2d ed. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003. NESTLE, EBERHARD, and KURT and B ARBARA ALAND, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. RAHLFS, ALFRED, Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1982. SUGGS, M. J ACK, KATHARINE DOOB SAKENFELD, and J AMES R. MUELLER, The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Anglicized Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. W AARD, J AN DE, ed. General Introduction and Megilloth: Ruth. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 18. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004.

Secondary Literature ABRAHAM, JED H. “A Literary Solution to the Name Variations of Esau`s Wives.” The Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997): 1–14. ACKERMAN, SUSAN. When Hereos Love: The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. ADUTWUM , OFOSU. “Ruth.” Pages 566–571 in The International Bible Commentary. Edited by Farmer, William R. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1998. ALBRIGHT, W.F., and C.S. MANN. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible 26. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971. ALBRIGHT, W ILLIAM FOXWELL. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel: The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School 1941. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956. ALPERT, REBECCA. “Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth.” Pages 91–96 in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story. Edited by Kates, Judith A., and Gail Twersky Reimer. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.

212

Bibliography

ALTER, ROBERT. The Art of Biblical Narrative. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981. — The Art of Biblical Poetry. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990. — The World of Biblical Literature. London: Basic Books, 1992. ALTER, ROBERT, AND FRANK KERMODE, eds. The Literary Guide to the Bible. London: Collins, 1987. AMIT, YAIRAH. Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative. Biblical Interpretation Series 25. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. ANDERSEN, FRANCIS I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. 231. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. ANDERSEN, FRANCIS I., and DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ANDERSON, CHERYL B. Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 394. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. ANDRÉ. “ .” Pages 912–915 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. II. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1977. B AL, M IEKE. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987. — “Heroism and Proper Names.” Pages 42–69 in A Feminist Companion to Ruth. Edited by Brenner, Athalya. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. — Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2d ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. B ALENTINE, SAMUEL E. The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. — “James Barr’s Quest for Sound and Adequate Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 5–15 in Language, Theology and the Bible. Edited by Balentine, Samuel E., and John Barton. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. B AR-EFRAT, SHIMON. The Art of Biblical Story. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Hapoalim, 1979. — Narrative Art in the Bible. 2d ed; Bible and Literature Series 17. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. — “Aestetic as the key for understanding the Old Testament.” Pages 1–9 in Das Alte Testament und die Kunst. Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001. Edited by Barton, John, J. Cheryl Exum, and Manfred Oeming. Altes Testament und Moderne 15. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2005. B ARR, J AMES. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. — “The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 52 (1969): 11–29. — “Etymology and the Old Testament.” Pages 1–28 in Language and Meaning. Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis: Joint British-Deutch Old Testament Conference. Edited by Barr, J., et al. Oudtestamentische Studiën XIX. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. B ARSTAD, HANS M. “The Old Testament Feminine Personal Name ‘rahab’: An Onomastic Note.” Svensk Eksegetisk Årsbok 54 (1989): 43–49.

Bibliography

213

B ARTHES, ROLAND. Image – Music – Text. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. B ARTON, J OHN. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984. B EATTIE, D.R.G. “Kethib and Qere in Ruth IV 5.” Vetus Testamentum XXI (1971): 490– 494. — “The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice.” Vetus Testamentum XXIV (1974): 251–259. — “A Midrashic Gloss in Ruth 2:7.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 122–124. — “Redemption in Ruth, and Related Matters: A Response to Jack M. Sasson.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978): 65–68. — “Ruth III.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978): 39–48. B ENTZEN, AAGE. Inledning til Det Gamle Testamente. I. København: G.E.C. Gads Forlag, 1941. B ERLIN, ADELE. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series 9. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Repr., Wiona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns,1999. B ERQUIST, J ON L. “Role Dedifferentation in the Book of Ruth.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993): 23–37. B ERTHOLET, ALFRED. Die Fünf Megillot. XVII. Tübingen: J.B.C. Mohr, 1898. B IALE, DAVID. “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible.” History of Religions 21 (1982): 241–256. B IERITZ, KARL-HEINRICH, and CHRISTOPH KÄHLER. “Haus.” Pages 474–492 in Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Uhlig, Christian. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985. B IRD, P HYLLIS A. Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. B LENKINSOPP, J OSEPH. Ezra-Nehemiah. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1988. B LOCK, DANIEL I. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary 6. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1999. B ORGEHAMMAR, STEPHAN. “Perikoper och predikan under medeltiden.” Svensk Eksegetisk Årsbok 66 (2001): 39–54. BRENNER, ATHALYA. “Naomi and Ruth.” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 385–397. — “Naomi and Ruth; Further Reflections.” Pages 70–84 in a Feminist Companion to Ruth. Edited by Brenner, Athalya. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. — ed. A Feminist Companion to Ruth. 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. — “Looking at Esther through the Looking Glass.” Pages 71–80 in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. Edited by Brenner, Athalya. 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. BRICHTO, HERBERT CHANAN. The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. BRONNER, LEILA LEAH. “The Invisible Relationship Made Visible: Biblical Mothers and Daughters.” Pages 172–191 in Ruth and Esther. Edited by Brenner, Athalya. The Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. B USH, FREDERIC W ILLIAM. “Ruth 4:17: A Semantic Wordplay.” Pages 3–14 in Go To The Land I Will Show You. Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young. Edited by Coleson, Joseph, and Victor Matthews. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996. — Ruth, Ester. Word Biblical Commentary 9. Dallas: Word, 1996.

214

Bibliography

B UTLER, BECKY, ed. Ceremonies of the Heart: Celebrating Lesbian Unions. Seattle: Seal Press, 1990. B ÖHL, FRANZ MARIUS T HEODOR DE LIAGRE. “Wortspiele im Alten Testament.” Pages 11–25 in Opera Minora. Studies en Bijdragen op Assyriologisch en Oudtestamentisch Terrein. Groningen, Djakarta: J.B. Wolters, 1953. CAMPBELL J R, EDWARD F. "The Hebrew Short Story: A Study of Ruth." Pages 83–101 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Meyers. Edited by Bream, Howard N, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. — Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 7. New York: Doubleday, 1975. — “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Hesed and Change.” Austin Seminary Bulletin 105 (1990): 64–74. CARASIK, M ICHAEL. “Ruth 2,7: Why the Overseer Was Embarrassed.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 493–494. CARMICHAEL, CALUM M. Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1979. CHATMAN, SEYMOUR. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1978. CHAZAL, NANCY DE. “The Women of Jesus’ Family Tree.” Theology 97 (1994): 413–419. Childs, “The Semantics of Biblical Language.” (Review of James Barr). Journal of Biblical Literature LXXX (1961): 374–377. C LARK, GORDON R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Journal For the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 157. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. C LINES, DAVID J.A. “X, X Ben Y, Ben Y.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 266–287. — Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984. C LINES, DAVID J.A., and J. CHERYL EXUM. “The New Literary Criticism.” Pages 11–25 in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Exum, J. Cheryl, and David J.A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 143. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. COLLINS, C. J OHN. “Ambiguity and Theology in Ruth: Ruth 1:21 and 2:20.” Presbyterion 19 (1993): 97–102. COX, DERMOT. Man’s Anger and God’s Silence: The Book of Job. Middelgreen: St Paul Publication, 1990. COXON, P ETER W. “Was Naomi A Scold? A Response to Fewell and Gunn.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45 (1989): 25–37. DARR, J OHN A. On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke–Acts. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister/ John Knox Press, 1992. DARR, KATHERYN P FISTERER. “Like Warrior, like Woman: Destruction and Deliverance in Isaiah 42:10–17.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 560–571. DASS, P ETTER. Trende Bibelske Bøger, nemlig Ruth, Ester og Judit. Kristiania: J.W. Cappelens Forlag, 1811. DAVIES, ERYL W. “Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Goel.” Vetus Testamentum XXXIII (1983): 231–234. DAVIS, E LLEN F., and MARGARET ADAMS P ARKER. Who Are You, My Daughter? Reading Ruth through Image and Text. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 2003. DEARMAN, J. ANDREW. “The Family in the Old Testament.” Interpretation 52 (1998): 117–29.

Bibliography

215

DEARMAN, J. ANDREW, and SABELYN A. PUSSMAN. “Putting Ruth in Her Place: Some Observations on Canonical Ordering and the History of the Book’s Interpretation.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 27 (2005): 59–86. D IECKMANN, DETLEF. “‘Viel vervielfachen werde ich deine Mühsal – und deine Schwangerschaft. Mit Mühe wirst du Kinder gebären’: Die Ambivalenz des Gebärens nach Gen 3,16.” Pages 11–38 in ‘Du hast mich aus meiner Mutter Leib gezogen’: Beiträge zur Geburt im Alten Testament Edited by Dieckmann, Detlef, and Dorothea ErbeleKüster. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 75. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006. DOCHERTY, THOMAS. Reading (Absent) Character: Towards A Theory of Characterization in Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. EISSFELD, OTTO. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Neue Theologische Grundrisse. Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B Mohr, 1956. EMMERSON, GRACE I. “Ruth.” Pages 192–195 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by Barton, John, and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. EPSTEIN, LOUIS M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. 2d ed. Harvard Semitic Series 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968. ESKENAZI, T AMARA C., and ELEANORE P. J UDD. “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10.” Pages 266–285 in Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Eskenazi, Tamara C., and Kent H. Richards. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. EVEN-SHOSHAN, ABRAHAM. A new Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: "Kiryat Sefer" Publishing House Ltd., 1990. EXUM, J. CHERYL. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. EXUM, J. CHERYL, and DAVID J.A. CLINES, eds. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 143. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. FABRY. “.” Pages 121–176 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament VIII. Stuttgart: W Kohlhammer, 1994. FARMER, KATHLEEN A. ROBERTSON. “The Book of Ruth: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections.” Pages 889–946 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Keck, Leander E. et al. II. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. FENSHAM, F. CHARLES. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982. FEWELL, DANNA NOLAN, and DAVID M. GUNN. “Boaz, Pillar of Society: Measures of Worth in the Book of Ruth.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45 (1989a): 45–59. FEWELL, DONNA NOLAND, AND DAVID M. GUNN. “A Son is Born to Naomi!: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40 (1988): 99–108. — “Is Coxon A Scold? On Responding to the Book of Ruth.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45 (1989b): 39–43. — Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. — Gender, Power and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993. FEWELL, DONNA NOLAND, ed. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.

216

Bibliography

F ISCH, HAROLD. “Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History.” Vetus Testamentum XXXII (1982): 424–437. F ISCHER, IRMTRAUD. “The Book of Ruth: A ‘Feminist’ Commentary to the Torah?” Pages 24–49 in Ruth and Ester. Edited by Brenner, Athalya. A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. — Rut. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. F ISHBANE, MICHAEL. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. — “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel.” Pages 19–37 in Midrash and Literature. Edited by Hartman, Geoffrey H., and Sanford Budick. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986. — “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” Pages 39–44 in Congress Volume. Oslo 1998. Edited by Lemaire, A. & Sæbø, M. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXX. Leiden: Brill, 2000. FLAGG, FANNIE. Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. New York: McGrawHill, 1988. FONTAINE, CAROLE R. “The Sage in Family and Tribe.” Pages 155–165 in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Gammie, John G., and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. FORSTER, E.M. Aspects of the Novel. Mr E. M. Forster’s Books. London: Edward Arnold & Co, 1927. FOWLER, JEANEANE D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. FOWLER, ROBERT, M. “Who is ‘the Reader’ in Reader Response Criticism?” Semeia 31 (1985): 5–23. FOX, MICHAEL V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991. FREED, EDWIN D. “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 3–19. FREEDMAN, AMELIA DEVIN. “Naomi’s Experience of God and its Treatment in the Book of Ruth.” Proceedings – Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Society 23 (2003): 29–38. — God as Absent Character in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Literary-Theoretical Study. Studies in Biblical literature 82. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. FREEDMAN, HARRY, and MAURICE SIMON, eds. Midrash Rabba: VIII. Ruth, Ecclesiastes. London: The Soncino Press, 1939. Repr., London : Stephen Austin and Sons, Ltd., 1961. FRETHEIM , T ERENCE E. Exodus. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Kentuckey: John Knox Press, 1991. FRYE, NORTHROP. Fearful Symmetry: A study of William Blake. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1947. — Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957. Repr,. London: Penguin Books,1990. FRYMER-KENSKY, T IKVA. “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible.” Semeia 45 (1989): 89–102. — “Reading Rahab.” Pages 57–68 in Tehillah le-Moshe. Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Cogan, Mordechai, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Bibliography

217

— Reading the Women of the Bible. New York: Schocken Books, 2002. GARSIEL, MOSHE. Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns. Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991. — “Puns upon Names as a Literary Device in 1 Kings 1–2.” Biblica 72 (1991): 379–386. — “Homeletic Name-derivation as a Literary Device in the Gideon Narrative: Judges VI– VIII.” Vetus Testamentum XLIII (1993): 302–317. GENETTE, GÉRARD. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980. GERLEMAN, GILLIS. Ruth: Das Hohelied. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. GERSTENBERGER, E.S. Psalms: Part I. With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. The Forms of Old Testament Literature 14. Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1988. — " ". Pages 247–270 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Helmer Ringgren. VI. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. 1989. G INSBERG, H.L. “Ugaritic Myths, Epics, and Legends.” Pages 129–155 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament. Edited by Pritchard, James B., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950. G INZBERG, LOUIS. The Legends of the Bible. ed. London: Robson Books, 2001. G ITAY, ZEFIRA. “Ruth and the Women of Betlehem.” Pages 178–190 in A Feminist Companion to Ruth. Edited by Brenner, Athalya. A Feminist Companion to the Bible 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. G ITTINGS, ROBERT. Selected Poems of Keats: Ode to a Nightingale. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1966. Repr. 1972. GLUECK, NELSON. Das Wort Hesed im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauche als menschliche und göttliche Gemeinschaftgemässe Verhaltungsweise. 2d ed. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1961. GNILKA, J OACHIM. Das Matthäusevangelium I. Teil. Freiburg: Herder, 1986. GOLDMAN, ANITA. Våra Bibliska Mödrar. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, 1988. GOOD, EDWIN, M. Irony in The Old Testament. 2d ed. Bible and Literature Series. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1981. GORDIS, ROBERT. “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Commentary Law.” Pages 241–264 in A Light unto my Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Edited by Bream, Howard N, Ralph D Heim, and Carey Moore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. — “Personal Names in Ruth: A Note in Biblical Etymologies.” Judaism 35 (1986): 298– 299. GOW, MURRAY D. “Ruth Quoque – A Coquette? (Ruth 4:5).” Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert 41 (1990): 302–311. — The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose. Leicester: Apollos, 1992. GOWAN, DONALD E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. GRAY, G. B UCHANAN. Studies in Hebrew Proper Names. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1896. GRAY, J OHN. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. New Century Bible Commentary. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1986. GREEN, B ARBARA, “A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth,” Phd diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California, 1980 GUNKEL, HERMANN Reden und Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913.

218

Bibliography

— Genesis. 4d ed. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1. Band. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. GUNN, DAVID M. “Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (1984): 109–116. Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. HABEL, NORMAN C. The Book of Job. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. — The Book of Job: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985. HALEM, GERHARD ANTON VON. Ruth. Oldenburg, 1804. HALS, RONALD M. The Theology of the Book of Ruth. Facet Books Biblical Series 23. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. HARRIS, W ENDELL V. Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory. Reference Sources for the Social Sciences and Humanities 12. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. HESS, RICHARD S. Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 234. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzun & Bercker Kevelaer und Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. — “Issues in the Study of Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible.” Currents in Research 6 (1998): 169–192. HOUSE, P AUL R., ed. Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992. HUBBARD J R., ROBERT L. The Book of Ruth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1988. — “The Goel in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 1 (1991): 3–19. HUMPHREYS, W. LEE. “Novella.” Pages 82–96 in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Form in Old Testament Literature. Edited by Coats, George W. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 35. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. HUNTER, ALASTAIR G. “How many Gods had Ruth?” Scottish Journal of Theology 34 (1981): 427–436. HURVITZ, AVI. “Ruth 2:7 – ‘A Midrashic Gloss’?” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983): 121–123. HYMAN, RONALD T. “Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39 (1984): 189–198. ISER, W OLFGANG. Der implizite Leser: Kommunikationsformen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett. Uni-Taschenbücher 163. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1972. — The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978. J APHET, SARA. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989. — “Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 189–216 in Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Eskenazi, Tamara C., and Kent H. Richards. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: SJOT Press, 1994. JENNI, ERNST, and CLAUS W ESTERMANN, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. I. 3d ed. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1978

Bibliography

219

JENNINGS JR, THEODORE W. “YHWH as Erastes.” Pages 36–74 in Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Stone, Ken. 334. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. J OBLING, DAVID. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible. I. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. KEEL, OTHMAR. Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt. Biblische Beiträge 14. Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. KELLERMANN, D. “  .” Pages 979–991 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. I. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973. KELLY, P AGE H., DANIEL S. MYNATT, and T IMOTHY G. CRAWFORD. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. K ING, GREG A. “Ruth 2:1–13.” Interpretation 52 (1998): 182–184. K ING, P HILIP J., and LAWRENCE E. STAGER. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. KLAGSBRUN, FRANCINE. “Ruth and Naomi, Rachel and Leah: Sisters under the Skin.” Pages 261–272 in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story. Edited by Kates, Judith A., and Gail Twersky Reimer. New York: Ballentine Books, 1994. Köhler, Ludwig. “Die Adoptionsform von Rt 4,16.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 29 (1909): 312–314. KOEHLER, LUDWIG, and W ALTER B AUMGARTNER. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1985. — The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament I–V. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994– 2000 KORPEL, MARJO C.A. The structure of the Book of Ruth. Pericope 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001. KRISTEVA, J ULIA. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. European Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. KÖRTING, CORINNA. “Bride.” Encyclopedia for the Bible and its Reception (2010 Forthcomming). LABUSCHAGNE, C.J. “Antworten.” Pages 335–341 in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann. II. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag/Theologischer Verlag, 1984. LACOCQUE, ANDRÉ. The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. — Ruth: A Continental Commentary. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. LANG, B ERNHARD. The Hebrew God: Portrait of an Ancient Deity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. LAPSLEY, J ACQUELINE E. Whispering the Word: Hearing Women’s Stories in the Old Testament. Lousiville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005. LEGGETT, DONALD A. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament, with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Mack Publishing Company, 1974. LEVINSON, B ERNHARD M. “You Must Not Add Anything to What I Command You: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel.” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 50 (2003): 1–51.

220

Bibliography

LINAFELT, T OD, and T. B EAL. Ruth and Esther: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1999. LINDSTRÖM , FREDRIK. Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms. Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 37. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International, 1994. — Det sårbara livet: Livsförståelse och gudserfarenhet i Gamla Testamentet. Lund: Arcus, 1998. — “Guds långa näsa och blödande hjärta. Gränser för Guds makt i Gamle Testamentet.” Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift 77 (2001): 2–12. — “Slavmoral: Teologiska perspektiv på Mose Lag.” Nomen et Nomina. Festskrift till Stig Norin. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 70 (2005): 177–192. LIWAK, RÜDIGER. “Name/Namengebung.” Pages 749–754 in Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Müller, Gerhard. XXIII. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994. LORETZ, OSWALD. “Das Verhältnis zwischen Rut-Story and David-Genealogie im RutBuch.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 124–126. LUZ, ULRICH. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar 1. Neukirchen: Benziger/Neukirchener 2002. LØLAND, HANNE, Silent or Salient Gender? Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. MARSHALL, I. HOWARD. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1978. Repr. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Micigan: William B. Eerdmans. 1998 MATTHEWS, V ICTOR H. Judges & Ruth. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. MAY, HERBERT GORDON. “Ruth’s visit to the high places at Betlehem.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1939): 75–78. MAYES, A.D.H. “Historiography in the Old Testament.” Pages 65–87 in The Biblical World. Edited by Barton, John. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. MAYORDOMO-MARÍN, MOISÉS. Den Anfang hören: Leserorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 180. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. MCKENZIE, STEVEN L., and STEPHEN R. HAYNES, eds. To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. MEEK, THEOPHILE J. “Translating the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 328–335. METTINGER, TRYGGVE N. D. In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. MEYERS, CAROL. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. M ILLER-MCLEMORE, BONNIE J. “Returning to the ‘Mother’s House’: A Feminist Look at Orpha.” The Christian Century 108 (1991): 428–430. MOOR, J.C DE. “The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part II).” Orientalia 55 (1986): 16–41. MOORE, MICHAEL S. “Ruth the Moabite and the Blessing of Foreigners.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998): 203–217. MORRIS, LEON. Judges and Ruth: Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. London: The Tyndale Press, 1968. MYERS, J ACOB M. The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955.

Bibliography

221

MÜLLER, HANS-P ETER. “Gott und die Götter in den Anfängen der biblischen Religion. Zur Vorgeschichte des Monotheismus.” Pages 99–142 in Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt. Edited by Keel, Othmar. 14. Fribourg: Verlag Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. NEHER, ANDRÉ. The Exile of the Word: From the Silence of the Bible to the Silence of Auschwitz. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981. NELSON, R ICHARD D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. NEUSNER, J ACOB. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts. III. Ruth Rabbah. South Florida Academic Commentary Series 80. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. NEWSOM, CAROL A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. N IDITCH, SUSAN. A Prelude to Biblical Folklore: Underdogs and Tricksters. 2d ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 2000. N IEHR, H., and G. STEINS. “.” Pages 1078–1083 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Helmer Ringgren. VII. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1993. Niehr, H., and G. Steins. “.” Pages 418–446 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Helmer Ringgren. XIV. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmanns, 2004. N IELSEN, KIRSTEN. Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: JSOT, 1978. — “Intertextuality and Biblical Scholarship.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2 (1990): 89–95. — “Stamtavle og fortælling i Ruths Bog.” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 57 (1994): 81–93. — Satan, den Fortabte Søn? 2d ed. Frederiksberg: ANIS, 1996. — Ruth: A Commentary. Translated by E. Broadbridge. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1997. — “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible.” Pages 17–32 in Congress Volume. Oslo 1998. Edited by Lemaire, A., and M. Sæbø. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXX. Leiden: Brill, 2000. N ISSINEN, MARTTI. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. NORTH, ROBERT “The Chronicler: 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah.” Pages 402–438 in The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, and Roland E. Murphy. I. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Repr. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974 NOTH, MARTIN. Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1928. Repr., Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms, 1980 NOWACH, W. Richter, Ruth und Bücher Samuelis. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1902. ODELAIN, O., and R SÈGUINEAU. Dictionary of Proper Names and Places in the Bible. London: Robert Hale, 1982. P ARDES, ILANA. Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approch. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1992. P ATRICK, DALE. “Job’s Adress of God.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 91 (1979): 268–282.

222

Bibliography

PELEG, YARON. “Love at First Sight? David, Jonathan, and the Biblical Politics of Gender.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (2005): 171–189. P HILIP, T ARJA S. Menstruation and Childbirth in the Bible: Fertility and Impurity. Studies in Biblical Literature 88. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. P HILLIPS, ANTHONY. “The Book of Ruth – Deception and Shame.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 1–17. PRITCHARD, J AMES B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950. RAD, GERHARD VON. Genesis: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Rev. ed. London: SCM Press, 1991. RAURELL, FREDERIC. Der Mythos vom männlichen Gott. Frauenforum. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. REBERA, B ASIL A. “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2.20 Reconsidered.” The Bible Translator 36 (1985): 317–327. ROBERTSON, EDWARD. “The Plot of the Book of Ruth.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 32 (1950): 207–228. RUDOLPH, W ILHELM. Das Buch Ruth. Das Hohe Lied. Die Klagelieder. Kommentar zum Alten Testament XVII 1–3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962. SAKENFELD, KATHARINE DOOB. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. Harvard Semitic Monographs 17. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978. — Ruth. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1999. — “Naomi’s Cry: Reflections on Ruth 1:20–21.” Pages 129–143 in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Edited by Strawn, Brent A., and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003. SASSON, J ACK M. “Generation, Seventh.” Pages 354–356 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abindgdon, 1962. — “Wordplay in the OT.” Pages 968–970 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abindgdon, 1962. — “Ruth III: A Response.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978): 49–51. — “The Issue of Geullah in Ruth.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978): 52–64. — Ruth: A New Translation With a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-folklorist Interpretation. 2d ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. SAXEGAARD, KRISTIN MOEN. “‘More Than Seven Sons’: Ruth as example of the Good Son.” Scandinavian Jornal of the Old Testament 15 (2001): 257–75. SCHWARTZ, REGINA, ed. The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Massachusetts and Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. SCOTT, R.B.Y. “The Pillars Jachin and Boaz.” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 143–149. — “Jachin and Boaz.” Pages 780–781 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 2. Edited by Buttrick, G.A. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. SENIOR, DONALD. Matthew. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. SHEARMAN, S.L., and John Briggs Curtis. “Divine-human conflicts in the Old Testament.” Journal of Near Eastern studies 28 (1969): 231–242. SKA, J EAN LOUIS. ‘Our Fathers Have Told Us’: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives. subsidia biblica 13. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER, DANIEL L. “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judean.” Pages 243–265 in Sec-

Bibliography

223

ond Temple Studies. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Eskenazi, Tamara C., and Kent H. Richards. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. SMITH, D ANIEL L. “The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society.” Pages 73–97 in Second Temple Studies. 1. Persian Period. Edited by Davies, Philip R. Journal for the Study of The Old Testament Supplement Series 117. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. SMITH, M ARK S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. — The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. — “‘Your People Shall be My People’”: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16-17.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69 (2007): 242-58. SOMMER, BENJAMIN D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusions in Isaiah 40–66. Contraversions Jews and Other Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. SPEISER, E.A. “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” Pages 71–99 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by Pritchard, James B. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950. — Genesis: Introductions, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964. SPIECKERMANN, HERMANN. Gottes Liebe zu Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 33. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2001. SPINA, FRANK ANTHONY. The Faith of the Outsider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2005. SPRONK, KLAAS. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments 219. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer/Neukirchener, 1986. STAGER, LAWRENCE E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985): 1–35. STAMPLES, W.E. “Notes on Ruth 2:20 and 3:12.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 54 (1937): 62–65. STANEK, TERESA. “The Theological Message of the Book of Ruth in the Light of the Masoretic Text.” Pages 151–160 in Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIII’th Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004 Edited by Augustin, Matthias. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 54. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006. STERNBERG, MEIR. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Indiana Literary Biblical Series. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985. STOEBE, H.J. “ .” Pages 600–621 in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann. I. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1973. STORDALEN, T ERJE. “Det eksegetiske objekt og teologiens enhet.” Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 4 (1990): 255–272. — “Genesis 2,4. Restudying a Locus Classicus.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (1992): 163–177.

224

Bibliography

— Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. THOMPSON, THOMAS and DOROTY T HOMPSON. “Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth.” Vetus Testamentum XVIII (1968): 79–99. TOORN, KAREL VAN DER. From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Isrelite and the Babylonian Women. 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. — Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel. Continuity and Change on the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. VII. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. TRIBLE, P HYLLIS. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973. — Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Overtures to Biblical Theology 13. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. T ÅNGBERG, K. ARVID. “Lingvistikk og teologi: Forsøk på analyse og vurdering av James Barrs anliggende i ‘The Semantics of Biblical language’ og ‘Biblical Words for Time’.” Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 42 (1971): 161–194. — “Linguistics and Theology: An Attempt to Analyze and Evaluate James Barr`s Argumentation in The Semantics of Biblical Language and Biblical Words for Time.” The Bible Translator 24 (1974): 301–310. VAUX, ROLAND DE. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, 1961. VEITEBERG, KARI. Bibelens Kvinner. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget, 1995. W AARD, J AN DE, and EUGENE A. NIDA. A Translator’s Handbook on The Book of Ruth. Helps for Translators XV. London: United Bible Societies, 1973. — A Handbook on the Book of Ruth. United Bible Societies. 2d ed. New York: United Bible Society, 1992. W AINWRIGHT, E LAINE MARY. Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel according to Matthew. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 60. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. W ALLIS. “ .” Pages 105–128 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Edited by Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. I. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973. W EISER, ARTUR. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1939. W ERNIK, URI. “Will the Real Homosexual in the Bible Please Stand Up?” Theology & Sexuality 11 (2005): 47–64. W ESTERMANN, C. “The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament.” Interpretation 28 (1974): 20–38. — “.” Pages 182–200 in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. II. Edited by Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag (1984) W EYDE, KARL W ILLIAM. “Fra skyggetilværelse til oppstandelse. Om livet etter døden i Det gamle Testamente.” Ung Teologi 3 (1991): 7–18. — “Inner-Biblical Interpretation. Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible.” Svensk Eksegetisk Årsbok 70 (2005): 287–300. W ILLIAMSON, H.G.M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985. W ILSON, ROBERT R. “The Family.” Pages 302–303 in Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Edited by Achtemeier, Paul J. San Fransisco: Harper & Row: Collins Publishers, 1985.

Bibliography

225

W ITZENRATH, HAGIA H ILDEGARD. Das Buch Rut: Eine Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1975. W OLDE, ELLEN VAN. Mr and Mrs Job. London: SCM Press, 1991. — Ruth and Naomi. 2d ed. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys Publishing Inc., 1998. WRIGHT, G.R.H. “The Mother-Maid at Bethlehem.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (1986): 56–72. ZADOK, R AN. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1988. ZAKOVITCH, YAIR. Das Buch Rut: Ein jüdischer Kommentar. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 177. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999. ZENGER, ERICH. Das Buch Ruth. 2d ed. Züricher Bibelkommentare AT 8. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1992. ZIMMERMANN, FRANK. “Folk Etymology of Biblical Names.” Pages 311–326 in Volum Du Congrés. Geneve 1965. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 1966. ZOBEL, H.J. “ .” Pages 48–71 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. III. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1982.

Index of References Genesis 1:28 2:2–3 2:4 2:24 3:16 3:20 4:1–2 4:1 4:2 4:20–22 4:24 5:1 5:31 6:1 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:10 8:1 8:10 9:20–27 10:1 11:1–9 11:10 11:27 12:2 12:10–20 12:12-13 14:18–20 14:19 15 15:1–5 15:7–17 16–21 16:1–6 16:1–2 16:1 16:2–6 16:4

140 120 50 41, 117 80, 141, 184 25, 58 58 25, 58, 64 66 66 120 50 120 50 120 120 120 120 194, 209 120 118 50 118 50 27 58 64, 80, 163 185 134 44, 203, 207 58 184 131 50 80 184 58, 141, 185 100 141

16:5 16:6 16:11 17:1–5 17:2 17:4–5 17:5 17:15–19 17:15–16 18:11–15 19 19:8 19:29 19:30–38 19: 31–38 19:32–35 19: 37–38 20:1–21:26 20:1–18 20:2 20:18 20:21–26 21:1–7 21:3–7 21:9–12 21:10 21:12 22:1–19 22:2 22:21 24 24:3 24:15 24:27 24:28 24:50 24:55 24:67 25:12 25:19–22

28, 99 101 25, 58 174 174 182 28, 58, 78 182 78 141, 182 114, 191 42 193, 209 98, 141, 155, 183 14, 42 139 27 61 163 2 184–185 61 141, 183 58 80 101 123 183 117 66 41, 97–98, 135 45 58 97 42, 135 42 42 117 50 184

228 25:19 25:21–26 25:21 25:25–26 25:27 25:28 26:1–17 26:35 27:5–17 27:46 28:3–4 28:5 29–35 29:9 29:16 29:15–30 29:16 29:17 29:18 29:19–30 29:20 29:23 29:25 29:30–30:22 29:30 29:31–30:24 29:31 29:32–35 30:1–13 30:1 30:3–8 30:14–16 30:18–20 30:20 30:22–24 30:22 30:25–31:55 30:33 31:19 32:24–29 32:27–28 32:28–29 32:28 34 34:3 34:6–10 35:10–12 35:10–11 35:16–20 35:16–18

Index of References 50 50, 141 141 58 66 117 64, 163 45, 162 80, 141 201 174 201 13 81 58 98 58 66 117 42 117 139 137 64 81 141 184–185 25, 58 100 28, 101, 141 101 80 25 141 101, 141 184–185, 193, 209 81 87–88 203 78 58 174 28 96 117 98 174 175 28, 101 50, 183–184

35:16 35:18 35:19 35:22 36:1 36:9 37:1–46:2 37:2 37:3 37:4 38 38:1–30 38:1–2 38:2 38:6 38:8–11 38:8 38:9 38:11 38:13–30 38:14–19 38:14–15 38:15–19 38:24 38:25 38:26 41:2–4 41:45 41:52 43:13 44:20 46 46:21 47:30 48:3–4 49:22–26 49:25

141 22, 28, 64 62, 136 114 50 50 94 50 117 117 13, 41, 43, 81, 83–84, 110, 114, 125, 137, 141 98 84 108 203 81 20 20 20, 83, 135 184 108 139 203 20, 44, 184 81 109, 116 120 28 117 174 62 64 66 64 174 174 175

Exodus 1–10 1–2 2:5–10 2:10 2:22 2:23–25 2:23–24 2:24 3:1 4:18

50 141 134 58 64 193 193 193 81 44, 81, 201, 207

229

Index of References 4:24–26 5:22 12:15–20 12:17 12:40 18:10–11 18:10 18:17 18:24 18:27 20:2 20:13 20:16 20:24 22:21 23:9 23:12 30:17–38 32:5 33:19 34:5–6

134 90 120 44 194 119 97 81 81 81 44 88 88 180 44 44 44 128 117 181 181

Leviticus 4:6 4:17 16:14 18:6–23 18:6 19:9–19 19:9–10 19:9 19:10 19:33–34 19:34 20:10–21 22:13 23:22 25:25–26 25:25 25:26

120 120 120 114 114 44, 125 111, 138 14, 40 44 44 44 114 135 40, 44, 111 150 43 43

Deuteronomy 5:16 5:17 10:18–19 10:18 10:19 15:16 19:12 19:16 19:18 22:19 22:21 22:25–27 22:30 23:1 23:2–8 23:2–6 23:2 23:3–4 23:3 23:6 24:14 24:17 24:18 24:19–22 24:19 24:22 25

Numbers 9:14 11:11 14:26–35 15:14 21:29 22:1–6 22:1–4 23:1–2

44 90, 103 115 44 176 64 114 209

25:1–10 25:5–10 25:5–6 25:5 25:9 26:7 27:16 27:19 27:20

24:3–25 24:3–9 25 25:1–2 25:3 25:7 30:17 35:12 35:19 35:24 35:30

134 44, 201, 207 176 45, 114–115 177 119 135 43, 150 43, 150 43, 150 87, 88

141 88 44 44 44 117 43, 150 88 88 122 135 96 114 140 40 207 44 114 44, 200 114 44 44 44 40, 44, 111, 125 14, 138 44 71, 81, 83, 150, 160, 170 14 40, 42, 58, 81, 150, 160 22, 116, 138 150 70, 150, 163 92 141 44 140

230

Index of References

34:4 34:5

115 115

Joshua 2:1 2:12–14 6:2–4 20:3 20:5 20:9 22:22 23:12

108 109 120 43, 150 43, 150 43, 150 177 117

Judges 3:3 3:12–30 6:12 8:31–10:1 8:31 11 11:6 11:24 11:34–40 11:34–35 13 13:2–25 13:2–24 13:2 13:24 16:28 17:1 17:6 19–21 19 19:1 19:2–3 19:4 19:5 19:6 19:7 19:9 19:22 19:24 20:40 21:12 21:16–17 21:23 21:25

141 64, 114 167 61 61 42 115 177 192 42, 121 173 50, 141 184 59 58 194, 211 59 203 40 14, 29, 98, 118, 122, 191 14, 80 135 81 81 40 81 81 40 42 40 122 141 36, 40 201

1 Samuel 1 1:1–20 1:1 1:2–8 1:2–6 1:2 1:5 1:8 1:11 1:16 1:18 1:19 1:20 2:1–10 2:5–7 2:5 3:1 4:17–29 4:19–20 4:19 4:21 11 12:9–10 12:13 15:3 15:22 16 16:1–13 16:9–12 16:10 16:11–13 16:11 16:18 17 17:2 17:57–18:3 18–20 18:1 18:3–4 18:16 18:17–21 18:20 18:22 18:27 18:28 19:1 20:16–17 20:17 20:30

40, 123, 141 50, 183 123 141 141 141, 185 117, 184–185 14, 40, 119 123 123–124 122–124 193, 209 58, 64 210, 183 185 73, 120, 141 193 81 184 81 81 17 64, 114 88–89 185 119 13, 51 29 73 120 51 120 149 62 62 117 31, 118 118 118 117 42, 98 31, 117–118 117 31 117 118 118 118 118

231

Index of References 20:34 20:42 21:3 22:3 22:19 25 25:3 25:14 25:23 25:24 25:25 25:27 25:28 25:31 25:32–34 25:39–42 25:41 25:44

118 118 69 115 184 118, 123 139 123 139 123 25, 58, 123 123 123 123 139 139 41, 123 81

2 Samuel 1:16 1:25–26 2:4 2:6 3:1–5 3:14–16 4:4 6:20–23 6:20 7:12–13:16 7:13 11 11:1–27 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:27 12 12:7–12 12:15 12:24–25 12:24 13:1 13:4 14 14:4–11 14:6 14:7 14:11 14:12

87–88 117 189 188–189 118 80 100 185 123 144 182 28, 108 80, 118 109 21, 108 108 184 125 109 184 141 50 117 21, 117 43 44, 125 122 122 43, 150 122

14:15 14:17 14:19 22:5 22:26

122 122 122 30 30

1 Kings 1 1:1–4 1:2 1:3 1:11 1:15 1:16 1:28 1:31 2:24 7:21 8:29 10:1–14 10:9 11:1–8 11:1–3 11:1–2 11:1 11:2 11:7–8 11:7 11:33 17 17:2 17:17–20 17:19 17:20 17:24

17 118 99, 122 122 28, 141 28 28 28 28 144 144–145 181 134 44, 201, 207 115 162 207 117 117 45 176 176 43 103, 12 141 99 90 103

2 Kings 3:4–27 3:7–27 4 4:14 4:27–28 5:1 5:2 5:4 5:17 6:8 10:1 10:5 10:11

144 64 43, 125 141 141 149 122 122 179 69 100 100 148

232

Index of References

11:12–14 16:20 23:1–3 23:13 24:14

144 149 144 176 149

Isaiah 3:9 7:14 8:1–4 8:17 9:6 11:10 13:7–8 13:16–18 15–16 16:12 21:3 26:17 30:27 37:3 41:14 42:6 42:14 43:14 44:6 44:23 44:24 45:15 47:4 48:9 48:17 48:20 49:2 49:7 49:22 49:26 52:9 54:5 54:8 59:12 59:20 60:16 61:9 63:16

88 58 58 192 144 44, 201 184 184 114 115 184 184 181 184 43, 154 185 185 43, 154 43, 154 43 43, 154 192 43, 154 181 43, 154 43 201 43, 154 44 43, 154 43 43, 154 43, 154 88 43, 154 43, 154 44, 201 43, 154

Jeremiah 4:31 6:24 13:21

184 184 184

14:7 22:23 30:4–6 31:15 34:18–20 48:7 48:46 50:34 50:43

88, 181 184 184 141 131 176 176 43, 154 184

Ezekiel 16:18 37:28 39:7 39:21

140, 156 44, 201 201 201

Hosea 1:2–9 5:5 7:10 9:1

58 88 88 98

Amos 2:7

122

Micah 4:9–10 6:3 7:6

184 87–89 42, 82

Malachi 1:11

44

Psalms 13 13:2 20:1 21:2 22 22:1 19:15 23:3 30:8 31:12 44:25 48:7 50:1 55:14 63:3 69:18

91 192 181 144 91, 92 92 43, 154 181 192 148 192 184 176 148 119 192

233

Index of References 74:13 78:35 88:9 88:15 88:19 89:3–4 104:29 123:2 127:1 129:8 137:9 139:13 Job 1–37 1:1–5 1:1 1:6–12 1:13–2:9 1:22 2:1–6 2:10 2:21 3:12 9:16 13:24 15:6 16:8 18–29 19:14 19:21 19:25 23:5 25:5 27:1–6 27:2 31:35 33:13 34:29 38:1–41:25 38:1 40:1 40:6 42:4 42:5–6 42:5 42:10–16 42:14 Proverbs 7:4

145 43, 154 148 192 148 144 192, 195 42 138 167 184 184

8:11 18:24 22:1 25:18 31 31:10–31 Ruth 1:1–3 1:1–2 1:1

1:2 191 93 44, 50, 59 191 93 44 191 44 175 99 87 191 88–89 88 93 148 93 43, 154 88 88 175 93 88, 93 88, 93 191 95 88, 93 88, 93 88, 93 94 95 102 93 26 148

1:3–5 1:3 1:4–5 1:4 1:5 1:6–8 1:6–7 1:6

1:7 1:8–18 1:8–15 1:8–14 1:8–13 1:8–9 1:8

1:9–14 1:9–10 1:9 1:10–13 1:10 1:11–13 1:11

119 117 58, 119 88 105 105

194 60, 67, 110 14, 32, 34–36, 39, 50, 59–60, 64, 80, 93, 137, 172, 201, 203 20, 29, 57–62, 64–67, 75, 77, 80, 93, 136, 173 93, 179 20, 31, 61, 63–64, 72, 77, 80, 203 185 40, 57–58, 60, 67, 69, 105–107, 110, 129, 202 32, 66–67, 71, 156, 203 209 121 32, 34, 64, 68, 82, 116, 137, 173, 179, 181–194, 196, 202, 205 68, 105, 116, 202 32 75, 134, 203 68 204 179 34–35, 41, 68, 77, 82, 86, 95, 104, 116, 133, 135–136, 138, 141, 169, 172, 178, 181–182, 187–191, 194–196, 202–203, 205–207 129 121 129, 135, 136, 156, 173, 194, 203 130 86 39, 72, 81, 83, 125, 151–152, 156 50, 68, 71, 77, 82, 83, 86, 95, 100, 120, 129, 204

234 1:12 1:13

1:14 1:15 1:16–17 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19–21 1:19 1:20–21

1:20 1:21

1:22

2 2:1–3 2:1–2 2:1

2:2

2:3–18 2:3 2:4–16 2:4–7 2:4

2:5–7 2:5–6 2:5 2:6–7

Index of References 68, 82, 86, 95, 120, 204 34, 50, 68, 75, 78, 86– 87, 91, 93, 120, 156, 169, 172, 178, 180–182, 188, 195, 204–206 67–69, 81, 86, 107, 114, 117, 129, 130, 156, 203 82, 103, 115, 132, 175– 178 84, 105, 117, 130–131, 156 34, 95, 107, 133, 176– 178, 181, 204, 206 103, 172, 206 77, 84–85, 102, 156, 204 22, 29, 76, 202 12, 77, 105, 120, 152 27, 34, 75, 77, 156, 169, 173, 175–176, 181–183, 196, 197, 207–208 26, 76–78, 91–93, 102, 174, 182, 189 76–77, 85, 87–93, 95, 104, 141, 173, 174, 182, 205 22, 32, 77–78, 85, 94, 105, 110–111, 116, 133, 159, 204 35, 149 143 204 29, 33, 57, 60–61, 77, 124, 143, 145–149, 154, 165 39, 50, 58, 75, 77, 95, 110–111, 120, 125, 138, 141, 156, 204, 206 105 61, 138, 165, 195, 196 143 145 34, 40, 143, 149, 154, 167, 170, 173, 181, 183, 195–196, 207, 208 165 111–122 35, 105, 111, 121, 124, 127, 166 156

2:6 2:7–9 2:7 2:8–16 2:8–12 2:8–9 2:8 2:9 2:10–12 2:10 2:11–12 2:11 2:12

2:13 2:14–16 2:14 2:15–16 2:15 2:17–18 2:17 2:18 2:19–22 2:19 2:20–21 2:20

2:21 2:22 2:23 3:1–9 3:1–6 3:1–4 3:1 3:2 3:4 3:5

77, 105, 110, 122, 142, 146, 152, 159, 204, 206 50 112, 138 143, 170 121 139, 206 107, 112, 120, 124, 165 26, 139 191 12, 113, 115, 125, 126, 134, 139, 166, 206 126, 139, 141, 149, 165, 179 81, 138, 156, 167 34, 134, 136, 138, 140, 143, 149, 154, 168–171, 173, 177, 179–181, 183–184, 190–191, 195–197, 206, 208–209 122, 124, 139 33, 157, 206 145 145 50, 139 33, 156 97, 208 81, 97, 138 75, 97 29, 57–58, 81, 97, 146, 169 50 33–34, 39, 72, 77, 83, 86, 96–97, 104, 112, 116, 143, 149–153, 167–170, 173, 187, 189, 191, 194–196, 202, 205-207 110, 112, 202 77, 96, 116, 120, 139, 202 33, 81 109 128 72, 75, 138, 204 77, 81, 98, 120, 152, 204 50, 148, 150 98 152

235

Index of References 3:6–4:13 3:6–15 3:6 3:7–14 3:7 3:8 3:9–12 3:9

3:10–15 3:10–13 3:10–11 3:10

3:11–13 3:11 3:12–13 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16

3:17 3:18 4:1–13 4:1–12 4:1–11 4:1–10 4:1–8 4:1 4:2–6 4:2 4:3–8 4:3–6 4:3 4:4–6 4:4 4:5

35 105, 155 81 186 40, 143, 155, 170 127 50 12, 33, 35, 39, 55, 72, 105, 107, 111, 123–127, 136, 138–139, 149–153, 166, 168–170, 183, 190, 196, 206 143 121 204 34, 109, 120, 124, 138, 143, 145, 154, 156, 162, 165–166, 168–169, 172, 180, 183, 187, 189–191, 194–196, 206–207 145, 165 120, 124, 127, 145, 149, 156, 167 33, 72, 170 83, 149, 150, 153, 157 154, 157, 166, 173, 196, 206 21, 124–125, 156 121, 143, 145, 157, 170 35, 75, 81, 105, 111, 120, 127–128, 157, 166, 185, 204 81, 99, 138 72, 75, 120, 157, 204 143, 154 145, 155, 157 50 39, 67, 72, 83, 143, 170 33 40, 69, 146 204 125 170 72 61, 64, 77, 150, 165 202 70, 141, 158, 160 57–58, 71, 77, 86, 105, 110, 112, 125, 134, 158, 160–162

4:6 4:7 4:8–21 4:9 4:10

4:18–22 4:18 4:21–22 4:21 4:22

70 36, 50, 150 164 66, 77, 165 33, 57, 58, 66–67, 110, 112, 124–125, 141, 158–159, 162, 164, 206 172 34, 39, 143, 170, 194– 195 12–13, 57, 58, 122, 135, 136, 142, 163–164, 168–169, 172, 203, 205–207 13, 37, 121, 136–137, 172 93 33, 143 34–35, 72, 100, 105, 107, 133, 139, 140, 154, 156, 166, 171–172, 180, 183, 185–186, 194–195, 202, 205 202 12, 154 57–58, 71, 77, 101, 104, 143, 150, 172, 180, 186, 194–195, 204–206 14, 40, 71, 73, 101, 116–117, 119, 159, 202 72, 75, 77, 99, 102, 154 35, 36 13, 34, 38, 57–58, 71, 77, 100–101, 194, 203 13, 137 138, 147, 195 71 146, 164 38, 138, 147, 194

Song of Songs 1:3 1:12 1:10 3:4 4:4 4:10 5:3 5:7 8:2

128 128 27, 68 42 27, 68 128 128 98 42

4:11–14 4:11–12 4:11

4:12 4:13–17 4:13–16 4:13

4:14–17 4:14–15 4:14

4:15 4:16 4:17–22 4:17

236

Index of References

Lamentations 2:18–22

184

Esther 1:1 2:3 2:9 2:12 2:13

50, 60 122, 128 122, 128 122, 128 122

Dan 2:22

192

Ezra 9:2 9:4 10:8 10:14 10:15

46 46 45, 162 46 200

Nehemiah 13:23–24 13:23 13:25 13:28 13:30

201 45, 162, 207 45, 162 45 45, 162

1 Chronicles 2 2:1–55 2:1–15 2:3–15 2:3 2:4 2:5–15 2:11–12

36,–39, 73, 164 72 13 164 47 47, 164 36 143–144

2:12 2:13–15 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:24 2:26 2:29 2:46 2:48 2:49 7:14

164 165 164 47, 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 47

2 Chronicles 2:34–35 3:17

37 144–145

Judit 12:10–13:10

155

Tobit 4:3–4

184

Matthew 1–2 1 1:3–6 1:3–5 1:5 18:22 22:24 28:19

50 108–109, 142 14 14 107 120 150 108

Luke 1:5–2:21 10:25–37

50 208

Index of Modern Authors Alter, Robert, 8, 21, 49 Amit, Yairah, 9, 18, 51–52, 172 Andersen, Francis, 42 Bal, Mieke, 15, 18, 68, 75, 79, 145 Bar-Efrat, Shimon, 9, 19, 30–31, 70 Barr, James, 23–26, 63 Beattie, D.R.G., 99, 160–162 Bentzen, Aage, 100 Berlin, Adele, 9, 17–21, 30, 32, 57, 74, 139, 152, 155 Bertholet, Alfred, 23 Block Daniel I., 60, 64, 84, 106, 155, 188–189 Brenner, Athalya, 52, 157 Bronner, Leila Leah, 135 Bush, Frederic William, 23, 25, 64, 129–130, 153, 159, 160–161 Campbell, Edward F, 23, 39, 48, 61, 66, 76, 90–91, 113, 133, 140, 144, 148, 155, 169, 174, 180 Chatman, Seymour, 9–11, 15, 20 Clines, David, 31, 46–47 Collins, C. John, 86, 90, 169 Cox, Dermot, 102 Darr, John A., 15 Davis, Ellen F., 127–128 Eskenazi, Tamara C., 46 Even-Shoshan, Abraham, 88 Exum, J. Cheryl, 173 Fensham, F. Charles, 46 Fewell, Danna Nolan, 9, 85, 88–89, 95– 98, 101, 103, 130, 142, 149, 162 Fischer, Irmtraud, 37, 100, 157, 161 Fishbane, Michael, 10, 13 Forster, E.M., 16–17, 48

Fox, Michael V., 15 Freedman, Amelia Devin, 9–10, 79, 91, 102 Freedman, David Noel, 42 Fretheim, Terence E, 194 Frye, Northrop, 48 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, 64–65, 94, 187 Garsiel, Moshe, 26 Gerleman, Gillis, 23, 106, 113–114 Gerstenberger, E.S., 87–88 Gitay, Zefira, 77–78, 85 Glueck, Nelson, 187–188 Good, Edwin M., 109 Gowan, Donald E., 194 Gray, G. Buchanan, 23 Gray, John, 106 Green, Barbara, 77, 128, 165 Gunkel, Hermann, 4, 8, 48–49, 167, 199 Gunn, David M., 9, 85, 88–89, 95–98, 101, 103, 130, 142, 149, 162 Habel, Norman C., 193 Hess, Richard S., 26–27 Hubbard Jr., Robert, L., 65, 98, 148, 165, 167 Humphreys, W. Lee, 48–49 Iser, Wolfgang, 11 Japhet, Sara, 37, 47–48 King, Greg A., 113 Korpel, Marjo C.A., 148 Köhler, Ludwig, 100 LaCocque, André, 50, 93, 132, 161, 188, 210 Legget, Donald A., 83, 151–152 Linafelt, Tod, 181

238

Index of Modern Authors

Lindström, Fredrik, 91–93 Luz, Ulrich, 109 Matthews, Victor H., 133 Meek, Theophile J., 151, 153 Mettinger, Tryggve N.D., 181 Moore, Michael S., 119 Myers, Jacob M., 88–89 Neher, André, 196 Newsom, Carol A., 193 Nida, Eugene A., 23, 63, 84, 101, 149, 151 Niditch, Susan, 163 Nielsen, Kirsten, 13–14, 23, 37, 51, 65, 90, 97, 114, 132, 135, 137, 140, 147, 149, 156, 167, 176, 180 North, Robert, 46 Noth, Martin, 23, 26, 66, 76, 106, 144 Philip, Tarja S, 185 Phillips, Anthony, 156, 162 Rebera, Basil, 169 Rudolph, Wilhelm, 132, 144

Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, 89, 102, 190 Sasson, Jack M, 23, 25, 66, 70–71, 73, 88, 123–124, 126, 128, 131, 144, 148, 151–152, 156, 158–159, 162, 175, 178 Scott, R.B.Y., 144–145 Ska, Jean Louis, 9, 32 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L., 46 Smith, Mark s., 50 Stager, Lawrence E., 41 Stamples, W.E., 153 Sternberg, Meir, 29–30, 49 Trible, Phyllis, 29, 85, 96 Waard, Jan de, 23, 63, 84, 101, 149, 151 Westermann, C., 92 Williamson, H.G.M., 46 Witzenrath, Hagia Hildegard, 30 Wolde, Ellen van, 91, 157 Zakovitch, Yair, 132, 148–149 Zenger, Erich, 36, 155 Zimmerman, Frank, 27

Index of Subjects Ambiguity, ambiguous, 3, 53, 86, 103– 104, 121, 123, 128, 134, 143, 146, 157, 161–169, 183–185, 188–190, 194, 207. Anonymity, 22, 29, 30–31, 33, 58–59, 66, 69–70, 105, 124 Blessing, 19, 26, 34–35, 44, 58, 72–73, 85, 97, 100, 103–104, 121–123, 134, 141, 143, 147, 149, 154, 157, 166– 170, 172, 174, 178, 181–185, 193, 199–201, 204–207 Character – Agent, 17–18, 29, 57, 67, 69, 71, 73, 109, 164, 202, 205 – Complexity, 3–6, 16, 48, 53, 86, 103, 109, 143, 154, 170, 199, 206 – Contradiction, 6, 53, 65, 79, 85, 91, 94, 105, 133 – Full-fledged, 17–18, 48, 75, 80, 105, 142–143, 166, 170, 199–200, 209 – Naming, 5–6, 20, 30–31, 53, 62, 64, 67–69, 71–73, 79–80, 82, 85, 103, 105, 107, 110–111, 113, 121–122, 124–125, 128, 133, 138, 141–142, 145–147, 149, 156–157, 159, 161, 164, 175, 178, 194, 199, 202 – Type, 16–18, 52, 105, 142–143, 194– 195, 199–200 Complaint, 22, 34, 40, 75, 79, 90–94, 105, 185, 191–192, 195, 199 – Lament, 92–95, 103, 117, 171–172, 174, 181–182, 200, 205 Complexity, 3–6, 16, 33, 48, 53, 86, 103, 109, 115, 140, 143, 154, 170, 199, 206 Drunken(ness), 3, 109, 155 Family – Daughter-in-law, 15, 20, 31, 33, 41– 42, 77, 81–85, 94, 96, 110–111, 116–

117, 119–120, 127–128, 133, 139, 142, 160, 167, 199, 202–203 – Goel, 33, 43, 71, 139, 149–150, 152– 154, 180 – Levirate marriage, 22, 40–43, 50, 67, 70, 81, 83, 113, 125, 136–137, 150– 152, 157, 160, 162–164, 189, 208 – Mother-in-law, 5, 27–28, 32–33, 41– 42, 67–69, 75, 79, 81–83, 97–98, 107, 109, 126, 129, 135, 138, 165– 166, 178, 189, 199, 202 – Redeemer, 12, 33, 70–71, 83, 101– 102, 139, 143, 148, 152–154, 156– 158, 160, 202, 204–205 – Widow, 20, 38, 40-41, 43–44, 53, 70, 75, 80–81, 83, 86, 93, 95, 107, 111, 118, 122, 124–125, 127, 130, 136, 153, 162, 199, 204, 208 Fidelity, 3–4, 82, 102, 126, 177, 186– 187, 203, 207–209 – Hesed, 69, 82, 102, 168, 186–188, 190, 199, 203, 207, 214, 217, 222 Foreigner, 3, 6, 12, 37–38, 40, 44–45, 47, 52, 64, 105, 108, 110, 113, 115, 124–126, 128, 133–134, 141–142, 165, 176, 199–204, 206–209 – Ger, 47, 64, 203 – Intermarriage, 38, 40, 45, 47, 51, 53, 77, 162, 170, 201, 208 – Mixed Marriage, 38, 44–46, 200-201, 204 – Moabite, 3, 5, 31, 27, 31, 33, 38, 40, 44, 50–51, 53, 60, 64, 67–68, 70, 77, 84–85, 94, 105–108, 110–116, 117– 118, 126–128, 133–136, 138, 141– 142, 158–159, 162–163, 166, 170, 177, 179, 183, 185, 188, 199–204, 207, 221 – Proselytes, 47, 108, 111, 130, 133– 134, 142, 204, 206 – Proselytization, 131, 133, 177

240

Index of Subjects

God – Absence, 18, 29, 91–92, 95, 190, 191– 192, 194, 206 – Blessing, 100, 166, 182–183, 221 – Elohim, 93, 132, 175 – Hand of, 18, 78–79, 87, 90, 169, 171, 178, 181, 194, 199, 205 – Shaddai, 76, 78, 87–89, 93, 172–175, 181, 195 – Silence of, 6–7, 14, 922, 185, 190– 195, 200, 205–206, 208–209 – Yahweh, 6, 12, 28, 33–35, 47, 64, 76, 78, 82, 85, 87–89, 93, 96–97, 114– 115, 123, 131, 133–138, 140, 145, 147, 149, 154, 156, 166–173, 175, 177–183, 185–190, 194–195, 199, 203–207 House, 9, 12–13, 32, 40–42, 44, 64–65, 71, 82–83, 112, 116, 120, 134–137, 185, 203, 209 Narratology – Biblical narratology, 8, 14, 18, 35, 52 – Implied reader, 10–11, 52, 200 – Narrator, 6, 9, 11, 15, 21–22, 29, 31– 33, 51, 60, 66, 69, 75, 78–81, 85–86, 91, 94–95, 102–103, 107, 111–113, 116, 121, 133–134, 137, 141, 146, 157, 166, 171–172, 180–182, 185, 193, 195, 202, 205 – Plot, 5, 9–11, 16–17, 19, 21, 27–29, 31–34, 50, 52–53, 57, 59, 63, 65–67, 69–70, 72–74, 77–78, 80, 82, 95–97, 106, 128, 130, 137, 147, 154, 171, 177, 180–181, 184, 188, 194–195, 199–200, 202, 205

– Point of view, 12, 19–22, 27, 30, 46, 49, 63, 69, 72, 79, 89, 103, 146, 171, 181–182, 194, 206 – Reader, 5–6, 8–17, 19, 21, 26, 30, 33, 46, 51–52, 60, 66, 71, 76, 83–86, 89, 101–106, 112, 119, 128, 146, 155, 156–158, 161–162, 169–170, 179– 180, 184, 191, 200, 202, 204, 207– 209 National memory, 49–50, 55 Personal name, 4–6, 8, 13, 22– 30, 52, 57–58, 61, 63, 66, 68, 70, 76, 78, 80, 107, 124, 130, 144, 146, 172–173, 175–176, 180, 202 – Anonymity, 22, 29, 30–31, 33, 58–59, 66, 69–70, 105, 124 – Changing of name, 28, 78 – Etymology, 8, 10, 23–26, 28, 52, 58, 76, 144 – Naming, 5–6, 20, 30–31, 53, 62, 64, 67–69, 71–73, 79–80, 82, 85, 103, 105, 107, 110–111, 113, 121–122, 124–125, 128, 133, 138, 141–142, 145–147, 149, 156–157, 159, 161, 164, 175, 178, 194, 199, 202 – Type, 16–18, 52, 105, 142–143, 194– 195, 199–200 – Nick-name, 68 – Popular etymology, 8, 10, 23–25, 52, 76 Polemic literature, 38, 51, 53, 201, 208 Queer love, 12, 117–119, 129 Sexuality, 31, 99, 114–115, 117, 122, 125, 128, 135, 140, 155–157, 165, 185